Imagine that you are running for the State Board of Education, and you receive a questionnaire from a science organization trying to get a feel for your positions on issues important to them. Here’s the first question:
1. As a State Board of Education member, which of the following organizations would you trust to inform your decision-making in regards to science? Check all that apply.
- American Association for the Advancement of Science _____
- The Intelligent Design Network ____
- The National Academies of Science _____
- The Discovery Institute ____
- The American Institute of Biological Sciences _____
- Answers in Genesis ____
- The National Science Teachers Association _____
- The Institute for Creation Research _____
This shouldn’t be at all hard. Take your time.
Now if you’re anything like me, you would have checked off a, c, e, and g.
Compare your answers against those given by candidates for the Kansas State Board of Education. I don’t think I would want to vote for Kathy Martin or Dennis Hedke.
I zoned out for a moment thinking I had to fill in the blanks. :-)
But they’re democratic in not discriminating between various organizations (in the absolute sense of being democratic, it’s a fact).
Shit in, shit out. No wonder those cretins don’t know a damn thing about science–since of course the DI, IDN, and to a lesser degree, AIG and ICR, depend upon redefining science to avoid the evidence so that their prejudices would be counted as “science”.
The creationist/ID organizations simply cancel out the intelligence of the other ones.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Well, it seems that most picked a,c,e,g, which is nice to know, or picked those that they recognized from those. The few that picked the ‘bad’ organizations probably didn’t care and picked all of them (as every one of them that picked one of the creationist organizations picked all of them on the list)
I love a good train wreck, so I’ll go with all of the above.
Look, it is time to boot the old confederacy out. The same with Alaska. It was one thing when they places merely drained our tax dollars but now that they bring scorn up America, lie about being real America, and refuse to stop mating with their siblings, they have to go.
Carolyn Campbell had some nice responses
Disturbing.
What
the
fuck?
Since when does the Biological Theory of Evolution delve into economics?
idiot
Yes, scientists come up with a theory and then it is NEVER altered. And the place where any critique of any scientific theory happens is the high school classroom.
You could spin in positively so; at least none of them picked only the ID organizations. And none of them actually mentions book burnings to be a priority.
Looked at some of the comments. Some are rather rational, and some a mixed bag. Can’t win them all, I guess.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM: Since when does the Biological Theory of Evolution delve into economics?
Actually, with the recent link of natural selection to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178), they may be tangentially related.
Well, the way the question is worded, I could honestly say I would trust AIG to inform my decision. I would trust them to give me the WRONG answer.
The Christian creationist organizations are also known as
The Magic Network
The Magic Institute
Answers in Magic
The Institute for Magic Research
I am actually quite pleased.
The majority answered in a reassuring way.
Sure, we got some backwood inbred knuckledraggers in this country, but a lot of us have some common sense too.
YEEEEMUTHAFUKINHAAAWWW!
I’d have to check to make sure that some of those names weren’t Orwellian in nature, but assuming that the names are honest (which appears to be the case), it’s a no-brainer. A, c, e, and g
Aww, you don’t like Answers in Genesis? They have good material!
(Good for a laugh, anyway.)
I’ve aced PZ’s test and I haven’t had a Biology course since high school! Hooray! It probably means I am too damn smart to be on the Texas State Board of Education. This is okay as I don’t live there.
BigDumbChimp:
Thank you for the ref! I’ve been thinking about this for a while — but never worked out the math. I’m printing it out — least action should link it all together!
Thanks for the extra publicity PZ.
I really can’t say more publicly to no violate the tax exempt status of KCFS (hint hint!). =)
We’re fighting the good fight, trying to at least get the facts out.
Cheers,
Lane Taylor, Vice President, KCFS.
The questionnaire is a good indicator of who can distinguish between science and apologetics. My guess is that the vast majority of Americans can’t.
The ones that checked off in favor of the creationist organizations also preferred abstinence only sex education. Big surprise there.
“Theories are theories and facts are facts. ”
… states the vapid Dennis Hedke, who clearly understands neither. I wonder if his head would explode if I told him that gravity was a theory…
A sponsored link in my gmail account led to this poll that might interest Pharyngulites: Do you like Dr. James Dobson? http://www.our-vote-counts.com/james-dobson/
Oh, this is Kansas. Well, I don’t live there either. After reading the reponses, it appears that Dennis Hedke trusts everybody as a source on science.
You forgot to mention the one source that it is mandated by law for Educators to listen to.
