AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: csadams

form_srcid: csadams

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: csadams

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'csadams%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2007/06/25 20:32:36, Link
Author: csadams

Arden Chatfield's opening post:
Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?

Did this ever happen?

Was Albatrossity2's question ever addressed by FtK?  
Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true.


Date: 2007/06/28 10:17:58, Link
Author: csadams
Hey FtK,

[looking around] Nope, don't see any peanut gallery around here.  I saw your nym on the thread title, right next to the word 'research' and thought . . . wow . . . is it possible?  Might you be discussing some actual research?

Turns out, no.  Arden Chatfield & Albatrossity2 asked a couple of simple questions you've dodged:

1.  Please list the actual factual research articles you've read.
2.  Please point out the multitude of glaring errors you state exist in the intro bio textbook.

Perhaps you should just ignore the "20 other questions get thrown my way" and try to focus on these two . . . let us know you're serious about discussing science.

Picture?  Did I miss something?  Have I met you under a different name?

Date: 2007/07/17 07:25:52, Link
Author: csadams
Albatrossity2 -
Yeah, I can agree with that. Her importance is artificially inflated in my perspective because we both live in Kansas, and it was folks like her who voted in the stupids who then proceeded to make this state an international laughingstock. You would not believe the number of times I have heard scientific colleagues snicker when they find out I am from Kansas.

Agreed, on all counts.  Makes one long for the days of being teased about Dorothy, Toto, and the World's Largest Ball of Twine.

Date: 2007/09/26 15:40:29, Link
Author: csadams
[quote=argystokes,Sep. 26 2007,10:33][/quote]
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 26 2007,10:23)
Hi, FTK.

I know you've got a lot of questions in the queue, but since the one I asked doesn't require any research, I thought you might answer it (and I promise to answer any questions you might have for me). Again, how do you tell when someone highly trained in a subject is bullshitting about that subject, when it is a subject that you admittedly don't understand?

Excellent question, argy.

Date: 2007/09/27 06:43:38, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 27 2007,00:33)
Richard (and FTK),

I do see what you are getting at. Unfortunately, that might make BWE's reinterpretation pretty darn close to accurate. Assuming that Rich Simons's interpretation is a fair representation, I suppose a followup question is "Even if a person who makes layman errors in fields that you understand (such as PZ and religion*), why would you assume they are particularly prone to make errors in their own field of expertise?"

Is this how it works?

1.  Scientist makes a statement about religion or politics or best-tasting beer.
2.  FtK doesn't agree with said statement.
3.  FtK reasons that the scientist must know absolutely nothing about his/her field of scientific expertise.

Date: 2007/09/28 14:37:04, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,14:06)
Because about 30% of science teachers in the USA either do or would teach antievolution if given the opportunity, according to a survey by the NSTA.


Wes, do you have a link to that survey?

Date: 2007/09/28 22:08:20, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2007,20:58)
The survey I'm finding shows that 31% of science teachers feel pressured to teach non-scientific alternatives to evolution. Reading that, it looks like the percentage of teachers ready to teach antievolution is smaller than I recalled.

Perhaps 30% of our country's teachers do teach creationism, and they're the ones who who'd be unlikely to join NSTA because of its strong support of mainstream science.

Wondering a bit how "pressure" was defined - anti-evo letters to the editor in the local paper, a parent suggesting that the teacher "teach the controversy," nasty emails from district patrons, a kid asking to distribute Chick tracts in the classroom, or being threatened with loss of job/privileges.  That's quite a spectrum of severity.

I haven't looked around for reliable data on the number of public school teachers who actually teach ID/TCT/creationism  as science.  

Off topic, sorry.

Date: 2007/10/05 19:43:18, Link
Author: csadams
Thread title:

"Call to cover creationism"

with what . . . a shroud?

Date: 2007/10/06 12:38:14, Link
Author: csadams
On Question Avoidance
May 10, 2005


I guess I misread you. I'm a little disappointed. It seems to me, your not really interested in science or understanding Nature. You ask questions, but your really not interested in the answers. No amount of data or evidence will convince you that scientists understand anything when it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Or The Brown monstrosity, 2005-2006:

76 pages of twisting non-answers.  Each morning, FtK would cut/paste another section from Brown and avoid answering the questions posed by the folks at KCFS.

Unfortunately, it looks like the same behavior [added in edit: of ignoring questions] is being repeated here.  

Too bad.  FtK has an immense capacity to learn, but for some strange reason seems to be unwilling to do so.

Date: 2007/10/06 14:34:31, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2007,13:37)
CSadams says I'm not interested in learning merely because I disagree with some of the things you people perceive as "fact".  That is *really* sad,imo.  

Knock it off, FtK.  You know darn good & well I made the statement based on your QuestionAvoidanceSyndrome™; nowhere did I mention your agreement/disagreement with the statements of others.

I certainly hope your students don't question your vast knowledge, Cheryl!

Transl: "I can't respond rationally so I'll attack."

BTW, FtK - I didn't think I'd revealed my first name or profession on this board.  Duly noted.

Date: 2007/11/06 22:29:18, Link
Author: csadams
Didn't the DI want to have a NOVA program focused on intelligent design?  

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

Well done, ERV!
2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)
this one?

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows
Cue the chirping crickets?

4. Significant coverage in national media:

   * Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
* PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

ask, and ye shall receive . . . or are they just pi$$ed that NOVA has more credibility than Ben Stein?
   * Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

Pssssst . . . where are those damn crickets?
  * Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media
Right here, usually.

5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

   * Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
   * Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism
This had to sting.
  * Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

okay, which one of you wise guys fed the crickets to the snake?
  * Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
Like this survey?  The question, "How important would you say religion is in your own life – very important, fairly important, or not very important?" The response "Not very important" went from 12% in 1992 to 16% in 2006.

Or this one:"Do you feel homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?"  In 2003, 49% responded "No," compared to 2007's 39%.

[quote]6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory[quote]
Dover, PA?
El Cajon, CA?

They couldn't even slide it in under the guise of Teach The Controversy[sup]TM[/sup]

7. Scientific achievements:

   * An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

. . . will probably be given as the reason for the European & British motions against teaching ID in their classrooms.  Better to shut the barn door before the horse goes rabid, as they learned from the US.
   * Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

they flunked out
   * Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Besides Oral Roberts University & Patriot University?
  * Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

It just doesn't look like those 5-year goals have worked out quite the way the DI intended.

[added in edit:  sorry, Mr_Christopher had already started an entire thread on the Wedge Document . . .]

Date: 2007/11/09 06:54:33, Link
Author: csadams
It's interesting that FtK states that most high school [science?] teachers are unaware of the depth of this debate.  Next, she complains that only 1 anti-evolution book is included in the JD:IDOT teaching guide.

Perhaps she needs to remember that most high school science teachers have a much stronger background in science than she admits having herself.  

Likewise, those same teachers recognize the difference between data-driven research and popular publications.  

For example, EoE is praised as the book which will topple Darwin's theory of evolution.

It takes evidence and research and letting others qualified in the field have a chance to critique your work to topple any scientific theory.  

Strange how FtK's heroes avoid those processes like the plague.

Date: 2007/11/14 07:59:44, Link
Author: csadams
Watching DI/ID being hoisted by their own trial/deposition testimony: $1,000,000

Listening to a policeman-turned-perjurer call Jones a "jackass" who "went to clown school instead of law school":  $1,000,000

The transitional link - cdesign proponentsists - laid bare on national TV: priceless!

Date: 2007/11/16 06:44:00, Link
Author: csadams
"Topic too hot for WKNO"

To viewer David O. Hill, 67, a retired FedEx pilot, the WKNO decision was like refusing to show a Civil War broadcast for fear it would offend some Southerners or a broadcast about Nazi atrocities in World War II "for fear it would offend some Germans in the viewing audience."

"I'm a supporter of and love this station. I really appreciate what service they do, but when they step out of line like this it violates the whole premise of what NPR and PBS stand for nationally ... This was an historical review of an important judicial decision in America, and they chose not to do it."

Hill's education and background also factored into his reaction. An ornithologist, he said he was trained as a biologist.

"Evolution is as important a building block to biology as atomic theory is to chemistry and gravitation to physics. I can believe in the Easter Bunny or the Loch Ness monster more easily than that the universe is only 6,000 years old."

Date: 2007/11/28 06:36:33, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 28 2007,05:55)
The DI hangs out Dr Dr Dr Dembski to dry

Considering the many embarassing moments Dembski's provided for our entertainment . . . one wonders, how far out will the DI hang him?

Date: 2007/12/02 22:05:41, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 02 2007,21:21)
Knowing Icky and Steve whatever they wrote was no doubt very demeaning and void of content.

One wonders if FtK would have let a comment like this through at her own blog:  
Knowing Sal and Larry whatever they wrote was no doubt very demeaning and void of content.

Date: 2007/12/04 05:31:50, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 03 2007,22:04)
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 03 2007,19:24)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 03 2007,18:53)

You dirty old man!

I love the International flavor of this board.

We got Oklahoma Sooners, Kansas Corn, The King's English, Cockney slang , Welsh Llll's and NZ goard aficianados.

I personally speak Hahvard Anglish.

How 'bout Kansas Wheat & Kansas Chaff?

Not corn, though, please . . . needs too much H2O.

[added in edit] . . . nah, never mind the edit

Date: 2007/12/04 18:13:24, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 04 2007,16:15)
(b) I KNOW what kind of bland food they eat in Kansas.



Them's fightin' words . . . you just haven't eaten at the right places yet!

*Beware* of paintin' all Kansas with the FtK brush.

[toddling off to serve the rosemaried pork roast with mushroom sauce]


Date: 2007/12/12 15:57:40, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 12 2007,14:35)
Here's a picture of Mr. FTK doing his Christian best to help you out.

Amazingly it's only 6,000 years old.  Or maybe 6.o billion, but since it's on display in Bumfuck KS, you can probably just walk in, chip off a little piece and walk out.  I am sure that Evil Atheists do this all the time, so that makes it ok.  Plus, God came to me in a vision and said you should do that.

As an FYI - the Greensburg meteorite is now safely stored in the Sternberg Museum of Natural History in Hays, KS; the tornado last spring demolished its building, but didn't budge the space rock one bit.

I hope you get hold of one . . . considering how the one in Haviland was used a couple of years ago:  
So I was all excited about the Haviland Meteorite Festival. I thought it was neat and keen that the fun folks of rural Kansas were stepping up to celebrate their scientific heritage. Some kettle corn, a few rides, some fireworks, a little talk about ancient rocks, and all would be well.

