|
 |
November 06, 2003 WORKING THE REFS....You want to talk about bias in the press? Let's talk about bias in the press. The LA Times reports today that the Texas Board of Education is about to decide on textbook adoptions for the coming year, and needless to say the big battle is over the biology texts. The creationist crowd is doing its usual best to undermine the teaching of evolution, and the Times starts out its article like this:
A scientist by trade! A research professor! A guy who struggles mightily to reconcile his faith and his science! Hogwash. William Dembski has PhDs in mathematics and philosphy. He is not a research scientist and has no professional expertise in biology. Until recently he was a well known member of the Discovery Institute, the largest and best funded opponent of evolution in the country. He was head of a center at Baylor's Institute for Faith and Learning until a controversy in 2000 which he mistakenly hailed as "the triumph of Intelligent Design." Even Southern Baptist Baylor couldn't stomach that and he was fired two days later. In other words, he's a longtime foe of evolution with no professional standing whatsoever in biology. So why is the Times bending over backwards to pretend otherwise? And why do they oh-so-carefully describe him as having a degree in "science," a description not usually applied to mathematics, and just as carefully refrain from telling us that his degrees are entirely unrelated to biology? This is the worst kind of he-said-she-said journalism. Some guys say evolution is true and some other guys say it isn't. Hey, whatever, we're just reporters. And in further depressing news, it turns out that it's not just evolution these guys want to gut from the textbooks. Check this out:
What's next? Geology texts that vaguely suggest the earth is, um, really, really old? Posted by Kevin Drum at November 6, 2003 09:28 AM | TrackBackComments
Sheebus Bright. . . . . Sorry. I'm speechless. Posted by: Julia Grey at November 6, 2003 09:35 AM | PERMALINKEven worse. Somebody linked to this last week: "The non-moving earth & anti-evolution web page... http://www.fixedearth.com/ Well, I guess philosophy counts as a science. But this thing still stinks to holy heaven. Posted by: Dan at November 6, 2003 09:36 AM | PERMALINKphilosophy counts as a science Waaaaah?! In the minds of philosphers, maybe. Posted by: Boronx at November 6, 2003 09:40 AM | PERMALINKEverything I've read today has depressed me - that one just takes the biscuit though. Posted by: Nasi Lemak at November 6, 2003 09:41 AM | PERMALINKI used to care about this...but these days I just think that if they want to stick their heads in the sand, fine. Posted by: praktike at November 6, 2003 09:46 AM | PERMALINKKevin, This is one of the times I absolutely agree with you. The only reason Dembski has PhDs is to advance his cause, which is overthrowing evolution. I admit he has a slick theory, but upon close examination it is got some substantial holes in it. He is often quite misleading and uses mathematism (introducing unnecessary mathematical jargon) to hide lots of these holes. It is important to note that none of his work has made it into the peer reviewed literature. His only publications that have made it into peer reviewed literature are results on vanilla probability theory and those are quite few (to be honest I know of only one pub.). Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2003 09:47 AM | PERMALINKThanks for keeping them honest, Mr. Drum. A great resource for answering the typical creationist/ID'er nonsense is the Talk Origins site and its sub-site Talk Design. Posted by: lefty skeptic at November 6, 2003 09:50 AM | PERMALINKThe Texas case is a mess. The school board there allowed the Discovery Institute to charge in with last minute complaints, forcing everyone to scramble to come up with rebuttals on extraordinarily short notice. And the thing is, some of what the DI introduced at the last minute were simply lies. Then comes the real bind. You can't simply say to the people that are reviewing the case that one side is lying like a sumbitch; you have to carefully document everything and discuss it with civility and grace. And then they can throw another lie at you out of left field. Posted by: PZ Myers at November 6, 2003 09:51 AM | PERMALINKHmmmm.... Maybe they got their peepees whacked over the Ahnold the Perv story and this is their way of making up to Republicans. Posted by: chris at November 6, 2003 09:53 AM | PERMALINKChaka, Stop being such a partisan dipshit. Just because one is Republican or conservative does not mean on automatically believes crap like Dembski is foisting. I know plenty of Republicans/conservatives who wont stand for it. Dembski is a highly trained disembler. To counter his arguments you'll need more than stupid slogans. You'll have to be able to read his mathematically dense writings, and show where he makes mistakes. Do not underestimate Dembski. He comes off very well before a crowd. And his arguments look very impressive to the uninitiated. Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINKThe DI's other 'big gun' (and source of much of the mangled embryology they've been peddling) is Jonathan Wells, who has outright admitted that the reason he acquired his Ph.D.s was at the request of "Father" -- Sun Myung Moon. You also gotta wonder how Republican conservatives like lying in bed with the Moonies so much. Posted by: PZ Myers at November 6, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINKSince Spin was asked for spin shall be granted. The New York times that completely failed to report on the New York City school distrits PC editing of famous literary works. Editing to the point where the content of the literature was not the same. (ie a story about being a jewish girl that took out all reference to jews, or a story about being fat that took out all reference to being fat) This story received zero news paper press until some of the authors still living threatend to sue. Perhaps news papers are just bad at presenting news on text book content? Posted by: james at November 6, 2003 09:56 AM | PERMALINKAre we just now getting to the point where we're depressed about this stuff? Every load of crap, subhuman, Ayn Rand, crypto-Christian bad idea that has been nurtured in the country of Texas has been adopted over the past 20 years on a national scale. This will, too. Trudging to the polls, depression in hand, will not stop these people. Posted by: John Thullen at November 6, 2003 09:57 AM | PERMALINKJames. Please provide citation. (If it comes from