Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Someone got ahold of Line's full letter!

The letter is so full of ridiculousness that it must be read by the masses. My favorite part is where he compares himself to a college dean in the Philippines who was shot in the beginnings of World War II. Letter after the Jump.



Line then supplies seven pages of reasons why evolution should not be taught as fact. This was my favorite:
Ahhh, the ol' forget to leave 'But I can find out no such case.' out of Darwin's quote trick. Line is highly educated, right? He could have picked up Darwin's book at read that part for himself, but I suppose that wouldn't feed his agenda. 

Kentucky Commissioner of Education -and my new favorite person- Terry Holliday responded with the following letter, setting Line straight on what is classified as a scientific theory and what is against the law. 
Dear Ricky,
Thank you for your patience in waiting for our response to your attached letter expressing concerns on the end-of-course exam content for biology. We wanted to give you a thorough and accurate response, and it took some time for research to be completed by our legal and curriculum staffs. I am copying the members of the Kentucky Board of Education on the response, since they also were e-mailed a copy of your letter.
In science, a theory is a statement of general ideas that explains many observations by natural means. To a scientist, the word theory is a very precise term to identify a concept that has great utility in explaining phenomena in the natural world. Ideas only rise to the level of a theory in science if they have withstood much scrutiny and are exceptionally useful in explaining a wide variety of independent observations. Any theory can be altered or replaced if new observations or new scientific evidence cannot be adequately explained by it. In science, facts never become theories. Rather, theories explain facts. No theory is immune to revision or replacement should new evidence surface. There is a substantial difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning of the word. An idea is often labeled a theory for the purpose of painting it as little more than a guess. This use of theory demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific meaning of the term. Referring to biological evolution as a theory for the purpose of contesting it would be counterproductive, since scientists only grant the status of theory to well-tested ideas. 
Additionally, science is not a system of belief. To ask if a scientist ‘believes’ in the theory of evolution is an improper question because the term ‘belief’ implies a position or opinion based on faith. A biologist would properly say he/she understands and acknowledges the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Belief is an act of faith and is not necessarily concerned with the availability of supporting evidence. For this reason, beliefs are not considered to be within the realm of science.  Moreover, the federal courts have ruled that creation science, a religious concept or belief, is not science at all.  [See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 764 (E.D.Pa.2005); McLean v. Ark. Bd. of Educ., 529 F.Supp. 1255, 1259 (E.D.Ark.1982) (dismissing “creation science” as “simply not a science”).]  Therefore, it is not considered relevant content for a purely science classroom.
Since college and career readiness is our goal for all students, we would be doing them a disservice by denying them the opportunity to learn science concepts required to obtain that goal. Evolutionary theory is one of the foundational components of modern biology, and it most certainly plays a significant part in college biology coursework.  The ACT QualityCore® biology end-of-course objectives are designed to reflect research-based college- and career-ready standards as well as promote more rigor and depth in traditional courses. 
Finally, Kentucky’s Core Academic Standards for Science and Core Content for Science Assessment, version 4.1, outline the minimum required content that all students should have the opportunity to learn in order to graduate. The QualityCore® end-of-course test for biology does expand from our current minimum standards. The Kentucky Core Academic Standards and Core Content for Assessment 4.1 contain two (of seven) Big Ideas that are reported under the category Life Science. Those Big Ideas are Unity & Diversity (UD) and Biological Change (BC). The Big Idea of Biological Change contains only content standards related to biological evolution. The concept of evolution already exists within these standards and has been assessed in the Commonwealth since those standards were adopted in 2006.
I appreciate your viewpoint and hope this information assists you in understanding KDE’s position. Thank you for all that you do to positively impact the lives of the students in your school district. 
 Sincerely,
 Terry Holliday
Boom. Roasted.