Unfortunately, Davin in the comments (and Dr. Myers) had to burst my bubble by actually pointing me to the program for the festival. Instead of a celebration of the glory of the universe and our little slice of it, the event has been infiltrated by creationists. The festival will screen three creationist movies – including Privileged Planet, the film that got the Smithsonian into a tizzy, and another that is a "biblically based, family oriented video."

The article describing the new meteorite find and mentioning the festival doesn't mention that, while the discoverer of the meteorite is excited that it's billions of years old, the festival honoring it will feature "Steve Miller, Member of Creation Research Society" running a stargazing session. I'm guessing he won't be chatting about the billions of years this meteorite took to form, or even the tens of thousands it's been sitting in the ground.

If it helps, I'd check my backyard right now if we weren't fightin' this kind of stuff right now:
(photo credit - AP, 1/15/07)

Date: 2007/12/14 15:39:52, Link
Author: csadams
Not sure if this is the correct thread for this . . . pls move as appropriate.

From, Focus on the Family Action
Friday Five: William A. Dembski 12-14-2007
I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

Date: 2007/12/14 18:57:52, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 14 2007,18:51)
This is old nooz.  In 2005 Dembski wrote:
Dismantling materialism is a good thing. Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.

Yup, we sure have heard it before . . . but with Florida & Texas getting interesting, it's good to hear the up-to-the-minute endorsement from Dembski himself.

No qualifications or equivocations, like "I believe that the God of ID is the Christian God" or "Many people identify the Designer as the Christian God."

Nope, no sirree.  Just plain & simple - to accept ID, you have to accept Christianity's God.  No non-Christians need apply.

Date: 2008/01/02 16:27:19, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:11)
But at the moment, I'm amusing myself with something much more fun.

PZ got wind of Sal's quotemining of Skatje.

Microwave popcorn:

Iced diet Pepsi:

Watching PZ ream Sal such that Sal wishes it was by the horse he's fixated on:

Date: 2008/01/02 17:00:50, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,16:52)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 02 2008,16:27)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2008,16:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2008,17:11)
But at the moment, I'm amusing myself with something much more fun.

PZ got wind of Sal's quotemining of Skatje.

Microwave popcorn:

Iced diet Pepsi:

Watching PZ ream Sal such that Sal wishes it was by the horse he's fixated on:

You never cease to amaze me, Cheryl.

Thank you, thank you very much!

PS: If you don't want your first name used here, then don't use mine.  mmkay?  Ta ever so . . . :)

Date: 2008/01/03 15:23:46, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:40)
Now, how about those peer reviewers who looked at Walt Brown's book? How many times can you skirt that question?

FtK, why are you more interested in bestiality than in answering this simple question?

Date: 2008/01/03 15:55:46, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:45)
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,15:23)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:40)
Now, how about those peer reviewers who looked at Walt Brown's book? How many times can you skirt that question?

FtK, why are you more interested in bestiality than in answering this simple question?

Because it was posed in order to change the subject, which I am not going to do.  That question has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation we have been having for the past 2 days.  That question was brought from an entirely different thread. I am determined to stick to this subject as long as needed because I am not a liar, and I have relayed everything about this incident accurately.

You people are constantly saying that no one from our side defends themselves because they are undefendable.  So, here I am, and here I'll stay.  In fact, I think PZ owes me an apology.  His name calling attack was completely uncalled for.

You, FtK? Not change a subject?

You claim such familiarity with and understanding of Brown's work, yet you can't be bothered to take the little time it should require to find his statement that his work has been peer-reviewed.

Perhaps if you'd come up with that reference, it would help show that you're "not a liar."

Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.

Simple, really.

Date: 2008/01/03 16:49:16, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)
Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.

OMG.  csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal.  You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times.  So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me.  Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.

FtK, pls check your post from 10/4/2007, 22:00, where you did indeed state that Brown claimed his work had been peer reviewed by evolutionists/Darwinists. (I tried going back allllll those pages, but got a Forbidden - 403 error. ???)

And please, don't tell me you're going to try to equivocate by shading the meaning of "peer review

FWIW, FtK, I am certainly not trying to make a liar out of you.  Ye gads and little fishes, everyone makes mistakes!  So just admit it, learn from it, and go on for crying out loud.

Date: 2008/01/03 17:23:29, Link
Author: csadams
Y'see, FtK, many posters here are professional scientists who have had their work peer-reviewed.  In academia, "peer review" is generally accepted to mean that the research is anonymously critiqued by others qualified in that particular field.

Peer review can be brutal.  To even suggest that Brown has submitted his work for peer review is an insult to real scientists who have taken that risk.

It would be like me stating that I could out-model Heidi Klum based on the fact that my husband likes the way I look.  D'ya get the difference?

Date: 2008/01/03 17:33:05, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 03 2008,17:30)
Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.

Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Date: 2008/01/04 07:51:02, Link
Author: csadams
Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science
Science 18 May 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5827, pp. 996 - 997
(article posted here)

Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood. In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources.

The main source of resistance concerns what children know before their exposure to science. Recent psychological research makes it clear that babies are not "blank slates"; even 1-year-olds possess a rich understanding of both the physical world (a "naďve physics") and the social world (a "naďve psychology") (5). Babies know that objects are solid, persist over time (even when out of sight), fall to the ground if unsupported, and do not move unless acted upon (6). They also understand that people move autonomously in response to social and physical events, act and react in accord with their goals, and respond with appropriate emotions to different situations (5, 7).

These intuitions give children a head start when it comes to understanding and learning about objects and people. However, they also sometimes clash with scientific discoveries about the nature of the world, making certain scientific facts difficult to learn. The problem with teaching science to children is thus "not what the student lacks, but what the student has, namely alternative conceptual frameworks for understanding the phenomena covered by the theories we are trying to teach" (9).

Children's belief that unsupported objects fall downward, for instance, makes it difficult for them to see the world as a sphere—if it were a sphere, the people and things on the other side should fall off. It is not until about 8 or 9 years of age that children demonstrate a coherent understanding of a spherical Earth (10), and younger children often distort the scientific understanding in systematic ways. Some deny that people can live all over Earth's surface (10), and when asked to draw Earth (11) or model it with clay (12), some children depict it as a sphere with a flattened top or as a hollow sphere that people live inside.

Perhaps this is the part most relevant to this topic:  

The examples so far concern people's common-sense understanding of the physical world, but their intuitive psychology also contributes to their resistance to science. One important bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, 4-year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"), a propensity called "promiscuous teleology" (15). Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and prefer creationist explanations (16). Just as children's intuitions about the physical world make it difficult for them to accept that Earth is a sphere, their psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for them to accept the processes of evolution.

(edited: formatting)

Date: 2008/01/04 08:15:08, Link
Author: csadams
FtK, scientific explanations often do defy common sense.

You accept that the sun orbits the earth, right?*


From what you've observed, the sun comes up in the east every morning, traces a path across the sky, and sets on the west.  The moon follows the same path.

"Common sense" would tell you that you live in a geocentric universe.  Which is why "common sense" could be defined as "a set of pre-conceived notions which may or may not have anything to do with reality." (sorry, can't remember who said that first)

The research seems to show that before they understand the science, children make up all kinds of stories to explain why the world works the way it does.  Sometimes the trusted adults in their lives reinforce those stories.

Hopefully, other trusted adults will lead those children to the accepted scientific understandings:  that the earth does, indeed, go around the sun.

*or perhaps I'm making an assumption here . . .

(ps congrats on your sons' science grades.  I guess I'm raising slackers . . . one whose science ACT is a measly 34.)

Date: 2008/01/04 08:28:31, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 03 2008,14:58)
I think the Creo's know this, and do their utmost to bend the minds of their kids when they are as young as possible.

Hence the Kentucky monstrosity:

Date: 2008/01/07 16:12:27, Link
Author: csadams
Supercool, RTH, thanks; just linked to it from a lesson!

Date: 2008/01/10 06:42:19, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 09 2008,20:54)
So, anyone care to comment on just what it is that makes them personally involved in the descent into the maelstrom that is Unreasonable Kansans?

Sure.  Because not all Kansans are as UnReasonable as FtK.

Because FtK would have kids learn Walt Brown's crap in science class.  Oh, she'd deny that - but since she (a) denies evolution, (b) claims Brown's tripe is real science and © claims to support teaching science, it's obvious where her interests lie.  She admittedly doesn't know jackshit about science, yet thinks she is qualified to tell those who do know better how they should do their jobs.  Puh-leeeese.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't drink her special brand of Kool-Aid has "swallowed the blue pill" and is really just pretending to be Christian.

Because my family's lived here since before 1816 [cue "family tree don't branch" jokes] and we don't like it that this state - which used to be known for its progressive, independent thinkers - now seems to be an incubator for FtK-clones.

And because I want my kids and future grandkids to be proud, once again, of being Kansans.

Date: 2008/01/20 10:08:46, Link
Author: csadams
The email address listed in my personal profile isn't valid anymore.  Do I need to re-register or something under the current one?

. . . hoping I didn't overlook a FAQs link . . .

Date: 2008/07/10 19:59:25, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ June 26 2008,15:00)
You must be a science professor too.

[dusts off keyboard]

Back off, FtK.

My husband's a science professor - an endowed one, thank you very much (don't go there RTH)- whose first two degrees  of four were from a Christian college, whose father is an evangelical minister, and who would be *extremely pissed off* to have someone who knows nothing about science using "science professor" as a perjorative.

lcd, I understand your discomfort with the innuendo being directed at FtK.  If I'm not mistaken, she has no problem letting folks know when she objects to something they say.

(I didn't respond earlier because I couldn't.  Thanks, Wes, for fixing the glitch!)

(ed: punctuation)

Date: 2008/07/11 06:49:40, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ July 10 2008,22:04)
You know deep down that I don't think all science professors are pervs.  I'm just mainly tossing my fury at 'ol Eramus the pervy, scary, I'd die if I had a daughter in his class, unprofessional science professor.  

Now, scat on back to your blog.  You've got some witch huntin' to do!  Elections are just around the corner...ya gotta pull all those evil, education hatin' creationists out of the closet before they get elected to the KS school boards!!!  Hurry up now...time's a wastin'.

No, I don't know any such thing.  You have oodles of very knowledgeable science professors/professionals here ready to help you learn science, but you think you know more about science than they do.  Given that particular psychotic assumption of yours, who knows what other nastiness you harbor toward science professors?  Maybe they're going around burning symbols into students' arms with hand-held Tesla coils . . . oops, that was one of your guys, wasn't it?

