Denial of Evolution V

[leopold]

Your own cite therefore does not support your contention.

it most certainly does:

"Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms," write Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, professors of political science at Penn State, in the January 28 issue of Science."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141657.htm

please note the phrase "in the january 28 issue of "science".
so yes, it WAS published in "science".

 

[Aqueous Id]

leopold, you still fail to understand, there was only one study, in 2007. That's the original study. The first published article was in Public Library of Science in 2008. This article in Science is a repeat of the original study, it is not itself original.

All of this is moot. They said 60% of the teachers were unwilling to engage the controversy. This simply says creationists have worn the teachers down. It says nothing about their own support of the teaching. Only a minority are opposed to teaching evolution.

 

[leopold]

This simply says creationists have worn the teachers down.

or it could just as simply say that biology teachers do not have the evidence needed to fully endorse evolution.
the fossil record certainly supports that contention.

 

[James R]

darryl:

What position does leopold take? Is he/she an old earth creationist, YEC, progressive creationist... theistic evolutionist?

He seems to be a creationist. My guess is that he is a creationist for religious reasons, but he hasn't admitted that. From memory, I don't think he has admitted how old he thinks the earth is.

So, it looks a lot to me like he is a Young Earth Creationist, based on his religious beliefs. But he is one who wants to hide his beliefs rather than stand up for them. I guess that, deep down, he must be ashamed of what he believes.


leopold:

i do not accept accumulating small gradual changes for the complete explanation of lifes diversity because the fossil record apparently doesn't support it.

The fossil record does support it. And what about all the other evidence that supports it?

talk about "weasel words"
goulds qoute DOES NOT support "small gradual changes" in regards to lifes diversity.

Gould supported gradual small changes in evolution. Of course he did. That's the basis of evolution.

Are you claiming that Gould rejected the fundamental mechanism of evolution? If so, provide your evidence.

 

[Aqueous Id]

or it could just as simply say that biology teachers do not have the evidence needed to fully endorse evolution.
the fossil record certainly supports that contention.

No, that's not what the study says.

 

[Bells]

i never said i discounted it.
quite simply bells the study was from penn state, submitted to "science"
i will trust the viewpoint of "science" over that of penn state.

"Science" is a media outlet. An online science magazine. They reported on the study conducted by PSU. In other words, they viewed the study and report conducted by PSU and then they wrote a story about it. To say that you trust "science" over PSU is, well, sorry but it makes you silly. The study and report from PSU is the original source, not "science".

the study AS SUBMITTED could be completely erroneous.

Then you are wrong and trolling.

Sorry, but you are.

To discount the source of the story written by "science", ie, the study and report by PSU and then say that that study could have been erroneous and that "science" would have somehow corrected it? PSU conducted a study and wrote a report on it. "Science" magazine online picked up the report and wrote a story about it. If they had misrepresented the data presented to them in the report by PSU or if they had attemted to correct mistakes in it, they would not be an accredited magazine and would have been boycotted by all scientists and would have shut down. What "science" did was to receive a copy of the report and study, along with the findings, from the researches at PSU, and they then wrote a story about what that study found. To claim that the PSU study could have been erroneous would mean that "science" was also wrong in reporting what they did.

no, i will not trust penn states opinion in this matter, sorry.

So you don't trust "science" either then?

Penn State not only conducted the study, but also wrote the report and the findings, which Science then picked up and wrote a story about it in their online magazine. The actual study and findings were from PSU. To claim that you don't trust the actual study written about by "science" means you don't really understand how this came about.

Here is an example of what would have happend:

1) Penn State conducts study

2) Penn State collates the raw data found in the study and writes up their findings.

3) Penn State publishes their study, report, findings and raw data gathered.

4) "Science", picks up on the study and writes a story about it (which is what you are going on about) and republishes parts of the published Penn State study.

The original source of the study is PSU, not "science". You are saying that the actual study cannot be trusted because it could be wrong, but that you trust "science" who republished it because you seem to believe they conducted the study and wrote up the findings, which is wrong. Penn State conducted the study, wrote up the report and their findings, published it and then "science" republished it when they wrote a story about it. The original and actual report and the original source is Penn state. Not "science".

God damn, how you can't understand that is beyond me.

 

[leopold]

there is one important thing to point out about this survey.
surveys can be worded and presented in such a way as to get the answers you want.
this is the primary reason i am so adamant about peer reviewed sources on this matter, especially the raw data.

i will not respond to posters that label me as a creationist.