[H/T Dan Phelps]

76 comments:

  1. I have a deep concern about the increasing emphasis on the Standard Model in the new Blueprint. I have a very difficult time believing that we have come to a point in education that we are teaching atoms, *not the theory of atoms*. I do not believe in atoms, and I do believe in the creation of earth, air, fire and water by God. I now stand to certify, and seal, my stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, did someone just get owned by a bureaucrat?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Thank you for all that you do to positively impact the lives of the students in your school district."

    Which probably isn't much....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ricky, how about you leave your religion in church and let schools teach science?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Most people don’t understand that the modern definition of science is agnostic, as in without absolute knowledge. Nothing can be regarded as a fact, only the best possible explanation at this time. This meaning has caused a lot of confusion when it comes to theories. Why have such limiting definitions? The answer goes back to the wisdom of Socrates over 2,400 years ago. If someone comes to an absolute conclusion regarding an issue, the mind is closed to all further inquiry. The modern definition of science removes any finish line to the obtainment of additional knowledge. The goal is continuous improvement and to try all things holding fast to what is good. No matter how strong the fortification of knowledge may be on a particular issue, we must continually test it and fortify it further. We must keep our mind free from dogmatism and pursue knowledge unbiased and to the best of our abilities. Science cannot be chained by theological claims of super-naturalism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good stuff except for the equation of all beliefs with faith beliefs. That's really bad epistemology. There are many beliefs which are justified and not held on faith. Some of those beliefs raise to the level of knowledge, others are at least rational if not knowledge. Faith beliefs should be very specifically delineated as those which are undersupported or countered by the evidence and/or held as a matter of deliberate commitment to believe regardless of counter evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What I fail to understand is; why is this man still in charge of Hart County Public Schools instead being the head of theological studies at a seminary where his faith-based, single-minded, and generally out-dated ideas would be more appreciated?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now that he has certified what he believes and will teach will he resign or be sacked for breaching the constitution and refusing to teach the curriculum?

    ReplyDelete
  9. If this guy was so much as waxing floors in my daughter's school I would yell my bloody fool head off until he was invited to resign involuntarily. I ask both my daughters about once a month what they're learning and what the teachers say in class but they both have a wicked streak and they like to get in an adults face when the adult is lying so I don't worry so much about their heads getting filled with crap.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous said...

    > Wow, did someone just get owned by a bureaucrat?

    Yeah, but it was a politician that got owned, so it doesn't count for much.

    If a politician and a bureaucrat get into a chainsaw fight, who wins? Everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And he got pwned by KENTUCKY bureaucrats! Progress is being made! Evolution: It's not just for Massachusetts any more!

    ReplyDelete
  12. The administrator’s letter starts off with a story about the dean of a school in the Philippines. I was immediately suspicious that the story was bogus, even if the Line believed it.

    After poking around the web, I did find versions of the Line's story. The dean is described as a teacher one time, a principal another. And the stories have different endings. He's variously shot, stabbed, and hanged.

    A version of the story takes place in a John Wayne film, “Back to Bataan.”

    So Line didn't make up the story; someone else might have, though. And I'd love to know where Line got it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm from Hart County and it wasn't till college that I actually learned what evolution was. It was taught but with a wink and a nod and roughly at that. It was demonized my entire time there. It's kind of the mind set of everyone around. I'm just glad there is progress from the state officials. One step at a time I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There's only one problem with the response. His account of 'theory' appropriately draws the distinction between the technical scientific definition and the colloquial one, but his account of 'belief' uses the colloquial definition and ignores the technical sense of 'belief' in epistemology and (if I'm not mistaken) the brain sciences.

    A belief in the technical sense is anything that a subject holds true for any reason. Hence the common and contentious definition of knowledge as "justified true belief". (Look up "Gettier problem" for a taste of the contention.)

    This is important, because it is where the debate on evolution (etc.) really comes down: religious believers tend to think that their beliefs are justified by an appeal to an infallible authority, scientists tend to think that's crazy pants. They will only accept observations or interpretations of observations that have survived intense scrutiny.

