1. Comment #287497 by ly_raya on November 20, 2008 at 9:26 am

i recently moved to austin from san francisco (please don't ask why!) but i know i'll be moving before i have kids; i won't raise them in a state that believes proper education is trivial compared to religious teaching.

Other Comments by ly_raya

2. Comment #287498 by polestar on November 20, 2008 at 9:28 am

This is brilliant manipulation by the fundies, despite their crushing defeat in the Dover School Board case (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf, go straight to the Conclusion on p138, near the end). The best way to fight back is to go right to the core of their fallacious argument for academic freedom.

Academic freedom or the freedom of speech does not includes saying that 2 plus 2=5 in a maths class or asking about German declensions in a French class.

Idiotic Design merits no place in science classes, just as astrology has no place in astronomy and numerancy no place in maths.

Other Comments by polestar

3. Comment #287501 by Tyler Durden on November 20, 2008 at 9:33 am

ly_raya,

I'm shocked and appalled. Texas? (ok, ok, at least it's Austin :)

I lived in San Fran for a short while, before heading to NY and then back home to Dublin, still miss it. Class city.

Wonder if the cretinists have come up with a wording for their, ahem, "theory" that "goddidit".

Bad science? It's not even good fiction.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

4. Comment #287509 by ly_raya on November 20, 2008 at 9:38 am

tyler durden:

what can i say, i got a mad craving for BBQ ;-). austin isn't bad, probably because no one here is FROM texas!

Other Comments by ly_raya

5. Comment #287517 by Tyler Durden on November 20, 2008 at 9:52 am

Conversely, the pro-science side wants to shut this kind of inquiry down, and just require students to be obedient little sponges soaking up whatever the textbooks say.

Well, it's better than teaching the Byebull in science class. Textbooks from the 1930s would still be light-years ahead of that nonsense.

ly_raya, BBQ is the devil's food... be sure to rinse your hands in holy water after ;)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

6. Comment #287518 by CaptainMandate on November 20, 2008 at 9:53 am

AF Comm Guy

I have to agree, every time they do this there's a so-called controversy until someone in authority points out "so basically this is exactly the same argument you tried and failed with last time, but you're using some different words.... again"

The beauty is they can't manage any discussion for any length of time before someone has to mantion "Jeeeyzuz"

would like to be a fly on the wall

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

7. Comment #287520 by heafnerj on November 20, 2008 at 9:54 am

comm guy,

This is precisely what I've done. I teach astronomy and physics and one of the first assignments, done as an in-class activity, in the intro astro course is a critical analysis of the Wedge Document. However, I don't tell the students where the document came from or who authored it. I only reveal these things AFTER the class has shredded it.

Other Comments by heafnerj

8. Comment #287523 by severalspeciesof on November 20, 2008 at 9:58 am

CaptainMandate

...would like to be a fly on the wall

and you'd still have more intelligence than the creationists!

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

9. Comment #287532 by Ishruul on November 20, 2008 at 10:08 am

Since when does science has to be PC' I say let's build somekind of bigass arena, get some scientist in a corner and creationist in another, give bible and cross to the IDiots and some modern science weaponery to the scientist, then let see who win the argument.

P.S. Violence will be incidental, yet not require.

Other Comments by Ishruul

10. Comment #287535 by Tyler Durden on November 20, 2008 at 10:15 am

AF Comm Guy,

We were allowed to watch "An American Werewolf in London" when we were 13 in Catholic school. The priest had no issue with teens watching a movie rated 18, containing blood, guts, murder, zombies (go figure!) and issues surrounding lycanthropy... but he hit the FF button soon as the kissing and (mild) nudity came onscreen.

Lycanthropy/Zombies = Good
Kissing/Nudity = Bad

Is it any wonder they're so out of whack with society?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

11. Comment #287544 by Tyler Durden on November 20, 2008 at 10:26 am

Ishruul,

If it worked in Salem, Mass. in the 1600s it could probably work again... every believer receives a bible, a cross and a holy cracker, and then gets thrown to the wolves/fire-ants/crocs/R.O.U.S*/rattlesnakes - whoever survives, we shall believe. Else if, game over, you lying, deluded fool.

Let battle commence...

*Bonus point for the movie reference, no cheating :)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

12. Comment #287549 by Bonzai on November 20, 2008 at 10:32 am

Tyler

The priest had no issue with teens watching a movie rated 18, containing blood, guts, murder, zombies (go figure!)

Why so surprised? Isn't that what Jesus' story is all about, down to the zombie part?

