Darwin’s Bullies

In Florida, the talk about ID science might be over for a while in the Polk school district, reports the Tampa Bay Online website.

I’ve already stated my view on this, that evolution should be taught (fully taught, meaning the strengths and weaknesses) and that it might not be a good time to introduce ID science to public schools.  That said, the reason that the Polk district is backing off is not due to anything more than being bullied by the Darwinists.

What happened? You can start with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster…They deluged Polk school board members with e-mail demanding equal time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism’s version of intelligent design.

Yes, the Darwinista decided that the best tactic would be to hound the school board members into submission with a deluge of emails.  This is quite possibly harassment, but what else would one expect from the Darwinists and their bankrupt idea?  Their only recourse is to use intimidation tactics to prop up their failed theory.

At least the board members seem to be taking the high road amidst all this.

Lofton, a former geometry teacher with a master’s degree in mathematics and one of the pro-intelligent design board members, said she has no interest in engaging with the Pastafarians or anyone else seeking to discredit intelligent design.

She describes herself as secure in her beliefs. “I’m a Christian. I personally believe that the Bible is inerrant truth and the word of God.”

With that in mind, is it worth quitting over the forced teaching of Darwinian evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation of the development of life?

Lofton says no. There’s been no talk by any other board member of taking such a stand. In fact, there seems to be great eagerness simply to return to the day-to-day work of running a school district with 90,000 students.

“My job is about a whole lot more than a handful of standards in science,” Lofton said. “We face issues that make that issue pale in comparison.”

Good for Lofton and the other board members.  If only the Darwinists could behave with as much civility.

Advertisements

10 responses to “Darwin’s Bullies

  1. I’ve already stated my view on this, that evolution should be taught (fully taught, meaning the strengths and weaknesses)

    Which weaknesses did you have in mind?

  2. The weaknesses that are swept under the rug, of course. Wells has pointed out some. Others are there if one dives in with any sort of eye to find the weaknesses, like my recent post on whale evolution where a bone is being called a supposed precursor of whales, found thousands of years after the cetacean split. The uses of vestigial organs could be discussed or the spectacular failures of the predictions of junk DNA, or the failures of evolutionary simulations, etc. There are lots of examples. That none of them are presented means it’s all about indoctrination, not learning.

  3. 1) A split of two organisms doesn’t presuppose that the parental organism immediately (or ever?) goes extinct. Simply because domesticated turkeys doesn’t presuppose that wild turkeys have gone extinct.

    2) Vestigial doesn’t mean non-functional. It means that they’ve lost most of their original function and structure. That these smaller, less complex structures get co-opted for something else doesn’t suggest anything.

    3) spectacular failures of the predictions of junk DNA Could you be more specific?

    There are lots of examples.

    Could you name a few more? Clearly you have misunderstood some aspects of evolution, and I don’t understand the “weaknesses” that you are naming. Could you name one that isn’t easily shown to be due to the intelligent design proponent misunderstanding biology?

  4. factician,
    No, a split doesn’t mean that one goes extinct, but it is purely conjecture to say that you’ve found evidence of a precursor from finding a bone that post dates the precursor you are proposing. Darwinists have gotten vestigial wrong many times and now are trying to prop themselves up when the evidence doesn’t suit them and they can’t hide from it. And, ID has predicted finding functions in junk DNA, and that’s exactly what is happening. Seriously, you can only tap dance for so long, and your plaint that because I don’t agree with you that I obviously misunderstand is pure pablum. Yes, I’m sure that Darwinists are the only ones capable of understanding evolution? Actually, considering the dogmatic nature of Darwinism, that might just be true, but Darwinists do not have a monopoly on being able to read and interpret the data, and they certainly aren’t doing so correctly very often.

  5. have gotten vestigial wrong many times and now are trying to prop themselves up when the evidence doesn’t suit them and they can’t hide from it.

    Hmmmm… I can’t speak for anyone else, and as to what other people have gotten wrong. But does one person getting something wrong demolish a theory? Not really. It just means that one person is wrong.

    Granted, I’ve only been in science for about 15 years, but probably the last time that I thought vestigial meant non-functional I was in high school.