    We will understand the debate about evolution much better when we recognize that it is not really a debate about evolution, but about what constitutes justification for a belief. This is why the two sides tend to think of each other as crazy, stupid, or blinded by ideology. (When arguing with someone, it is useful to understand why he or she thinks you are wrong, or why he or she is "standing up for his or her beliefs" against the Japanese army...)

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think the first thing that needs to be taught in science classes are definitions. Science specific definitions. And not just of specific things like "particle" or "organism", etc., but of things like "theory" and "empirical." Give out a list of definitions alongside that whole section about the scientific process, safety procedures, and lab equipment that is always taught early in science class. Seriously, it would severely cut back on misunderstandings and misguided rants about the Big Bang and evolution just being "theories" and that the controversy should be taught. If you want to teach the creation myths and religious doctrines, join a ministry or teach at a bible college. Honestly, there are places that people are actually paid to do that. Public school is not one of those places. It's not a war on religion, or even a war at all, it's just a quest for objective knowledge, facts, and understanding that dogmatic thinking gets in the way of. You don't have to believe it, and neither do they, but you do have to teach it because it's part of your job description.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whatever. The point is God created humans. :p I cannot believe the amount of evidence supporting facts in the Bible that "highly educated" refuse to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I hope that is sarcasm, if not please provide such evidence. I'll wait.

    ReplyDelete
  18. http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=%23%29%2E4K%0A

    Chapters 5 and 6 of Lesson Book 6 - The Bible, the Word of God by Witness Lee

    ReplyDelete
  19. You provide 'evidence' that we have to buy? Again, provide real evidence. Still waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I've become even more troubled then the Anonymous poster at the top about teaching kids gravity instead of the THEORY of gravity. Gravity is not a fact, it is a theory. I have faith, though, that gravity is a left-wing propagandist lie to turn our kids into satan-loving demons. What actually holds us to ground is Jesus constantly giving all of us hugs and not letting us go!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't have access to that book, but scholars don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God because it is a flawed, contradictory book that offers no inspired knowledge that was not commonplace at that time. Matthew, Luke and John were illiterate, how could they have even written "their" gospels?

    I refer you to Bart Ehrman's breadth of popular works on the subject of the historic-critical views of the Bible. You have to pay for that too, just like your evidence

    ReplyDelete
  22. OK I figured that site out, I saw ZERO evidence listed in the book for creation. Did I miss it? Doubt it, it doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You don't have to pay for it Cliff, I was wrong about that. It's all large jumps of hand waving evidence, but nothing on creation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ministrybooks.org? rofl

    ReplyDelete
  25. HAHA, one of the first passages showing 'Proof' that the bible is God's word is: The Jews are gods chosen people. "The history of the Jewish people also proves that the Bible is the Word of God. The Jewish people are a special people." That is the evidence. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous8 said: "We will understand the debate about evolution much better when we recognize that it is not really a debate about evolution, but about what constitutes justification for a belief."

    Excellent point. This is the core difference that separates secular and religious worldviews, which disputes over evolution, or contraception, or even support of Israel, are merely symptoms. Sam Harris has been arguing this point for years.

    Dustin: That guy is trolling you.

    Anonymous Right Above Me: I'm the first commenter, and I agree. That objects fall is a fact. All this nonsense about gravitational fields and spacetime curvatures are just *theories*. It is abundantly clear to enlightened people like us that objects move toward the love of God, which is hidden and unreachable in the centers of all large masses. God works in mysterious ways!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Conclusion

    Because the Bible and the people of God are tied together, their history and existence today proves to us that the Bible is truly the Word of God.

    WHA??!!?? This site is awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You did not read Chapter 5 and 6.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree with him on one thing; there is no macroevolution. What this cretin fails to realise is MACROEVOLUTION IS MICROEVOLUTION. He believes that it is possible for a tiny change to happen to a species in fifty years, yet he fails to acknowledge how these tiny changes accumulate for billions of years.

