Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,13:04    Paul Nelson mentioned how he was looking into having an open discussion area for the content of "Explore Evolution". Well, this one is up and running. If you do post over on the DI's website, though, please remember to copy the text before you hit "submit" and bring it right over here. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

hooligans Posts: 114 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,13:17    I posted this on PT but thought I'd add it here as well: I can see that the DI and this teacher from Tacoma are trying to shave as close as possible to what is allowed. The key reason I object to this "teach the controversy" concept is because a better approach is to teach what is understood and admit ignorance when you don't know the answer. Virtually all controversy is born from a lack of knowledge about a particular subject. In science, the best method for reducing controversy is to review what is known and then set about filling in the gaps of knowledge through research. What this text, Explore Evolution, attempts to do is use the gaps of knowledge to create controversy where none should exist. Instead, a sound educatinal program would teach what is known and understood and make clear where and what is not known or what is still unclear. This way future biologists can form ideas of how best to apply their research and labrotory skills in college and in life. More important than teachimg any controversy is teaching kids how to actually conduct labrotory investigations and how to use the scienctific method. If you need to teach the controversy to get kids excited about science, your not much of a teacher.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,14:40    http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,15:00    Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,14:40) http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being. Yeah, and part of the deception is that even though they say this book is for (among others)     Quote College-level biology instructors who teach freshman or honors General Biology courses or stand-alone courses on evolution. Explore Evolution is an excellent college-level supplementary textbook providing much more information about the evidence for and against contemporary Darwin’s theory than standard textbooks are able to offer. they don't seem to have any option for getting an examination copy. Since I do fit their description above, I'd like to see the book. And I sure don't want to pay for it. Of course, Of Pandas and People had the same policy; I had to pay to get a copy of that one too. I guess it was worth it; I did manage to get a six-pack of home-brew by winning a bet about one of the illustrations in that book! -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,15:19    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 13 2007,15:00) Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,14:40) http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being. {snip} they don't seem to have any option for getting an examination copy. Since I do fit their description above, I'd like to see the book. And I sure don't want to pay for it. Of course, Of Pandas and People had the same policy; I had to pay to get a copy of that one too. I guess it was worth it; I did manage to get a six-pack of home-brew by winning a bet about one of the illustrations in that book! You're obviously under the impression that these people are in the EDUCATION field.  I understand how that might throw you  :O -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,15:34    Their press release gave contact information. I asked; they didn't seem to have enough review copies to go around. At least, I asked in early June, and it hadn't appeared in my mailbox as of about ten days ago. Quote New Biology Textbook Seeks to Improve Teaching of Evolution by Promoting Inquiry-Based Approach For Immediate Release Contact: Anika Smith (206) 292-0401 x155 questions@exploreevolution.com Explore Evolution (link) : The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers Ltd., Melbourne and London, 2007) is the first biology textbook to present the scientific evidence both for and against key aspects of Darwinian evolution. "Sadly, the majority of biology textbooks in use today are 'dumbed-down' and do a poor job explaining evolution," said Dr. John West of Discovery Institute, the book's United States distributor. "Explore Evolution will improve the teaching of evolution by providing teachers and students with more information about evolution than they are likely to find in any other textbook written at the same level." West is Associate Director of the Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Explore Evolution promotes inquiry-based learning, encouraging students to participate in the process of discovery, deliberation, and argument that scientists use to form their theories. "Explore Evolution brings to the classroom data and debates that already are raised regularly by scientists in their science journals," emphasized science education policy analyst Casey Luskin, M.S., J.D. "Exposure to these real-world scientific debates will make the study of evolution more interesting to students, and it will train them to be better scientists by encouraging them to actually practice the kind of critical thinking and analysis that forms the heart of science." Co-authored by two state university biology professors, two philosophers of science, and a science curriculum writer, Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both AP and pre-AP life science courses, and doctoral scientists working for industry and government. The textbook has been pilot-tested in classes at both the secondary school and college levels. The textbook looks at five areas of biology that are typically viewed as confirming the modern theory of evolution: fossil succession, anatomical homology, embryology, natural selection, and natural selection and mutation. For each area of study, Explore Evolution explains the evidence and arguments used to support Darwin's theory and then examines the evidence and arguments that lead some scientists to question the adequacy of Darwinian explanations. Each chapter concludes with a section called Further Debate that explores the current state of the discussion. Explore Evolution is ideally suited for:    * AP Biology teachers who need a stimulating capstone unit for the last 5-6 weeks of their AP course after their students have taken the AP biology test.    * High School General Biology teachers who wish to deepen their own understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory and want to incorporate inquiry-based learning into their teaching of evolution.    * College-level biology instructors who teach freshman or honors General Biology courses or stand-alone courses on evolution.    * Home school teachers who want to provide their students with a rigorous college-preparatory curriculum in the life sciences that stresses critical thinking skills.    * Parents who desire to supplement and enrich their children's school instruction in biological evolution in preparation for college.    * Interested adults who wish to inform themselves about the scientific debates over key aspects of modern evolutionary theory. For more information, visit the textbook website at www.exploreevolution.com (link), where you will find the introduction to the textbook, table of contents, author and publisher information, as well as sample pages from the book. Review copies and materials can be requested from Anika Smith, (206) 292-0401 ext. 155, or [EMAIL=asmith@discovery.org.]asmith@discovery.org.[/EMAIL] About the Publisher Established in 1982, Hill House Publishers Pty. Ltd. (Melbourne and London) specializes in publishing science and nature books of exceptional quality. In addition to Explore Evolution, its books include The Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World (2001), The Birds of Asia, vol. 7 (1992), The Mammals of Australia, vol 2 (2002), and World Butterflies (2006). A publishing partner of the Natural History Museum in London, Hill House has been awarded an exclusive license by the museum to produce authentic facsimiles of priceless and rare antiquarian books, prints and maps from the world-famous libraries of that institution. For more information about Hill House Publishers, visit www.worldbutterflies.co.uk Link. ### -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,17:46    From the "Explore Evolution" site: Quote One way scientists have advanced the frontiers of human knowledge is through spirited, yet civil, debate about the meaning of publicly accessible evidence. Scientists often debate how best to interpret the available evidence. Controversy in science is nothing new. It’s not a distraction; it’s normal. Explore Evolution is part of the continuing debate over Neo-Darwinism. In the Further Debate section of the website we invite serious scientists and educators to take part in the ongoing discussion about the scientific issues raised in Explore Evolution. If you’d like to submit scientific comments or critiques about Explore Evolution, please send them in. We will review them and address them on these pages. For some particularly relevant comments or critiques, we will ask the author’s permission to publish their response, so please include your name, address, e-mail address and phone number with your submission. Submit items to furtherdebate@exploreevolution.com Ok, that's peachy. Here's a game we can play, and it is easy. When going through "Explore Evolution", trace arguments it makes back to the usual antievolution lore, classified and enumerated via Mark Isaak's Index of Creationist Claims. Send it in, noting the page where it occurs in "Explore Evolution", the URL where Isaak has dissected it, and ask why they believe telling children falsehoods makes for good education. Oh, yeah, don't forget to post what you write here... we can add points for the number of arguments each person submits that get the big "Ignored" response. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,18:14    the email I just sent   Quote I was disappointed to see the same old creationist arguments in the new ID textbook "Explore Evolution". Your sample pages 30-31 (http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek-inside_30-31.pdf) repeat old claims about the cambrian explosion appearing out of nowhere. As you well know, this argument comes from the days when ID advocates were still calling themselves creationists. It is documented at the Index of Creationist Claims here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html This is not exploring evolution, it is promoting creationism. Sowing confusion among children in order to advance your religion is unethical. I hope it fails the same way renaming yourselves ID Theorists failed. Steve Story [redacted] Chapel Hill, NC 919-[redacted] Edited by stevestory on July 13 2007,19:19