Carol, don't bother.) Posted by: chris at November 6, 2003 09:59 AM | PERMALINKI live in Texas, and this guy is my state board rep. Notice that though I live in Far North Dallas, I'm represented by a guy from rural Gorman, which is about halfway between here and freaking Abilene. Besides being cool with the Christian Coalition, he's a WallBuilder, among other things. Basically, he seems just like the type of guy that Kevin was good enough to warn us about a little while back. I really need to get out of this damned state. Posted by: strannix at November 6, 2003 09:59 AM | PERMALINKCreationism is just another word for religion. These are young kids. And, if I remember correctly, back to the mid-1940's to mid-1950's there wasn't much in those textbooks worth remembering, anyway. I remember being absolutely amazed when I read my first college textbook, that FINALLY history was being taught with all it's flaws in place. Everything else was way over the top "patriotic." And, bloodless. Forget about learning about the battle scenes of the Civil War. Big on the 'issues,' though. And, you can't lose when you're reading the Lincoln/Douglass debate material. But no one spoke about Lincoln's abhorrance of President Polk. Of his shouting in the House well that Polk should come down and point to a map where any American blood had actually been spilt in San Antonio! So, maybe, we should just leave the kids alone? There's plenty of sexually explicit information out there; and, right now, folks, the republicans are on a roll. You can't say they lied. And, you can't keep up this charade, where democratic characters are never to blame when Americans begin voting democrats out of office. Even today, the old war horses are still standing. I think, especially with so many heads hiding in the sand, that when the next wave of elections for democrats comes around, you're gonna see voters going into the voting booths across America with clubs. And, they're gonna play "Wack-A-Mole." You don't like it if your kids aren't learning about evolution? Well, you can teach this stuff at home. Just be honest with your kids. Share with them the knowledge you've gained so far. And, they can handle what comes down the pike in classrooms. Especially the stuff that comes coated with the perversions of politics. Like the PC stuff. And, the other un-truths. Why wait? You can begin today. Stop complaining of what the "republicans are getting away with" and begin to realize that the stuff that began being taught in classrooms starting in the 1970's, is revolting idealism. Where Americans are told to take a back seat to women. Homosexual marriages. And, a president that took more than a pizza delivery in the Oval Office, while his wife was upstairs in the bedroom. Funny, you can't frighten me with "Creationism." I read enough to know better. I read enough to know that Clarence Darrow actually failed to protect the school teacher who taught evolution. But the story sticks around. The strength of the People was once represented in the democratic party. In those days the "good fights" did people proud. And, from these entanglements people did learn! While in Italy, the Pope's home town, birth control is a reality. Since the Italians no longer make families ticking off all the fertile years of a woman's captivity in marriage. Today, the Italians have one kid a piece. Some have two. And, then they stop. So stop being afraid of books. And, what they say. Ultimately, you can get to the truth, in spite of religion. But religion, as a whole, never hurt the kids. Life just never turns out as rosy as promised. That's all. Posted by: Carol in California at November 6, 2003 10:08 AM | PERMALINK*THE* Ice Age? There's been a bunch of the damn things -- indeed, Ice Age seems to be the default position with warming the abnormality. Posted by: M.Tullius at November 6, 2003 10:09 AM | PERMALINKI recommend Mark Perakh's websit. As a nice source for debunking Dembski. He takes these arcane mathematical topics and breaks them down very nicely into everyday lingo. Dembski is a slick operator, and uses things most commenters here wont understand. For example, Dembski's second big book was No Free Lunch and he makes use of the No Free Lunch theorem. The No Free Lunch (NFL) theorem is a theorem about search algorithms and a surprising general result. Dembski counts on this ignorance to make his opponents look foolish. He also counts on ignorance of those who might be sympathetic to his views to convince them that evolution is not possible at certain points. Needless to say, Dembski is misapplying the NFL theorems. But it is not easy to see how he has misapplied them. This is why, IMO, the L.A. Times takes Dembski seriously. He is a tough opponent. Gone are the days of Kent Hovind and his mail order Educational Doctorate (from Patriot University). Gone are the days of debunking intellectual midgets. You don't get a PhD in probability theory (with Patrick Billingsley as your advisor) by being a dimwit. And on point Kevin would be wise to back off. Quite a few of the people opposing Dembski are not biologists. Dismissing Dembski because he is not a biologist would also mean dismissing this valuable work as well. Big mistake, IMO. Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2003 10:11 AM | PERMALINKChris, James is thinking of a case involving editing of passages on the New York Board of Regents exam in English. Passages on an exam given only to children in New York State. I look forward to his explanation of how editing Annie Dillard on a test bears any relationship whatsoever to unscientific changes in biology books that hundreds of thousands of students will be saddled with, but maybe he's got something. Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2003 10:11 AM | PERMALINKSteve -- stop being a partisan dipshit yourself. Sure, moderates don't **agree** with Demski. They just let him decide which textbooks to choose. Tom Delay, Republican House Majority Leader and de facto House Speaker*, thinks that Texas A&M and Baylor are too left wing and that no one should let their kids go there. Texas A&M and Baylor! If you want a guy like DeLay in power, vote for a moderate Republican for the House. If you don't (or if you don't care much) vote for a Democrat. http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2002-04-26/pols_naked4.html *Nobody believes that what's-his-name Hastert (?) is more powerful than DeLay. Nobody. Hastert was elected because he was the only big or medium-sized Republican without adultery or other scandals in his background. Posted by: Zizka at November 6, 2003 10:13 AM | PERMALINKI am also a Texan and the problems with our textbook review and approval committee run far deeper than the creationism controversy; it extends to environmentalism as well. There is an excellent article on Salon.com titled "They Ban Textbooks, Don't They?" which address the problems we are having, the outside influences on the review process and the courageous textbook author who has filed a lawsuit against the review board. Sidebar: at the conclusion of my junior year my high school was finaling textbook selection for the following year. They were adopting a new English textbook and could not make a choice between the two finalists. They gave both textbooks to me to make the final selection. They used the one I chose. Posted by: Brea Plum-Gomez at November 6, 2003 10:16 AM | PERMALINKphilosophy counts as a science no it doesn't. and neither does math (at least not for the classical definition). and frankly there's plenty of biology that isn't really science either, because getting a PhD doesn't make you a scientist, it just means you get to call yourself "doctor". Dembski is not a scientist by any reasonable definition. There's plenty of sexually explicit information out there; and, right now, folks, the republicans are on a roll. You can't say they lied. huh? I say they lie constantly. what's your point here? Posted by: radish at November 6, 2003 10:16 AM | PERMALINKCarol in Cali: Do you know the meaning of the word "obfuscate?" Look it up and memorize its meaning before posting here again, 'kay? And remember not to "obfuscate" here again. Just say what you mean. Posted by: KDR at November 6, 2003 10:21 AM | PERMALINKNobody's mentioned the larger point: as Texas and California go, so go the textbook publishers. The NYT ran a story on that about a year ago (long lost in the archives, I'm sure) which clearly delineated how big those two elephants were, and it was startling. It's demand-driven publishing at its most economically pure. Posted by: Linkmeister at November 6, 2003 10:21 AM | PERMALINKSteve -- stop being a partisan dipshit yourself. Sure, moderates don't **agree** with Demski. They just let him decide which textbooks to choose. I'm not you moron. I'm agreeing that Dembski is a problem, and so is the stuff he is peddling. Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2003 10:22 AM | PERMALINKUnless I'm missing something, Kevin's point here seems to be about purported bias in the press in reporting this story, not about the merits of Dembski's arguments. In other words, the LA Times is catering to some unnamed right-wing pressure in presenting a favorable case for Dembski. Really? The LA Times!! How about another explanation. The reporter is just an idiot. Mathematics, philosophy, science, research, Ph.Ds, whatever. The Los Angeles Times did a disservice to its readers by giving a false authority to Dembski on the subject of evolution, and the press in general fails the public when it ignores the history (or rather, the lack thereof) of those like Dembski and Wells. The Texas school board should also know better than to wittingly accept non-science on the subject. Unfortunately, they may be willing to walk down the same path that the Kansas school board did a few years ago, much to that state's embarassment. BTW, Kevin missed this real doozy from the Times piece: "In one book, a passage saying that fossils "explain" evolution has been changed to say that fossils "may explain" evolution." I don't know if this was dumbed down for 9th graders or not, but this is completely turned around! As someone who took biology in 10th grade myself, I understood fossils then to be *physical evidence* that the theory of evolution accounts for in its _explanation_ of how all the various forms of life on Earth that we now see came to be. Those before Darwin certainly knew something about fossils (thanks in part to a new science called 'geology')and realized there were older forms of life, but they didn't know how it all fit until Darwin and Wallace paired the processes of random mutation and natural selection together. OTOH, Intelligent Design isn't a theory at all, as it doesn't explain anything, but only states that there are Things We Can't Explain. Well, duh. That's not how science works and that's why ID doesn't belong in the biology classroom. Posted by: David W. at November 6, 2003 10:28 AM | PERMALINKI lecture on Faith and Doubt and it always amazes me how the religious right in this country has managed to convince everybody -- definitely the press, most of the population, and even some otherwise lucid academics -- that creationism is an antagonist to Evolutionary Theory. Even those who think creationism is bunk, keep making this mistake of discussing creationism as an invalid alternative to Evolutionary Theory. But creationism is not invalid or wrong, and can never be proven to be invalid or wrong. That's because it not an invalid theory or wrong school of thought on the creation of life on earth. Instead, it is simply not a theory or school of thought, period, but merely a declarative statement. Even if Evolutionary Theory did not exist, was never proposed or conceived, creationism could not be an alternative theory or school of thought on how life appeared on earth. Even if creationists managed to discredit and refute Evolutionary Theory tomorrow, creationism would not become an alternative theory or school of thought. We would simply have no explanation whatsoever. Simply put, a "theory" attempts to explain how a certain natural phenomenon came or comes about. A theory may be proven to be invalid or a poor explanation but it's always a proposed explanation and an analysis of the mechanism that produces a phenomenon. Creationism simply postulates that God created life. It could postulate instead that aliens from outer space or elves or whatever created life. There's no mention in any of the creationist literature on how it was done exactly. No mention of any mechanism. Just bada-bing bada-boom poof! Here's the universe and life. Since it does not offer any explanation or analysis of a mechanism,
creationism cannot be discussed or refuted. I suggest therefore that we
all decline invitations to discuss creationism and Evolutionary Theory
in the same context. It is nonsense. Every time we accept to pit one
against the other we implicitly accept a certain nonexistent equivalency