Sounds like you'd love to Expel me from here, dearie.  Is someone's nose is out of joint because her creationist-buddy candidates are being exposed for what they are?

Date: 2008/07/11 07:01:45, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (lcd @ July 11 2008,06:34)
We know from scientific studies in the past, light was much faster.

Is this statement generally accepted by professional astronomers?  

I mean, I can understand that until matter dispersed enough after the Big Bang to let light travel without being absorbed/re-emitted by electrons, light traveled much more slowly.  But that only lasted a matter of what, a picosecond?

It seems to me - and I'll defer to science pros here, of course - that if the speed of light is slowing, we'd see that that change reflected in basic electromagnetic interactions.

You might want to take a look at this.

Date: 2008/07/11 07:08:05, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (lcd @ July 11 2008,06:34)
While I can see the real issue we would or actually do have with putting a large rock in such an orbit, as we say in Church, nothing is impossible for God.  If God willed it, then that's all that is needed.


We're puny lil' ol' humans.  We can't make testable predictions as to what God will do.  Anything at all that happens we can proclaim as God's will.  Or we could blame the FSM.  Neither is scientific, so that's why they're not supposed to be taught as science in public schools.

Date: 2008/07/11 07:33:25, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (dogdidit @ July 11 2008,07:23)
BTW the fireball following the Big Bang was sufficiently ionized to prevent the release of light for three hundred thousand years.

Meh.  300 000 years or a picosecond, does it matter which one I believe on this thread? :D

Thanks for correcting my uncaffeinated number.

Date: 2008/07/11 16:19:55, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,10:57)
Start studying that of which you have no clue.

You're the one who's trying to change the way science is taught in public school classrooms.

But you refuse to learn the science.  Unlike those science professors you scorn, you haven't put forth the time and effort and expense to actually take oh, say, 60+ hours in any given science field, do original research and defend a dissertation.  

M'kay, then.

Letting you make science curriculum decisions would be like allowing Mr. Magoo to drive a schoolbus full of kids.

Date: 2008/07/11 18:54:39, Link
Author: csadams


Date: 2008/07/28 08:08:33, Link
Author: csadams
If you're interested, MyNasaData has some datasets you can configure and display by longitude, latitude, time series, etc.  

Datasets include
- the atmosphere (Aerosols, Air Quality, Atmospheric Pressure, Atmospheric Radiation, Atmospheric Temperature, Atmospheric Water Vapor, Clouds, Precipitation)
- the biosphere (Monthly Leaf Area Index (MISR), Monthly Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (MISR));
- the cryosphere (Monthly Snow/Ice Amount (ISCCP));
- the land surface (Surface, Surface Conditions, Surface Cover, Surface Radiation), and
- the oceans (5-day Sea Level Height (TOPEX/POSEIDON), Daily Sea Surface Temperature (MCSST), Monthly Ocean Wind Speed Vectors (NOAA NOMADS), Monthly Wind Speed - Climatology 1995 to 2005 (NOAA NCDC), Weekly Sea Surface Temperature (MCSST)).

I know this doesn't answer your spreadsheet question, but if you need to do anything similar in the future maybe this resource might help.

Date: 2008/07/30 07:17:03, Link
Author: csadams
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 30 2008,06:45)
I will take all of you at your word that money is not something that college professors enjoy having in excess.

So why do they do it?  What's to gain?


From what I've seen, college professors want to pass their love of learning to their students.  They try to open and stretch their students' minds and get them to explore new ideas.  They're particularly aware that they have the responsibility of getting these late adolescents/young adults to learn to think critically, and they don't do that by teaching falsehoods instead of science.

University professors want to push our boundaries of knowledge back as far as they can.  They want to explore the unknown in hopes of making it familiar territory to those who come after them.  If they can provide evidence for something new in science, a trip to Stockholm is possible.

Many future college professors and their families lived for years in substandard housing, subsisting on ramen noodles and clothing their kids from the clearance rack at Goodwill. It's normal for them to work for 20 hours a day pursuing that Ph.D.  A lucky few Ph.D. students get fellowships along with their assistantships, but along with the fellowship comes an expectation of even higher performance.

Meanwhile, a lot of their former classmates from college were out in the business world already, buying their first homes, driving nice cars, and vacationing in exotic places.  In some locations, college professors are paid even less than public school teachers.  The salaries of professors from public institutions is probably a matter of public record.

So it's obviously not the money that's motivating them.  Professors used to enjoy public respect, but that's declined in recent years as relatively-uneducated folks view college education as a commodity rather than an experience.  Professors now get to endure the uninformed criticisms of those who use the term "science professor" as an epithet.

So what's to gain?  Meeting intellectual challenges.  Bringing together diverse people from across the university to meet a common goal.  Having former students stop in and say "hi" when they're in town.  Reveling in the free exchange of ideas.  Having the opportunity to change just a tiny little corner of the world.

*I am not a college professor, but I am married to one.

Date: 2008/07/30 07:35:22, Link
Author: csadams
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 30 2008,07:20)
The idea and I will say it is a strong one that I took as fact up until recently is that a college professorship with tenure is cushy and part of some "good ol' boy network" of "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" along with some sort of conspiracy of silence.

. . .

If you really feel that Darwinian science and scientists are being made into "liars and charlatans" and that your science can't stand up under real scrutiny with the public looking in, I can point them to a device that will show them where the problem is.

It's called a mirror.

lcd, maybe you'd better do more research into what it takes to get tenure at major universities before you make statements about it being just a "good ol' boy network."

A mirror isn't gonna do diddly, because the problem lies with folks who are voluntarily ignorant and who scorn professors as evil elitists.  It's true that some scientists could use some guidance in public relations.  So could lots of other folks.

That doesn't change the fact that science by its very nature is open to question.  Ideas are constantly being challenged in the scientific literature, and the Nobel Prize doesn't get won by yes-men; it's granted to those who have the smarts, the balls, and the dedication to provide evidence for new theories.

lcd, you might think that you're being treated brutally here.  This is *nothing* compared to the questioning undergone by scientists as they work out those ideas.  You might consider learning something about the history of science.

Date: 2008/08/05 10:44:52, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 05 2008,09:21)
Quote (argystokes @ Aug. 05 2008,04:08)
Ftk's back, and it's votin' time! I'm impressed; she's actually voting against this guy:
Detrich is an artist who produces sculptures that combine religious and dinosaur themes. His Web site,, includes comments that say "evil-utionist=ape-iest=malarki-ologist

Then again, her favorite dude has campaigned for mandating the teaching of intelligent design in public school.

Is that dude Dr. Meissner?  He conveniently leaves that out of his campaign page.

If it is him, I'd be interested in seeing the calculus that said it was better to be generic than pander to the base.

If Meissner was a boyfriend, he'd be accused of being afraid to commit.

This might help show how Meissner's trying to dance around the issue.
Topeka dentist and Shawnee County Republican Party chair Robert Meissner wants to be a member of the Kansas State Board of Education.

District 4 - Shawnee, Wabaunsee [go Chargers!] and parts of Douglas and Osage counties - has been admirably represented by Bill Wagnon for the past 12 years. Dr. Wagnon, who has fought valiantly to keep Kansas science standards unsullied by anti-science sentiments, announced in 2005 that he would not seek re-election. Personally, I've found Dr. Wagnon to be a source of inspiration and encouragement during the past few years. He's not one to mince words and doesn't pussyfoot around the truth.

Meissner, on the other hand, is the epitome of coyness. Even the staid Topeka Capital-Journal reports that

[Meissner's] stance on the teaching of evolution is less clear. He said he takes an open-minded approach to decisions and carries no agenda on the topic.

Back in 2004, Meissner challenged Wagnon for the same seat on the state school board but lost, although he still garnered 48.5% of the votes. During that campaign, he made some statements which were waffle-y at best:

Meissner said he would not rule out including intelligent design in science classrooms.

"I believe evolution is a scientifically credible theory that needs to be taught in its entirety in our schools," he said. "But I also believe there has to be the openness, the willingness, to evaluate the inclusion of other scientifically credible theories."

Meissner said after the debate that he had not decided whether he thought intelligent design was a credible scientific theory.

"To be honest, I haven't studied it that closely," he said. "I'm open to giving it careful consideration, but I'm totally unbiased at this point."

Keep in mind that ID proponents have maintained all along that ID is scientifically credible. Surely Meissner would know that ID is not accepted as science by the folks who actually, you know, do science.

But, that was in 2004. The Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling was still in the offing. Perhaps he was truly "totally unbiased" at that time. So let's look ahead a few years.
June 7, 2008:

"I do feel like whatever we teach has to be scientifically credible," Meissner said. "The tough thing is determining which experts you're going to believe."

"The tough thing is determining which experts you're going to believe."

Why does Meissner have qualms about accepting the findings of 99.9% of the world's experts in this particular field? Let me guess . . . he saw and swallowed Expelled.

Meissner's dance around the issue is troubling to those who support REAL science for Kansas' kids. Unfortunately, his dance looks like the all-too-familiar creationist shuffle.

(edited some atrocious grammar)

Date: 2008/08/15 20:19:32, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 15 2008,19:37)
Texas School District Thinks Teachers With Guns Is A Great Idea

HARROLD, Texas (AP) -- A tiny Texas school district will allow teachers and staff members to carry concealed firearms to protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting employees follow certain requirements.

The small community of Harrold in north Texas is a 30-minute drive from the Wilbarger County Sheriff's Office, leaving students and teachers without protection, said David Thweatt, superintendent of the Harrold Independent School District. The lone campus of the 110-student district sits near a heavily traveled highway, which could make it a target, he argued.

Dear Mexico,

You tricked us, didn't you?

Whatever happened to just making kids serve detentions when they misbehave?  :p

Date: 2008/08/20 15:33:33, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Amadan @ Aug. 20 2008,14:18)
Are we to infer that they hadn't met before?

Shurely shome mistake....

Creationists leading training sessions for public school science teachers?

What's next - Fred Phelps teaching them about tolerance?

Date: 2008/08/24 06:12:31, Link
Author: csadams
What do Tom Willis and Connie Morris and Kathy Martin and Fred Phelps have in common?

None were born or raised in Kansas.  


afarensis asks,    
Will a couple of cases of budweiser make for it?

Nope, that just makes it worse!  Guinness, though . . .

Has the Discovery Institute distanced itself from Willis' latest statements, or are they willing to quietly let him recruit more souls to their Big Tent?

For that matter, where's FOXNews? They verbally wet themselves with excitement when they promoted "Expelled," with its shoddy Darwin=>Hitler premise.  Here's an ID supporter proposing a Final Solution for biologists.  Care to open up a pool on when Willis will be denounced?  Anyone . . . anyone?  