The Parents!
In a democracy, the majority (of parents), polled at the appropriate level (state, county…) get to decide the curricula and sources for content. Sorry Paul, but you can’t forcfully indoctrinate free people in a democratic society such as the USA.
If the majority want to learn the geography of the flat earth; guess what! It’s their right to insist that the public servants they hired and pay, serve up the educational tidbits they want taught.
Don’t you support DEMOCRACY Paul?
UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial OR RELIGIOUS GROUPS, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) PARENTS HAVE A PRIOR RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE KIND OF EDUCATION THAT SHALL BE GIVEN TO THEIR CHILDREN.
SOURCE: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
@BobC
“The Christian creationist organizations are also known as”
I like your list – you beat me to it. How about these:
-The Wishful Thinking Network
-The Dishonesty Institute
-Answers in Mythology
-The Institute for Applied Apologetics Research
Huh, only two creotards on the ballot? Ther’re in better shape then the Texas BOE anyway.
If they want their children taught bad science, then there are plenty of parochial schools they can attend.
Until then, the school system has to rely on the best science available to base its standards on. Until the scientists change what that is from the theory of evolution to creationism or some other such idea then the best science will remain the ToE.
J spews:
That, I think, is the winner for the single stupidest thing ever uttered on this blog.
Are you fucking KIDDING me? Let me say, as a person who had no choice in the indoctrination he was given growing up in a Roman Catholic household and neighborhood, that you are an ignorant asshole if you believe that.
“PARENTS HAVE A PRIOR RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE KIND OF EDUCATION THAT SHALL BE GIVEN TO THEIR CHILDREN.”
Lying and diception is stretching the definition of “Kind of Education” beyond recognition. Teaching falsehoods as fact is what we’re dealing with here. Facts exist outside the purview of a vote. Your assertion is a strawman.
I thought this answer was priceless:
“I believe in teaching science and biology in our science classrooms, not sexual education. I believe in abstinence.” – David Dennis
… because as we all know, sexual reproduction has nothing to do with biology. Babies are delivered by storks!
Attention PZ
This is the statement from the Biological Sciences Department on the NKU homepage.
Statement from the NKU Biological Sciences Department
EVOLUTION
We, the members of the Northern Kentucky University Biological Sciences Department, would like to provide some clarity on an issue that has recently been the topic of conversation on our campus.
Science is a process that involves the observation of natural phenomena, the development of hypotheses and the testing of predictions from these hypotheses through the systematic collection and analysis of data. Conclusions are drawn only after the rigorous application of this process. While all scientific ideas are open to challenge (indeed, evolutionary biologists continue to test these ideas every day), basic evolutionary principles have survived over 150 years of repeated testing. Evolutionary ideas are thus based on observable data rather than belief, and they form the underlying framework for all of modern biology.
Potential alternative explanations for biological change have a high standard to meet, and must survive repeated objective and replicable testing to be considered valid in the scientific context. Creationism, “creation science” and intelligent design are philosophical viewpoints with predetermined conclusions based on belief. They are also inherently untestable. Such ideas therefore constitute unsubstantiated explanations for the diversity of life on earth and cannot be defended on scientific grounds. Introducing such ideas into the biology classroom would be akin to teaching astrology in an astronomy class or alchemy in the chemistry curriculum. Everyone should be free to believe in whatever credo they choose, and we respect those beliefs, but that does not mean it should be taught as science.
We are troubled by any implication that evolution as an underlying concept in modern biology is in question. It is not. These arguments have been settled in a biological sense for many decades, and in a legal sense more recently (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District as it regards the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment). The continuing controversy regarding evolution and creationism here, absent in most developed countries, comes from proponents with a specific ideological agenda. In short, at the core of our concern is anything that creates confusion (or provides misinformation) about what constitutes science and how scientific conclusions are reached.
Charles Acosta
Hilde Baldridge
Hazel Barton
Bethany Bowling
Richard Boyce
Christine Curran
Greg Dahlem
Richard Durtsche
Jon Hastings
Miriam Kannan
Rebecca Kelley
Bernard Lohr
Kristi Martines
Eimear Mullen
Debra Pearce
Michael Scola
I have also submitted a few questions to Mark Neikirk.
He e-mailed back just to be clear who I was, but has not answered the questions yet. I’m hoping he gets back to me soon.