between the two. I agree with Melk. This smells more like a case of incredibly sloppy, lazy reporting. (A lot of "bias" can be blamed on that.) Posted by: Media Minder at November 6, 2003 10:32 AM | PERMALINK"I have a masters degree . . . . in science!" Posted by: treetop at November 6, 2003 10:35 AM | PERMALINKI used to care about this...but these days I just think that if they want to stick their heads in the sand, fine. I would generally agree, except that they want to shove our kids' heads in the sand with them. That's what makes me want to crush them like little unevolved bugs. Let me give you a perfect example... Carol: You don't like it if your kids aren't learning about evolution? Well, you can teach this stuff at home. Just be honest with your kids. Share with them the knowledge you've gained so far. And, they can handle what comes down the pike in classrooms. I wish to bask in the astonishing, mesmerizing stupidity of this statement for a while. Want your children to learn science? Teach them it at home, wierdos -- public schools are for teaching religious values. If you're so bent on teaching your kids this science stuff, well then, that's the job of the parents. But don't drag public education into it, they should only teach stuff that [our] [very specific] [Christian] [variant of] religion knows to be fact... otherwise you're just confusing our kids. Ahhh. If self-unaware irony was sunshine, we'd all have third-degree burns right now. You can't make this stuff up. So stop being afraid of books. And, what they say. Ultimately, you can get to the truth, in spite of religion. But religion, as a whole, never hurt the kids. Aggh! Make it stop, make it stop! Da goggles, dey do nutting! Posted by: Hunter at November 6, 2003 10:40 AM | PERMALINKIt's unfortunate that the idiot reporter at the LATimes didn't interview Kenneth Miller. Miller is a real research scientist in the biological sciences (at Brown University), and a devout christian to boot. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html Posted by: raj at November 6, 2003 10:41 AM | PERMALINKsorry to feed the troll, but . . .can't . . .resist Carol, why do you hate women so much? I hear the Taliban are back in town over in Afghanistan, they might be a little more amenable to putting you in your place. (assuming you are a woman). Posted by: Librul at November 6, 2003 10:43 AM | PERMALINKHere's what I mean. Kids are not going to be hurt by textbooks. Reading is a skill. Books help move that along. Kids have been bombarded with the pablum of the PC crowd. The textbooks deviate from reality by miles and miles and miles. As to "creationism" the real reason there's so much pressure put on this, is that it covers a religious base. One that has been removed from the books used at school. When kids go to school and are 'forced' to read these books, it is up to parents to explain that their religious/political views are not in sinc with this stuff. If learning stopped at the books you wouldn't have a problem, anyway. Kids learn from their peers. And, it's pretty obvious most little kids play with replicas of dinosaurs. And, hear stories about the world before they were born. Anyway, the much brighter kids, wanting to get into medical school, will need to go beyond 'creationism' in order to learn FACTS. That helps them with science. And, since math and science are not dependent these days on PC or the other idealistic crapola that did get into textbooks (about how the Indians were nice people.) And, you believe this because Benjamin Franklin's autobiography (which was once a basic American textbook), contains the words where he describes indians as SAVAGES. Ben Franklin also describes treaty signings with indians, where all they wanted was the rum. I also don't think that the democrats own the issue on books. Lots of Texas parents, who have voted for republicans also abhor the encroachment of 'conservative values.' And, as candidates come down the pike, in future elections, the "over the top" fanatics (who once had creationism taught in school, for those that remember the Scopes Trial), will know that it doesn't stick around for long. Too many parents want their kids to be taught science, math and the hard sciences, at that. Anyway, if your not in the libararies. If you're not working beyond your class assigned materials, changes are it doesn't matter what's in the books. Kids are very good at ignoring this stuff. Those who work hard and dig deeper aren't looking for non-accredited colleges to go into. Their really are systems in place that bypass religious dogma these days. But if you folks want to see harm, you're not going to find it by teaching young kids religious dogma these days. Probably no different than letting kids watch Disney movies. Or sing to the purple Barney. Posted by: Carol in California at November 6, 2003 10:47 AM | PERMALINKAnother link to a Dembski site That site has lots of links to others who debunk Dembski. Warning, some of it is math oriented. Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2003 10:48 AM | PERMALINKCould these 'religion-compliant' textbooks be the basis for a separation of church and state lawsuit? Seems to me that if a textbook used in a public school is changed to accomodate the beliefs of a certain religion that this could be unconstitutional. IANAL, of course... Posted by: Tom at November 6, 2003 10:54 AM | PERMALINK(at least not for the classical definition). Just a clarification. The "classical" definition of science is simply an organized body of knowledge and hence philosophy, math etc werecalled/considered sciences in the classical period. The modern definition limits sciences to the natural sciences, physics biology etc. Posted by: spc67 at November 6, 2003 10:57 AM | PERMALINKWhat a leap of faith, Librul, that I hate women! What I hate with a passion is this made up nonsense that women can get into congress and then just deball everybody. SO the democrats are represented by women where the color that diferentiates them are the suits they wear. Reds. Yellows. Bright colors. And, no, women don't get a pass when they're part of a very incompetent structure. Do women fight differently then men? Sometimes. California just saw 3 women with political powers who either had no plan going into October 7th. Or they believed in magic. There are lots of men who love women (especially those who are young, have good legs, and are willing to take their clothes off). But then, if you're describing women on that scale, I'm just not on it. I prefer reading cookbooks. Did women (and others) get a political break when the social changes brought success to campuses, nationwide, and the PC crowd got in? Yes. This happened. And, it failed. Maybe, "liking" isn't even the right