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:03    Dang. Here's one which is very similar, but doesn't exactly match the ICC: dishonest creationist textbook: Quote Critics of the fossil succession argument point out that what is true of animals is also true of plants. For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago. This rapid appearance is sometimes called the angiosperm big bloom. “The origin of the angiosperms remains unclear,” writes one team of researchers. “Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record…with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80-90 million years before their appearance.”10 This contradiction was so perplexing that Darwin himself referred to it as “an abominable mystery.”11 As a result, critics say the pattern of fossil appearance does not support Darwin’s picture of a gradually branching tree. Index of creationist BS: Quote Claim CC301: In the Cambrian explosion, all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life. Source: Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery, pp. 40-45 Response:   1. The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed. some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.   2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.   3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.   4. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals. links: http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek-inside_24-25.pdf http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:09    That's excellent! If they want open discussion, we can provide it. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:25    That creationist textbook which is increasingly pissing me off: well where have I seen that kind of crap before? Oh yeah Quote Evolution and Creation Cky J. Carrigan, Ph.D. (July 2005) Why is it important to study EVOLUTION (Darwinism)? •         Darwinism Poisons Morals •         Darwinism Poisons Evangelism •         Darwinism Poisons Truth (Not AJTB) [snip] Principle of Irreducible Complexity applied to … •         Bird Lungs and Wings from Reptiles? and speaking of birds, how about our jailbird friend Kent Hovind? Quote Hovind: "Reptiles have a sack-type lung, and they breathe in and out. Birds have a tubular-type lung, and they breathe through their lungs, not in and out of their lungs." http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/F.html http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek_inside_1.pdf http://www.ontruth.com/creationevolutionnotes.htm Edited by stevestory on July 13 2007,20:31

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:36    Seeing the ellipse in that quote made me curious as to what the whole thing says. Quote Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record during the Jurassic [b][208–145 million years ago (Mya)][b], with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80–90 million years before their appearance. Nevertheless, the existence during the Jurassic of all known sister taxa to the angiosperms implies that the angiosperm lineage must have been established by that time [1]. However, this ancestral lineage, coined ‘angiophytes’, is unlikely to be equivalent to angiosperms as known from the Cretaceous (145 Mya) through to recent forms because it might have lacked many of the characteristic angiosperm features [2]. It is presumed that angiophytes went through a period of little diversification during the Late Triassic (220 Mya) and Jurassic, either because the diversity-enhancing features, such as flowers, of the crown-group angiosperms had not yet evolved in stem angiophytes or because the diversity among angiophytes was inhibited during the Jurassic by environmental conditions or biotic interactions [2]. (my emphasis). The removed portion describes the range of the Jurassic period, rather than the "Big Bloom." But a couple paragraphs later, some more interesting detail is given: Quote The fossil record provides excellent evidence for this rapid diversification in floral form during the earliest phases of recorded flowering plant history [5]. Only 10–12 million years elapsed between the first fossil records (not, vert, similar130 Mya) and clear documentation of all of the major lines of flowering plants 1 and 6. This diversification of angiosperms occurred during a period (the Aptian, 125–112 Mya; Figure 1) when their pollen and megafossils were rare components of terrestrial floras and species diversity was low 1 and 6. Angiosperm fossils show a dramatic increase in diversity between the Albian (112–99.6 Mya) and the Cenomanian (99.6–93.5 Mya) at a global scale 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Figure 1). Shockingly, Figure 1 is a "gradually branching tree," which these mysterious critics say the data does not support. It's too bad the sample cuts off there; I'd like to know what these critics do think the data supports. I also have a brief question for Paul Nelson, if he does show up. Do you honestly believe that this is a college-level textbook, appropriate for use at the University of Washington, for example? Source:Trends in Ecology & Evolution Volume 20, Issue 11, November 2005, Pages 591-597 -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:45    Wikipedia: Quote n 1998, Nelson gained a PhD in philosophy from the University of Chicago. The Discovery Institute's Wedge Document,[2] amongst other sources, claimed that Nelson was publishing a work derived from his thesis, "Common Descent, Generative Entrenchment, and the Epistemology in Evolutionary Inference", criticizing the principle of common descent, as part of the Evolutionary Monographs series. The Evolutionary Monographs series is edited by evolutionary biologist Leigh van Valen. Biologist John M. Lynch however notes that it is a "second-tier publication" unsuited to such work, and that the work has been "forthcoming" for quite some time.[3] Considering that Paul's approaching his 10th year overdue, I really don't think he should have stopped to write a textbook. Poor time-management skills.

hooligans Posts: 114 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,20:40    EE states that: Quote For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago. This rapid appearance is sometimes called the angiosperm big bloom. “The origin of the angiosperms remains unclear,” Ah yes, yet another example of an argument from ignorance. Hmm, too bad for EE progress is being made in understanding this perplexing problem. Check out this article entitled South Pacific Plant May Be Missing Link In Evolution Of Flowering Plants. The problem with EE is that it tries to stimulate controversy where, instead, a teacher should stimulate a thirst to understand what is known and where the gaps in knowledge are. This way students will be able to do research to help find answers.