 

[leopold]

bells,
i have no idea what was in "science" because i do not have access to the issues.
i can not say "they wrote a story" or whatever else might have happened.
i DO trust "science" more than i do penn state, plos, personal websites, even you bells.
i haven't read what was printed in "science" and therefor i cannot comment on what exactly they did.
printed a story, did the "peer review" process, who knows?

 

[Bells]

bells,
i have no idea what was in "science" because i do not have access to the issues.
i can not say "they wrote a story" or whatever else might have happened.
i DO trust "science" more than i do penn state, plos, personal websites, even you bells.
i haven't read what was printed in "science" and therefor i cannot comment on what exactly they did.
printed a story, did the "peer review" process, who knows?

So let me see if I have this right..

You link "Science Daily" who wrote a story about what PSU found in their study. If you scrolled down the actual story you linked, you would have found this:

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Penn State.

_________________________________________________

Journal Reference:

M. B. Berkman, E. Plutzer. Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom. Science, 2011; 331 (6016): 404 DOI: 10.1126/science.1198902

​

Berkman and Plutzer are from PSU and conducted the study through PSU, published it and in "science" as well. Hard for you to grasp, I know, but try. The actual source of the study was PSU, not "science".

But then, you claim you have never read "science"?

So you are quoting material from a source you have never even read but claim you trust more?

If you have never read "science", pray tell, how are you quoting material from them and then advising of which edition they should read and linking to quotes from the articles printed in Science?

Quote mining?

Because what you are doing is taking a couple of sentences from those articles from "science" and then misrepresenting them and then claiming that you trust "science" more, but then also advising you've never even read the reports you are quoting from and linking.

Troll much?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Hi Bells,

What a bizarre way to present facts. Most people would be glad to get an author's own press release from his home college newsletter - anything to give you a little more insight into what the study means. From I what I can tell it looks like Berkman, Pacheco and Plutzer created a tidy set of backup documentation and went through press release to the Public Library of Science with their 2008 article, and it probably just took this long to get a slot in Science. In the mean time they published their book. Of course once that first press release went out, they were all over the web anyway. So now they're getting to double-dip on publicity, which is really great.

I learned some interesting things from this. It was the first ever national survey of teachers on the question of evolution. I like the way they imagined this from the beginning and executed it so flawlessly. What a gold mine of information that nobody else bothered to dig into. They look so meticulous, so squeaky clean. They got support from NSF, and used benchmarks from National Research Council.

I also had no idea that nearly 50% of the public think Adam and Eve were the first humans, appearing within the last 10,000 years or so. I thought Ussher had fallen by the wayside along with witch-dousing. It doesn't surprise me that about as many high school teachers think God "guided" evolution. I can remember classrooms of education majors, in my early university years, who were flaming fundamentalists, so I can attest to a degree of correlation.

In any case, this little trench that's been dug, that proposes that science is flawed because the high school teachers say so, is obviously non sequitur. It's just the opposite. They're fundies. They're conflicted. They want to avoid the fray. And a substantial number never covered evolution in college, as I recall. And, of course, high school teachers are the least likely to represent scientific authority anyway. The whole idea is so crazy. And on top of that are the crazy ideas that all the media are lying.

In any case I share your frustration, so I'm posting to you to acknowledge what you're saying. Also I would like to acknowledge Origin, James R and Hercules Rockefeller. They are always quick to argue from the position of sanity.

 

[Aqueous Id]

there is one important thing to point out about this survey.
surveys can be worded and presented in such a way as to get the answers you want.
this is the primary reason i am so adamant about peer reviewed sources on this matter, especially the raw data.

i will not respond to posters that label me as a creationist.

But you cited their work, leopold, are you saying you don't trust them now? It doesn't make sense.

If you simply take the time to read their original article, I think you will begin to understand what measures they took to remove all of the doubt and skepticism you are harboring. Here it is again:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060124

Again: this is their paper, not an abstract or review. So this is straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[Bells]

Hi Bells,

What a bizarre way to present facts. Most people would be glad to get an author's own press release from his home college newsletter - anything to give you a little more insight into what the study means. From I what I can tell it looks like Berkman, Pacheco and Plutzer created a tidy set of backup documentation and went through press release to the Public Library of Science with their 2008 article, and it probably just took this long to get a slot in Science. In the mean time they published their book. Of course once that first press release went out, they were all over the web anyway. So now they're getting to double-dip on publicity, which is really great.

I learned some interesting things from this. It was the first ever national survey of teachers on the question of evolution. I like the way they imagined this from the beginning and executed it so flawlessly. What a gold mine of information that nobody else bothered to dig into. They look so meticulous, so squeaky clean. They got support from NSF, and used benchmarks from National Research Council.