question. Maybe, the right question is, looking around you, did the these women do a good job? And, what about those men that also adopted these new surroundings as their own? Anyone notice when they talk about Daschle, or Algore, that they're talking about "non-Alpha-males?" Why not be honest? The PC movement deballed men. Not all. Since the successes these days the republicans have, came from some really outraged White Males. But the democrats won't learn. That's why the American voter, playing Wack-A-Mole is gonna show ya what happens to people inside Hide-E-Holes. By the way, nothing's changed in science. Men are hardwired to ADORE females. Posted by: Carol in California at November 6, 2003 10:59 AM | PERMALINK"...women can get into congress and then just deball everybody." I beleive the word is "castrated", Carol. And, BTW, I've still got mine. Have we learned nothing from Bob Somerby? Our press is in the hands of a nonserious, lazy group of people. They like to follow a good script, and the "scientist by trade, evangelical Christian at heart" construct is too hard to pass up. Posted by: Hoyt Pollard at November 6, 2003 11:16 AM | PERMALINKAh, just wait kids--it gets even better! There is a small conservative christian movement (at least, small for this moment) that is calling for "strict Biblical principles" in reviewing all textbooks. One of those principles is that the value of Pi = 3 because that's what the Bible says. Will they succeed? Let us all pray they don't. If they do, education and technology will revert to about the year 1,800BC, since most of mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences could no longer be taught with an incorrect value for Pi. Posted by: Derelict at November 6, 2003 11:17 AM | PERMALINKKevin, Truly, this isn't just being snarky: Can't you do something about Carol? Put the name at the top or something? Her stream-of-consciousness, delusional posts just ruin the thread. I did start just scrolling past the long ones but then at the bottom I'd find out it was someone else and I'd have to start over again. Plus, she got sneaky and started writing short ones. You must see this yourself, right? Maybe you're sitting back hoping we'll all just ignore the troll but it doesn't seem to happen. I've taken a few whacks at her(?) myself. It's impossible to resist. But after awhile, it's just not funny anymore. The threads get disjointed and tedious when they're peppered with such nonsense. It would be one thing if she'd make a lucid point, but geeesh!... Please everyone. Take the No Feeding Carol oath. It's not so much a question of 1st Amendment but preservation of Calpundit. Posted by: chris at November 6, 2003 11:17 AM | PERMALINKDear Kevin Drum Please know my deep gratitude for you wonderful post on the awful article on the evolution "debate" in the LA Times. There is no debate and has been no debate among biologists for decades. Evolution IS. Duh, ask any gardener or pigeon fancier. What rubbish about a debate on evolution. Research Biologist Carol wrote: "And, if I remember correctly, back to the mid-1940's to mid-1950's there wasn't much in those textbooks worth remembering, anyway." Evidently.
Reading the above, I'm aware that for this site I am in the minority, but I actually enjoy reading Carol's posts. I read Jane Galt, Dan Drezner, Crooked Timber, Open source Politics, and Sebastian Holzclaw, among others. I give the list sort of to put myself in some frame of reference. Carol writes differently than most,and it's sometimes difficult to follow, but if I wanted easy reading I'd stay out of weblogs and read comic strips. IMO, there's room for differences. None of us have a lock on all truth. Posted by: JMP at November 6, 2003 11:34 AM | PERMALINKWow, Kevin, you stirred up a hornet's nest. Good for you! A moderate Republican who fights the religious right is not a mythical creature! I'm one of those "moderate Republicans" (yep, registered and a donor too!) who take swings at the "religious right" whenever I can. All you need to do is read the history of this country's founding. We had religious zealots who fled Europe's religious tyranny... and then planted it firmly on this soil! Congregationalists soon started hanging Baptists, and everyone ran Catholics out of town. Even poor, pious Puritan Roger Williams faced jail time in Massachusets because he didn't tow the "correct" religious doctrine line. The religious right wants to return us to those "good ole days" when Christian hymns were sung in school (until another Christian sect objected and then started fighting the other Christian sect, which then spread to... oh, you get the idea). Keep up the religious right bashing, Kevin, and let me know if you need help! Posted by: Sonny Williams at November 6, 2003 11:37 AM | PERMALINKAt least for now, though, the anti-science folks have lost another round: http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.textbooks.ap/index.html And, Tom, yes, "religion-compliant" textbooks not only can be but have been the basis of successful First Amendment/separation of church and state litigation. Posted by: Lis Carey at November 6, 2003 11:41 AM | PERMALINKFunny, you can't frighten me with "Creationism." I read enough to know better. I read enough to know that Clarence Darrow actually failed to protect the school teacher who taught evolution. But the story sticks around. And, you can't keep up this charade, where democratic characters are never to blame when Americans begin voting democrats out of office. So stop being afraid of books. And, what they say. Ultimately, you can get to the truth, in spite of religion. But religion, as a whole, never hurt the kids. Life just never turns out as rosy as promised. That's all. You don't like it if your kids aren't learning about evolution? Well, you can teach this stuff at home. Just be honest with your kids. Share with them the knowledge you've gained so far. And, they can handle what comes down the pike in classrooms. Especially the stuff that comes coated with the perversions of politics. Like the PC stuff. And, the other un-truths. I remember being absolutely amazed when I read my first college textbook, that FINALLY history was being taught with all it's flaws in place. Everything else was way over the top "patriotic." And, bloodless. Forget about learning about the battle scenes of the Civil War. Big on the 'issues,' though. And, you can't lose when you're reading the Lincoln/Douglass debate material. Creationism is just another word for religion. These are young kids. And, if I remember correctly, back to the