As Jack pointed out, Willis was the primary author (240 of 242 sentences?) of the infamous 1999 KS science standards.  He can't be dismissed as just some fringe, extreme element of the creationist movement.  Willis is enough of a mainstream creationist that Abrams and the rest of the anti-science cabal on the 1999 KS school board trusted him to ghostwrite standards for them.

Abrams has decided to go for a state senate seat this year instead of fighting for his state board of education position. (This way, he can introduce/support a Louisiana-style "Academic Freedom" bill.)  I wonder how he feels now about his well-documented collaboration with Willis . . .

[ed. format]

Date: 2008/08/31 09:43:31, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 31 2008,06:52)
The sad part is that college prep tracks in KS high schools have a year of chemistry and a year of biology. Either this student did not graduate from a KS high school, or some school someplace is doing a truly wretched job of evaluating the learning of their students. Or both...

. . . or some KS schools have mis-labeled courses as "chemistry" or "physics" for purposes of Qualified Admission, when in fact they're general physical science courses geared toward prepping students for the KS state assessments.

If a KS high school graduate hasn't completed the Regents college prep track, the student can still enter a state university with an ACT composite >= 21.  Or the student can graduate in the top one-third of their high school class and be admitted to a state university.

Alb, I'm not sure how the QA requirements have helped get more students ready for college, with the requirements being so low.  But if(when?) your science-impaired students hail from out my way, let me know and I'll get right on it . . .

Lou - wow!  What an experience you're getting!  You might think about checking out some summer workshops out your way.  GLOBE has a lot going on in Hampton, VA; essentially, you get paid to learn.  How sweet is that??

Date: 2008/09/03 21:24:09, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 03 2008,16:11)
Afternoon Delight With The Discovery Institute

Delightful, indeed . . . !  That lil' ol' lady is one helluva storyteller.

Date: 2008/09/04 19:43:45, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,19:28)
Full screed:

Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

Is this the same Dave from 2005 who predicted
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.


Date: 2008/09/07 18:50:42, Link
Author: csadams
Outstanding, intelekshual.

The bulk of the conversation was just a rehashing of Luskin’s nonsense statements on the subject, which means it wasn’t terribly interesting. Until Kate said, quietly but with obviously sincere indignation, “But that judge was supposedly a Christian.”

It was like turning on a light switch. Luskin’s face darkened, his brow furrowed, becoming (if possible) even more prehistoric in appearance, and his slightly high pitched whine turned into something much darker, and passionate. From his next sentence, everything you need to know about the difference between their public portrayal of ID and it’s roots in religion, and the reality of the situation.

His tone strident, leaning across the table to get as close as possible, he said “I know! But he wasn’t a real christian, he was a country club christian! I even heard that he referred to his church as his wife’s church. So that explains that. A real christian wouldn’t have sided with the ACLU the way he did. It was sickening.”

. . . interesting that Luskin has appointed himself Sole Arbiter of who's a "real Christian."  Matt 7:1, Matt 23:13

Date: 2008/09/07 19:09:08, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (ck1 @ Sep. 06 2008,10:54)
There is an important difference in these two predictions.  On the one hand, the outcome depends on the decision of a single highly-educated jurist, on the other, on the choices made by ordinary voting Americans:

"And in all of this we should not leave out the role of the much heralded ordinary American. One reason the Republicans find such fertile ground for their shamelessness is that this is fundamentally a right-wing country. My liberal friends find it difficult to accept this, but to me it seems obviously true. Why do you suppose that Republicans trumpet their pro-life credentials, but Democrats try to change the subject when it comes to abortion? Why do Republicans run around bashing homosexuals, while Democrats quake in terror at the thought of having to say what they really think? Why do you suppose upwards of eighty percent of the country want to have some sort of creationism taught in science classes?

The answer is simple. It is that in each case the Republicans are defending the popular position."

(sorry - don't remember how to add quote boxes here)

. . . but aren't the Republicans - the radical branch of them, anyway - the ones who rail against relative morality?  "If it's popular, therefore it's right" seems to be an idea they accuse liberals/atheists/bogeyman-du-jour of holding.  Maybe we need to make public a few popular ideas held by the American public:

50% of Americans aren't aware that the earth orbits the sun and takes one year to do so.  Teach the controversy!

30% of Americans believe that alien spacecraft visit the earth on a regular basis. Teach the controversy!

44% of Americans believe that astrology is "very" or "somewhat" scientific? Teach the controversy! (Oops, Michael Behe already tried that one.)

Half of our citizens believe that magnet therapy is "sort of" or "very scientific." Teach the controversy, and make sure to show that ridiculous opening warehouse sequence from the latest Indiana Jones movie!

73% of Americans believe in at least one of the following: Extrasensory perception (ESP), haunted houses, ghosts, mental telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, witches, reincarnation, or channeling. Should our next administration endorse teaching these ideas as well?

Fifty years ago, a substantial portion of Americans believed that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites. So it was okay to teach that in public schools, right?

Just because an idea is popular does not mean it is correct. Let's make sure we keep the focus on teaching REAL science in our classrooms.*

I understand your point about the predictions, ck1, that one involved an individual, and the other a group of people.  And no, I'm far from complacent about the upcoming elections whether at the local or national level.  On the other hand, I'm not going to waste my time combing through UD posts to find "Dave's" other predictions and outcomes.

*blatantly cribbed

Date: 2008/09/14 15:05:07, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 13 2008,22:07)
Oleg, that link is hilarious.  I did learn something though.  A few weeks ago, I saw a clip on the news of some guy mooning an audience of people.  I didn't pay much attention to it because I was just walking through my living room as my husband was watching the news.

Now, it all makes sense...

A Kansas university professor, Fort Hays State University debate coach William Shanahan, "is under fire after a video showing him mooning a room full of students and faculty during a heated debate found its way onto YouTube." He "is shown on the video in a profane, in-your-face argument with his counterpart from the University of Pittsburgh ...."

ROTFLMAO!  That's who I saw in the clip...what a loon!!!!  Being a professor and all (a *science* professor at that!), I hope you're able to keep your pants pulled up while you're lecturing your students!

Don't you have duel citizenship?  Haven't you been in the states since the early 90's?

Shanahan wasn't a scientist or a science professor by any stretch of the imagination.  Naw, he specialized in communications . . . couldn't ya tell??

Shanahan has a strong aversion to science; also, to law enforcement personnel, shoes, public schools, haircuts, professors who make more $$$ than he does, his son's T-ball umpire, district court judges, those who question his pronouncements, mown lawns, interstate speed limits below 85 mph, optometrists, and teachers.  His arrests for aggravated assault were pled down to disorderly conduct.

FHSU is well rid of him.  Why the professor from UPittsburgh wasn't also fired is a mystery.

olegt, I hope you don't have "duel" citizenship; we'd hate to see you go the way of Alexander Hamilton.

Date: 2008/09/14 18:30:27, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 14 2008,18:06)
I, and I imagine others, have saved the fantomarks page on the grounds that it might suddenly disappear: Dembski ought to be profoundly embarrassed by even posting about it in the first place.


Sounds like a term to be used while criticizing Walt Brown's blurbage.

You know - phantom arks . . .

[bowing out ungracefully]

Date: 2008/09/19 06:41:15, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 18 2008,23:05)
OH, oh....BUMMER!

Meh . . . 2 Kelvin or 4.5 Kelvin, that's just a bit smaller than the gap between 6000 or 4 500 000 000 years . . .

Date: 2008/09/19 06:49:51, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 18 2008,22:06)
My question  does this find benefit us today?

Copernicus & Newton probably didn't realize their efforts would lead to space travel.

The Curies probably didn't envision radiation therapy or smoke detectors as a practical outcome of their work.

Date: 2008/09/23 07:02:47, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 23 2008,06:24)
Science can work, i.e. generate progress and products, in the absence of complete information about how it all began.

But Alb, when a person doesn't "give a flying f*ck how science works" then that person is just not interesting in learning about science.  Period.

Date: 2008/10/03 08:10:40, Link
Author: csadams
FtK says, "She's here to represent people like *me*, "

Multiple instances of incoherence? Check.

Demonstrated inability to converse beyond canned/cut-pasted arguments?  Check.

Veneer of folksiness?  Check.

Refusal to respond to specific, substantive questions?  Check.

An admitted outsider who claims to be more knowledgeable in a given area than those who've devoted their life's work to it?  Check.

FtK's right . . . Palin really *does* represent people like her.

Date: 2008/10/03 16:30:30, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 03 2008,14:28)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2008,13:28)
Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.

Speaking of anniversaries . . .
Obama combines love and politics

GLENSIDE, Pa. (AP) — Barack Obama combined love and politics Friday, buying his wife a dozen white roses for their 16th wedding anniversary at a flower shop conveniently located in a swing district in suburban Philadelphia.

Dozens of reporters and photographers crammed into Penny's Flowers to see the Democratic presidential nominee pick out the roses for his wife, Michelle, for $47.70. Afterward, he headed for a flight home to Chicago so he could take her out to dinner.

Obama has slipped a couple times in recent days, incorrectly saying it's their 15th anniversary. That's understandable since they've spent most of the last year apart with separate campaign schedules.

Remind me again . . . what's McCain's matrimonial track record, and how does it fit with the Family Values folks?

On the other hand, a husband who can't correctly remember which anniversary it is . . .  ;)

Date: 2008/10/04 09:13:18, Link
Author: csadams
What our next president will swear/affirm in January:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Seems like we'd want someone who actually knows and understands and respects our Constitution in office.  Like a recognized constitutional law scholar.  Or a former president of the Harvard Law Review.

But of course in wingnut land, actual expertise counts for nothing - it's all about charm and twinkling and perceived meanness.  Eight years ago, it was all about bjs instead of the candidate's admittedly poor academic, business, and substance abuse record.  Is it any surprise that under this kind of leadership we have rampant anti-intellectualism and the financial mess?

Why would we *want* someone just like ourselves for President?  Gimme someone more intelligent, more thoughtful, more experienced, more calm and level-headed.

Date: 2008/10/04 14:50:46, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 04 2008,12:46)
Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas republicans can't compete, so they have to create special rules and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing.

Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas evidence republicans ID/creationists can't compete, so they have to create special rules change the definition of science and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media scientists and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing getting their stuff taught as science to public school kids.

Is this what literature professors call parallel structure?  Or just SSDD?

Date: 2008/10/06 06:39:58, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,05:30)
And, speaking of moderation....I can't post at KCFS or PZ's palace.  Other Kansas bloggers have deleted my comments as well.  Evolving in Kansas and Stand up for Science have both blocked my comments.