Of course you can’t! Science never claims to prove ANYTHING 100%! Argh! How do these people get away with governing science education without knowing anything about science?
On the other hand..
They clearly aren’t all stupid. Good luck to you, Mr. Renner =)
Hey J
If the majority of a village decides to drink from a poisoned well because they are in denial about it being poisoned they will still get sick and die! Reality does not bow down to the feeble fluff that is human ideology. Furthermore, scientist do not redefine reality to fit their ideology, they observe reality and record it as it is. The choice to live in ignorance is always available but it comes at the price of suffering the consequences of ignoring reality.
Of course not but you should already have known she was a bad lot. Eg:
Also:
“Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives.”
Wow. The pretension is staggering. How about this:
“Of course this is a scientific agenda. We are a Secular nation. Our country is made up of people of faith or no faith”
Nah. Stating the obvious is so boring.
Fascinating. This is better than it has been. We are winning. The glass is 60% full.
I get the feeling that they picked all of the orgs just to show their “open-mindedness” since the current strategy of DI and others is to get schools to “teach the controversy”. Choosing just the ID orgs would have shown that they’ve totally discounted the theory of evolution, and most likely would have disqualified them from the post.
unfortunately, I did notice one that didn’t check off the creationist orgs but also said no to abstinence plus education
I’m not sure I’d trust any of those organizations. I’d rely on a, c, e, and g a lot more and certainly would use them in judging the consensus about what science says and I’d rely on their input to try to understand issues but “trust” is a strong word which I’m not sure I’d apply to any of these. I suppose the attitude I’d have to a,c,e,g would be so different than the others that one might as well distinguish it between “trusting” and “not trusting”
Now, that my personal nitpick is out of the way:
Some of the answers given are interesting. For example, Steve E. Roberts trusts only the NAS. Sue Storm gives the answer identical to that that PZ and most readers here will but is noteworthy because having the same name as one of the Fantastic Four is awesome.
Robert Meissner did not respond at all. I’m assuming that’s a negative.
Kathy Martin trusts all of the organizations. I’m not completely sure she understands what the word “trust” means. Does she mean she will use them to inform her decisions or does she mean she trusts them? Hedke also trusts all of them. In Martin’s case given her answers to the other questions she seems to be a fan of “teach the controversy” or some variant thereof. See especially the fact that she feels a need to add her last remark to the question about what else one things is relevant. Also, a quick googling shows that Martin was one of the supporters of the Minority Report from a while back.
Hedke also trusts all of them and says that “I have stated publicly and openly that the theory of evolution should be scrutinized … Theories are theories and facts are facts. While some would claim that the theory of evolution is ironclad and without fault, I respectfully disagree, and so do many individuals who belong to the organizations listed above.” So I guess it is clear who he is going for.
David Dennis gave an essay response saying that he could if he wanted to research each of these organizations but that he wanted to make clear he didn’t support ID creationsm in any form. I’m a little curious if that means that he doesn’t know much about the issues or science in general, I mean who doesn’t at least have a decent idea about what the NAS is? Moreover, given that they had time to respond to these questionnaires couldn’t he have done the research then?
So over all 11 candidates not one of them trusts only the creationism related organizations. That’s presumably not such a bad sign. So of the 11 candidates, Hedke and Martin are the most anti-evolution and Meissner is a wild-card.
One take home point is that none of the candidates are so far out there as to trust only the creationist and ID organizations. Or if they are, they think that that the voters won’t be so happy if they say that. Alternatively, checking absolutely everything fits very well with the teach-the-controversy meme and so could be deliberately being done in that context.
Most people understand “parochial schools” to refer to Catholics schools. Catholic schools are generally not bad at teaching science, using standard curricula and standard textbooks instead of some Bob Jones pseudoscience special edition. When it comes to the so-called “Christian academies,” however, watch out!
Well, on the bright side at least they had the balls to answer.
Some of the elaborations are good and reässuring, but I like the succintness of Dr. Walt Chappell.
I retract parochial and insert “Christian”!
#31:
That is a terrific statement made by NKU with one small exception:
“Everyone should be free to believe in whatever credo they choose, and we respect those beliefs…”
Should read:
“Everyone should be free to believe in whatever credo they choose, and we respect their right to those beliefs”
The beliefs themselves are fair game for analysis and criticism.
Well, at least none of them checked only the creationist groups. *wink wink*
I hate living 20 minutes east of that state. It’s very depressing.