Roland Anderson Posts: 51 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,03:44    Got it! Wesley, that press release contains what I think could well be the name of the next scam: "Inquiry-based approach." I am looking forward to the Chesterfield, VA "Inquiry-based approach" trial already.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,05:24    As you might have expected by now, "inquiry-based approach" is already-existing jargon in the education field. The Discovery Institute's relentless drive to Humpty-Dumpty-ize speech continues. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,06:04    Table of Contents for "Explore Evolution": Quote PREFACE INTRODUCTION 1 DEFINING SOME TERMS 7 ISSUES IN QUESTION 9 UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT Arguments For and Against FOSSIL SUCCESSION 15 Case For 16 Reply 22 Further Debate 30 ANATOMICAL HOMOLOGY 39 Case For 40 Reply 43 Further Debate 49 MOLECULAR HOMOLOGY 51 Case For 52 Reply 57 Further Debate 61 EMBRYOLOGY 65 Case For 66 Reply 68 Further Debate 70 BIOGEOGRAPHY 73 Case For 74 Reply 76 Further Debate 79 THE CREATIVE POWER OF NATURAL SELECTION Arguments For and Against NATURAL SELECTION 83 Case For 84 Reply 90 NATURAL SELECTION AND MUTATION 97 Case For 98 Reply 102 Further Debate 108 A NEW CHALLENGE Arguments For and Against MOLECULAR MACHINES 115 Case For 116 Reply 119 Further Debate 121 SPECIAL STUDIES NATURAL SELECTION AS SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST 126 WHAT FOSSILS CAN'T TELL YOU 128 CONCLUSION THE NATURE OF DISSENT IN SCIENCE 142 GLOSSARY 144 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 149 CREDITS 154 INDEX 157 Does this look like a list of current issues in evolutionary science? I don't think so. The notion that the Discovery Institute is engaged in any small quibble concerning the power of evolutionary process to produce the history and diversity of life is blown by line six in the table of contents, where they note the heading for the first eighty pages or so will be "Arguments for and against universal common descent". What is the alternative to universal common descent? I expect that they never say so directly here, but our culture is permeated with the telling of the narrow religious doctrine of special creation, so one can certainly ask whether the text that follows especially privileges special creation. That is, they have eighty pages in which to include a sentence saying, "Of course, scientists in the 19th century investigated the doctrine of special creation and found it not amenable to scientific study, and the claims of particular mythologies concerning life's history to have no basis in fact." Will we see any such straightforward disavowal that that is what they want children to accept as an alternative? I don't think so. Various Index entries that look like they will be applicable: # CB800: Systematics    * CB801. Science cannot define "species."    * CB805. Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.          o (see also CC201: smooth continuum through the fossil record.)    * CB810. Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus.    * CB811. Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes.    * CB821. Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent.    * CB822. Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited. The whole section under CB900: Evolution The whole section under CC: Paleontology And a bunch of entries related to natural selection, of course. We shall see. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,08:41    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 14 2007,06:04) Table of Contents for "Explore Evolution": Same ole creationist crap.  (shrug) These morons must be genetically incapable of learning from previous experience. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,13:44    I see that "Exploring Evolution" is not available on Amazon.  Since I only buy creationist books used or remaindered, it will be a while before I read this one. I got a copy of Behe's latest book already for $11.  Since it was a new copy, I suppose it was considered overstock. Edited by Dr.GH on July 14 2007,13:46 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,20:29    I've made a start on an "Explore Evolution" companion. I see this as a resource to complete the critical analysis experience that EE's authors failed to make any progress upon. Something that I just spent a chunk of time on was setting up for comparisons of quotations in EE to original sources. I've already incorporated the one on angiosperm evolution from earlier in this thread, and located another in the TOA Quotemine Project. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

hooligans Posts: 114 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,21:18    Why are they quoting the Science Framework for California Schools from 1990 in EE? I couldn't find anything on the framework from 1990. However I did find this gem on page ix of the 2004 framework : Quote Discussions of any scientific fact, hy­ pothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history–social science and English–language arts curricula. and Quote As a matter of principle, sci­ence teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard. Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. I'm wondering how the 2004 frameworks mesh with what EE is trying to convey. Too me it looks like the California standards are well written and clear. I'm also wondering how the DI can support secret research labs in light of what I read in the 2004 Science Framework for California Schools on page 20: Quote Science does not take place in a secret place isolated from the rest of society.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,21:27    Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,15:40) http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being. I don't know much about literature. I think that's well-known. Sometimes I talk with my playwright friend John and, upon mentioning some writer, hear him say, "That guy's pretty clunky." I freely confess I usually don't know what that means. But reading over this sentence of mine, "read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being." there seems to be something there I would describe as clunky. Some problem with the way the words fit together which slows down the comprehension. Can anyone explain this to me?

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,06:17    Quote Abrupt Appearance That's a section heading from EE on page 22, as they begin to talk about why they don't like "Universal Common Descent". "Abrupt appearance" has a long history in antievolution, being probably most notably developed by lawyer Wendell Bird. It is also a feature of the textbook, Of Pandas and People, and many of its explicitly creation science drafts. Its deployment in EE differs in no discernible particular from its past use. Come on, Paul; did you think that we wouldn't notice? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,08:17    Quote (stevestory @ July 14 2007,22:27) Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,15:40) http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being. I don't know much about literature. I think that's well-known. Sometimes I talk with my playwright friend John and, upon mentioning some writer, hear him say, "That guy's pretty clunky." I freely confess I usually don't know what that means. But reading over this sentence of mine, "read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being." there seems to be something there I would describe as clunky. Some problem with the way the words fit together which slows down the comprehension. Can anyone explain this to me? Although it's a common locution, your sentence demands a lot of "computation" to extract its meaning, which slows the reader down. Example: "tell me you aren't irritated" is more elaborate than "you'll be irritated," a cousin to a double negative that requires that I imagine someone denying the obvious. (Naturally, it is the obviousness of the deception that this rhetorical device intends to emphasize). "How deceptive they are being" slows down because of the verb form "being deceptive"; the noun "deception" is simpler. "Read that page. You'll be irritated by the deception" doesn't require this sort of computation (although is quite prosaic). -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,11:06    Hi all, Thanks for setting up this area, Wes.  I'll be in Seattle this week, and hope to set up an open forum to discussion Explore Evolution (EE) at the EE webpage.  In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies. Looking forward to a vigorous discussion, Paul

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,11:44    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,11:06) Hi all, Thanks for setting up this area, Wes.  I'll be in Seattle this week, and hope to set up an open forum to discussion Explore Evolution (EE) at the EE webpage.  In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies. Looking forward to a vigorous discussion, Paul WHY? Why don't you just debate it HERE? I don't understand why you feel you need a seperate forum for this when there's one here which is perfectly fine and has very little moderation, (almost) everyone who might be interested will be able to join in, and you're in an area with more than a few extremly qualified scientists. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,12:14    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,11:06) In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies. Just read the Wedge document, the manifold criticisms of Pandas (and moldering junk such as Icons of Evolution) and the Dover Decision.  Why start the whole process over again? Do you really think you're that clever? Edit: typo -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,12:32    Hi Paul, Will you be responding on this thread? I would sincerely like some help trying to explain this stuff. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:09    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 15 2007,12:44) I don't understand why you feel you need a seperate forum for this when there's one here which is perfectly fine and has very little moderation, (almost) everyone who might be interested will be able to join in, and you're in an area with more than a few extremly qualified scientists. as they say on Law and Order, "asked and answered".

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:16    1980's Scientific Creationism: The following (bogus) problems with evolution exist, therefore God did it. 1990's Intelligent Design: The following (bogus) problems with evolution exist, therefore God Somebody did it. 2000's Exploring Evolution: The following (bogus) problems with evolution exist, therefore God Somebody did it....

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:19    Paul, is Exploring Evolution going to contain a single new argument we haven't seen in previous creationist 'textbooks'?