Jeremy and I deleted ONE of your comments, one which violated the stated objective of  
One of the goals of this website is to foster constructive dialogue concerning science and science education. Comments not in line with this goal may be deleted.

The only troll person Jeremy or I have banned is Goldstein/the Kansas troll, who incidentally is a welcome commenter at your blog.

Show evidence that Stand Up For REAL Science is blocking your comments, or retract your statement.

Added in edit:  Okay, I've simmered down.  Yes, Jeremy & I (probably me) deleted one of FtK's comments.  We have NOT banned her IP.

Date: 2008/10/06 06:47:56, Link
Author: csadams
A sampling of FtK's comments at Stand Up For REAL Science:





Date: 2008/10/06 06:50:49, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 06 2008,06:46)
Glad to see Sal taking the high road here, as always.  Kansas Center for Sewage - that's cute, Sal.  Is this an example of your scientific literacy - the kind of thing you learn how to say after having three (God willing, four) science degrees?

Jack, ya gotta admit that whenever Sal showed up at KCFS there was a certain stench . . .


Date: 2008/10/06 09:56:13, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,07:57)
Show evidence that Stand Up For REAL Science is blocking your comments, or retract your statement.

This really pisses me off.  I don't know if you misunderstood me or if you're twisting my words.

Quickly -
Yes, Ftk, I misunderstood you.  I apologize.  I was wrong.

Date: 2008/10/06 15:56:02, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,11:11)
Thank you Cheryl.  I appreciate that.  I'm sorry that I did not make myself clear.

( . . . what did I ask about using other-than-nic names here, J?)

This thread's been entertaining to read in a sick sort of way.  It's [b]so[/] much like Couric interviewing Palin . . . the jumbled jargon, not answering direct questions, becoming irritated when pressed for responses, refusing to be pinned down to specifics . . . hell, we don't need no more stinkin' VP debates, we got us a live one here!

Date: 2008/10/08 16:22:43, Link
Author: csadams
Sent to me by scary-smart daughter . . .
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Montana rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Sarah Palin and her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President. The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Palin is a post turtle.' Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle.'

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. 'You know, she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, she doesn't know what to do while she is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumbass put her up there to begin with.

To her frustration, scary-smart daughter isn't old enough to vote yet.

Date: 2008/10/13 06:42:58, Link
Author: csadams

Central Kansas?

Topeka's in eastern Kansas, fer cryin' out loud.

[muttering] damn cityfolk . . .

Date: 2008/10/16 06:20:29, Link
Author: csadams
On the one hand, Repubs bash the state of US education every chance they get.  If it's so bad, why aren't they talking about making teaching requirements more stringent instead of less?

Considering that McCain (barely) was graduated from Annapolis, it's not a surprise that he thinks military folks make the best teachers.  Just an extension of the fact that many who attended school automatically deem themselves experts on education.

Date: 2008/10/29 22:42:15, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 29 2008,22:16)
that press release doesn't say why the angry Phelps monkeys are protesting that funeral. Did the cheerleaders know a gay guy, or something?

Nope.  The crash & ensuing fatalities got some publicity, and the Phuqued-Up Phred Phelps cult is always out to get more publicity.

In related news, Topeka KS - home of the Phelps' - passed an ordinance against discrimination based on sexual orientation back in 2005.  One of Kathy Martin's fans & contributors, Carolyn Simms of Republic, KS, blasted Topekans for passing that ordinance.

That same Carolyn Simms & one of her friends sent emails to 26 newspapers in Martin's district earlier this week alerting them to the fact that Martin's challenger for the state board of education seat is homosexual, apparently concerned that the challenger would press Teh Gay Agenda in public schools.  (The challenger, Christopher Renner, is uber-qualified, and has not made any attempt to hide his orientation.)

This is one of the few times I'm ashamed to be a Kansan. For what it's worth, Phelps was born/raised in Mississippi.  Don't know about his fangirl Carolyn Simms.

Date: 2008/11/05 16:23:03, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 05 2008,16:17)
The election reports from the Kansas State Board of Education are mixed, but overall they are encouraging.

The non-whackos now outnumber the creationist loons 7-3, so Texas will be able to keep the spotlight for a while. The only downer (and it is a big one!) is in the district where I live (District 6), where the creationist loon, Kathy Martin, won re-election after a sleazy whispering campaign against her opponent, who happened to be homosexual. He's been open about that for decades, but the rethuglicans waited until the last week of the campaign to make it an issue...

There must be a lot more Fred Phelps fans than we realized in your neck of the prairie, Alb.

We didn't get the 8-2 majority we were hoping for, but it didn't go 5-5 as it could have!

Date: 2008/12/09 06:19:40, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,19:58)
Guess what?  I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works".

Meanwhile, Reed notes  
Your inability to understand this represents an alarming failure to think critically, especially in light of the number of obvious examples that have been pointed out to you.

As an alternative to reading Walts tome, I'd highly recommend taking the lowest level science and critical thinking classes you can find at your local junior college.

Sorry, Reed, your pearls will just get trampled.

Date: 2008/12/31 09:15:40, Link
Author: csadams
Casey Luskin, victim:
On a personal note, I am familiar with these kinds of attacks. In one single forum at, created and owned by a former National Center for Science Education staff member, I have been called no less than "Bizarre ignoramus," "retarded," "suck-up," "Pathetic Loser," "attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy," "an orc," "Annoying," "a miserable loser with no life," "an idiot," "dishonest," "ignorant cheap poxied floozie," "fanatic and lunatic," "A proven liar," "incompetent," and many other far more colorful attacks which are probably best left unprinted here on Evolution News and Views.

I don't list this example to complain — I happily forgive those who have attacked me, and in fact my main response to this behavior is sadness for how it brings the ID-evolution debate down into the gutter. Rather, I raise this example to point out that this example alone finds no counterpart anywhere in the ways that ID proponents have treated Darwinists. The internet Darwinist track record of name-calling against ID proponents speaks for itself, and Humes has portrayed the nature of personal attacks in this issue exactly backwards from reality.

It is a travesty when anyone — whether a supporter of evolution or ID — is attacked in a mean-spirited fashion in this debate. Humes aims to shock his readers with how evolutionists are treated, while taking no interest in reporting how ID proponents are treated--which is dramatically worse than the treatment of Darwinists. This shows his partisan bias against ID proponents.

This alternative reality in which ID supporters don't harass science supporters is brought to you by EN&V.

According to my copy of "Monkey Girl," it looks like Casey would like us to ignore these bits:

p. xi - Rev. Jim Grove calling the court proceedings "the Devil's work."  

p. xii - Grove stating that "you're sure not going to hear [the truth] in there" referring to the courtroom.

p. xiv - "Children have been ridiculed in the school yard for being open to the concept evolution, taunted and mocked for being related to monkeys.  A Dover High School student's senior project, a sixteen-foot mural depicting the ascent of man from lower forms, which had been donated to the school and displayed in a science classroom, was taken down and burned - not by vandals, but by a school district official, with the  tacit, if no gleeful approval of school board members."

Date: 2009/01/03 18:30:29, Link
Author: csadams
HBD, Bill!!!

Dare we ask about the feast you'll prepare . . . or do you subcontract it out for this day?

Date: 2009/01/18 18:15:12, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 18 2009,17:14)
I am intrigued by the caution, if not squeamishness, that ID supporters – especially Christian ones – express towards the pursuit of theodicy.

The Ill-at-ease and Theodicy.

Ugh.  Just . . . ugh.

<doffs cap>

Date: 2009/01/26 16:13:10, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 26 2009,13:24)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 25 2009,15:19)
johnnyb complains that the University of Oklahoma is running a series of talks about evolution, but is one-sided in only inviting speakers who will talk about evolution.

sparc responds    



4:49 am

Didn’t Dr. Dembski present his version of “The inner life of the cell” at OU just recently?

Naughty boy!


Congratulations !  You become BIG Star and linked to by Abbie Smith at her "erv" blog now on science Blogs.

ERV Blog - Hat Tip To ATBC!

And now the Circle Of Life - or at least links - is now complete!

At a 2006 forum (rm) here in the boonies of western Kansas, one of our local school board members was in a snit because no ID scientists from Kansas had been invited.  

He asked, "Why didn't you get one of those scientists who testified in Topeka in May?"

The response: "None of them were from Kansas."

Date: 2009/02/03 21:35:23, Link
Author: csadams
Check out Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine.

Jeremy Mohn has put together extensive documentation showing how Texas SBOE chairman Don McLeroy grossly distorted the authors' intents, that McLeroy probably didn't read the sources he'd claimed to have read, and how McLeroy plagiarized a creationist website for some of his erroneous information.

(right, I understand this bit of news is on the order of dog bites man . . .)

Date: 2009/02/06 17:10:24, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 04 2009,11:05)
Any parenting tips will be gratefully received and of course ignored as advice generally is by everyone, we'll just have to make mistakes like everyone else does.

What I've learned today about parenting:
1.  3:30 a.m. is not an optimal time to be made aware of the fact that Offspring #3 has diarrhea.
2.  Said Offspring is even more stubborn than her mother.
3.  Don't offer to taste mint-flavored liquid Imodium yourself in order to convince said Offspring to take it.  The gagging and retching are dead giveaways.
4.  An isolated population of dirty laundry in said Offspring's room will evolve its own distinct characteristics within an amazingly short time, particularly the odiferous type.
5.  Don't ever run out of zinc oxide ointment or the pre-moistened wipes.  Plan to keep them around for at least a decade.

But knowing that snuggling helps Offspring feel much better . . . that's one you'll learn quickly, Louis, and you'll love that part.  Congrats!

Date: 2009/02/07 10:02:41, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Nerull @ Feb. 06 2009,23:13)
Scenes like this, in Kansas of all places, must scare the crap out of the fundies.

[ snipped images ]

They've lost the next generation.

More here:
"Hundreds counter Phelps' anti-gay picketers at Shawnee Mission East"

Date: 2009/02/12 14:34:31, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Jasper @ Feb. 12 2009,13:18)

Those numbers definitely aren't leaning in your favor, FtK.


Wow - this is cool.  Check out the acceptance/rejection by education level.

The highest level of evo rejection is from those who have some college, but didn't finish.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?  Does just *attending* college make a person more likely to arrogantly dismiss conflicting knowledge, as compared with actually finishing college or going on for graduate work?