mid-1940's to mid-1950's there wasn't much in those textbooks worth remembering, anyway. But no one spoke about Lincoln's abhorrance of President Polk. Of his shouting in the House well that Polk should come down and point to a map where any American blood had actually been spilt in San Antonio! The strength of the People was once represented in the democratic party. In those days the "good fights" did people proud. And, from these entanglements people did learn! While in Italy, the Pope's home town, birth control is a reality. Since the Italians no longer make families ticking off all the fertile years of a woman's captivity in marriage. Today, the Italians have one kid a piece. Some have two. And, then they stop. So, maybe, we should just leave the kids alone? There's plenty of sexually explicit information out there; and, right now, folks, the republicans are on a roll. You can't say they lied. Even today, the old war horses are still standing. I think, especially with so many heads hiding in the sand, that when the next wave of elections for democrats comes around, you're gonna see voters going into the voting booths across America with clubs. And, they're gonna play "Wack-A-Mole." Why wait? You can begin today. Stop complaining of what the "republicans are getting away with" and begin to realize that the stuff that began being taught in classrooms starting in the 1970's, is revolting idealism. Where Americans are told to take a back seat to women. Homosexual marriages. And, a president that took more than a pizza delivery in the Oval Office, while his wife was upstairs in the bedroom. Posted by: California in Carol at November 6, 2003 11:52 AM | PERMALINKJMP: I read Jane Galt, Dan Drezner, Crooked Timber, Open source Politics, and Sebastian Holzclaw, among others. I give the list sort of to put myself in some frame of reference. Obviously you missed the point. You have insulted all of the above by throwing the-poster-who-will-not-be-named into their midst. I don't disagree with any of her points simply because she rarely makes them. And most of her facts are just shit she makes up, so really, JMP, what is the point of reading it? Toss a monkey onto a banana-smeared keyboard and you'll get nearly the same result. If you are imbuing this nonsense with some kind of personal mystical meaning, that's fine, but it's somewhat disingenuous to act as though her postings have any value. Posted by: chris at November 6, 2003 11:53 AM | PERMALINK"You don't like it if your kids aren't learning about evolution? Well, you can teach this stuff at home." Um, this person is suggesting that people who want their children to learn science should home-school them. Very, very strange. Posted by: raj at November 6, 2003 12:02 PM | PERMALINK
I don't always agree with anyone. I suppose that at one time or another you and I will agree, but this isn't one of them. Thanks for your calm, reasoned rejection of anything that disagrees with your perspective. If you mean "sanity" when you're talking about my perspective, I guess I can't really get offended. Posted by: chris at November 6, 2003 12:08 PM | PERMALINKI skip 95% of Carol's posts. The ones I read, with severe editing, might be moderately interesting. She doesn't strike me as consistently right wing, but there's way too much free-association. Steve, you dipshit moron, glad you don't like the creationists, but they've taken over your Republican Party in much of the country. DeLay is as bad as they get. The Republicans in Oregon are that way too. Posted by: Zizka at November 6, 2003 12:14 PM | PERMALINKSteve - I was only implying a relationship between newspaper reporting on eduction. Specificly the effort by any ideology to change the contents of the eduction to better fit their personal beliefs. In both cases, an ideology made an effort to change the educational system and the newspapers reporting was "off". In one case the ideology was considered "conservative" and the other "liberal". This goes directly to the original theme of the post of "what liberal media?". Posted by: James at November 6, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINKI just blogged about kevins post. I wonder if these christians realize how stupid they make everyone look. Posted by: Christina at November 6, 2003 12:22 PM | PERMALINKCarol's posts of 10:08 AM and 11:52 AM are almost identical except for the arrangement of sentences. Look at them. That's not discussion. It's not even wackiness; it's just spam. Posted by: Paul at November 6, 2003 12:27 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, nothing's changed in science. Men are hardwired to ADORE females. This is why evolution should be taught in schools, if no other reason than to get rid of these misperceptions, especially when based on textbooks from the '50s. Posted by: mattH at November 6, 2003 12:28 PM | PERMALINKI have to disagree that Carol's musings are somehow "poetic"--I incline more to the howling incoherence theory. Like throwing the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica into a blender, you just never know what's coming next.... "Too many parents want their kids to be taught sciences, math, and hard sciences at that".... Count me in with the deluded masses of parents. I'd like my boys to know their math and science. What are the alternatives, numerology, astrology, and phrenology? And what's with these incessant references to Whack-A-Mole? If that's a copyrighted trademark, I think I'd be getting in touch with my attorney and filing suit... Posted by: Daniel Calto at November 6, 2003 12:30 PM | PERMALINKIt appears the discussion has gotten a bit off point, that is, the
power that certain members of the Texas State Textbook Board have to
influence the textbooks that will be used in Texas and by extension the
entire country. If the Texas Board of Education appoves a textbook it
is more than likley to used for schools all over the USA. This has been
a battle going on for years but recent rule changes have left only two