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:26    Another quotation examined: In EE, p.7, cited as from California Science Framework, 1990:14 & 17:   Quote "The process of teaching science requires a precise, unambiguous use of language ... [and] ...Scientists, teachers, and students must communicate the definitions of scientific terms and use them with consistency."4 The quotation appears to be taken from a secondary source: Wiester, John L., "Teaching Evolution as Non-Science: Examples From California's 1990 Science Framework," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 43 (September 1991): 190-193.   Quote The process of teaching science requires a precise, unambiguous use of language .... (p. 14). Educators must be precise in the use of scientific language because that language is crucial to its teaching (p. 17). For clear communication scientists, teachers, and students must communicate the definitions of scientific terms and use them with consistency (p. 17). Notice the identical placement of the first ellipsis. Note also the unmarked change in case of "Scientists", which means either Wiester misquoted the Framework, EE misquoted Wiester, or both. There is a long history of antievolution advocates playing "telephone" with quotes and arguments. The quotation appears not to be the only thing borrowed from Wiester; the following conceptual summation appears to be the thrust of EE as well:   Quote While the California Framework contains some excellent statements of what science is and how it should be taught, it treats evolution as exempt from the very principles of science it so vigorously espouses. This paper presents three examples of the Framework departing from its stated rules of science to treat evolution in a non-scientific manner. The examples chosen are: 1. Lack of definition and consistency in use of terms; 2. Failure to discuss both similarities and differences when comparing evolution to other branches of science; and 3. Failure to present evolutionary science as open to challenge and free of dogmatism. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:30    I'll wager a bottle of scotch that in the end, we'll trace over 100 items from Explore (Some Lies About) Evolution back to earlier creationist junk.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:32    Given that two of the three quotations examined so far contribute to that tally, who do you expect to take that bet? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,16:21    Steve & Wes, If you can spell out the terms of the bet, I'll take it. Any brand of single malt, under $100 (a bottle).   :)

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:05    Dang. Wiester: Quote In biology, the word "evolution" has at least three separate meanings. These are 1. change over time, a statement about pattern; 2. Organisms are related by descent through common ancestry, a statement about process; and 3. A particular explanatory mechanism (Darwinism) for the pattern and process described in the first and second meanings.2 Three headings from EE's introduction: Quote Evolution #1: "Change over time." Evolution #2: "Universal Common Descent." Evolution #3: "The Creative Power of Natural Selection." -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:07    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,11:06) Hi all, Thanks for setting up this area, Wes.  I'll be in Seattle this week, and hope to set up an open forum to discussion Explore Evolution (EE) at the EE webpage.  In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies. Looking forward to a vigorous discussion, Paul Hi Paul. I have a few questions that I asked you months ago, that you ran off without answering.  If you like, I'd be happy to set up another thread, just for the two of us, so you can run away again without answering any of them. OK? BTW, Paul, has creation, uh, "science", come up with any new arguments in the past 40 years?  Any at all? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:09    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 15 2007,11:44) WHY? Why don't you just debate it HERE? I don't understand why you feel you need a seperate forum for this when there's one here which is perfectly fine and has very little moderation I think you've just answered your own question. Young-earth creationists NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES "debate" anyone in any forum that they can't control. (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:11    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,16:21) Steve & Wes, If you can spell out the terms of the bet, I'll take it. Any brand of single malt, under $100 (a bottle).   :) Paul, since creationism is already illegal to teach in public schools, what utility do you see for your, uh, "science textbook" . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:48    Paul, is Exploring Evolution going to contain a single new argument we haven't seen in previous creationist 'textbooks'?