AFAICT, Jasper wasn't inferring/implying that FtK was any of those three options . . . s/he was just encouraging us to follow the evidence where it leads!  :)  :)  :)

edited for idiotic grammar mistake

Date: 2009/02/12 14:38:16, Link
Author: csadams
And that Zogby poll?  It's been fisked before, when Zogby (again commissioned by the DI) used the same questions skewed statements to elicit responses.

Date: 2009/02/13 09:56:02, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 13 2009,07:40)
Yo Cheryl,

Don't get too excited there...the way that poll was worded I would be compelled to answer yes to the question "Do you believe in the theory of evolution".

What a moronic way to word the stupid poll...of course I believe in the theory of evolution...duh.  Obviously the mechanisms of evolution are detectible in regard to adaptation or microevolutionary change.  Christ, the people who write some of these polls are idiotic...or Darwinian...:)  Same difference.  The whole scope of Darwinian evolution is not that simplistic.  

*FtK sticks her tongue out at *all* of you*

Yo Ja FtK, hit a nerve?  

I agree that the "believe in" shouldn't appear in any poll having to do with acceptance/rejection of well-established scientific theories.  

So if you're all about rejecting bad polls, then of course you've already publicized how bad the latest DI/Zogby poll is, right?  How Zogby used the same set of discredited questions they used in 2003?

Or the fact that the DI took one of Darwin's quotes grossly out of context (surprise!!!) in their survey, as noted by Jeremy Mohn.  Jeremy notes that the DI uses this  - "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." - as the admitted cornerstone of their misnamed Academic Freedom Day.  Jeremy further shows that

Unfortunately, the quote is glaringly out of context. Here are Darwin's actual words from the introduction of On the Origin of Species:

This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done.

Charles Darwin
On the Origin of Species

By replacing a semi-colon with a period, the first part of Darwin's original sentence has been deceptively changed into what appears to be a complete thought. Contrary to what the DI would have us believe, Darwin was not referring to a debate between evolution and some purported alternative explanation. He was referring to his own ideas concerning evolution and lamenting the fact that he knew of so many supportive observations that he could not possibly present them all - even in his 500+ page "abstract."

Personally, I think that it is quite fitting that the folks at the Discovery Institue would "honor" Charles Darwin's birthday by actively misrepresenting something that he wrote and then using it to further their own anti-evolution agenda. It is precisely this kind of hypocritical and unreflective behavior that exemplifies their twisted sense of "honor."

So of course, in the interests of scholarship, FtK is also willing to refute Don McLeroy's egregious quotemining, unlike the DI's John West who drools over it as a "tour-de-force."  Right?

C'mon, give us a link.  Show us how you're righteously standing up to bad surveys.  Aren't you the one who claims to have a "slightly neurotic obsession for finding truth?"

It's kinda hard to pluck the beams out of your own eyes when you're busy sticking your tongue out at everyone else . . .

Date: 2009/02/13 10:03:18, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 13 2009,09:09)
Even though this is a dedicated FtK thread, she is just trolling for attention here. In that light, it might be useful if we would just ignore her here, as we should do for any other troll.

We know that she will not engage in any critical thinking. We know that she will revert to insults at the slightest provocation; in fact her entire last comment was one long insult.

I propose we ignore her just to see how shrill she will get...

Oh, sure, now you tell me . . .

(alb, see FB . . . )

Date: 2009/02/24 16:22:09, Link
Author: csadams
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,15:23)
I've kind of noticed that.  I like to think that we women tend to live in the real world and Ftk is an outlier. Behind every pope writing books about morality is his wench, organising the poisoning of his enemies.

Love that last line!  I promise to steal it and apply ASAP.

I'm wondering if the male/female split is due to more technophobia among females in our* particular age group.  If AmandaHuginKiss is earning $ (or whatever currency is used Down There) fixing computers she's certainly more tech-savvy than most women I know of that age.

(*By "our" of course I mean mine and AmandaHuginKiss.  It's well known that men of that chronological age are really still just 19-year-olds in disappointing** disguises.)

(**LouFCD is of course exempt 'cause he's hawt.  Or would that be Louis?)

- (another mom, of four)

Date: 2009/02/27 06:21:25, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 26 2009,22:49)
Sitting with Doc and Paul Flocken and JP

200ish in attendance, Doc spots no Bio dept faculty.

Why no Bio dept faculty?

Date: 2009/02/27 16:56:24, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2009,12:18)
Quote (csadams @ Feb. 27 2009,07:21)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 26 2009,22:49)
Sitting with Doc and Paul Flocken and JP

200ish in attendance, Doc spots no Bio dept faculty.

Why no Bio dept faculty?

I wouldn't know any of the bio faculty but I saw the one creobot representative from the physics dept that I am familiar with.  He routinely defends creationism in the LTTE page of the paper.  Since he is a physicist I sincerely hope that he is atleast an OEC, but I never did ask when the opportunity was available.

I guess I just get discouraged when college science faculty shrug away these events.  I'm not sure they realize the effect of speakers like Behe on voters the general public.

Date: 2009/03/08 12:43:02, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 08 2009,01:26)
The Einstein thing, I was sent that by a relative a few months ago. I sent back the snopes link. This has happened like 6 times over the years from this relative. Hoax emails about Mel Gibson getting beaten up, the Klingerman Virus, Nasa's Missing Day. Every time it happens, every time it happens I reply with a Snopes link. The frustrating thing is, that doesn't stop it. Next year, from the same relative, I'll get another email, with the same features:

1 No source for the story
2 Often a famous name is revealed at the end
3 Flattering to christians
4 Basic, obvious errors

and I'll send another Snopes link. And on and on it goes.

"Reply all" with the Snopes link, plus

"Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body." - Ephesians 4:25.  

Neighbors in this day and age includes everyone on our email lists.

Date: 2009/03/22 20:16:23, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 22 2009,19:46)
Scary, very scary:  
Joe G said...

Dazza McTrazza looking to find an argument

But anyway it's too late. I am already on the school committee.

Also next month I will be presenting "Intelligent Design Awareness Day" to 8th and 9th graders.

That was helped along by "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

9:18 AM
Those poor, poor kids.

I bet there are some parents in that school district who'd object if they knew about it.  The local newspapers might be interested, too.

Date: 2009/04/02 15:52:30, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 02 2009,10:04)
Time variation of a fundamental dimensionless constant
Authors: Robert J. Scherrer

Abstract: We examine the time variation of a previously-uninvestigated fundamental dimensionless constant. Constraints are placed on this time variation using historical measurements. A model is presented for the time variation, and it is shown to lead to an accelerated expansion for the universe. Directions for future research are discussed.

Egads . . . this appeared yesterday, right?

Date: 2009/04/02 20:53:51, Link
Author: csadams
. . . my favorite bit:


No discussion of the time-variation of fundamental constants would be complete without a mention of the Oklo natural fission reactor.

Date: 2009/04/10 11:26:49, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 09 2009,11:51)
Thursday, April 9 2009, Dr. Kenneth Miller, Brown University, will talk about "Is Evolution Only a Theory? America's Continuing Struggle with Darwin, God, and Design". 7 p.m., West Ballroom, K-State Student Union, Manhattan KS. Sponsored by the Center for the Understanding of Origins.

Outstanding presentation last night; kudos to the KSU folks for putting it on.

nice ta meetcha IRL, btw!  

quibble - you said you were *kidding* about the snow . . .

Date: 2009/04/22 06:54:57, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 21 2009,19:58)
Barry has just about had enough with Hazel:
In [223] Hazel finally admits that she does not “believe in the world of objective truths.” Hazel, you are a deeply irrational person. This site is devoted to the search for truth through argumentation. Argumentation depends upon the application of reason to evidence. The process absolutely depends upon the existence of objective truth. You have stated that you do not believe in objective truth. All you want to do is make assertions, which you then refuse to defend on logical or evidential grounds. Thus, arguing with you is utterly pointless. Move along to another site.

My emphasis. Is this bannination, a threat thereof, or just 'stop making sense and go away'?

"This site is devoted to the search for truth through argumentation."

They're admitting it's about the rhetoric and not the data?

Date: 2009/04/27 23:00:32, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 27 2009,20:38)
I got the word today that UNCW will not be hiring any interns this summer due to the economy.

Summer registration was last week, and I didn't register because I knew I'd be tied up. I reallocated the tuition funds to another project to boot.

And just to add insult to injury, I had planned for using the internship money to fund the fall semester.


If it helps, I know of a workshop or three which would pay a stipend and tuition over the summer.  The good news?  - they're in Kansas.  The bad? - they're in Kansas.

Our district has axed summer school.  (Your second grader needs extra help in reading?  Too bad.)  A nearby district's last day of school is this Friday - three weeks early because they're out of money.  Two other nearby districts are RIFing.  In another district, the science teacher told me this weekend that the superintendent quit rather than RIF anyone else.

This was such a great opportunity for you, Lou, and I'm sorry it's fallen victim to this great mess we call the economy.  Hang in there!   :(

Date: 2009/04/29 06:40:56, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Henry J @ April 28 2009,16:32)
Ah, but Kansas is about as far from the sea as one can get! ;)

Well, yeah . . . now . . . gotta love the Cretaceous, though -

But won't Lou's future students see his um, obvious maturity, and think he was around at the time of the mosasaurs anyway?

FWIW, Lou, if those workshops exist in Kansas, hopefully there are some in your area.

Date: 2009/08/11 18:00:12, Link
Author: csadams
Heh heh heh, the same Joel Borofsky who said of the anti-evolution 2005 Kansas state science standards (see comment #6)

It really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools…at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID.

If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause…which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.

despite the red-faced denials from the creationist school board members, that the standards weren't promoting ID?

Too funny.


[edit: fixed frakkin' link]

Date: 2009/09/10 19:56:38, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 10 2009,17:23)
Bleh. Okay, I'm going to assume FL = male.

Reasonable assumption, seems like.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 10 2009,17:23)
I'm responsible for inviting "FL" without having any real knowledge of  his track record at PT or CARM or wherever. I just saw him posting at PT and disrupting a thread I was interested in. I didn't know it was a "regular" irritant there and my intent was to find a decent chew-toy.


Date: 2009/09/11 19:58:39, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 11 2009,17:56)
The weird, hilarious, and possibly creepy thing is that this doesn't phase FL in the least.

Personally, I can't imagine saying (1) "this book says 'X' and makes no mention of 'Y,' " then (2) getting that proven false...and then (3) sauntering back in the thread as if nothing happened.

The dissonance seems to be SOP for those who are so used to denying reality.

As far as spanking deadman goes . . . um, why are you wanting to reward him?  :p

Date: 2009/09/14 16:13:26, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 14 2009,14:41)
Cheers Louis,
I went away from this site for a fair while due to being sick.