    I weep in both laughter and fear when I see that people (often quite successful and otherwise moderately intelligent) still don't acknowledge evolution as a fact. This man should not be allowed near any institution involved in education.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Those quotes are from chapter 6

    ReplyDelete
  31. If someone does not understand evolution, they are not qualified to teach any course in biology. 'nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Clifford, if you read the gospels and notice the fact differences in each, you will also notice that the series of events before and after the miracles were all different. This could only mean that Jesus performed many similar miracles at different times and places. Those gospels could have been spoken and written by someone else.

    Also, I do not see how it is contradictory. How can you explain how Jesus fulfilled and spoke passages of the Old Testament, when at that time, only the Pharisees and scribes read the scriptures? He had no position where he could have read them. He knew it because He is God and it is His Word.

    There are also places where details are fulfilled in great detail. Example:

    John 19:24 - “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.” This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, “They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

    Psalm 22:18 - They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

    No one told them to cast lots for his clothing but agreement among themselves. Furthermore, these were Roman soldiers, who knew very little or probably nothing of the scriptures. They followed them just as God said they would hundreds of years before.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So using the Bible as proof of the Bible. Makes sense. Again, provide EVIDENCE for creation. Evidence of a great flood, anything that has been scientifically tested....

    ReplyDelete
  34. You can explain it by saying that not all of the words of the Bible should be taken literally.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Careful, Dustin, not everything in the Bible is inherently false. The History Channel has shown evidence of what could be the great flood. Of course, the history channel can be wrong, just ask Jon Stewart.

    ReplyDelete
  36. re guy arguing with Clifford: Ever hear of circular reasoning?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Um, Anonymous (troll) above,
    "This could only mean that Jesus performed many similar miracles at different times and places. Those gospels could have been spoken and written by someone else."

    *boggle*

    ... Couldn't it also mean that Jesus didn't perform _any_ miracles, and that the canonical gospels were generated by the time-honored process of making shit up and embellishing?

    And you seem to believe that the gospels were like ... written contemporaneously with the putative ministry of Jesus, as if the canonical New Testament books were just a bunch of collated tweets -- "Now they're dividing His clothes by lot ... #atthecross"
    "Marcus got the really good gore-stained half of his overshirt #golgothadude"

    C'mon, what else you got besides a lot of circular arguments? Anything else funny?

    ReplyDelete
  38. P.S. I'm coming in late on this thing, but I loved the letter from Terry Holliday. Pwned, as the kids say. And the hilarious martyr complex by Ricky Line. Love it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thank you to the one that pointed out the History channel, go read some history in other places about Tyre or Sodom and then read what is prophesized in the Bible.

    This is why you will never know th truth because you cannot open your mind and heart to God because you have to "see" the truth. To know God is faith, believing in what you cannot see. Merry Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Faith is not a way of knowing. It's just asserting that your hopes, wishes and guesses are true, without evidence, and sometimes contradictory to it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Why is this truth you're talking about only knowable by people who open their minds and hearts to god? That seems really weird and circular.
    Usually, something that we call true is knowable by absolutely anyone. You seem to have a strange definition of "true". But, you know, Merry Christmas to you, too. Lots of people enjoy Christmas, only without the silly Christ baggage.

    ReplyDelete
  42. What I find fascinating is that the fact of evolution has been recognized by the people who have honestly looked at the evidence for literally thousands of years (back to the ancient greeks!), yet some people think Darwin came up with the idea that things have changed over time. To think that a man who lived during Civil War times would be the very first to look at fossils and say "Hey, these things don't look exactly the same as what's walking around right now!" is idiotic beyond belief.
    Demonizing Darwin is a sport, not honestly engaged. He figured out what might (well, as far as we know DOES) cause living things to change, but is certainly not responsible for the conclusion that the changes occurred.
    Relevance to thread/posting: So is it the idea that current lifeforms are descendants of earlier ones that bugs him (ain't he his father's son?), or that the changes occur mostly through natural selection (Darwin's contribution)?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Is that the same "Anonymous" thanking himself for posting a reference to the History Channel.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous8:
    The Old Testament, like the Apostle Paul's evangelical missions and letters, were passed down by word of mouth. The Hebrew Bible drew heavily from existing oral tradition before it was written down, that likely continued.