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,17:57    Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2007,17:48) Paul, is Exploring Evolution going to contain a single... argument...? You pretty much could have used this. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,18:03    Hmm...100 was a hasty number-- from the table of contents, http://exploreevolution.com/table_of_contents.php , the book only has about 143 pages of text. Expecting to find 100 creationist retreads in 143 pages might be a bit much. I do expect to find at least one every three or four pages, though, so I bet we'll find at least 40.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,18:56    Quote As we said before, Darwin’s theory is made up of several ideas, each with supporting arguments. For each argument in Darwin’s case, we will begin by explaining the argument, and examining the evidence in support of it. (We call this the Case For.) Then, we will spend some time examining the claims and evidence that lead some scientists to question the argument. (We call this the Reply.) We then look at the current state of the discussion in a section called “Further Debate.” Throughout the book, you may notice that the Reply section is often longer than the Case For section. There is an important reason for this. Yeah, the reason for this is, they don't give a shit about teaching evolution. They just want to cast doubt on it. Every piece of this book I read is thick with dishonesty, and it's making me revise my opinion about the honesty of some people.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,22:11    Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2007,19:56) Yeah, the reason for this is, they don't give a shit about teaching evolution. They just want to cast doubt on it. Every piece of this book I read is thick with dishonesty, and it's making me revise my opinion about the honesty of some people. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,23:56    Henry M. Morris, 1977, The Scientific Case for Creation, Creation-Life Publishers. Quote The scientific model of origins that best fits all the available scientific data is that of a recent, supernatural creation of the universe and all its basic components by a transcendent Creator. The writer hopes this brief study will prove challenging to the reader and will encourage him or her to further consideration of this vital issue and all its implications. EE presents no alternative, but does have this: Quote One final word. We don't want you to simply accept this book as the last word on this subject any more than we'd want you to uncritically accept the word of other textbooks that present only the case for Darwinian evolution. That's the beauty of open inquiry—and of science, itself. That's also an example of the kind of critical thinking that we hope this book will encourage. Look at the evidence, listen to the arguments, and think for yourself. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,00:20    EE in preface: Quote Throughout the book, you may notice that the Reply section is often longer than the Case For section. There is an important reason for this. The Case For is the version taught in most school textbooks, and you should, therefore, already be familiar with it to some extent. The Reply section has not yet been presented in most school textbooks. The Reply is sometimes longer simply because it often takes more time to explain an unfamiliar concept or idea. EE one page further down in preface: Quote Finally, you should know something about us, the authors. Two of us are biology professors doing research on evolution-related topics. Two of us are philosophers of science who have specialized in studying the logic of evolutionary arguments. One of us is a science curriculum writer. All of us happen to have reservations about various aspects of contemporary evolutionary theory, but we all think that students should learn more—not less—about this theory than they presently do. So, while we present criticisms of the theory that many biology books don't present, we also explain and develop the arguments for contemporary Darwinian theory in more detail than other standard textbooks. Concerning the background of one of the authors, Scott Minnich, who is one of the two researchers referred to in the second sentence above, we have this self-testimony in the KvD trial: Quote [495]Q. Please tell us your experience with regard to that quote that nothing makes sense in biology in light of evolution. [496]A. In my entire academic training as an undergraduate or graduate student or as a post-doc at Purdue and Princeton University, I never once took a formal course in evolution. In fact, when I requested it as a graduate student, you know, to include it on my graduate student study plan, it was refused by my committee with a, you know, you don't have time to do it, it's not necessary. So that has been my experience as a biologist and a practicing, you know, experimental biologist, I've never been required to take a single course in evolution. My exposure formally was in my undergraduate 100 and 200 level introductory biology classes were we got basic evolution, you know, Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, founder effect. So the basis tenets were there, but in terms of really looking at this in detail, I haven't. I guess for Scott Minnich, other people should learn more, not less, concerning evolution. Of course, that rather destroys the notion that Minnich is well-qualified to present evolution "in more detail" than the various textbooks that he never bothered to take an accompanying course in. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,00:47    Ralph Seelke, Paul Nelson's co-author on EE, giving testimony on the age of the earth: Quote CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray, 15 minutes. THE WITNESS: Yes, I do believe 4.5 billion years. MR. IRIGONEGARAY: I'm glad to hear that. We have no questions for you. The fossil record section at least discusses all ages in standard geological timeframes. I have not seen anywhere that an age of the earth is mentioned so far. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,00:54    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,16:21) Steve & Wes, If you can spell out the terms of the bet, I'll take it. Any brand of single malt, under $100 (a bottle).   :) Paul, I've been trying to get these guys to stick their facts down ever since Dover. I think you should engage them here. You have the power of conviction and eloquence on our side. This Lenny guy simply won't shut up. And Steve and Wes, well, it goes without saying. Thanks for your consideration, BWE -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,00:58    EE: Quote One of us is a science curriculum writer. Intervarsity Press: Quote Moneymaker is a cartoonist and illustrator. He and his wife, Janet, operate Readable, Ink, a writing services company in Seattle, Washington. He is also a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Let's ask the Wikipedia question: is Moneymaker's status as an author of science curricula verifiable? Intervarsity Press doesn't seem to have taken note of that, and one would think that they would be inclined to do so. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,01:33    EE, p.44: Quote In another surprising twist, biologists have also discovered many cases in which the same genes help to produce different adult structures.' Consider, for instance, the eyes of the squid, the fruit fly, and mouse. (ee Figure 2:2) The fruit fly has a compound eye, with dozens of separate lenses. The squid and mouse both have single-lens camera eyes, but they develop along very different pathways, and are wired differently from each other. Yet the same gene is involved in the development of all three of these eyes. What, was it too hard to add a sentence to note that the downstream activation triggered by hox gene expression is different among all of those species? Or, at least that Pax6 is just one gene among many needed for camera eye formation? Georg Halder discussed the compound eye of Drosophila in this way: Quote The potential of eyeless to act as a developmental switch was tested by targeted expression of eyeless in tissues that do not normally express it (6). To do so, a transposon carrying the eyeless gene under the control of a transcriptional enhancer that stimulates expression in wing, leg, and antennal primordia was introduced into the fly genome. As a consequence, extra eyes developed on wings, legs, and antennae! These eyes consist of the full complement of different cell types normally found in a compound eye, including photoreceptors, pigment cells, cone cells, and bristles. In addition, the arrangement of the different cell types is the same as in a normal eye and the photoreceptors depolarize upon illumination. Evidently, eyeless can switch on the eye developmental program in which several thousand genes may act, thereby directing the formation of an organ with all its complexity. Several thousand genes... several thousand more than are brought to the attention of readers of EE. If this isn't mendacious on its face, then it bespeaks a deep incompetence in handling the data. It certainly isn't an example of teaching students more about evolution than they would learn from standard textbooks. Let me put up Halder's conclusion, a statement that, unlike the quote from EE, is actually informative: Quote What do these findings tell us about the evolution of eyes? The parallels in the eye developmental programs lead us to favor the idea that the common ancestor of all higher animals, including vertebrates and insects, already had a primitive eye and that the development of this ancestral eye was regulated by Pax-6 (16). This eye may have been a simple eyespot consisting of a cluster of photo-sensitive cells with no ability to form an image, a type of organ found in many animal phyla. Once a functional light sensing organ had evolved, nature apparently improved on its optical performance in many different ways, leading to the incredible variety of eyes seen today. During this process, Pax-6/eyeless continued to be used to control the development of the evolving eyes. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,07:09    Judging from Wes' discussion so far, it appears that many of the problems with this book, as was the case for Pandas, are omissions. Not exactly lies, but certainly not the whole truth as we know it today. That is a serious problem for any textbook, but it is unforgivable in a textbook that claims to explain things "in more detail" than a regular intro textbook. And it also makes it harder for students and teachers to discover the problems. Nice work, Mr. Nelson. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,07:15    Quote (BWE @ July 16 2007,00:54) This Lenny guy simply won't shut up. A reminder for you, Paul: http://www.geocities.com/lflank/nelson.html Any time you're ready . . . . . . (sound of crickets chirping) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,09:26    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 16 2007,07:15)   Quote (BWE @ July 16 2007,00:54) This Lenny guy simply won't shut up. A reminder for you, Paul: http://www.geocities.com/lflank/nelson.html Any time you're ready . . . . . . (sound of crickets chirping) Lenny While you're awaiting a response, take a peek here for some additional help with this problem. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,10:37    Quote Judging from Wes' discussion so far, it appears that many of the problems with this book, as was the case for Pandas, are omissions. Not exactly lies, but certainly not the whole truth as we know it today. As it is known to researchers and those interested in the research, anyway. They are likely going to have to defend this incredible dog in court at some point, and it looks like instead of one moment of stacking references in a witness's lap, there are going to be tens, if not hundreds of such opportunities for courtroom drama, multiplied by as many authors as happen to be called. They'd have been in much better position if they had actually presented "the case for", as they claimed to be doing. As it is, it can be demonstrated that they have short-changed "the case for", and in the instance of the "different eyes resulting from the same gene" gambit, to have manufactured a "case against" out of pure ignorance. I've said before that it is relatively simple to prove that someone is lying in these discussions, when you have the conditions in place of someone (1) claiming to be an expert in the topic and (2) spouting nonsense on the topic. It may be a bit fuzzy about whether they are lying about (1) or about (2), but it is certain that there is a lie about one of those. Certainly the brag from the preface about the EE authors' credentials qualifies to establish (1). I think that we will have plenty of instances of (2) by the time the examination is done. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,12:26    Wes, Don't you know  that a case against Darwinian materialism is a case for a return to good old religious values? Hmmm. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,14:10    Well, yeah, that's the whole "dual model" or "contrived dualism" thing, inherent in antievolution argumentation for at least several decades. The whole, "There are only two alternatives, evolution or creation, so if evolution is disproved, you must accept creationism!" schtick. IMO, EE is presented as a way to get at least the "not evolution!" part in front of public school students, and rely upon the general ubiquity of our social knowledge of creationism to fill in the rest. It did not work in McLean v. Arkansas. It did not work in Edwards v. Aguillard. And it didn't work in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. I doubt it will work in whatever the next one is called, either. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,14:53    Curses, foiled again. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

