Creationists launch new attacks on evolution

[Tony Williams]

I've posted a long article on my blog about the creationists' latest lines of attack in trying to get their fantasy taught as a legitimate theory in US schools: "academic freedom" and the "mind/brain" distinction. See: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/

[newatheist]

i have read your whole blog and i agree. but this is nothing new, they have been at it for many years now. i highly doubt they have any hope of success, i think there are many people who are more than willing to fight this nonsense so i will just laugh at the idiocy of the american fundies.:cheesy:

[Mulder]

I don't know why believers (religious, pyschic, etc) keep going on about consciousness as though it is somehow special. Latest neuroscience reveals that most of the things we do happen in our unconscious. When we 'decide' to move our arm, there is already instruction on its way to the muscles before we've consciously decided to move it.

Consciousness, it turns out, is a relatively small part of what the brain does, even though it is the bit we are most aware of, and is responsible only for executive planning, eg what you're going to do next week. I guess an analogy would be viewing a computer screen. That is where you see all the exciting stuff that the computer does. However the vast majority of the work takes place in the software and hardware that you can't see.

If consciousness is a 'soul' or 'spirit' then it is not surprising that there is no evidence that it can exist outside the body. Such a 'consciousness' would be completely useless and devoid of form or function without a supporting brain (like a computer screen turned off).

[Trinoc]

If consciousness is such a big deal then surely the idea that the universe was created by a conscious god is a more complex hypothesis than the idea that it evolved on its own.

Creationism only made sense as long as consciousness was regarded as a "given", requiring no further explanation. If I understand correctly, Occam's Razor was originally employed to argue that God existed because that was a simpler explanation than postulating lots of different natural processes ... but Occam was assuming that God's consciousness required no further explanation, which is where he, and the creationists, got it wrong.

[Dubious Dick]

If consciousness is such a big deal then surely the idea that the universe was created by a conscious god is a more complex hypothesis than the idea that it evolved on its own.

Creationism only made sense as long as consciousness was regarded as a "given", requiring no further explanation. If I understand correctly, Occam's Razor was originally employed to argue that God existed because that was a simpler explanation than postulating lots of different natural processes ... but Occam was assuming that God's consciousness required no further explanation, which is where he, and the creationists, got it wrong.

How very well put! A neat and incisive thrust at the weakness of the 'God' illusion. Congrats. I shall use that one given half a chance, if copyright not an issue!

[Trinoc]

How very well put! A neat and incisive thrust at the weakness of the 'God' illusion. Congrats. I shall use that one given half a chance, if copyright not an issue!
Consider it Creative Commons ... since I'm common as muck and I make everything up!

[Tony Williams]

i have read your whole blog and i agree. but this is nothing new, they have been at it for many years now. i highly doubt they have any hope of success, i think there are many people who are more than willing to fight this nonsense so i will just laugh at the idiocy of the american fundies.
Unfortunately, they appear to be making some progress in getting their ideas discussed as legitimate alternatives to science in US schools. They are of course being vigorously opposed, but they are very persistent and won't give up. After all, they know that they have God on their side.

[Trinoc]

Unfortunately, they appear to be making some progress in getting their ideas discussed as legitimate alternatives to science in US schools. They are of course being vigorously opposed, but they are very persistent and won't give up. After all, they know that they have God on their side.
More to the point, they know they have as much money as they want from a load of gullible people on their side.

[Tony Williams]

More to the point, they know they have as much money as they want from a load of gullible people on their side.
Sadly true. They use that, among other things, to produce lots of glossy teaching materials which they distribute free to schools - including in the UK.

[JJM]

I've posted a long article on my blog about the creationists' latest lines of attack in trying to get their fantasy taught as a legitimate theory in US schools: "academic freedom" and the "mind/brain" distinction. See: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/Your blog post is very good. I like the fact that you quoted the Judge, noting how the school board members lied about what they had done. About a century ago, a US Supreme Court Justice wrote that lying under oath is the biggest barrier to justice. They caught those guys in three, huge lies. At one point, the judge exercised his prerogative to question the witness; he asked the guy if he knew he was under oath.

I would love to know what those characters are going to do next. At the time of the Dover trial, it was suggested that another name-change would come up. They had simply substituted ID for Creation in their texts and arguments.

There is a good blog here http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ Search for Cincinnati to see several posts on a recent event. Recently, the Cincinnati (Ohio, USA) Zoo formed an alliance with a nearby Creation Museum. The author of the blog initiated an e-mail campaign that put an end to the zoo-museum partnership. This was a case of the Creationists trying to get a veneer of legitimacy by association with a real, academic group.

[Mongrel]

IF you ever get the chance the Nova documentary "Judgment Day - Intelligent Design on Trial" is well worth a watch. If you can play Region 1 DVDs it's available on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Judgment-Day-Intelligent-Design-Trial/dp/B000YY6VIC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1228676306&sr=8-1):)

[lost thought]

Sadly true. They use that, among other things, to produce lots of glossy teaching materials which they distribute free to schools - including in the UK.

Yes,
my daughter said they were not much good as the glossy surface made the shit slid off before you could finish wiping her arse with them. >:D

Sorry I will be good.. O0

Lost Thought ::)

[Trinoc]

IF you ever get the chance the Nova documentary "Judgment Day - Intelligent Design on Trial" is well worth a watch. If you can play Region 1 DVDs it's available on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Judgment-Day-Intelligent-Design-Trial/dp/B000YY6VIC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1228676306&sr=8-1):)
And of course it's available from Long John Silver's emporium ...

(Nudge nudge, say no more!)

[polomint38]

And of course it's available from Long John Silver's emporium ...

(Nudge nudge, say no more!)