Off topic but probably related, Ted Stevens of Alaska was convicted on all seven charges of corruption.
abb3w, what does “doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178” point to? Some preprint server? Google didn’t help.
Wow. What a useful questionnaire; it made it really easy to distinguish between reasonable candidates and ignorant ones. Good job, KCFS!
J (#24), you seem to imply that democracy equates with dictatorship of the majority. To prevent such drifts is precisely why there are such documents as constitutions and… the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Then you gleefully quote Article 26, part 3, of said declaration:
Art.26.(3): Parents have a prior right to chose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
…as if that would justify any crippling educational horror that parents would like to impose on their children. Ever heard of “conflict of rights”? What about article Nr. three:
Art.3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
Wouldn’t children’s safety, and, yes, right to life be irresponsibly jeopardised by negating them a minimal instruction in the basic facts and perils of sexuality, for instance? Wouldn’t their liberty be seriously handicapped by feeding them dogmatic indoctrination which stumps their critical and rational faculties? what about systematically lying to them and negating them access to basic and useful facts about the world?
But perhaps children are not really persons, as they belong to their parents, right? People who use their rights to justify their abuse of others are disgusting hypocrites of the most revolting kind.
MISSING OPTIONS:
Air-born Pasta Creature Institute of Economic Enterprising (YARRRGH!)
Unseen Rose-colored Single-Horned Equine Conception Research
At least the majority got it right. That’s something…
The Swiss @ #47
…democracy equates with dictatorship of the majority.
Why yes indeed it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
…that would justify any crippling educational horror that parents would like to impose on their children.
That’s what Democracy is. If the population is a bunch of morons, then guess what happens in a true democracy? Perpetuation.
Now:
“Ever heard of “conflict of rights”? What about article Nr. three: Art.3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. Wouldn’t children’s safety, and, yes, right to life be irresponsibly jeopardised by negating them a minimal instruction in the basic facts and perils of sexuality, for instance? Wouldn’t their liberty be seriously handicapped by feeding them dogmatic indoctrination which stumps their critical and rational faculties? what about systematically lying to them and negating them access to basic and useful facts about the world?
That could happen, but your elitism is showing. You assume that the majority will sytematically lie to their own children, and the future of the country. That’s a very sad world-view you have there. But regardless of your limited perspective, it is the right of the people in a true democracy to deploy the commonly owned resources (education system) to perpetuate whatever the majority believe worth perpetuating.
How do you spell HYPOCRISY:
But PERHAPS CHILDREN ARE NOT REALLY PERSONS, as they belong to their parents, right? People who use their rights to justify their abuse of others are disgusting hypocrites of the most revolting kind.
It’s spelled “A B O R T I O N”
Don’t pay any attention to the troll known as “J”. He’s a hateful, homophobic, misogynistic, venom-filled Warrior for Jeezus who can counted upon to leave his ignorant dribblings all over the Americans United blog.
A blastocyst is not a person. Not by a long-shot. Equivocating the 2 is a travesty. Strawman argument.
from http://www.doi.org
The Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System is for identifying content objects in the digital environment. DOI® names are assigned to any entity for use on digital networks. They are used to provide current information, including where they (or information about them) can be found on the Internet. Information about a digital object may change over time, including where to find it, but its DOI name will not change.
The reference linked is to: http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/50874678nw60t5l2/ which may or may not work for you.
Proceedings of the royal society A
Natural selection for least action
Issue Volume 464, Number 2099 / November 08, 2008
Pages 3055-3070
DOI 10.1098/rspa.2008.0178
Ville R.I. Kaila1, Arto Annila1, 2, 3
1 Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
2Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
3Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
Abstract
The second law of thermodynamics is a powerful imperative that has acquired several expressions during the past centuries. Connections between two of its most prominent forms, i.e. the evolutionary principle by natural selection and the principle of least action, are examined. Although no fundamentally new findings are provided, it is illuminating to see how the two principles rationalizing natural motions reconcile to one law. The second law, when written as a differential equation of motion, describes evolution along the steepest descents in energy and, when it is given in its integral form, the motion is pictured to take place along the shortest paths in energy. In general, evolution is a non-Euclidian energy density landscape in flattening motion.
78% of the US population identifies themselves as xians. Not all xians are conservatives. Or morons. Or members of the Haters, Liars, and Killers for jesus crowd.
You just flat out lied!!! The troll speaks only for himself and a minority of xian cultists. Back under your rock now. If the polls are correct, we will elect a xian centrist in 8 days and you can hold onto your blankie and cry for 4 years.