ck1 Posts: 65 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,15:22    On the EE website, one of the sample pages discusses something called the "artifact hypothesis".  Is this a term used by actual evolutionary biologists?  Most of the Google hits for this term seem to be to creationist websites.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,16:24    Here's an interesting one. In the same pages that discuss the "artifact hypothesis", we find this statement     Quote This point has been further emphasized by a recent Precambrian fossil find near Chengjiang, China. Scientists there recently discovered incredibly preserved microscopic fossils of sponge embryos. (Sponges are obviously soft-bodied. Their embryos are small and soft-bodied, too—other than their tiny spicules.) Paul Chien, a marine paleobiologist at the University of San Francisco argues that this discovery poses a grave difficulty for the artifact hypothesis. So I look up Paul Chien. The USF webpage lists his research interests thusly   Quote Prof. Chien is interested in the physiology and ecology of inter-tidal organisms. His research has involved the transport of amino acids and metal ions across cell membranes and the detoxification mechanisms of metal ions. He is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, which blurbs him   Quote Paul Chien is a Professor in the Department of Biology at the University of San Francisco and he was elected Chairman of his department twice. He received his Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California at Irvine's Department of Developmental & Cell Biology. He has held such positions as Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Environmental Engineering at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena (CIT); Instructor of Biology at The Chinese University of Hong Kong; and a consultant to both the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory of the CIT, and the Scanning Electron Microscopy & Micro X-ray Analyst in the Biology Department of Santa Clara University, California. Dr. Chien's work has been published in over fifty technical journals and he has spoken internationally, and on numerous occasions, from Brazil to mainland China-where he has also been involved in cooperative research programs. Dr. Chien edited and translated Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial into Chinese as well as Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution. A search of Web of Science revealed that he is the author of 15 peer-reviewed articles, but none in the area of "marine paleobiology". The most recent one is dated 1998, and is not biology at all; the title is "Relocation of civilization centers in ancient China: Environmental factors". The most recent biology-related article is from 1995; all of the articles seem to be focused on heavy metal toxicity and antidotes in marine critters, particularly worms (e.g.  UPTAKE, BINDING AND CLEARANCE OF DIVALENT CADMIUM IN GLYCERA-DIBRANCHIATA (ANNELIDA-POLYCHAETA); Author(s): RICE MA, CHIEN PK; Source: MARINE BIOLOGY 53 (1): 33-39 1979) So I guess my question to Paul Nelson would be "By what criteria is Paul K. Chien listed as a marine paleobiologist?" He looks like a run-of-the-mill toxicologist to me, and not a very productive one at that. Those articles in "over fifty technical journals" somehow never made it into the Web of Science... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,17:04    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 16 2007,09:26) Lenny While you're awaiting a response, take a peek here for some additional help with this problem. Aha.  So apparently it *IS* easier to nail Jello to a wall than it is to get a creationist to answer direct questions. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,18:44    Quote (ck1 @ July 16 2007,15:22) On the EE website, one of the sample pages discusses something called the "artifact hypothesis".  Is this a term used by actual evolutionary biologists?  Most of the Google hits for this term seem to be to creationist websites. A number of paleontologists and paleoanthropologists have looked at the question of whether current collections of fossils are representative of the fossil record (for example, Rob Martin looked at the subject of how well the primate fossil record is sampled in his paper Primates a definition). Most of the studies along these lines indicate that the fossil record is poorly sampled and that there is still a lot out there to be uncovered. The writers of EE have labeled this the "artifact hypothesis". My question for Paul concerns the misleading and inadequate portrayal of the reptile/mammal transition. For example this: Quote Some textbooks alter the scale of pictures showing the order of appearance of group such as the mammal-like reptiles. This makes the features appear closer in size than they really are, and creates the impression of a close genealogical relationship, and an easy transition between different types of animals. Presentations of the reptile-to-mammal sequence, in particular, often enlarge some skulls and shrink others to make them appear more similar in size than they actually are. Which makes it sound like paleontologists have suggested that a linear increase in size is what unites all the species in the transition. Not surprising that ID proponents would be so misleading about this, because the reptile/mammal transition is actually a good example of the de novo origination of a complex organ (the mammalian ear) - something ID says is impossible. In reality, a whole slew of traits link the species in question - traits that are not dependent on trends in size. -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,18:55    Even though the authors are from the Discovery Institute, and even though they're repeating worn-out creationist arguments, I bet they were careful not to use the words Intelligent Design even once in the 'textbook'. Of course we're not fooled, but they hope that's enough to fool a few judges. It won't be. It's already been tried.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,18:58    I have to go play some poker. This book is just one big attempt to decieve, and it's angering up my blood.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,19:04    Hey Paul, what happened to you . . . ? I thought you were, ya know, gonna discuss some things with us, or something . . . .? (sound of crickets chirping) Yep, that's what I thought. It's easy to fight in a forum where you can kick out people who disagree with you, isn't it -- and NOT so easy to fight in a forum where you CAN'T (such as, oh, federal courtrooms, for instance). Cowards. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2007,22:12    Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,18:55) Even though the authors are from the Discovery Institute, and even though they're repeating worn-out creationist arguments, I bet they were careful not to use the words Intelligent Design even once in the 'textbook'. Of course we're not fooled, but they hope that's enough to fool a few judges. It won't be. It's already been tried. Nope, they use anonymous "critics" then quotemine paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, and such, to make it seem like the criticism is coming from legitimate scientists. -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,01:09    Quote Nope, they use anonymous "critics" then quotemine paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, and such, to make it seem like the criticism is coming from legitimate scientists. The canonical example of that strategy being Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial". -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:18    Steve, I'll take your wager at 40 items, but specify the terms.

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:23    Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:33    Hmm. Did you post a sample page that leaves out it's context? Brilliant! Is that so that you can rope these evolutionist dogmatists into bets they couldn't possibly win? Kudos. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,05:33    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23) Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size. The point being...? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,06:36    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 17 2007,05:33) Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23) Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size. The point being...? To apparently cast apersions on the credibility of scientists without challenging them on the actual science. Reminds me of this incident as related by Wes. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,07:40    I can see why EE references a 17-year-old science framework and not the current California science framework: the particular quote in question does not appear to exist within the current framework. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,07:56    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23) Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size. Hi, Paul It's good to see you here and responding to questions. When you get a free moment, please see my previous comment and let me know what credentials (i.e. peer-reviewed publications, advanced graduate training, etc.) allow you to claim that Paul K. Chien is a "marine paleobiologist". Thanks in advance. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,09:20    Refresh my memory, old feeb that I am. When has Paul Nelson ever given a straight answer or a truthful answer to any question posed? I think there was one instance many years ago, but I don't recall exactly. (And these people want to teach our children.  How special is that?)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,16:58    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,06:18) Steve, I'll take your wager at 40 items, but specify the terms. I'll make no official bet. Everyone here knows you can't just admit this is repackaged creationism. That deception is the whole point of the 'textbook'. What use is this textbook to the Discovery Institute if you admit that? This book is an attempt to slip the same old bogus antievolution arguments into the schoolhouse. You tried it and called it creationism, that didn't work, you changed 'god' to 'intelligent designer', that didn't work, now you've take the words 'intelligent designer' out. But it's still the same old crap. I'm sure we're going to find plenty of creationist nonsense in the book. We've already found several items from the few excerpts we've been given.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:12    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23) Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size. Um, so what? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:13    I see that Paul is logged in right now.  I sure hope he will answer my question! -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:13    Paul, are you here to actually answer questions?  Or just BS everyone again. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:26    Quote (Doc Bill @ July 17 2007,10:20) Refresh my memory, old feeb that I am. When has Paul Nelson ever given a straight answer or a truthful answer to any question posed? I think there was one instance many years ago, but I don't recall exactly. (And these people want to teach our children.  How special is that?) A few years ago, Paul Nelson kind of admitted that, you know, we IDers don't exactly have what you might call a theory. Compared to people like Dembski bragging about our imminent Waterloo and comparing themselves to Isaac Newton, this seemed to be very honest. We gave him too much credit. If you thought it was dishonest of those Discovery Instituters to pretend not to be creationist, watch them now pretend not to be IDers. Edited by stevestory on July 17 2007,18:27