**********************
A kid in a Catholic school saw the crufix hanging on the classroom wall. He asked the teacher, "who is that naked guy nailed to the cross?" The teacher hesitated a bit and replied, "See, this is a guy who failed school, if you don't work hard it will happen to you too!"

Other Comments by Bonzai

13. Comment #287554 by Ishruul on November 20, 2008 at 10:39 am

R.O.U.S. ' Isn't C.H.U.D. you were thingking about'

Other Comments by Ishruul

14. Comment #287559 by Eshto on November 20, 2008 at 10:44 am

Ugh. Yep, Christians acting like they're the victims when they're the ones trying to shove their shit down everyone else's throats. Turning reality on its head: it's what they do best.

...Oh no! I just criticized Christians! That must make me one of those insidious "Christian bashers" Mike Huckabee has been warning us about!!

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UkXo9tCv48&eurl=http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/huckabee-gays-n.html)

Other Comments by Eshto

15. Comment #287561 by rod-the-farmer on November 20, 2008 at 10:46 am

I suggest we take them at their word, and during the hearings, ask one of the fundie types to produce a document showing how THEY would teach the "strengths & weaknesses" of the evolution side, as well as the same for creationism.

One could reasonably expect them to have such a document ready to hand, and there should therefore be no delay in proceeding with the hearings. Then the scientists could produce a document showing how they would do the same for creationism. I bet money we already have such a document for our side. If the fundies cannot produce a document right away, it would seem they have little ground on which to stand. Once these documents were made public, then they can be viewed by all, and compared. I think that is the way to stop these guys in their tracks. Their arguments are so weak, that anyone given the chance to read both, will surely be convinced that we no more need creationism in science classes than we need Alchemy, Astrology and Phrenology in with Chemistry, Astronomy, and Anatomy. I think the killer argument for Old vs. Young Earth is the plate tectonics explanation of the gap between S. America and Africa, especially using the continental shelf. Even grade school types can understand that.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

16. Comment #287563 by SASnSA on November 20, 2008 at 10:47 am

Well, welcome to Texas ly_raya, we need all the rational people we can get here.


Tyler Durden:
Rats Of Unusual Size (ROUS) - Princess Bride

Other Comments by SASnSA

17. Comment #287571 by JemyM on November 20, 2008 at 10:54 am

Texas isn't just a shame to the state, it's a shame to the western civilization.

Other Comments by JemyM

18. Comment #287573 by Sciros on November 20, 2008 at 10:56 am

I think it's "Rodents of Unusual Size"

Other Comments by Sciros

19. Comment #287574 by Tyler Durden on November 20, 2008 at 10:57 am

SASnSA,

Rodents, A- ;)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

20. Comment #287575 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on November 20, 2008 at 10:57 am

Sciros>

"Those can't be real"

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

21. Comment #287576 by Naturalist1 on November 20, 2008 at 10:57 am

Hello everyone...I have just had the displeasure of reading THE WEDGE STRATEGY, CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE, a document published by our friends at The Discovery Institute.(now there's an oxymoron written by morons if I ever saw one)
I would encourage everyone on our website here to read this outrageous strategy game plan. It exhibits just how organized these people are...they don't seem to have much trouble herding their cats...or should I say sheep for fleecing.
Here is the link:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

This education debate going on in Texas is in direct fulfillment of Article 6 of their "Five Year Objectives"...copied below:

6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

The Wedge document should be presented at all of these hearings as evidence of just how insidious these motives are.

Other Comments by Naturalist1

22. Comment #287578 by D'Arcy on November 20, 2008 at 10:58 am

plate tectonics

Is that when the creationist throws his dinnerware at his spouse?

(Sneaks away).

Other Comments by D'Arcy

23. Comment #287591 by Ishruul on November 20, 2008 at 11:10 am

Thank you Naturalist1, even if what I just read is a total toilet bowl of herpes infected manure.

I really can't understand how illogical and unimmaginative those proponent of creationism can be.

Really, some people just got too serious with the Flintstones, someone should tell them it's all fantasy-make-believe.

Other Comments by Ishruul

24. Comment #287594 by HandyGeek on November 20, 2008 at 11:19 am

Comment #287497 by ly_raya

At least in Austin there is an excellent and very active group of freethinkers. Maybe you can help them to make some lasting change in Texas. In Florida, we're up against very similar odds. There is nothing like trying to be part of the solution.

http://www.atheist-community.org/

Other Comments by HandyGeek

25. Comment #287600 by History_Junky on November 20, 2008 at 11:26 am

Im all for critiquing science and making sure information is not suppressed, but I don't think some 18 year old kid who learned about natural selection the previous week is in any way qualified to judge whether Evolution is valid or not.