And BTW, this is a secular nation that has a xian majority. It’s written into the constitution in several places.
I’d like to give this to the Texas SBOE. Hell, I’d like to give this to the panel responsible for reviewing the science curriculum, if only to see Garner check off AiG and ICR while Meyer and Seelke (presumably) wouldn’t. Drive a wedge between the YECs/OECs and the neo-creos!
J at #50 posted:
That’s interesting, I’d never heard that analysis of Democracy before. My understanding of Democracy was (granted, this is a very “boiled down” description) enacting the will of the majority while maintaining respect for the rights of the minority. Obviously, an in-depth poly-sci course would have a more elaborate understanding and expression of it than my simple distillation.
In the link J posted, there appears the following:
That text is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
So, according to the link J posted, there actually is no universally accepted definition of ‘democracy.’ If that is the case, then it certainly means my dilution is not universally accepted, but it also means that J’s assertion that Democracy equates with dictatorship of the majority is not universally accepted. What does appear to be the case, however, is that when the majority exerts its influence on government, that the minority retains its access to power. That seems implicit from the dual components in the Wikipedia description referenced previously. To my (granted, simple,) reading, that suggests that when the majority’s exercise of power occurs in a democracy, it does so in an effort to maintain the availability of future change for all participants in the system, and that those who find themselves in the minority maintain certain “universally recognized freedoms and liberties” as quoted.
For me, that doesn’t sound much like a dictatorship, but perhaps I’m not understanding what J’s post suggests. Regardless, by the time I got to this part of J’s post:
I find myself thoroughly confused about what the issue of abortion has to do with the Kansas school board views on reliable sources when consulting for questions about science.
No kings,
Robert
At least Kansas is a little better off than Texas as far as their Board of Education. It’s somewhat disheartening that those two imbeciles are running for office, but at least the rest are supportive of science and the scientific method.
Desert Son #56
You don’t see a connection between the rights of children, and the killing of children?
I’ll quote Swiss who said it so eloquently above at #47 -“But PERHAPS CHILDREN ARE NOT REALLY PERSONS, as they belong to their parents, right? People who use their rights to justify their abuse of others are disgusting hypocrites of the most revolting kind.
The two are related.
http://jacksterbaxter.deviantart.com/art/Dead-Friends-101556499
The United States isn’t a democracy. We are a constitutional representative republic. We happen to elect some of our leaders in a democratic fashion. Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority and is a bad idea in general.
I can’t believe some of those people checked Answers in Genesis…
“Some natural phenomena can not be proven 100%.”
What is this supposed to mean? You can’t prove they happened? Stuff like virgin births, talking snakes, dead people brought back to life… ?
Also I don’t understand why a comprehensive sex-ed program is called “abstinence plus”. Plus what? Plus information? Wouldn’t it be better to keep only the information part and leave the abstinence aside? What’s the goal? Prevent teens from having sex? If anybody have the right to do this, it’s the parents, not some biology teacher at school. If the goal is to avoid teenage pregnancies, shouldn’t the message be “whatever you do, do it knowingly and safely”? Are we talking about human biology, or some kind of moral indoctrination?
As a further comment:
J at #50 posted:
I puzzled over this portion of the comment for a bit. I don’t know if J is speaking generally here, or specifically in reference to the system of government and participation we have in the United States (which is, technically, a republic, but that’s a discussion for another time and/or place).
If J is speaking generally about a nebulous “true democracy” that exists somewhere out there in the world, or is perhaps a Platonic ideal from which democracies, in general, derive some of their (imperfect) characteristics, then I suppose it might hold true that, if the population as a whole is a “bunch of morons,” then whatever policies the population enacts out of their collective and individual levels of intelligence might continue in perpetuity.
If, however, J is speaking of the government in the United States, or indeed, other nations with democratic governmental institutions, then statistics, at least, might help us understand the issue of “Perpetuation.”
We know that, in a large enough population, statistics in intelligence tend toward normality. Whether or not contemporary intelligence test measurements are a good means of assessing intelligence (and whether or not intelligence itself has a single, unified field definition) is also a topic for a different discussion, time, place, etc.
