Stephen Meyer (creationist) makes official recommendation to Texas Ed. Board

[Sideroxylon]

Why can’t so many theists hop off the shrinking “god of the gaps” ground and find firmer footing by ascribing all material causes to a divine entity? Is evolution by natural selection not a thing of beauty worthy of a creator?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you technoextreme, it seems like a variation of ID to me. God created the first life with every bit of genetic information in it that is in all life in existence today. Must be one big freaking chromosome

 

[True Skeptic]

Okay. is this a new ID term, FLE? I have never heard that one yet. Since ID has been debunked I have been waiting for the fundies in their undies to come up with a new set of sheep's clothing for that dog of theirs also known as creationism.

The only Intelligent Design which has been shot down is you and your fellow dishonest Darwinist's strawman version of I.D.

 

[True Skeptic]

Why can’t so many theists hop off the shrinking “god of the gaps” ground and find firmer footing by ascribing all material causes to a divine entity? Is evolution by natural selection not a thing of beauty worthy of a creator?

I'd have no problem with accepting Darwin's theory. I'd also have no problem with accepting a plant which sprouts legal $100 bills. Unfortunately neither has any basis in reality.

For the record, I.D. is primarily an inductive argument based on our thorough knowledge of intelligent agency and our growing knowledge of biology. The failures of naturalistic explanations for the origins and diversity of life is just the icing on the cake.

Your "God of the Gaps" is little more than poo flinging.

 

[Kotatsu]

I'm not sure. Since he's honest and follows the evidence he's most likely a supporter of F.L.E. (Front-Loaded Evolution). All I know for certain is that he has no objection to common descent. His issues are with the mechanisms that Darwinists have contrived to explain how evolution has taken place.

Which mechanisms, in particular? All of them, or only some? Are we talking on the over-all process level (e.g., sexual selection) or on a lower level (e.g., random point mutation)?

Also, is the characterisation of FLE given by technoextreme basically correct? If not, could you provide a more detailed description?

There's evidence for macroevolution via common descent, yes. The question is how not if.

Do the followers of this FLE hypothesis have anything against polyploidisation? I have studied this mechanism for some time, and would be interested in whether or not this is an accepted mechanism for the followers of the FLE hypothesis.

The only Intelligent Design which has been shot down is you and your fellow dishonest Darwinist's strawman version of I.D.

Is the ID hypothesis that can be summed up, briefly, as "some organ systems or other parts of some organisms are too complex to have evolved step by step, as all parts are needed to make the system function" the correct one, or the strawman one? If the latter, would you care to elaborate on what the correct ID hypothesis is?

 

[Kotatsu]

I'd have no problem with accepting Darwin's theory. I'd also have no problem with accepting a plant which sprouts legal $100 bills. Unfortunately neither has any basis in reality.

For the record, I.D. is primarily an inductive argument based on our thorough knowledge of intelligent agency and our growing knowledge of biology. The failures of naturalistic explanations for the origins and diversity of life is just the icing on the cake.

Your "God of the Gaps" is little more than poo flinging.

Sorry, we seem to have cross-posted. I would still be interested in a more elaborate description of ID and FLE. Also, apart from my questions in my previous post, would you care to detail more precisely how the explanations for the diversity of life given by scientists fail to be satisfactory?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only Intelligent Design which has been shot down is you and your fellow dishonest Darwinist's strawman version of I.D.

It is very easy to make a claim like this, it would be nice if you could supply some information that would back it up. For my side I submit the court case on teaching ID in public schools in Ohio. The ID side had the judge they wanted and they still lost. The judge was a conservative, George Bush appointee. If you want a link to the coverage of the trial I will look one up for you, but I doubt that you would actually study it. It is easier to spout your unsupported prejudices. Again what proof do you have of ID or FLE? Linky, linky.

 

[technoextreme]

For the record, I.D. is primarily an inductive argument based on our thorough knowledge of intelligent agency

Thorough??? The only basis that we have is something a bunch of men decided to edit together.

 

[balrog666]

"... our thorough knowledge of intelligent agency"

Ah, what? Termites?

 

[Sherman Bay]

If I lived in Austin I'd try and get an equal time proposal for Holocaust denial and Moon landing hoax to be taught in history classes in the interest of equal time.

I wonder if they give the flat earth and hollow earth theories equal time in geography class. After all, not everyone believes the earh is a sphere; in fact, it's a very ancient belief, and we all know the ancients had a pipeline to the truth that has since been lost.

 

[joobz]

FYI:
[swiki]Front-loaded evolution[/swiki]


It's an interesting concept, but one that is completely proven false with genetics. The best example of this is the emergence of a new protein which had not previously existed, such as nylonase.

Also, If FLE was true, we should be able to go back into ancestral species and see genes which exist in the code but are not yet expressed.