Sick to fuckin death of creationist lying.

Agreed.  There seems to come a point at which the anti-evolutionists' lies and quote-mines and serpentine syllogisms just saturate my soul and begins to suck it down into a black hole.  That (and the question of theodicy) form the acid which corrodes faith.

Sadly, the actions of some of those who call themselves Christians have caused 3 teenagers I know of to declare themselves atheist or agnostic.  Evolution had nothing to do with it, according to them!  Try as I might to persuade the kids that these extremists aren't representative of the rank-and-file, they're sickened at the mendacity and manipulation they see practiced by these so-called leaders of faith.

Even more tragically, I see first-hand the results of kids ignoring reality, when they think their bodies are immune to the laws of physics so they don't need to bother wearing their seatbelts.  Do they think that God will protect them from being ejected from the vehicle?  Did they ever think that maybe, just maybe, God might have been that still small voice in the seat belt designer's ear?

So Floyd, the only factor I've personally witnessed corroding bodies and souls is one you unfortunately exhibit:  distorting reality in the name of 'faith.'

The really good news is that the proportion of Christian clergy who support evolution (that is, those who've signed on to the Clergy Letter Project) is 2600 times greater than the proportion of biologists who reject evolution.

The 11,000 signees of the Clergy Letter Project represent about 3% of the ministers in the U.S.

About 104 biologists from the U.S. - of a possible 955,300 - signed the "Dissent from Darwinism" statement; an impressively underwhelming 0.01%.

What does it mean when evolution has more support among clergy than it has dissent among biologists?

Date: 2009/09/16 16:08:55, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,03:22)
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  So if there is any question about things, I will be using the definitions given by the standard (and currently used) high-school and university textbook "Biology" by Campbell and Reece, 7th edition, c2005.

Evolutionary change below the species level, change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation.

Evolutionary change above the species level, including the appearance of major evolutionary developments, such as flight, that we use to define higher taxa.

Campbell-Reece's definition of macroevolution is consistent with what Scott Freeman-Jon Herron offers in their Evolutionary Analysis textbook, so I will include that definition as well:

Large evolutionary change, usually in morphology;
typically refers to the evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their placement in different genera or higher-level taxa.


Have any of you checked FL's quotes for accuracy?  Not that FL has a history of, um, needing checking on or anything . . .

Date: 2009/09/18 22:29:21, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,17:56)
(Btw, any other Christians in this forum want to join her in that effort?)


F*** off, FL.  You know damn good and well there are Christians who're 'here' and who accept evolution.  And, as you're not my husband, my minister, or a close friend, I don't intend to discuss this with you, even more so since you're so prone to deliberately misrepresenting the words and actions of others.

Date: 2009/09/30 17:12:22, Link
Author: csadams
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires
God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

First, (Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory) reject all supernatural phenomena and causations.

Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory explain
interactions between masses, interactions of space-time, interactions of matter and energy, and disease spread solely materialistically.

These theories no longer require God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts these theories).

It's called science.  Deal with it.

Date: 2009/10/01 06:39:37, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,18:10)
(Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory) reject all supernatural phenomena and causations.

Yes, yes, y'all have already tried that line of argument (of course, you can't find that specific statement in the physics articles and textbooks, but that hasn't stopped you from falsely subscribing to it anyway. )

Does FL seriously claim that he can't find proponents of these scientific theories rejecting supernatural phenomena and causations, just as Mayer does?  

Not sure how many include Mayer's caveat which FL left out - quote-mining again? shame! - that one is still free to believe in God regardless of the science. (Not an exact quote, but no caffeine yet either.)

All FL has to do is to find high-school level science textbooks which admit supernatural causation/phenomena as part of science.  Find us one such high school text approved for use by a public school district in the state of Kansas.  (Good luck - seems to be you, Against the World!)

I suspect you'll find that such texts don't address the issue.  So if kids' learning is congruent with the Kansas texts, they're not learning in school that science and religion are incompatible.  

Of course this won't prevent FL from making up statements about those texts from whole cloth as he's done in the past.  

For shame, BABY.

Date: 2009/10/02 07:05:28, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,10:26)
Is it relevant whether the 'pro-Christianity' statement is made in a textbook? If so, should it be in a school-level one, which gives only a broad description of evolution?

If you get an evolutionist stating one of the Incompatibilities in a public high school textbook, that's a pretty serious deal.  It can make it sound like he's trying to indoctrinate instead of educate.  In the past, evolutionist Dr. Ken Miller was guilty of this in the first two editions of his high school textbook.

"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts...
"Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us... Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us."

---from the FTE Amicus Brief (Kitzmiller)

And we wonder why FL doesn't provide cites for those textbooks . . . no page scans, no evidence presented that Miller actually used that terminology in those first two editions.

Likewise, no evidence that those particular editions are used in any public school district in Kansas.  No evidence that such a statement appears in current editions of Miller's textbook.  FL seems to expect us to believe there existed/exists a deliberate attempt by Miller to deceive school boards and to evade court scrutiny.  Does it really surprise anyone that FL has no evidence?  

He should stop blowing smoke and start doing some research, a la the painstaking work of Matzke & Forrest in discovering the transitional species Cdesign proponensests lying in OP&P.

(Not that blowing smoke and refusing to do science research isn't common among anti-science activists . . . . )

Parents certainly *do* need to keep an eye on their kids' texts and classwork - Freshwater, anyone?  (Oh, yeah, don't forget to check the kiddies' forearms for burned-in crosses . . . and let the kids know that if a strange handout is studied in class but the teacher won't allow kids to take it home, well, something fishy is up . . . )

*sorry for spelling goofs lately, crunched for time

Date: 2009/10/03 18:55:58, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,09:29)

Quote (csadams]Likewise @ no evidence that those particular editions are used in any public school district in Kansas.  No evidence that such a statement appears in current editions of Miller's textbook.  FL seems to expect us to believe there existed/exists a deliberate attempt by Miller to deceive school boards and to evade court scrutiny.  Does it really surprise anyone that FL has no evidence? [/quote)

(1) No claim was made that those two particular editions were used in Kansas.  Strawman, Csadams?

Thank you for making it clear that high school kids in Kansas aren't faced with science textbooks which detail any supposed conflict between faith and evolution.  Yes, given my profession, I tend to focus on the applications - how will all of this affect what I teach in the classroom each and every single day?

Quote (FloydLee](2) I made it clear that Miller's wording was not in current editions.  I said @ "the first two editions".

(3) The FTE brief makes absolutely clear what the point of the Miller example was, relative to their textbook issue.  (Which of course poked a hole right into "Matzke and Forrest's" stuff.)  

I also pointed out, relative to OUR thread topic here, that Miller's statement actually reinforced one of the Incompatibilities.

Curiously, Csadams has nothing to say to refute those actual points themselves.  Cat got your tongue Cs?  

(4) You asked about a cite.  The FTE amicus brief itself directly cited, [i)
"Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life 152 (D.C. Heath and Co., 1st ed. 1992; this language was not removed for the 2nd ed. in 1994)."[/i]  

Clear enough.

Sorry, Floyd, I just can't trust you to provide accurate information about textbooks.  That's why I'm asking for you to provide a page scan rather than an FTE cite.  It takes a hell of a faith in a person to trust them after it's been betrayed, and right now I trust you less than I could throw your car.  I know, I know, you don't really give a rat's ass whether I trust you or your sources.  (You and I have been interacting for a few years on the 'tubes, and you know that until the past couple of weeks I'd always been civil to you.  Which means that when I start cussin' at you, you've messed up, big time.)


Matzke & Forrest were able to show how the definition of "intelligent design" = that of "creationism" using the OPaP drafts.  If you can show where Miller simply used a search/replace to substitute in one phrase for another within the supposed incompatibility text, leaving the meaning intact, please, by all means do so.

Quote (FL](5) You try to link to an earlier PT discussion not related to the FTE quotation or to an Incompatibility @ [b)
but that's a two way street you're walking.[/b]  Let's walk together for a minute.

It was pointed out to you by many commenters that a high-school level textbook is not the appropriate place for upper-undergrad/grad level concepts.

And the fact remains that your goof went beyond "not reading carefully enough."  You relied on a creationist website to provide you with accurate quotes from the book as well as with supposed errors found within it, yet you presented the argument as your own.  You led us to believe that you had actually *seen* a copy of the Holt text, that you even had access to a copy, that you'd actually done this research.  And you hadn't.

[quote=FloydLee]But, again we're kinda wandering a bit.   Let's bring it back a little.  
Csadams, you say you are a Christian.  Can you tell me your specific reasons, based on your own professed Christian beliefs, why you believe that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity?[/quote]

Asked and answered.  You've been shown a multitude of examples of Christians who've no problems with evolution.  That your sect has those problems isn't my problem, isn't evolution's problem, it's your problem.  Besides, Jasper summed it up pretty well earlier.

(BTW, Dr. Heddle, your site has some interesting reading - thanks!)

Hey y'all, I'm sorry the formatting's so screwed up and that I'm in too big of a hurry to fix it.

Date: 2009/10/06 06:25:25, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (JLT @ Oct. 05 2009,13:10)
Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2009,00:55)
Sorry, Floyd, I just can't trust you to provide accurate information about textbooks.  That's why I'm asking for you to provide a page scan rather than an FTE cite.  

I found a quote of the relevant passage here (quoted by Nick Matzke):
   Joe Levine and Ken Miller, 1991 college textbook Wrote: [snipped]

Thanks, JLT, for showing a highly relevant portion of Miller's deposition, one which FL has ignored:

But as soon as a number of people pointed out the existence of these statements, I [Miller] told my coauthor [Levine] under no uncertain terms I was not happy with philosophical statements of this sort being in our textbook, and I know that no such statements appears in any of the books that we’ve published for the past four or five years, and I can’t remember exactly when we managed – which printing we managed to get this removed from this book, but I know it’s no longer in the latest version of this particular book. And again, this is a different book from the one that is being used in Dover.

Matzke notes this about the Miller deposition, with bolding by me:
The larger problem is that Luskin’s two quotes, from the early 1990’s college textbook and the early 1990’s “elephant” book are both badly out of context. I won’t say either passage is exactly scintillating in context – you can’t be an expert on everything in biology and history of science at once – but the idea that either is some kind of active attempt by Ken Miller to push an atheistic religious view is silly. Even if it were, it wouldn’t justify the constitutionality of ID, only the removal of the atheistic religious view from the classroom. And even that would assume that these books were being used in Dover, which they weren’t.