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:32    (from Seattle) Albatrossity, I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term. Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:47    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32) (from Seattle) Albatrossity, I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term. Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve. Well, actually, "toxicologist" would be an even more accurate description. Of the 10 biologically-relevant papers attributed to him on Web of Science, the most recent one being 1995, one is on yeast, three are on non-marine worms, one is on human erythrocytes,  and 5 are on various marine or saltmarsh organisms. ALMOST ALL of them deal with heavy metal toxicity. His qualifications to comment on a fossil and its relevance to the bogus "artifact hypothesis" seem to me to be non-existent. Finally, his publication record would suggest that he might not even be up to speed in toxicology... I'm sure that this will be changed in the next printing, but that section should read "toxicologist" rather than marine paleobiologist. Of course, that wouldn't be as impressive in the context of that paragraph. thanks -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,17:59    Stephen C. Meyer Scott Minnich Jonathan Moneymaker Paul A. Nelson Ralph Seelke 4 of the 5 authors are from the Discovery Institute and this book isn't supposed to promote Intelligent Design? Good luck finding a federal judge dumb enough to miss things like this, Paul.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:13    Quote (stevestory @ July 17 2007,17:26) If you thought it was dishonest of those Discovery Instituters to pretend not to be creationist, watch them now pretend not to be IDers. Indeed -- it ain't "intelligent design theory" anymore, now it's "teach the controversy about evolution".  They tried it in Georgia, tried it in Ohio, tried it in Kansas.  And got their ass kicked every time. I sincerely hope that we'll get to see this latest magnum opus get incinerated in court, too.  I *love* the smell of fried creationist in the morning. And I hope we get to watch Nelson testify about it.  But, alas, he doesn't have the ping-pongs for it. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:15    Hey Paul, does this magnificent, uh, "science textbook" tell us how old the earth is? Why not? (snicker)  (giggle) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:17    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32) I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term. "A scientist who objects to evolution for religious reasons" would be even better, Paul. And far more accurate. Too honest for you, though, huh. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:18    Quote (stevestory @ July 17 2007,17:59) Stephen C. Meyer Scott Minnich Jonathan Moneymaker Paul A. Nelson Ralph Seelke 4 of the 5 authors are from the Discovery Institute and this book isn't supposed to promote Intelligent Design? Good luck finding a federal judge dumb enough to miss things like this, Paul. Is it from DI's publishing company, too? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:43    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23) Afarensis, Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size. Yeah, up until you actually read it. The change in scale would be a pointless criticism of the reptile/mammal transition - unless one thinks the transition was based on an increase in size. The piece I quoted implies that this is the case, particularly the part about "...features appear closer in size than they really are, and creates the impression of a close genealogical relationship..." This is false. Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Rather the reptile mammal transition is based on things like the evolution of the secondary palate, evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw, evolution of the incisors, canines and check teeth -along with specific patterns of occlusion- , evolution of a bony skull from a skull mainly formed by cartilage, changes in the pectoral and pelvic girdles towards more upright posture, etc. So the question is what does the fact the scientists produce a few pictures in different scales (which even EE admits is clearly indicated by the folks producing the pictures) have to do with, well, anything? -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:44    Ralph Seelke: Quote Conclusion Much has been written about whether ID can result in a viable research program (see, for example, Moreland, 1994). I believe the time has come for ID proponents to be actively contributing to important research areas. The examples I have given are meant to stimulate thinking about areas of research for ID proponents; they are by no means exhaustive. The ID interpretation of the results of this type of research will clearly be different from they typical neo–Darwinian explanation. But in time, the weight of the evidence would make the design inference more and more attractive. That was written in 2003, back when the IDers were publishing their fake journal. ID has gotten less attractive since then, if you can possibly imagine that.

hooligans Posts: 114 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,18:54    Hey Mr. Paul Nelson, I am a science teacher in the state of Washington and would love a review copy of EE. How can I get one?

silverspoon Posts: 123 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,19:03    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32) (from Seattle) Albatrossity, I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term. Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve. Hi Paul. You should check with Stephen Meyer. He (or one of the other authors) identifies Chien as a "marine paleobiologist” in Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook. He (Meyer) also did so in his expert witness report (revised) that never made it into the Dover trial because he withdrew. Since he is a co-author of the book in question I suggest you talk with him. I’m glad I could be of assistance in your search for the truth of who the culprit might be. -------------- Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,19:08    Quote (silverspoon @ July 17 2007,19:03) Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,17:32) (from Seattle) Albatrossity, I missed that description of P.K. Chien when reviewing the galleys, but will check with the author who drafted the section (it wasn't me).  "Marine biologist" or "biologist" would be a better term. Sorry you won't be wagering, Steve. Hi Paul. You should check with Stephen Meyer. He (or one of the other authors) identifies Chien as a "marine paleobiologist” in Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook. He (Meyer) also did so in his expert witness report (revised) that never made it into the Dover trial because he withdrew. Paul, uh, missed that, too. (snicker)  (giggle) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 17 2007,19:14    Quote (silverspoon @ July 17 2007,19:03) Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook. BTW, Paul, that particular tome laid out a specific legal strategy for getting ID into classrooms.  How'd that, uh, work out for y'all . . . ? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, that's right.  I remember something about a trial in Pennsylvania . . . . As I recall, the judge concluded that "Of Pandas and People" (and ID) was just a dishonest attempt to get around the court decision in Edwards v Aguillard. Kind of like, ya know, "Explore Evolution" is just a dishonest attempt to get around the court decision in Kitzmiller v Dover . . . Given the fact that ID/creationism has managed the rather remarkable feat of losing every single Federal court case it has ever been involved with, I'm a little curious as to why on earth you would have any hope at all that THIS crap will do any better in court than the LAST dozen batches of crap did . . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Augray Posts: 1 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,06:54    The Raup quote on http://www.antievolution.org/cs/node/693 has previously been clarified at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote25

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:07    Afarensis wrote: Quote Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Of course.  So why not depict the fossils at their actual size, then, rather than (without telling the reader) drawing some much larger, and others much smaller?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:26    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:07) Afarensis wrote: Quote Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Of course.  So why not depict the fossils at their actual size, then, rather than (without telling the reader) drawing some much larger, and others much smaller? maybe because if they did not do that some would have been bigger then the page itself and some would have been too small to see clearly. Or is that being too logical for this discussion? I find the "without telling the reader" comment laughable, as already on this thread there are loads of things that EE does not tell the reader! I call shenanigans! -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:37    Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable. Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,07:42    Oldman, By "actual size," I mean on the same relative scale.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,09:30    Thanks, I've added a link to the Raup quote discussion. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,10:56    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37) Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable. Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask. Because it is irelevant to the point being made? Recall that Afarensis wrote: Quote Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Rather the reptile mammal transition is based on things like the evolution of the secondary palate, evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw, evolution of the incisors, canines and check teeth -along with specific patterns of occlusion- , evolution of a bony skull from a skull mainly formed by cartilage, changes in the pectoral and pelvic girdles towards more upright posture, etc. In other words, size is irrelevant for the point being made. It may be true that some folks find this "objectionable" (although I would be curious to know who they are and where they stand on evolutionary theory). Frankly, it seems odd to point to this as any sort of objection to the theory of evolution. But give the DI's track record on the figures for Haeckel's embryos, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there is a priority given to presentation rather than to factual reality. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,16:46    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37) Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable. Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask. Because changes in size aren't a big deal genetically: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5821/112 Do you have some data that suggest that size changes are a big deal? Oh, I forgot--you produce no data, because you're lack sufficient faith to test your hypotheses. Instead, you just spin the data of others.