Further, Chromosomal fusion is not at all explained by FLE.

 

[pgwenthold]

Oh I have no doubt there are many things in Darwin's Origin of the Species that are incorrect. I mean, it was 150 years ago, and I sure as hell hope that the science of evolution has learned more since then.

Of course, it doesn't friggin matter, because no one in the world claims that Darwin was infallible!!!!!!!!

Darwin is not the final word on the science of evolution. That is a total strawman.

Darwinian evolution is interesting in a historical sense, but the theory of evolution, which explains how evolution occured, is to be found in the whole of the scientific literature, up to and including those journals that came out last week.

You could show that Darwin was a dottering old crank and it would not affect the reality of evolution in any way at all.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Texas humanists and clergy that support evolution have joined forces and urged us to Teach Them Science.

 

[Questioninggeller]

I'd have no problem with accepting Darwin's theory. I'd also have no problem with accepting a plant which sprouts legal $100 bills. Unfortunately neither has any basis in reality.

Even fools at the Discovery Institute, like Michael Behe, accept common descent. Luckily for them, I guess, their supporters don't actually read their works.

In his book The Edge of Evolution page 72:

The bottom line is this. Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common descent- even the common descent of humans and chimps - although fascinating, is in a profound sense trival.

Accept it, but call it not important... I guess that suits him well.

then on page 74:

This is yet more evidence for common descent.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh I have no doubt there are many things in Darwin's Origin of the Species that are incorrect.

Actually no, from what I've heard. Darwin did not go beyond the evidence, about which he was meticulous. Inherited characteristics are an observable fact; Darwin didn't speculate about the mechanisms involved.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The appearance of Meyers and the other ID proponents is nothing more than political cover. The Texas BoE is going to vote in the creationist crapola no matter what, and all this is orchestrated to give the illusion that they're seriously considering the science. It's just posturing, nothing else, because they know that they're going to be getting some serious blowback after the vote.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think they're hellbent on basically ignoring the actual scientists. We'll find out when they vote. I wonder how long until a lawsuit gets filed?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Bravo to Stephen Meyer. Atheism has been sneaked into the classroom for close to a century now and it's time to put an end to it. The sooner it's stopped the sooner we can stop worrying about another Columbine-like situation.

For the record, Dr. Meyer is a supporter of evolution, just not the failed hypothesis Charles Darwin and his disciples have spewed out for the past 150 years.

In a strange way, I suppose we should all thank True Skeptic. He/she is showing us all the next front in the creationist war against science, complete with the newest wave of rhetorical arguments and relabeling ("scientific creationism" --> "intelligent design" --> "front-loaded evolution").

Before True Skeptic showed up here recently, I had never heard of FLE. Now I know to watch out for it in the next round of the creationist attacks on science...

1) relabel "intelligent design" as "front-loaded evolution"
2) insist that the Discovery Institute is accepting of evolution - in an attempt to kill it
3) well, we all know the rest by now... it's pretty much par for the course from here on out

We should all be taking careful notes - I know I am

 

[Toke]

I wonder if this is what happended to arab universities* a millenium ago.
How do flood geologists do at finding oil?
How do other faith based sciences do versus reality?


*Or whatever they called it at the time

 

[Gate2501]

Forget about ID vs. Evo for a moment.

If we are going to remove the importance of falsifiability, and "natural" explanations from science class...

Lets just scrap biology alltogether, and physics class too, since it is built around these ideas as well.

Instead I would propose that all high school students attend Solipsism 101.

There will be no classwork, homework, or exams. Instead students will simply sit at their desks in a near catatonic stupor, lulzing internally at the ridiculous nature of their self created reality.

 

[CriticalThanking]

The appearance of Meyers and the other ID proponents is nothing more than political cover. The Texas BoE is going to vote in the creationist crapola no matter what, and all this is orchestrated to give the illusion that they're seriously considering the science. It's just posturing, nothing else, because they know that they're going to be getting some serious blowback after the vote.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think they're hellbent on basically ignoring the actual scientists. We'll find out when they vote. I wonder how long until a lawsuit gets filed?

Many of us in Texas are following this quite closely. Texas Freedom Network (tfn.org - I hope that is correct as it is blocked at my current location) is actively organzing and scrutinizing. We have signed up as "postcard organizers" for a BoE mailing campaign and to host _Kansas vs. Darwin_ showings (not the best vid - I'd rather show the Nova episode on the Dover trial).

One interesting note - the English curriculum was just revised and the night before the vote, someone put a new draft under the hotel doors of the committee. They had no time to review it before voting on it the next morning. We are wondering if that was a test run to see if they could pull the same thing on the science curriculum. The draft committee has rejected watering down the language. That does not stop the BoE from voting in whatever it wants. I hope to source some of this later.

CT