loopholes for members with agendas to exploit. The guy who wrote this article is the same one in the middle of this one http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060403.shtml five months ago. My guess is he has bent over backwards to try and avoid that charge in this case. I hope he practices yoga. Posted by: Ron Matthews, the Accurate One at November 6, 2003 12:38 PM | PERMALINKIf references to ice ages 'millions of year ago" have been thrown out thanks to biblical literalism, that's a good thing for them, because ice ages started to happen regularly only 2 million years ago, and lasted until only 10 000 years ago... Posted by: linca at November 6, 2003 12:57 PM | PERMALINKJenn, to be appallingly fair, anti-evolutionists will grant the existance of microevolution, the kind that produces Yorkies and Great Danes, but don't believe in macroevolution, the kind that causes speciation. I second the recommendation of reading some of Ken Miller; not only is he a genuine scientist who seems to have grappled with reconciling his scientific religious beliefs (although he's a Catholic, not an evangelical Protestant), he's really good at explaining how he came out thinking what he does to a lay audience. Posted by: (Different, Mellower) Steve at November 6, 2003 01:03 PM | PERMALINKThe fact that a shill like Dembski can talk his way into an LA Times article is a perfect example of the sorry state of science education in this country. Considering Dembski to be a research scientist on anything remotely connected to biology is about like considering Richard Perle to be a legitimate middle-east scholar. And THAT could never happen right? The problem of scientific literacy in this country is that science texts (whether or not they address evolution) give little attention to the process of science and few students learn what scientists actually do. Rather, science is taught as a list of detailed facts (and theories) to be memorized as immutable truths rather than as consequences of the scientific method. Science has an established methodology that should be taught and learned by students at all levels. Scientists have their political, social, and religious biases. Because they are human they bring these biases to their work. But in science we have a safety net to preserve honesty. Through the process of peer review, scientists subject their work to the community of scientists who collectively find these biases and ultimately expose them. Unlike Dembski, those of us who practice science professionally know we are obliged to expose our research to our many peers who will then scrutinize it with extraordinary care. Because of this methodology in science I can trust the validity of DNA mapping and gene sequencing methods even though this is not my area of expertise (it is fisheries biology). I would never presume to debate someone on the validity of these methods. My confidence is based on the combined work of the thousands of scientists throughout the world who work on a particular problem. The Dembski's of the world succeed in nosing themselves into debates over evolution because they ignore this entire scientific process, which our educational system fails to teach. To this date, I have never seen a single scientific article in a legitimate peer reviewed journal that supports "intelligent design" or any of the other pseudo-theories floated by fronts such as the Discovery Institute. Ares Akritas is correct in his explanation the nature of scientific theories. But I would take it a step farther because the common usage of the term "theory" and its meaning in science are quite different. In the vernacular a theory is simply a guess about the way something works, often based on common sense or observation. Theory in science means something quite different. A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that relates seemingly unrelated facts such as the orbiting of planets, movement of tides, and the failing of apples. The beauty of scientific theory is that it can deal precisely with those facts that cannot be related by common sense. Furthermore, a scientific theory must also have properties that allow models of the natural world to be deduced from it. These models then must allow for the generation of questions (hypotheses), which lead to experimentation or observation that in time can allow for a refutation of hypotheses, models, and ultimately the theory itself. A great question in science is one that leads to an answer that not only refutes a model but also demolishes a well-established theory The point is that a scientific theory must in principle be falsifiable. A repeatable observation or result from an experiment that can rock the foundations of a scientific theory must always in principle be just around the corner. On the other hand, creationist "theory" also explains unrelated facts. But since it presumes to explain all facts, there is no fact that could possibly discredit it. It is simply not science. To claim that evolution is merely a theory is to immediately show that one is using the term in the vernacular and that scientific literacy is not present or a deliberate deception is involved. To require that the evidence against evolution be presented in the classroom is oxymoronic. There are competing theories of evolution: Darwin's theory of natural selection, Kimura's neutral theory of molecular evolution, and Eldredge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium to name several. The refining, testing, debating, disproving, and always doubting the ubiquitousness of these theories is the business of science. But to doubt universally agreed-upon facts, such as the age of the earth or a particular fossil, the geographical distribution patterns of extinct species, or the molecular similarity and dissimilarity of species to each other, is to question the facts of physics, chemistry, geology and biology. In the end, the attacks on evolution by shills such as Dembski are an attack on all of science. Posted by: Kent Lind at November 6, 2003 01:17 PM | PERMALINKI think all thoughtful scientists, doctors, and people who use pi should refuse to work in texas and let the texans just die off with their medieval religion and their medieval medical care. In order to see an actual doctor, you'd have to affirm you did not believe creationism superceded actual scientific inquiry. harsh? just practical. aimai Posted by: aimai at November 6, 2003 01:18 PM | PERMALINKHere's an article by mathematician Keith Devlin who uses Dembski's argument against him. Snake Eyes in the Garden of Eden You see, the problem with Demski isn't that he's a mathematician. It's that he knows what he wants the answer to be before he sets out to construct a solution. And in a broader sense, the problem with "scientific" creationism in its various guises is that it is a critique of evolution, nota theory in its own right. Most "scientific" creationsist can tell you how this artifact or that contradiction undermines evolution. What they can't do is construct testable, falsifiable hypotheses based on a creation "theory". From what I have seen, you can distill creationisms from young earth to ID into one