Other Comments by History_Junky

26. Comment #287603 by Border Collie on November 20, 2008 at 11:30 am

If any of you guys are interested in keeping up with this every day ... www.tfn.org ...

Maybe the churchies won't win. This makes me unproud to be a Texan. These people are like the monsters we try to run away from during a nightmare or a bad smell in a small, hot, locked room with no ventilation.

Furthermore, they've always had the freedom to 'teach the controversy' ... at church, at Sunday school and at private church schools ... why the f'ck do they have to try to take over public schools?!

Other Comments by Border Collie

27. Comment #287609 by ly_raya on November 20, 2008 at 11:48 am

HandyGeek:

i'm actually familiar with the ACA and have thought of attending one of their meetings; they're held at a restaurant i frequent. unforuntately my weekend job has gotten in the way of being able to go!


SASnSA:

thank you for the welcome! texas is a beautiful state, it just needs to get its head out of the relgious right's butt.

Other Comments by ly_raya

28. Comment #287611 by nervouswreck on November 20, 2008 at 11:50 am

I recommend everyone who hasn't to follow the link to Pharyngula on to The Athiest Experience website and read Martin's full story.

The Atheist Experience TV show shown locally (Austin, TX) on Cable Access is really a great program. You can find a lot of snippets on youtube.

Other Comments by nervouswreck

29. Comment #287615 by Evilcor on November 20, 2008 at 11:57 am

Rod:
You're making a terrible (but understandable and noble!) mistake in challenging ID on its merits. It has none. And to engage it demeans science and its practitioners.
Mockery and scorn are called for. As distasteful as we find the notion, this is not a scientific fight primarily, but a political one.
Political fights are not fair. Call them stupid. Accuse them of hating science because they're too thick to understand it. Ask your comedian friends (if any) to work this into their act and get the audience laughing at the faith-heads.
Use phrases like "Stealth-Jesus" to label them despite their protests. Point out their ugly kids, if you have to.

The idea is to show them up as chumps; not legit rivals.
Howls of derisive laughter are the most effective weapon. I assure you, truth is not a defense, it is almost a crime in itself.
Cheers.

Other Comments by Evilcor

30. Comment #287619 by chewedbarber on November 20, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Their arguments are so weak, that anyone given the chance to read both, will surely be convinced that we no more need creationism in science classes than we need Alchemy, Astrology and Phrenology in with Chemistry, Astronomy, and Anatomy.

Rod,

That is assuming too much. Most likely your arguments will be labeled as opinions, and as such they will be no better then the next persons.

I know how insane that is, but you're arguing with YEC's!

Other Comments by chewedbarber

31. Comment #287620 by Roger Stanyard on November 20, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Evilcor is spot on. This is not a fight between religion and science. Science has won that hands down and there is no going back on that. It is purely a political battle against fundamentalist ideologues.

Ideologues never ever accept that their ideas are wrong; it's always the people that disagree with them that are wrong. The fundamentalists are bigots - always have been, always will be.

The Americans in here that are much more familiar with what is going on in texas might like to correct me, but it seems that the fundies have 2 strategies in texas:

1/ To frighten off the text book publishers from including evolution.

2/ To take the matter to the Supreme Court and over-turn Dover.

They appear to have learned a lot of lessons from Dover and are not making the same mistakes. They are much, much, better prepared.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

32. Comment #287624 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #287561 by rod-the-farmer

Unfortunately, Roger and others are right. There is no point arguing with fundamentalists regarding evidence. I have recently realised what Christopher Hitchens is up to in his debates with the religious - he cuts back on the science, because they simply won't accept it. Many religious, and particularly fundamentalists, believe that science is simply the wrong way to interpret reality, so no amount of scientific argument will have any effect. This is why Hitchens uses moral and aesthetic arguments - those may have some chance of influencing the individuals you are debating, as against a viewing audience.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #287631 by gazzaofbath on November 20, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Question for the US contributors - how are these hearings playing in the media over there - both nationally and in Texas? Are editorial lines split or generally favour one side?

Other Comments by gazzaofbath

34. Comment #287636 by rod-the-farmer on November 20, 2008 at 12:42 pm

I seem to have not made my point as clear as I would have liked. I don't believe this argument is WITH ID types. It is IN FRONT OF two groups - one who makes the decision (Texas State Board of Education), and another, the court of public opinion. I feel rather strongly that the key here is to get those documents, particularly the one from the fundies showing strengths & weaknesses of both evolution and creationism, as viewed from their side, into the public domain. That is the cornerstone of this issue.