I got a copy from Mr Silver, his delivery time was quite good as well.
I have yet to watch though

[Mongrel]

Shame on you >:-)


PBS, the station that financed it, is a not for profit organisation. It funds some of the best documentaries and science programs in the US. Torrenting their programs is a bad thing >:-)

[Trinoc]

PBS, the station that financed it, is a not for profit organisation. It funds some of the best documentaries and science programs in the US. Torrenting their programs is a bad thing >:-)
But if they choose not to release DVDs which can be (legally) played in the UK then they couldn't make a profit out of UK people watching the programmes anyway.

[bindeweede]

But if they choose not to release DVDs which can be (legally) played in the UK then they couldn't make a profit out of UK people watching the programmes anyway.

I'm not trying to side-track or anything, but - stupid question no.91 coming up - what is "torrenting"? Do I need it - if so how do I do it? Is it like P2P - not really sure what that is either.

Yours, Dumbo;D

[Trinoc]

I'm not trying to side-track or anything, but - stupid question no.91 coming up - what is "torrenting"? Do I need it - if so how do I do it? Is it like P2P - not really sure what that is either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol)

[Mongrel]

But if they choose not to release DVDs which can be (legally) played in the UK then they couldn't make a profit out of UK people watching the programmes anyway.

Region 1 can be legally played in the UK, the whole region thing was a marketing\distribution concept. If it was illegal major vendors (such as Amazon) wouldn't ship to a UK address.

Now don't get me wrong, I watch a lot of American TV from torrents - partially from impatience and partially from the fact that I like the weird stuff that doesn't get shown on Sky, but if I like the show I'll get the box set when it's out. I did see the Evolution on Trial from torrent but brought the DVD when it was available (and when the dollar was in the toilet O0)

Buying a show that you like, even when it's not being shown over here, takes it one purchase closer to "we'll renew the show". Saying that it's a good show and then only downloading it does sod all for it.

[Trinoc]

Buying a show that you like, even when it's not being shown over here, takes it one purchase closer to "we'll renew the show". Saying that it's a good show and then only downloading it does sod all for it.
In that case they should make it legally downloadable for a price that accurately reflects what they would expect to make from the DVD, not a price that includes marketing, packaging, distribution, and mark-ups for innumerable middle-men.

Anyway, the simple fact is that I am not so interested in the programme that I would buy the DVD for it, so they wouldn't get my money anyway. On the other hand, by watching it for free, I not only become better informed about a matter of great importance, but my confidence in NOVA as a brand increases. In the unlikely event that NOVA ever airs in the UK (yes, I know they were jointly responsible for some of the better Horizon programmes), their existing reputation would help to boost their viewing figures. If not, then it makes no difference whether I have viewed this particular programme or not.

Do people feel the same obligation, I wonder, to pay for DVDs produced by the BBC to allow them to view programmes which have already been paid for with their licence fees?

[lost thought]

I'm not trying to side-track or anything, but - stupid question no.91 coming up - what is "torrenting"? Do I need it - if so how do I do it? Is it like P2P - not really sure what that is either.

Yours, Dumbo;D

Well according to Amiga these are evil people whom conect thier pc's together so that they can steal software from kind venders and share them, No expert but I think p2p is similar I think maybe perhaps but on a larger scale. :-X

Lost Thought O0

[Trinoc]

Well according to Amiga these are evil people whom conect thier pc's together so that they can steal software from kind venders and share them, No expert but I think p2p is similar I think maybe perhaps but on a larger scale. :-X
Bit Torrent is one of the many forms of P2P, and the one predominantly used for "legal" file sharing (i.e. the stuff the Copyright Mafia have not succeeded in claiming as their own, like free software distribution, or music/video which has been released freely by the owner). Of course there is a lot of the other stuff there as well, and so it is likely to continue until the content authors provide legal ways for us to buy just the music or video for a reasonable price (say, the 10% or so of cover price that currently goes to the artists on a CD), and without artificial restrictions on where we can buy or use it.

[Mulder]

Unfortunately, they appear to be making some progress in getting their ideas discussed as legitimate alternatives to science in US schools.

It could be a useful debate if the kids were asked why scientists start with the evidence while creationists start with assumptions. It could give them valuable lessons in critical thought.

[Tony Williams]

It could be a useful debate if the kids were asked why scientists start with the evidence while creationists start with assumptions. It could give them valuable lessons in critical thought.
Yes, it could. Unfortunately many teachers are not comfortable with science and/or (especially in the USA) prefer the creationist viewpoint anyway.

[newatheist]

Sadly true. They use that, among other things, to produce lots of glossy teaching materials which they distribute free to schools - including in the UK.
my dad for some reason has bee chosen as one of the lucky few who recieve one of these every month.

[JJM]

I have found a suggestion for the next phase of creationism:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=434

Now we are into the next phase of this apparently never-ending game. Creationists are now claiming that they are really for academic freedom – which is just another way of saying they want equal time to teach the controversy. It’s ironic that the creationist movement began by banning the teaching of an accepted scientific theory, and now are whining about being oppressed and all they ever really wanted was academic freedom. Right.

[Tony Williams]

I have found a suggestion for the next phase of creationism
Errm... that's what I was writing about in the blog referenced in the first post of this thread ???

[Trinoc]

Errm... that's what I was writing about in the blog referenced in the first post of this thread ???
The more people who write about it, the better.

I can recommend Steve Novella's blog at theness.com (as well as Tony's :smiley:). Also check out the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/) podcasts.

[JJM]

Errm... that's what I was writing about in the blog referenced in the first post of this thread ???That was five days ago. Do you expect me to remember? Sorry, your article is good, I just skimmed-through it too fast.