    The main reason Jesus was written to fulfill the Old Testament is because he was fictionally written that way.

    What Old Testament passages did he fulfill? Zechariah? Jesus was likely NOT born in Bethelem; Jesus was born in Nazareth, which is why the synoptical gospels had to write ridiculous circumstances to have him born there. There is no evidence of a census ran by Quirinius to have Mary and Joseph of Nazareth to return to Bethlehem as written in Matthew. What sort of census would inconvenience working folk to return to the land of your ancestors from 1000s of years ago!? More convincingly, Quirinius wasn't even in charge of Syria until 6 AD, after Herod was King.

    There is no historical record of Herod's killing of any boy-child under 3 in Bethlehem, to "fulfill" the infanticide from Matthew which caused Mary, Joseph and Jesus to flee into Egypt to fulfill Hosea.

    There are your contradictions. Furthermore, the Law of Moses was likely not entirely written by Moses.

    Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament because the legendary Jesus, ESPECIALLY the one portrayed in the Gospel of John, was written (fictionally) that way.

    What of the heretic gospels? The gospel of Peter has Jesus emerging from the tomb as a giant and a talking cross emerging afterwards. Why isn't that canon?

    Beyond the historical inaccuracy and imposter authors in the Bible, what of the different tones in the Passions between Mark and Luke? Mark's Jesus says nothing as he bears the cross, and finally speaks as he asks why his god has forsaken him. Luke has Jesus bother himself with those he passes as he bears the cross, his last words being "Father into your hands I command my spirit." Which was his last words? Did Jesus suffer? These are two COMPLETELY different accounts of the Passion, and making some sort of amalgam between them does a disservice to the theology the authors of Mark and Luke intended. Mark's was written first, I'm wont to believe him.

    If the Bible is indeed the inspired word of God, he did a pretty poor job of inspiration. It is not inerrant. The original drafts of the Bible are not available. The source(s) "Q" which Mark, Matthew, and Luke, used is(are) not available. Scribes altered portions of the transcription in the copies we do have. Why then did your God not better protect His word?

    ReplyDelete
  45. No, the person who made the history channel comment (me) is not the same person who is pumping the bible, or even supporting it. I was just pointing out that the stories in the bible should not be dismissed just because they are in the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I wasn't saying the entirety of the Bible is false. I never have. I believe it to be a source of inspiration for people, but they should realize that those are stories. As Cliff wonderfully pointed out, most of the stories have no real evidence behind them. The Bible should at most be viewed as holy book for those who follow it's teachings. It should NEVER be viewed as a science text, especially in matters in which we have evidence to prove certain books in the Bible are incorrect, like Genesis.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Especially when the Bible has instances where the authors, whomever they may have been, did not have access to one another's Gospels or sources, independently assert the same event, it is particularly credible. As well as when something they agree on is a detriment to their supposed theology, such as Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist: a divine being wouldn't ideally acknowledge that someone was "above" him enough to baptize him, and the authors of the Gospels still (likely begrudgingly) include this event.

    Historians, like scientists, are honor-bound to exclude the supernatural as an explanation for an event. So the verity of miracles cannot be confirmed by scholarly history OR science, leaving a student with rather intellectually and inherently dissatisfying answers to questions of this nature.

    Ya'll should read Ehrman if you like my ramblings, everything I've said in this comment thread is stolen from him. I love his stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The Bello story is from a John Wayne WWII movie "Back to Bataan", it may be based on fact but I can find no evidence that the screenwriter based it on a true story. So it is my THEORY that this so-called educator's problems distinguishing fact from fiction range extend into history and probably other fields of study.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I love Bible Battles on the "History" Channel. They are just slightly more factual that ancient aliens. Great stuff.

    Line is an idiot. Kentucky, and the US for that matter fails miserably when it comes to education and education funding.