I also had no idea that nearly 50% of the public think Adam and Eve were the first humans, appearing within the last 10,000 years or so. I thought Ussher had fallen by the wayside along with witch-dousing. It doesn't surprise me that about as many high school teachers think God "guided" evolution. I can remember classrooms of education majors, in my early university years, who were flaming fundamentalists, so I can attest to a degree of correlation.

In any case, this little trench that's been dug, that proposes that science is flawed because the high school teachers say so, is obviously non sequitur. It's just the opposite. They're fundies. They're conflicted. They want to avoid the fray. And a substantial number never covered evolution in college, as I recall. And, of course, high school teachers are the least likely to represent scientific authority anyway. The whole idea is so crazy. And on top of that are the crazy ideas that all the media are lying.

In any case I share your frustration, so I'm posting to you to acknowledge what you're saying. Also I would like to acknowledge Origin, James R and Hercules Rockefeller. They are always quick to argue from the position of sanity.

This is argument has been an ongoing thing with Leo for a while now and yes, the frustration is quite high.

Leo's position is akin to a creationists standpoint, yet he will rile and abuse if described or called a creationist. So what is he? He does not believe in evolution and he has disregarded all evidence presented, even from biologists, even if their work is appearing in "Science".

So we are left with a few options. He is either:

1) Creationist
2) Atheist who believes we came here from another source (God, alien?)
3) Troll
4) Stupid

Now, we can be rude and talk to him as if he is stupid. We have explained things to him as though we are explaining it to a stupid person, but it is not that he doesn't get it or understand the concepts. He just doesn't believe it is scientific fact and thus, disregards all evidence presented, especially if they are from biologists and from the raw data presented in studies. What he does is quote mine, remember, he has admitted to not having read any of the articles he quotes from "Science" because he does not have access to it. So the only way he can get it is to quote mine it and then present it with a statement that he assumes supports his position. When the full quote is presented to him from the actual source, he disregards it, disbelieves it and claims he does not trust it, even when the quote is taken directly from "Science" and presented to him in full and where it discounts his earlier presentation of a portion of that quote.

So where does that leave us? Is he stupid? Maybe. Is he an atheist? No. I don't believe he is. Is he trolling? Yes. His behaviour in regards to this subject is pure trolling. He is quite good at it actually. Is he a creationist? This is the kicker here. Leo employs all the tactics employed by creationists in distorting the data, quote mining and misrepresenting the actual raw data to support his position. Creationists also disregard all evidence contrary to their position and beliefs, even if it is from the actual source.

As I said, this has been a to and fro game with Leo. This is not the first time he has refused to acknowledge the actual source of data and refused to trust and acknowledge sources, even though he is happy to quote mine and present it as fact, when the individual saying it directly contradicts what he is trying to push on this forum.

Is he a creationist? Yes.

Unless of course he is an atheist who thinks we were put on this planet by an external source. He has yet to define his actual position. Again, also a tactic employed by creationists.

The Berkman study is stunning. Having read through the actual study and looked at the raw data, it is stunning. And terrifying. And we see direct evidence of what they have Berkman, Pacheco and Plutzer in the form of Leo. The conflict they found amongst biology teachers in the US, we are seeing this conflict in Leo.

 

[leopold]

So let me see if I have this right..

You link "Science Daily" who wrote a story about what PSU found in their study.

i linked to a "sciencedaily" piece that was commenting on what was published in the january 28 issue of "science"

If you scrolled down the actual story you linked, you would have found this:

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Penn State.

_________________________________________________

Journal Reference:

M. B. Berkman, E. Plutzer. Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom. Science, 2011; 331 (6016): 404 DOI: 10.1126/science.1198902

​

Berkman and Plutzer are from PSU and conducted the study through PSU, published it and in "science" as well. Hard for you to grasp, I know, but try. The actual source of the study was PSU, not "science".

okay, the original source was PSU, now what?

But then, you claim you have never read "science"?

i said i never read the issue in question.

So you are quoting material from a source you have never even read but claim you trust more?

i "quoted" nothing.
i linked to the entire piece that "sciencedailey" wrote.

If you have never read "science", pray tell, how are you quoting material from them and then advising of which edition they should read and linking to quotes from the articles printed in Science?

the only things i quoted from "science" are the quotes on page 2 this thread.
i HAVE read that article.

Quote mining?

no.

Because what you are doing is taking a couple of sentences from those articles from "science" and then misrepresenting them and then claiming that you trust "science" more, but then also advising you've never even read the reports you are quoting from and linking.

i haven't read the article that is referenced in the "sciencedaily" piece.
yes, i do trust "science" more that PSU, plos, and everyone that has posted in this thread.