For now, if we take intelligence tests as a valid (and thinking about voting-age adults, obviously), reliable method of assessment, we know that in the United States (a large enough population) the distribution of scores shows up as normal (or close enough that skewness doesn’t invalidate analysis). That being the case, the nation is hardly governed by “a bunch of morons” since most of the scores are clustering around the mean. It would take a pretty significant number of the population to severely skew the curve positive, pulling the mean much farther down to suggest a majority of “morons” affecting policy.
More importantly, though, we would have to conduct wide-scale studies to find a correlation between a certain level of intelligence, and the re-initiation of policy (as just one example) in order to begin to make predictions about perpetuity. Furthermore, if there was a correlation, we know that correlation does not equal causation, so unless we could control all the other factors that might influence why individuals vote in certain ways to maintain certain aspects of policy, we would be unable to say that intelligence somehow “causes” perpetuity of policy.
All of which is the long way of pointing out that why people choose things is a very, very complicated matter, influenced by numerous factors both immediate and transitory, and distant and enduring.
No kings,
Robert
A blastocyst is not a child.
Why do these freaks always worry about a few hundred cells and not the children after their born? You would think they would be much more demanding of schools and college loans.
The least they could do is give their teenagers birth control…
Phhhht. Who am I kidding?
“Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives.”
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
–
Some anti-American liberal atheist elitistThomas JeffersonAbortion is NOT killing children. A foetus has no rights, a mother however does.
Whoa! What was up with the candidate from Dist. 5? “Hey, I know – I have no idea what these organizations are, so I’ll check ’em all! So’s I can show I Know Science!” Sheesh.
#31: Thanks so much for sharing that. It give me hope for Kansas.
I know. I know.
they’re
Or they are…
Despite what she claims on the questionnaire, Kathy Martin most certainly does NOT rely on scientific organizations to inform her decisions about science education. The scientific organizations all issued statements blasting the bad standards which she’d like to bring back to Kansas. Even her beloved Kansas Association of Teachers of Science issued such a statement (pdf).
Martin heeds scientific organizations just as conscientiously as teenagers heed her call for abstinence.
J@58 “You don’t see a connection between the rights of children, and the killing of children?”
Why are you now bringing up the Iraq war? Or were you referring to the lack of universal health care in the US?
Personally, I certainly *do think that both are big concerns for anyone who believes children (and their rights) are important.
Kel # 64
Correction:
A foetus DOES have rights. Everything that exsists has rights due to no other reason than the very fact that they exist in reality.
Just because the US judicial system has chosen not to recognize the right to life of pre-born US human citizens, irrespective of the known will of the majority of US citizens that do respect those rights, in no way changes the fundamental reality that any being that exists has it’s own right to exist as it is.
To hamper or destroy a unique existence is a fundamental breach of the respect due of us toward other beings in this shared universe. When it is the progeny of our own species that we destroy, it is an unconscionable violation of the truth of our very being.
Hitchens wrote a nice essay on Sarah Palin yesterday I know how much you guys love the Hitch ;-)
http://www.slate.com/id/2203120/
J, do you have in writing where these alleged fetal rights come from? I bet you don’t because you can’t even find them in the bible. Time to put up or shut up.
J
So a virus like HIV has the right to exist for the very reason that it exists in reality and trying to control and eradicate it is going against its rights?
Everything that exsists has rights due to no other reason than the very fact that they exist in reality. – J
Glad you told me that, J. I just threw a used tissue away, but I’ll fish it out and apologise for violating its rights, stat.
Steve C. #62 – Exactly, well put…from a retired teacher.
So PZ, is there any chance that you might share Thurday’s test with us on Friday? The questions alone may be enlightening to some readers.
J,
You posted the following [separate posts]:
My mistake – I now see the source of my confusion with your previous comment about abortion. You were debating the issue of abortion, and I thought the general thread was more about the Kansas School Board and to whom they might turn for help when making curricula policy decisions about science. I figured the Democracy question was at least related as school board policy does enter into political consideration. I didn’t realize you were focusing more on the issue of abortion, though. Thanks for clearing that up. I’m not interested in discussing abortion tonight, or in this thread, so I’ll bow out. Thanks.
No kings,
Robert
Thanks for posting this, PZ. One of the reasons that the questions about what organizations one would trust is important is because several creationists in Kansas are using a line about being open to teaching “credible scientific alternative,” so of course the question of who is credible to judge is an issue.
So hopefully any Pharyngula readers from Kansas can use the questionnaire to help decide who to vote for.
Also, those interested should check out the excellent blog “Stand Up for Real Science” at http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/standup/blog.htm. Clicking on the map in the sidebar gives more information about candidates in Kansas.