    ReplyDelete
  50. First let's dispense with God. The fact that man invented God in his own image is evidenced by the terminology used to describe him, Lord, King, Kingdom of God...

    These are terms used to describe the current political structures of mankind at the time. These days we are a little more eclectic and democratically rule ourselves. True we do it with sabers and guns but they get people's attention quicker than the threat of going to Hell.

    If God created the Universe he most likely was vaporized during the Big Bang and so it might be true he is everywhere and consequently why he is rather ineffective :-)

    Now Darwin. He sort of jumped into the middle of evolution without considering the a priori that causes it to happen.

    Darwin only outlined what changes to species occur due to environmental pressures and competition.

    None of Darwin's changes can occur unless the organism has within itself the 'capability' of changing.

    It is this 'a priori' capability that should be investigated. Should it be truly investigated and discovered, I'll bet the mystery would only deepen.

    Alas, probably God would be resurrected and 'reign' on our scientific parade again.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Darwin did "jump in the middle," which is why his claims so remarkable. Darwin borrowed heavily from geology to develop his theory of evolution. DNA wasn't discovered as the genetic material until Avery-MacLeod-McCarty in 1944. He was even unaware of Mendel's independent assortment work.

    Darwin noticed a mechanism for something that was observed: speciation. He put forth the theory of evolution. A scientific theory is an idea that explains a set of observations. A scientific theory is one that can make accurate predictions: Darwin, and other early evolutionary biologists, had a number of them in Origin of the Species that were accurate. They can also hold up under the scrutiny of "unknown data," which they did with DNA by Avery-MacLeod-McCarty and Watson- Crick-Franklin, etc.

    It is a theory better supported than atomic theory or gravity. It is as important to biology as thermodynamics are to chemistry.

    The "a priori" was the existence of genetic material, which might be explained by the RNA World hypothesis or the newer revision thereof of a non-nucleic acid, self-replicating molecule. Life was a rather unlikely event that required a large amount of time and (maybe) a highly specific set of requirements, but can be explained most simply without invoking the supernatural. I'm not great at the origins of life discussions though. It is a fascinating question, fa sho.

    I don't think the origins of life are something that is taught in most high school biology curriculums. It's way more of an "arm chair" science.

    I wouldn't be opposed to the teaching of RNA World Hypothesis or some of the other origin theories, as long as they didn't invoke the supernatural. But I certainly wouldn't defend their presence in a curriculum as vehemently as evolution if someone were to argue "you can understand contemporary biology without contemplating the origins."

    If you're Anonymous8 (you..can't be.. can you??) I was chatting with earlier, I find your switch to deism extremely inconsistent. If God died with the Big Bang, how can there ever be evidence of a God pre-existing ... existence? I don't think even the "most theoretical" of theoretical physicists claim that they can know of what existed "before the universe," if anything. It's totally puzzling and something I don't think can ever be fully contemplated.

    If your claim isn't one of Deism but that the omnipotence of a god which plays a role in the lives of humans. By definition, the existence of an omnipotent being can never be refuted. I choose to support what can be explained by evidence. That's an argument no one can win. I refer to Occam's razor and bow out. Believe what you want, just keep it out of public schools.

    I refuse to let someone reference the Bible in arguments about public schools, homosexuality, treatment of women, etc. It is NOT the inerrant word of God, and is not evidence for the existence of a god.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I think scientists really missed a trick when they didn't make the word for a theoretical model that is rigorously supported by the available evidence something Latin. This theory / theory nonsense is never going to go away.