Troll much?

i am not trolling at all.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The Berkman study is stunning. Having read through the actual study and looked at the raw data, it is stunning. And terrifying. And we see direct evidence of what they have Berkman, Pacheco and Plutzer in the form of Leo. The conflict they found amongst biology teachers in the US, we are seeing this conflict in Leo.

Yes actually I was thinking the same thing as I was composing my post to you, that the global conversation that is taking place, its causal connection to the study, and leo's own treatment of decorum are doubly ironic. Still another layer of irony is that the fundies are trying to use the study to advance their agenda, simply by twisting what it says.

Although I think leo does a disservice to himself and to readers here by dodging open dialogue, he has actually helped be understand the severity of the war on science in a way that galvanizes me more than ever. And this was because I had to dig around a little to retrace the authors' steps since I don't subscribe to Science and I didn't feel like paying for information just to disabuse him of his errors. As a result I have developed the utmost respect for the authors and the various agencies they worked with to get this job done. I am impressed by the measures they took to keep the results objective and to make their tools and data freely available. That's the kind of transparency that deserves respect.

The issue itself is very disturbing and much worse than I had imagined. I think this level of detail is a kind of sleeping giant that is acting on public opinion and policy more than most folks are directly aware. The public discourse does need to continue and we do need to resolve it but the way religion holds the mind hostage is a huge obstacle which leaves me perplexed as to how, in this day and age, and with this technology, people can continue to remain so backward and superstitious and mistrustful of best evidence. Obviously the fundie web sites have made huge impact on the availability of evidence by cropping up so often in the top ten results of a search. And this no doubt affects the more impressionable folks in whom the idea of evolution may just be dawning. So it really gives me pause. I would really love to change this state of the world, and at any time I feel like I might just jump on the bandwagon.

I appreciate your feedback. This is the kind of discussion that I seek most, the common ground, although like you I tend to engage bogus claims and that ends up eating up most of my interaction.

 

[leopold]

Although I think leo does a disservice to himself and to readers here by dodging open dialogue, . . .

what open dialog am i dodging?

. . . he has actually helped be understand the severity of the war on science in a way that galvanizes me more than ever.

that is precisely my intent, to wake your lazy asses up.
follow your own lead, dig deep for the shit, and to be objective.
don't assume EITHER side but instead look for what proves the truth.

fuck your god and fuck your theory, THAT'S the attitude you must take.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I have a question that probably has nothing to do with where you guys are, but didn't want to spam anywhere. What's wrong with the possibility of "intelligent design"? Is there some evidence somewhere that this is not the case? I'm not trying to push religion or something, but it does bear on evolution.

I'm also not saying that it should be something major in biology or something. More of a sidenote or curiosity. I mean, I know there's no fossils of microscopic organisms with"God was here" etched into them, but is this a semi-accepted idea or not? Why or why not?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Oh, and leopold? You're my hero. Feel free to smack me around if needed. I am no scientist.

 

[origin]

fuck your god and fuck your theory

And how do you propose we do that you disingenuous doo-doo mouth?

 

[origin]

I have a question that probably has nothing to do with where you guys are, but didn't want to spam anywhere. What's wrong with the possibility of "intelligent design"?

Same reason that creationism is DOA, there is absolutely no evidence to support it. It is also possible that the universe was created 5 seconds ago and we were all put here with memories of a past, and the universe just looks old. I don't think this is worth considering though because there is no evidence of it - get it?

Is there some evidence somewhere that this is not the case? I'm not trying to push religion or something, but it does bear on evolution.

There is no evidence for it so why make up a case with zero evidence?

I mean, I know there's no fossils of microscopic organisms with"God was here" etched into them, but is this a semi-accepted idea or not? Why or why not?

It is a made up attempt by the creationist crowd to try an legitimize their view that 'God did it'. But there is no evidence that this is the case, so the only people who accept it are not educated in evolution. Evolution is fact, the only thing in question is the EXACT mechanisms.

 

[spidergoat]

I have a question that probably has nothing to do with where you guys are, but didn't want to spam anywhere. What's wrong with the possibility of "intelligent design"? Is there some evidence somewhere that this is not the case? I'm not trying to push religion or something, but it does bear on evolution.

I'm also not saying that it should be something major in biology or something. More of a sidenote or curiosity. I mean, I know there's no fossils of microscopic organisms with"God was here" etched into them, but is this a semi-accepted idea or not? Why or why not?

Well, consider Cholera. Here is a bacteria that is constantly adapting and becoming more lethal to humans and harder to treat. If there is an intelligent designer, he must really hate us.