Anyone who has a chance to read both sides will I believe, see how weak their arguments are. There may well be several fundie-friendly members of that panel. But when they start getting calls from community members who have read the two documents, then I think we will have a much easier time defeating the ID group. It is one thing to BE stupid. It is quite another to be SEEN as stupid. They may be appointed rather than elected, but I bet they have their ears to the ground on controversial issues like this.

This is another watershed case. Once you get the ID side to commit in writing their beliefs, so that anyone can read it AND the rebuttal, we have them by the short & curlies, to be frank. Up to now it has all been smoke & mirrors, with vague words like "fairness", "academic freedom" and such. Let's lift up those rocks and force them out into the open sunlight.

And that is my opinion. Feel free, as usual, to disagree. But please post an alternate strategy.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

35. Comment #287643 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Comment #287636 by rod-the-farmer

This is another watershed case. Once you get the ID side to commit in writing their beliefs, so that anyone can read it AND the rebuttal, we have them by the short & curlies, to be frank.

I wish that were the case, but I think you are too optimistic. You can't win a battle using reason with people who won't accept reason.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #287644 by Roger Stanyard on November 20, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Steve, I have found the same problem. One of my online debating tactics is to show where they lie, point out the lying and confront them with their own religion.

Fundies lie, out of necessity, habitually and repeatedly so it isn't difficult to use this tactic.

It also helps to understand that they usually have a standard "plan" which runs something like this:

1. I am interested in science (a total lie) but I have some questions about evolution (they don't, so the 2nd lie appears).

2. They then provide some standard crapola lifted from Answers in Genesis or somewhere, all of which is at least 20 years old and has repeatedly been pulled to pieces.

3. They then ignore you when its pulled to pieces.

4. They then start preaching.

5. After being told to answer the questions put to them, the martrydom complex starts.

6. They then push off and start whinging in another group about how hard done to they are.

At one stage it was standard practice to have another stage which began "and another thing...."

I must admit I no longer treat them with kid gloves. My working assumption is that they are bigoted, lying bastards. I don't even consider them to be Christians.

Before anyone asks - I'm not religious at all* but I have no fight with mainstream religion - I'd rather have them onside in fighting the fundies than arguing over something that doesn't really bother me to much. As far as I am concerned, I want to live in a world where we can all hold whatever religious opinions we feel comfortable with, without let or hindrance.

* read what you want into that - Non-believer, atheist, never been convinced, Church of England...

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

37. Comment #287646 by Spock3 on November 20, 2008 at 12:57 pm

I'm in San Antonio, Texas and have been watching this closely. The media hasn't covered this as of yet with any detail. It's unbelievable that two creationists that wrote an anti-evolution book are going to be the ones to possibly reccommend their own book. The angle that's being adopted is Academic Freedom, which is nothing but mental m#%turb@#ion of patriotism as rhetoric. It's the same garbage that was used to pass the "Patriot Act." It completely sucks that we have elected some SBOE officials that don't have degrees in anything and two of them that home schooled their kids. I fear that they have the majority to pass whatever they want without listening to the public. And my state will become the next Kansas...unbelievable.

Other Comments by Spock3

38. Comment #287647 by D'Arcy on November 20, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Steve Z says:

I wish that were the case, but I think you are too optimistic. You can't win a battle using reason with people who won't accept reason.

It's still better to have a reasoned argument against your opponent. Even if THEY don't accept it, the watchers may be influenced.

How else do you oppose an argument for the creation of the universe in 6 days except by reason and knowledge based on science?

Yes I know, ridicule has its place, in fact a very good place, but in the end, we must rely on reason.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

39. Comment #287649 by beeline on November 20, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I thought Sastra's comment was - as ever - very insightful:

The creationists think they are being clever, and using the liberal's own tactics against them, like in judo. You're in favor of critical thinking? We'll redefine the Argument from Ignorance as critical thinking. You're in favor of democracy and the peer review process? We'll reframe the concept of scientific peers into "we the people," and act as if science is determined by popular vote. You believe that Christian fundamentalism is narrow and dogmatic? We'll promote creationism as its own world view and "way of knowing" -- one which deserves just as much respect as other world views.

This is nothing new to them. How else can they insist that believing in God is a matter of "accepting that there are things out there you don't know" and deciding to believe something because you want it to be true is a way of "telling yourself that you're not the center of the universe." They've been living in Opposite Land for a while.

Other Comments by beeline

40. Comment #287650 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #287644 by Roger Stanyard

There was a recent debate involving Chris Hitchens reported here, and posters were reprimanding him a bit for not coming back with immediate attacks on false scientific statements from his opponent.