    ReplyDelete
  53. MSG-Darwin began his musings with the demonstrable fact that things have changed (thus it is a simple matter to conclude that they have/had the ability to change). He did indeed identify a convincing set of existing circumstances that drives/drove changes in exactly the way that is/has been observed--i.e. he did consider, and adequately explain what causes it to happen.
    Furthermore, had there not been a capability to change, then (obvious tautology alert) things would not have changed and there would have been no evolution to explain. In other words, what you said makes no sense whatsoever!
    We now know more about organisms' capability to change, with mutation and interaction of genes and gene products, and there is still no evidence of a conscious hand. God is still dead, and rumors of his resurrection are grossly exaggerated.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I live in the closest urban center, of any consequence, to Hart County. I am not surprised by the letter in the least. The religious right are strongly represented here. This is just one more reason I feel it is best for me to leave the area. The KY board of education handled it well, though. I will give them credit.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Russell said...
    I'm from Hart County and it wasn't till college that I actually learned what evolution was. It was taught but with a wink and a nod and roughly at that. It was demonized my entire time there. It's kind of the mind set of everyone around. I'm just glad there is progress from the state officials. One step at a time I suppose."
    Russell, I empathize. I attended high school in Warren County. Barely an improvement, I might add. Luckily, in the 90s my school had a large, vocal atheist/agnostic presence, in terms of both students and their parents. I've been back in Warren co. the last 4 years and things have changed a bit, but only a little. There are more atheist/agnostic than before, but we have a tendency to huddle together for the sake of our collective sanity.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Bryan wrote:

    "The Bello story is from a John Wayne WWII movie "Back to Bataan", it may be based on fact but I can find no evidence that the screenwriter based it on a true story."

    Actually, I think the story may be true. There's a newspaper article, from January, 1946, that tells about Bello's testimony at a war trial in Manila:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19460106&id=LbUWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KCMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3819,1210204

    The movie, which came out in 1945, was a mishmash of fiction and non-fiction. In the movie, Bello dies. The Bello who took the witness stand survived.

    Just to muddy the historical waters a little more, there was a Buenaventura Bello who helped found the University of Manila, in 1913 (there are a few references to him on the Web). Was he the same Bello, who ended up as a teacher on the island of Luzon, 29 years later?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Wow, this thread has changed a lot since I was here. Anyways, Line got owned, evolution is the only plausible explanation for life as we know it, and creationists are still ignorant little weasels. God isn't real, Tim Tebow is an idiot, and abortion should be free. Happy Holidays!

    ReplyDelete
  58. How do idiots like this become superintendants of schools?
    Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous said...Furthermore, had there not been a capability to change, then (obvious tautology alert) things would not have changed and there would have been no evolution to explain. In other words, what you said makes no sense whatsoever!

    It makes perfect sense if you had grasped what I said instead of constructing a logical fallacy out of it.

    Of course evolution is happening and it a simple matter of cause and effect. There has to be a pre-existing mechanism that has power to produce evolution.

    Let me say at this point before your read into what I say that I believe in God I don't! Nor am I positing a hypothesis or theory I am simply asking questions and stating facts.

    For arguments sake let's say it is RNA and that it is randomness that brought it into being and it is random in its operation.

    What is randomness? The dictionary says it is 'having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective'. Yet we see all around us patterns of interaction of life, predators, mimics, species that cooperate, organisms that specifically prey on others or defend themselves specifically from others.

    While some of these things can be explained by evolution the 'a priori' of capabilities that precedes it is said to have been produced at random.

    Yet evolution seems to suggest that changes to organisms are produced to solve specific problems and have a purpose.

    Even geological time scales would not produce these specific changes if the capabilities were truly random.

    Perhaps my work with encryption and search for true randomness has blinded me and convinced me that there is no such thing as randomness.

    Humans have an extraordinary ability to perceive patterns, our very lives depend on this ability. So perhaps it is understandable that we might have difficulty in understanding how randomness can give rise to order.

    Then again we also have the ability to perceive patterns where none actually exist. Perhaps the order that we think we perceive is nothing of the sort but a collective illusion.

    After all a novel is just a dictionary that's out of order:-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just checking if this thing works.. Mr MSG.. your getting close..

      Science and education are all about.. theory based on facts and.. the search for 'truth'.. (verifiable thus reliable knowledge).. nothing absolute here..

      "Even geological time scales would not produce these specific changes if the capabilities were truly random."

      What is missing in this whole confrontation (read war) is the truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.. an unfortunate handle that scares everybody off.. It could be called the Law of Randomness.. lets see if that made it.