silverspoon Posts: 123 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:16    Just look what they’re teaching our first graders. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you! -------------- Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:24    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:07) Afarensis wrote: Quote Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Of course.  So why not depict the fossils at their actual size, then, rather than (without telling the reader) drawing some much larger, and others much smaller? Why not explain why _Diarthrognathus_ has two jaw joints -- one mammalian, one reptilian. And why not explain why all this "therapsids" crapola is lifted nearly intact from Gish's writings at ICR from twenty-five years ago?  Since, ya know, "teach the controversy" doesn't have anything -- anything at all whatsoever -- to do with either creation "science" or intelligent design "theory". (snicker)  (giggle) Paul, ever wonder why everyone thinks creationists/IDers are dishonest evasive deceptive deliberate liars? Think maybe books like this one have something to do with that? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:26    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37) Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable. Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask. My dad is taller than me, Paul. Does that mean, in your opinion, that he's not my dad? Just curious. After all, we can't tell if he's my dad through a DNA paternity test, since we all KNOW that genetic similarity doesn't indicate descent either.  Right?  (snicker)  (giggle) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:36    Hey Paul, I've not read your, uh, wonderful new science textbook yet.  But, given the extensive past history of creationism/ID, I feel pretty confident that I can make a testable prediction about its contents: *ahem* I predict that of all the various anti-evolution arguments that appear therein, (1) not a single one -- none, zip, zero, zilch, nada -- has ever appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal published anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and (2) every single one of them -- absolutely all of them, without exception -- can be found in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts (and indeed, can be found ONLY in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts, and can be found **nowhere else**). Am I correct in that hypothesis, Paul?  Can you point to any peer-reviewed science journal articles wherein any of these, uh, "scientific criticisms of evolution" have appeared? Tell you what, Paul, since you're such an eager betting man and all, I'll even offer you a wager.  I'll give you one hundred dollars ($100) for every scientific argument against evolution presented in your magnum opus that has appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and you will give me one hundred dollars ($100) for every one that has appeared in some creationist/ID tracts published by ICR, AiG, or one of DI's minions. Deal? I've always wanted a yacht of my own . . . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,17:40    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:42) By "actual size," I mean on the same relative scale. That's not what "actual size" means at all. If you're going to write your posts in English, "actual size" means "actual size," not "on the same scale." Writing "on the same relative scale" is mind-numbingly redundant. What do you think "scale" means? If you can't master these simple terms, why are you writing a textbook? If you're a Christian, why can't you simply admit that you were wrong? "The process of teaching science requires a precise, unambiguous use of language ... " Do you remember where that quote is printed, Paul?

silverspoon Posts: 123 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:04    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37) Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask. Do these people you speak of only look at drawings? My head is swinging from the pure idiocy of this line of reasoning. It reminds me of the Peppered Moth pictures are fake argument. As if somehow that was supposed to discredit natural selection. -------------- Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:15    But not to worry, Paul. No doubt "Our Pal" Slimey Sal will be dropping by soon enough to pull your bacon off the frying pan. And trip, stumble, oops!, pitch it in the fire blast furnace.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:21    Re quotation #24, The second and third quotations aren't in the cited paper. In fact, this very cool paper supports a hypothesis that provides an explanation for the rapid evolution of the turtle's shell, directly contradicting the apparently manufactured quote: "The recognition of a simple developmental mechanism, namely an epithelial-mesenchymal interaction, at the initiation of carapace development provides a basis for hypotheses about the rapid evolution of this body plan (Burke 1989b). Burke, A. C. 1989b. Development of the turtle carapace: implications for the evolution of a novel bauplan. J. Morphol. 199: 363–378. Note also that the authors hypothesize which proteins are involved, which inductive relationships between tissues are involved, etc. Clearly, this is another lie by omission, possibly compounded by lies of commission.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,18:47    Since this is obviously a Discovery Institute project, let me remind people what the Discovery Institute's goals are: Quote GOALS Governing Goals    * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.    * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. Five Year Goals    * To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.    * To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.    * To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. Twenty Year Goals    * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.    * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.    * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,19:37    Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37) Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant.  Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable. Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask. Sigh. No Paul, this is completely wrong. The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant. To give an example, in pelycosaurs the occipital condyle is single and hemispheric shaped. It evolves into a double condyle in mammals and an intermediate stage is seen in therapsids. None of this has anything to do with size. The mammal condyle is not just an allometrically scaled version of the pelycosaur. So explain how   Quote ...fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother... is a relevant criticism of this particular transition or of transitional sequences in general? -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,19:57    Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2007,18:47) Since this is obviously a Discovery Institute project, let me remind people what the Discovery Institute's goals are: Quote GOALS Governing Goals You forgot one (one that, I'll bet, Paul is very fond of, since he's a young-earth creationist -- go ahead, Paul, tell everyone how old you think the earth is . . . .  snicker, giggle): *ahem* "Five Year Objectives: Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation" So much for that whole "ID doesn't have anything to do with creationism, no sirree Bob" BS. Oh, and as for this whole "our new exciting scientific textbook about scientific criticisms of evolution doesn't have anything to do with ID, no sirree Bob", it may be interesting to note that, in the Wedge Document itself, "Dr Paul Chien" is listed as part of a "Paleontology Research Program", which is itself listed as one of "The Wedge Projects". Nelson and his ilk are demonstrable liars.  Deliberate, dishonest, deceptive, calculating liars. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,20:18    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 18 2007,20:57) Nelson and his ilk are demonstrable liars.  Deliberate, dishonest, deceptive, calculating liars. It appears they've given up even pretending to do research, to focus on yet another effort to sneak a textbook in. I would add 'shameless' to your long list of adjectives.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,20:26    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 18 2007,17:36) I predict that of all the various anti-evolution arguments that appear therein, (1) not a single one -- none, zip, zero, zilch, nada -- has ever appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal published anywhere in the world in the past 50 years, and (2) every single one of them -- absolutely all of them, without exception -- can be found in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts (and indeed, can be found ONLY in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts, and can be found **nowhere else**). Am I correct in that hypothesis, Paul? Well, Paul? Am I? (sound of crickets chirping) Yep, I thought so . . . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,20:50    Paul, well done. Lenny's going to owe you big time. I can't wait to read the big apology Lenny's gonna have to give you as he forks over the money after you take him up on his bet. Keep up the good work. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,21:21    Quote (BWE @ July 19 2007,20:50) Paul, well done. Lenny's going to owe you big time. I can't wait to read the big apology Lenny's gonna have to give you as he forks over the money after you take him up on his bet. Keep up the good work. I can't wait to hear Paul and his ilk trying to explain to a Federal judge why not oen argument anywhjere in the book appears in any science journal, and why every one of them appears solely and only in creationist/ID religious texts. (snicker)  (giggle) But then, first they have to find a school board that is stupid enough to trust DI, after DI has already abandoned the Dover Dolts to twist alone in the wind, leaving them with a million bucks of legal debts and no more jobs. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com