Jack Krebs
former president, Kansas Citizens for Science
So matter and energy have rights too? I didn’t think the legal system cared for everything that exists.
But it doesn’t exist as is, it changed rapidly from moment of conception to birth.
A foetus in early development has less intelligence and the ability to feel pain than any meat I eat. It is wholly dependant on the mother-to-be to survive. My dinner is autonomic, a foetus is not. Should I feel worse that people are killing sentient life for food over a partially developed foetus? WHere’s the respect for life shown to animals?!?
Dennis Hedke said “Theories are theories and facts are facts.” Well, I guess his ignorance is his bliss then. How do stupid people get in positions to make decisions for other people. They make me want to go live on an island away from the rest of society, well at least the stupid people in society. Maybe we rational people should all pitch in and buy an island where we can all live in happy rational scientific bliss.
#69 has to be the all time most incoherent and inane posts I have ever read.
Uh.
Mah.
Gawd.
Well, in that case, the English language has rights, as do the laws of logic.
And you’re MURDERING them. You MURDERER.
Please surrender yourself to the nearest police station for your crimes of violation of the rights of the English language and the laws of logic.
Thanks ever so much.
More alternative names:
The Bullshit Network
The Bullshit Institute
Answers in Bullshit
The Institute for Bullshit Research
My apologies for just jumping in here. I can’t even find words to… A judge in Clay Center KS has given probation to a 16 year old boy who raped a 3 year old girl. Apparently the sentencing was last Wednesday. I traced the story to a Clay Center News site http:..www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd=1160 Some wadload about the “teen was also convicted of attempting a sexual act” as if… At least the locals seem outraged. And the front page of this site has Renner (Martin’s opponent) stating that creationism shouldn’t be taught as science.
And this is connected to Renner how?
Kathy Martin… wasn’t she the lady in Flock of Dodos who was/is of the opinion that there are not enough transitional fossils?
Yep. She’s also quoted in her hometown newspaper today as saying thusly:
What a loon! It’s the inerrant word of God as seen by fundamentalists that has fuelled the intelligent design movement.
B,D,F, and H are all infamous creotard groups.
Ahhh, a real live actual troll.
J for this thread’s epic fail, also concern/hijacking. Somebody haul this putz to Jyusenkyo, throw him in the appropriate pond, lock him, and then see whether she is capable of exercising a little empathy. Transfer to a zone of traditional patriarchal values will be optional.
As for the test, I must concur with Don Smith, FCD (#11) that it would be fair to include the magic-man-diddit entries as potential sources of input. Knowing what to avoid can be just as vital as knowing what to do!
Perhaps, O Tentacular One, you should include this as a one point extra credit question for your students, just for the halibut?
The MadPanda, FCD
Martin’s comments have certainly evolved since 2005, when she stated “Evolution is false. ID is science-based and strong in facts.”
Sounds too theoretical if you ask me.
Often the hypotheses are small, so it isn’t hard to check in the lab. I do it for a living.
At the end of the day the process works better than any other method to advance knowledge.
MadPanda, J is like Salt, one of our local trolls. He gets his ass kicked all the time, and he’s such an idiot that he just keeps coming back.
I hate that our country has come to this.
There is so much that makes me mad that my anger is beginning to impact my health.
Nerd of Redhead @ 91,
Were you responding to me and maybe happened to miss the highly acidic sarcasm drip?
Yes, I know. (grin) Just like the Rookester and now Pilty the Dense and a few other bright shining examples of Teh StOOpid. I was merely musing that in the wake of the puny, pathetic recent waves of D’orcs, here was a ‘real’ troll at long last.
(I lurk a lot around here, but usually leave the disemvoweling of the usual suspects to those who know better than I and explain it with more flair. That’s, uhm, you, SC, Bride of Shrek, Nerd of Redhead, brokensoldier, MAJeff, cuttlefish…)
The MadPanda, FCD
The essence of democracy is the sharing of power, and the balancing of power. Every individual and group has equal opportunity to access power, and the power of each individual and group is limited by a variety of institutional checks and balances.
When we vote we are not just asserting our own individual right to power, we are acting as a check on the power of those fellow citizens whose opinions with whom we differ, and their act of voting is likewise a check on our power. (It goes without saying that when we choose not to vote, that power goes unchecked.)