    Anyone who tells you that vestigial means non-functional is deeply mistaken. It seems that you don’t like to be corrected, and for that I am sorry to offend you. But don’t take one person’s misunderstanding of a term to be indicative of a problem in the theory. Vestigial can potentially mean non-functional. But the primary meaning is (taken from the OED): 1. Of the nature of a vestige; remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form: a. spec. in Biol. of certain organs or structures.

    It means that the structure is considerably smaller and atrophied relative to the original structure.

    And, ID has predicted finding functions in junk DNA, and that’s exactly what is happening.

    Let’s expand on this! A positive prediction of ID (though not clearly an exclusively ID prediction, but let’s run with this anyway). ID predicts finding functions in ‘junk’ DNA! Does it predict that all DNA will have a function for the organism? Or just some of the ‘junk’ DNA?

  6. factician,
    Nowhere did I say that vestigial is the same as useless in function. I’m sorry, but you will have to parse my words more closely before you get self righteous.

    And, nowhere have I said that if one person gets something wrong that it destroys a theory. Again, start actually reading my arguments before you get self righteous.

    ID predicts that most junk DNA will have a function. There’s not much reason to write in junk to a code if you are a designer. I would hesitate to say “all” though because we do know that evolution happens, so I would guess that the code has evolved (or really devolved) at times in different organisms. That means that it should be theoretically possible to try and trace those devolutions back to find out what the original purpose of the code was.

  7. Perhaps given this statement: Darwinists have gotten vestigial wrong many times and now are trying to prop themselves up when the evidence doesn’t suit them and they can’t hide from it. and this statement Nowhere did I say that vestigial is the same as useless in function. you can help clarify for me.

    Most creationists get upset when they discover that vestigial and non-functional were the same. I assumed from the above statement that you were one of these. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Perhaps you can explain for me what you meant by: “gotten vestigial wrong many times”.

    As ID predicting that most junk DNA will have a function. Let’s start to get more specific…

    Roughly 50% of the human genome looks like the remnants of old transposable elements (molecular parasites, if you will). What does ID predict that these will do functionally? How is it that this large chunk of DNA that *looks* like ancient parasitic DNA will end up being functional? What will make this clearer?

  8. Darwinists have assumed that vestigial organs are superfluous because they had outlived their usefulness. Yet, we find that is not the case. That’s just one example.

    As to DNA, it’s funny that you cite 50%, because the percentage continues to decrease all the time as we find uses for more and more of it, and less and less of it looks like “the remnants of old transposable elements.” I can’t predict what specific functions we will find from some snippet of code, nor should I be required to. I do think we will find more useful code in there the more we search and the 50% figure will continue to decrease.

  9. Darwinists have assumed that vestigial organs are superfluous because they had outlived their usefulness.

    See, you just said that you didn’t think vestigial meant non-functional. And now you go and say that vestigial means superfluous. It doesn’t mean that either. It means smaller, less complex. Again, I point you to what I wrote above. Just because you don’t understand what vestigial means, doesn’t mean that vestigial organs are a problem for evolution by natural selection.

    As to DNA, it’s funny that you cite 50%, because the percentage continues to decrease all the time as we find uses for more and more of it

    I’m sorry, but this statement is completely false. There are on the order of 10s of millions of fragments of dead transposons in human DNA. There are currently less than 10 that are known to be “useful” to the human body, and they really don’t resemble transposons very closely (in fact, of those, most of them wouldn’t show up as being transposons by merely sequence gazing, so can be effectively removed from this consideration, as they wouldn’t have shown up in the primary sequence as transposons to begin with).

    Try again? What are those millions of transposons for? How can you explain them, if not by invoking that they are the remnants of molecular parasites gone extinct?

  10. Factician,
    It’s apparent that you have trouble with reading comprehension skills when someone disagrees with you. Nowhere did I say that vestigial means useless as you continue to try and claim. I understand what vestigial means, it is the Darwinists that have mucked up their predictions.

    As late as 1996, it was still claimed that 95% of our genome was junk DNA, now you claim it is only 50%. Who needs to try again? A further study has shown that perhaps 97% of the non-coding DNA has a function. Who needs to try again? Get your facts straight next time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s