Date: 2009/10/06 06:43:09, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,16:19)
Okay, back again for a bit.  A few notes:

(1)  I could be wrong, but I think CsAdams will start falling silent about the cite thing now.  She had said, "And we wonder why FL doesn't provide cites for those textbooks", so I provided her the cite for the Miller textbook straight out of the FTE amicus brief itself.

But then instead of simply checking out the provided cite, she starts insisting on a page scan.  However, the poster JLT went ahead and did the checking and (even without offering any page scans himself), offered the appropriate Miller text, which confirmed that the FTE cite I provided was the real deal.  

And that, as they say, is that.  (Btw, on an earlier page, CsAdams tried to cast doubt on the definitions of macroevolution and microevolution that I provided from Campbell-Reece "Biology" 7th edition, but that likewise fell into silence very very quickly.  Didn't even bother asking for page scans on that one.)

You thought wrong.  Again.

Do I trust you to provide a cite to an accurate website?  No, as shown by your multiple references to creationist websites for "science" resources.

Should we trust you for an accurate, contextual reference to published works?  No, because of your unfortunate habit of misquoting and taking quotes out of context.

And yes, I ask you - and only you - for page scans habitually now.  Just because you don't provide those scans (hie thee to the TSCPL) doesn't mean *I've* gone silent.

Love to stick around and discuss this some more today but as always, I have scores of teenagers today who are looking forward(!!) to learning more about the 14.6-billion-year-old history of the universe, about the nature of science, and about the difference between debating and doing actual science.


Date: 2009/10/07 06:46:01, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 06 2009,19:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 06 2009,19:38)
The long lens is all but useless for me without a tripod at any extension, though if I brace well on a table or against a wall or something, I can do a little with the lens all the way in.

one word - monopod.

A few more words: hiking stick with camera mount.

Date: 2009/10/12 06:36:00, Link
Author: csadams
Interesting how the "Topeka school district biology textbooks don't address specific problems with abiogenesis" virus has spread:

So why did the evolutionists censor out THIS particular 2005 Science Standard? Simply because it gave Kansas biology teachers the legal protection to tell their students about the VERY BIG problems regarding prebiotic evolution. Big problems that are NOT being specified in their pro-evolution biology textbooks. (This includes Topeka and USD 501.)

. . .  which is being used as a rallying cry . . .

THAT is why we need a change in the Kansas Science Standards. To protect the academic freedom of Kansas science teachers and to protect the science students' right to learn ALL sides of the science story. Let's teach science, NOT censorship. Let's speak up for some science-education changes in 2011 and 2012.

These comments are in response to a pro-science letter to the TCJ yesterday.

Date: 2009/10/27 08:24:51, Link
Author: csadams
Percent of professors at evangelical seminaries who find no theological barriers to accepting evolution: 46

Summary here, white paper here.

Date: 2009/12/09 14:04:50, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 09 2009,12:02)
Quote (Freddie @ Dec. 09 2009,11:45)
PZ Myers is cut from the same mold as are most evolutionists.

"Cut from the same mold"?

Similar to being cast from the same cloth ...[/quote]
Nice to see FTK still has retained her KS edjucamation English Piranha skilz :)


As another product of KS edjumacation, I take acception to your statement.  You must not of been paying a tension lately.  Dinnit you here?  "Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how 'science works.' "  

Note the proper use of the contraction, the unique and imaginative modifier "flying," and the coyly proper substitution of * for "u."

Surely you ingest when you poke fun at FtK's languish skilz!

Date: 2010/01/04 06:54:31, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Jan. 03 2010,17:08)
Is Luskin really this stupid? ERV's are evidence for common descent because of their supposed lack of function?

WTF, man?

I've only seen brainless creationists spew such nonsense and apparent straw men.

Oh, I get it now.

Luskin has this thing about ERVs.

Date: 2010/01/12 16:53:48, Link
Author: csadams
Hang in there, bud!  Let me know when I can bring you something from Liquid Bread Brewery . . .

Date: 2010/04/15 15:56:28, Link
Author: csadams
Another example:  many problems and Not-Known Mechanisms associated with the "RNA World hypothesis", but that hypothesis that is presented to science kids (with no mention of problems or blankspots) within Glencoe's latest high school edition of "Biology-The Dynamics of Life."

. . . and why should we believe anything you say about textbook contents? Please verify that what you're saying about the Glencoe text is actually true.  Scan, please.

Date: 2010/04/16 15:51:55, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (FloydLee @ April 15 2010,17:26)
. . and why should we believe anything you say about textbook contents? Please verify that what you're saying about the Glencoe text is actually true.  Scan, please.

Specific quotation and specific citation from the actual source is sufficient, Cs.  I'll have that done in just a bit for both Glencoe and Miller-Levine.

If all you have to offer is that old scanned version that you used last time, that's not my fault.  Go buy the later version like I did.  If the topic is really important to you, you won't mind investing in actual textbooks.

I did your work for you last time when I scanned in the Holt textbook pages.  That was from a Holt textbook.  

Holt is not Glencoe.

Surely a journalism graduate can figure out how to generate and post a scan, no?  If you get stumped, ask a preteen in your neighborhood.

I'll give credit where it's due, no problem.  Yep, when I caught you red-texted making up stuff about the Holt textbook's treatment of abiogenesis, well, what else could you do but admit your mistake?  How do we know you're not repeating that mistake?

C'mon then - show me - produce a scan of the relevant text so we know that you've read the Glencoe and Miller/Levine textbooks' sections on abiogenesis.

Date: 2010/04/21 15:55:34, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:20)
Okay.  It's right there Cs.  I acknowledged my error, but you never acknowledged that the other one I got right.

No need to go any farther until you do.

Oh, I see.  You won't produce any evidence unless I give you credit.

I'll give you credit, sure enough.  In fact, responded to your argument over a year ago:

Let me see if I get this - FL, you’re now complaining that the short little paragraph in the text dealing with the RNA world hypothesis doesn’t mention one of your pet problems with it?

Riiiiight. Note that nowhere does the term “RNA world” even appear in the text. The para on p. 256 is labeled “A possible role for catalysts.” Right there, big and bold.

(So if you were to wander into my classroom today, you’d probably gripe that I’m not teaching the mathematics of Gauss’ law to freshman who are learning the difference between resistance and conductance. Gotcha.)

The final paragraph in the section also makes it clear that the origin of RNA is far from understood:

Because researchers do not yet understand how DNA, RNA, and hereditary mechanisms first developed, how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists.

FL, I hope you’ve learned something here: that you’d best check original sources to make sure they actually say what your favorite websites claim they say. Between your bastardization of the Holt text and your subsequent use of the Gould quote-mine, you seem to be following in the footsteps of Don McLeroy.

So yeah, I give you credit. I give you credit for continually refusing to provide evidence in the form of page scans.  I give you credit for not responding to the above points I made over a year ago.  I give you credit for ignoring the suggestion that you write your very own high-school level treatment of origin-of-life.  

Dollars to doughnuts that you'll refuse to provide the scans unless I say exactly what you want me to say.  Meh.  I don't dance that way.  Besides, you've used other excuses before to not provide original documentation.  

We shouldn't really be surprised you put a ludicrous condition on providing evidence this time.

Ho hum.  Wake me up when FL provides some actual factual evidence in form of scans of the relevant textbook pages.

Date: 2011/06/07 10:08:44, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 06 2011,22:34)
If nothing else, we could force the Discovery Institute or other deep-pockets peddler of religious antievolution to spend some of their bucks to keep it out of hostile hands. A win-win, I think.

Let's do it.  How can I help?

Date: 2011/06/07 10:39:13, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2011,10:14)
Quote (csadams @ June 07 2011,10:08)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 06 2011,22:34)
If nothing else, we could force the Discovery Institute or other deep-pockets peddler of religious antievolution to spend some of their bucks to keep it out of hostile hands. A win-win, I think.

Let's do it.  How can I help?

It will presumably go for at least tens of thousands.

So we need thousands of tens.  Or twenties.

Date: 2011/06/07 11:20:22, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2011,10:58)
It's already died the death of scientific ridicule and public indifference. It's a PR war - never lose sight of that. We've won this battle, why re-open it and give them new weapons?

It's still viewed by creos as a major weapon; a creo recommended it to me just a few months ago.  

I'd *love* to see it MST3K'd with no copyright concerns and distributed widely on DVD s - for free would be even better.  The anti-evo, anti-climate change, anti-science folks provide well-produced freebies* to science teachers.  Pro-science should be doing the same or more.

It is about PR.  This is a chance for pro-science folks to set the record straight about the duplicity of those affiliated with "Expelled," in a manner that is appealing to the public.

(If only I had a few ten thousand$ to $pare . . . )

*"Unstoppable Solar Cycles," touted by the Heartland Institute as part of its "Tea Party Toolbox"

Date: 2011/06/16 16:44:01, Link
Author: csadams
Oh, see.

Oh, see Casey.

Funny, funny Casey.

See funny Casey run.

Run, Casey, run.

See Casey running away from the evidence.

Date: 2011/06/18 09:10:29, Link
Author: csadams
Quote (JohnK @ June 17 2011,22:37)
Because of professional sensitivities, participation in the conference will be handled in strict confidence and with anonymity.

World-class speakers for up to five sessions bring the scientific evidence that is making ID an unstoppable movement, world-wide!

"Yes, we're an unstoppable worldwide movement, but we won't tell anyone you're associated with it."

Statement also applies to 9/11 truthers, Roswell aficionados, 'the CIA killed JFK,' 'QEII had Princess Di killed,' Elders of Zion, Moon Landing hoaxers, Project Rainbow, Paul McCartney is dead, Holocaust revisionism, the CIA created AIDS, and WE ARE LED BY REPTILES!!!!

Date: 2011/06/23 19:56:28, Link
Author: csadams
Boilerplate FB:

Own a piece of history! Donate to help TalkOrigins bid on the rights to the anti-science video, "Expelled." Yes, $ bankruptcy followed the moral kind.

Among other ideas, it's been suggested that a version be produced which would point out the abundant lies and rank hypocrisy.

Donate at; read the fine print at the next link.

(1st comment =

Date: 2012/06/22 10:12:55, Link
Author: csadams
File this under the category of "WTF?"

Topeka (Kansas) currently has a great state school board representative, Carolyn Campbell.  She's being challenged this November by an ardent Fred Phelps supporter.  

Which one of these will Topekans FTK or Floyd Lee support?

Date: 2012/06/22 10:35:08, Link
Author: csadams
Meh, messin' with ya, FTK.  Tough to be in that district if you're anti-evolution!