I had a sudden realisation what Hitchens was up to, and why I think his contribution to the fight against unreason is important. I realised this after reading a comment from Victor Stenger about Lane Craig, and his continued repeating of scientific arguments that he should know are invalid. I wondered how Lane Craig could justify his position.

I realised that many religious people consider science to be just a story. It is a book that can be picked up off the shelf like any other, alongside the bible. They don't consider science or reason to have any particular merit. In fact, they consider science to be an immoral story, which takes the human soul out of the plot.

So, one way to deal with this, as Hitchens does, is not to defend the scientific "story", but to go on the attack against the religious equivalent - to show that the Christian story is immoral, and that it paints God as lacking in even basic ethical values.

This, I think, is a wonderful technique. It attacks religion on its own ground, using its own rules.

We need both Dawkins and Hitchens - Richard defends the scientific, rational territory and Christopher goes on the attack against religion on its own terms.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #287653 by Roger Stanyard on November 20, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Spock3 - We at the British Centre for Science Education have been following what has been going on at the Texas SBOE for a couple of years - the NCSE has given us some help.

Believe you me, many this side of the pond remain deeply disturbed about the matter as our own fundies have tried much the same thing - using help from the Discovery Institute and other US religious nutters.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

42. Comment #287657 by Goldy on November 20, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Believe you me, many this side of the pond remain deeply disturbed about the matter as our own fundies have tried much the same thing - using help from the Discovery Institute and other US religious nutters.

Something I feel DP has missed in his "less government" stance. Not that I am advocating a strong central government with all my life under control, but if the happy medium is upset, the vacuum will be filled...

Other Comments by Goldy

43. Comment #287662 by Roger Stanyard on November 20, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Steve,

Another strategy I have used is to make sure I choose the grounds of the debate. I did that with Andy McIntosh on BBC Radio. Instead of debating science, I presented the case that he was damaging the education of students entering the university where he teaches, asking whether, under such circumstances, he was a fit and proper person to be in education.

The problem I have is that I am not a scientist but, then, neither is Andy McIntosh. In fact, when it comes to the core issues of biology and geology he doesn't even have O levels in the subjects.

(PS: He doesn't even seem to understand 2LOT yet he is a professor of thermodynamics!)

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

44. Comment #287665 by Roger Stanyard on November 20, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Goldy - DP isn't that bright.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

45. Comment #287666 by Spock3 on November 20, 2008 at 1:19 pm

The NCSE is doing a great job, but clearly there is much work ahead. Here's a blog by the Texas Freedom Network (anti-religious right) that will give you some idea of what is going on. It's not pretty.

http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/

Other Comments by Spock3

46. Comment #287667 by Klaatu barada nikto on November 20, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Spock3

The Kansas science standards have been changed back to the former pro-science stance. Most of the ID proponents on the board imposing the embarrassing ID standards have been voted out of office. The moderates on the board now outnumber the conservatives 7-3. Hopefully your state will never adopt the idiotic standards Kansas previously had with the old school board.

It is worth noting that no local school board in the state ever changed its science curriculum while the former standard was in place.

Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto

47. Comment #287673 by Goldy on November 20, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Goldy - DP isn't that bright.

I am reminded of a Jasper Carrott sketch, where he's talking about Benny from Crossroads (aaah, memories!). As I recall, he was asking if Benny really could be like that. If he wasn't, he was a bloody good actor!

Other Comments by Goldy

48. Comment #287677 by DarwinsPitbull on November 20, 2008 at 1:32 pm

goldy

Something I feel DP has missed in his "less government" stance. Not that I am advocating a strong central government with all my life under control, but if the happy medium is upset, the vacuum will be filled...

The point you miss is that you won't have a choice of whether government has control over you or not if it gets to big. What are you going to say, "Well we will just elect people who won't do that". LOL

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

49. Comment #287682 by D'Arcy on November 20, 2008 at 1:38 pm

DP says:

The point you miss is that you won't have a choice of whether government has control over you or not if it gets to big. What are you going to say, "Well we will just elect people who won't do that". LOL

What are you going to do DP? Fight them in the streets?

Other Comments by D'Arcy

50. Comment #287683 by Sciros on November 20, 2008 at 1:40 pm

2nd Amendment ftw, I guess. When the government gets too big, we take it to them with our guns, forcing the government to kick our ass all over town with tanks and planes and real weapons that make anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment keeps the government in check look like a freaking tard.

Anyway, that's the danger of democracy -- it can kind of end if you vote in the wrong people. If you vote in a theocrat all he has to do is say "hey, the majority of people have voted in favor of living in a theocracy" and that'll be that, hehe.

Other Comments by Sciros