Thus the tolerance, indeed the protection and in fact promotion of dissent is critical to the continued functioning and overall health of a democratic system.
The system of government described by J as “majority dictatorship” is not democracy. It is known more colloquially by a different name:
Mob rule.
PZ,
You should flag this article from the lancet – the leading medical journal from the uk. It talks about McCain and his cancer prognosis.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673608616189/fulltext
FM, yes I missed the sarcasm. My bad. Long day tussling with a troll on another thread.
Well hell MadPanda, don’t be bashful! Grab your gaff and dive in. ;o)
True “HYPOCRISY” is is not providing education and access to birth control that causes unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion. Because “god told us so”. Lying and disinformation and ignorance are what cause abortions.
Disingenuous shit heels…
#69:
“A foetus DOES have rights. Everything that exsists (sic)has rights due to no other reason than the very fact that they exist in reality.
Just because the US judicial system has chosen not to recognize the right to life of pre-born US human citizens, irrespective of the known will of the majority of US citizens that do respect those rights, in no way changes the fundamental reality that any being that exists has it’s own right to exist as it is.
To hamper or destroy a unique existence is a fundamental breach of the respect due of us toward other beings in this shared universe. When it is the progeny of our own species that we destroy, it is an unconscionable violation of the truth of our very being.”
Rights are defined and either granted by being given lip service to or actually protected by human societies, not by the universe.
As such, should rights be defined and granted due to an accumulation of living cells due to
– the chromosome composition of the two organisms which initiated them?
– the sentience of that accumulation?
– a combination of both?
If to just the former: a clump of non-sentient cells is all, whereas an organism who can both feel and think is nothing.
What do you think would a disinterested party, a non-terrestrial intelligence, for example (I don’t believe in any, mind you, because there is no evidence for any) say would be the more rational designation of granting “rights”?
I.e, you need to refine your argument to “rights of a zygote, embryo, or fetus due to the chromosome number and type of the parents” and to defend that statement for it to have any substance.
J: A foetus DOES have rights. Everything that exsists has rights due to no other reason than the very fact that they exist in reality.
Although I agree that a foetus has rights, I think your second sentence here is a bit of a sweeping statement. Plants do not have rights. Animals arguably have rights (we won’t go into that issue here), but certainly less than the rights of humans.
Human beings certainly do have rights. But the operative question is when the foetus becomes a human being. I am confident in saying that a blastocyst or an embryo is not, in any meaningful sense, a human being; it’s a developing collection of cells. Whether it has “rights” is a topic of debate, but its rights certainly don’t correspond to those of a living human being, and it is safe to say that the mother’s rights are more important. In contrast, I also feel entirely confident in saying that a viable foetus in the third trimester is as much a human being as a born child is – hence why I categorically oppose late-term abortions for any other than crucial medical reasons.
I don’t like abortion; I’ve argued about it with a number of people here (and been labelled a misogynist for my pains). But it is sometimes a necessary evil. We cannot know for certain when a foetus really becomes a human being; we can only draw an arbitrary line (which, here in the UK, we do at 24 weeks – approximately the point of viability in most pregnancies). Below that line, the mother’s rights as a human being become more important; e.g. where a young girl has been raped or has been exploited and pressured into having sex (which happens a lot), and carrying the baby to term would destroy her life, I think we can all understand the moral justification for abortion. But I am totally against abortions which occur past the point of viability, unless necessary to save the life of the mother.
When I was younger I was much more of an absolutist on abortion; I would have said it was always wrong and should always be illegal. So, J, I do sympathise with your point of view. But real life is more complicated than that. Killing a foetus is never a good thing to do – but if it’s that or allow a young girl’s life to be ruined (when, in many cases, social pressure or exploitation by older men has led her into having sex), one can’t see it in terms of simplistic moral absolutes.
AFAICT, there are at least 3 people using the moniker “J”. The only thing they have in common is narcissistic personality disorder.
I mean, seriously, what kind of egotistical douchenozzle thinks they own a letter such that it can be used to “identify” them in a forum this size?
My favourite…
Then…
Can we look forward to Kathy’s support in teaching the Gospel of FSM alongside her holey bubble?
The creationistas ticked ALL the boxes; do you think they didn’t understand the question? I can see why; multiple choice is HARD.
I was very tickled to see the name of the 3rd candidate down the list on the link PZ posted – Sue Storm. Of course she picked a, c, e & g, but then being married to noted boffin Reed Richards, you’d expect that. :o)