      Delete
    2. Actually Mike, Both you and MSG are far from the mark. So you play the entropy card eh? You are displaying a common misconception here, that random mutations in gene sequences are the same as evolution and natural selection. They are different and this talk about probabilities and thermodynamics DOES NOT apply. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, which is the NONRANDOM process by which biological traits become more or less prevalent in a population. Natural selection is the only cause of ADAPTION (that is consistently observed), but not the only case of evolution. There are also non-adaptive causes such as mutation, genetic drift, etc. We can also trace the timeline of evolutionary processes because most mutations in genes occur at a predictable rate due to errors (in protein function, coding, etc). Our molecular machinery is not 100% efficient, leading to errors and giving rise to mutations. However there are random mutations that do occur in addition to this. So evolution is not COMPLETELY governed by randomness or entropy.

      This is the GLARING FLAW to your "falsification of evolution" post on your blog.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Why? Why do people still throw around the second law of thermodynamics like they are proving something? Learn the difference between an open and closed system, Mike, and then read a book to discover which one the Earth is.

      Delete
    5. So I posted that comment on his site, but he'll have to approve it before it appears. So much for open feedback.

      Delete
    6. laughable.

      http://vh-who.blogspot.com/

      http://vh-mby.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    7. No one with half a brain wants to read his shitty blog, he can troll ours all he wants though.

      Delete
  60. The anonymous guy defending the Bible (at 12:38 pm on 12/14) offered this quote:

    "Also, I do not see how it is contradictory. How can you explain how Jesus fulfilled and spoke passages of the Old Testament, when at that time, only the Pharisees and scribes read the scriptures? He had no position where he could have read them. He knew it because He is God and it is His Word."

    ...What silly, contradictory nonsese. So Jesus must have been an omniscent God because he knew quotes regardless of the fact he couldn't read (or at least get his hands on a Bible).

    These desert gods are the weakest omniscent characters in all of literature. What kind of omniscent being can't read!?!


    Also, this "The New Testament characters were illiterate so they couldn't have read the old testament so how could they have known to do that stuff that would fulfill the OT predictions?? is more utter nonsense. Here's who could read (I GUARENTEE): the people who WROTE the New Testament stories. We aren't working with what Jesus and his NT friends actually did (or if they even existed); we are only going off what the NT authors tell us happened. There is no amount of circular reasoning or wishful thinking that can get out of the fact that all these "but they were illiterate" arguments are completely bunk.

    ReplyDelete
  61. MSG: "Yet evolution seems to suggest that changes to organisms are produced to solve specific problems and have a purpose."

    No, it doesn't. Changes to organisms occur. No one produces them, and certainly not for any purpose. Evolution distinguishes between good enough and not good enough. Problem solving may be selected for, but there is a lot of random that also gets fixed in our genomes by chance and ends up staying because it's not bad enough to be selected against.

    ReplyDelete
  62. So, forget about the bible for a minute, because nobody can agree on whether or not what's in it is accurate. Let's look a US supreme court decision from the past 100 years, because it's relevant and everyone can agree that it actually happened, that this is the actual decision and what was said, and that we have a SECULAR, non-religious government, therefore what the bible does or does not say is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to what should be taught in our public schools.

    "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, *****the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.*****'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

    A wall of separation. That means that in our public, government-funded institutions, religion should play no part. The fact that evolution and the theory of creation according to the bible (because there are other creation myths out there, and people here only seem to care about the christian one) contradict should have nothing to do with what we teach in schools.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Science is the new Religion, and Darwinism is the new Spanish Inquisition.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Good one. Religion is still religion and they can still claim the inquisition for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Yes, non-supporters get tortured and burned at the stake by Darwinism Grand Inquisitors frequently.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "Science is the new Religion, and Darwinism is the new Spanish Inquisition."

    Is football a sport? According to mrSunday, NOT playing football is a sport, too.

    mrSunday is quite the mental gymnast.

    ReplyDelete