simple idea: SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. Posted by: jlw at November 6, 2003 01:25 PM | PERMALINKAnother obvious read would be Stephen Jay Gould's "The Rock of Ages," in which he discusses at length how religion and science occupy distinct intellectual territories. Posted by: Cretin at Sparta at November 6, 2003 01:36 PM | PERMALINKYou know, I used to sort of think there was some wise nuggets buried in Carol's meanderings. The old obscurity school of wisdom assumption, I guess. But after the implication that Clinton's sexual escapades are taught in history schoolbooks, I've decided that she's vaulted over wisdom and gone straight to unreality. My last Carol comment ever. Thanks for the memories. Posted by: sidereal at November 6, 2003 01:36 PM | PERMALINKI don't mean to be haughty, but how did this thread get so far without one mention of the "The Language Police" by Diane Ravitch? Her book discusses the topic of how special interest groups have taken over the text-book writing and approval process. It's directly related to the New York exams with the bowdlerized passages mentioned above. Frankly, this isn't really even news anymore. As for the whole idea that Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive I would recommend seeing "Inherit The Wind" -- the version with Spencer Tracy -- which offers an excellent view as to why that isn't correct. Finally, Evolution is still a theory, like it as not, albeit one that has a substantial amount of good science to back it up. And while ID is usually pushed by those who think Evolution is hogwash, it is another theory (not necessarily in conflict with Evolution) that has some interesting and plausible concepts. Fundamentally, the strongest science underlying ID is Chaos Theory (which is really more statistical than scientific), which is why it can't undercut Evolution which is founded on hard, biological research. (Does that sentence qualify as a "coven"?) Personally I believe Evolution is on pretty eff'n solid ground, but I also believe in God. It doesn't offend my scientific senses to believe that God created everything (including dinosaurs and whatever else), and that Evolution is the system by which nature progresses. That does not mean that such should be taught as a viable, competing theory in public schools. However, I don't think subscribing to the ID theory makes one the unenlightened fool many posters here seem to think it does. Of course, we could easily solve this problem today if we got rid of public schools ... I won't hold my breath. Posted by: D. Citizen at November 6, 2003 01:43 PM | PERMALINKAnd while ID is usually pushed by those who think Evolution is hogwash, it is another theory (not necessarily in conflict with Evolution) that has some interesting and plausible concepts. Fundamentally, the strongest science underlying ID is Chaos Theory (which is really more statistical than scientific), which is why it can't undercut Evolution which is founded on hard, biological research. Other posts have already discussed the differences between theories and philosophies. ID is not a theory in the scientific sense because it can never be verified by experimentation or proven wrong. Also, please explain exactly why chaos theory supports ID (without falling back on the old argument that the universe is so freaky 'n complex that it therefore must have an intelligent creator). Posted by: Cretin at Sparta at November 6, 2003 02:00 PM | PERMALINKBen Franklin called the Indians "Savages" in its then meaning of "not-European." He organized militias in the Indians' defense. He respected them as he did all other people (and Franklin, wise man that he was, grew more liberal as he aged). He referred to slaves as "people." Franklin was our country's greatest liberal. Read his writing and you'll see what I mean. People talkin shit about Ben really pisses me off. Posted by: mg at November 6, 2003 02:08 PM | PERMALINKIf the scientist under question had been a Democrat, the treatment he got from the LA Times would have been referred to as "Politically Correct". Posted by: ron guaguin at November 6, 2003 02:11 PM | PERMALINKYay! http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.textbooks.ap/index.html Texas textbook vote ruffles religious activists - (CNN.com) AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The State Board of Education voted Thursday to approve biology textbooks, despite criticism from religious activists who say the books as written fail to present the anti-evolution point of view. The vote was preliminary and the board was expected to give final approval Friday. Some religious and alternative science groups had argued that weaknesses in the theory of evolution weren't adequately presented in the books. But scientists and educators argued that the theory of evolution is widely believed and is a cornerstone of modern scientific research. Texas is the nation's second-largest buyer of textbooks, and textbooks sold in the state are often marketed by publishers elsewhere. Texas, California and Florida account for more than 30 percent of the nation's $4 billion public school book market. Three dozen publishers invest millions of dollars in Texas. Some board members had asked to vote on the books one by one, but the motion was overturned and all were approved with one vote. "I wish we'd had the opportunity to vote on each book because they're not the same," said board member Don McLeroy, one of the four board members who voted against adopting the books. McLeroy called the presentation of evolution in most of the books "dogmatic." "People don't realize the threat of scientific dogmatism," he said. "They're not looking for the truth." Samantha Smoot, executive director of the Texas Freedom Network, commended the board. Smoot had been one of the most vocal supporters of presenting evolution in the textbooks. "The voices of the science community have been loud and unified," Smoot said. "This is not a theory. There's no question about what whether evolution exists at all." Critics had urged publishers to revise some of the books and wanted the board to reject others outright, saying they contain factual errors about the theory of evolution. Posted by: David W. at November 6, 2003 02:18 PM | PERMALINK Re: Evolution is still a theory, like it as not, albeit one that has a substantial amount of good science to back it up. OK, all you blue state educators: tell the publishers that you categorically will reject this kind of bowdlerization. Buy your textbooks in Canada if you have to, but start boycotting this kind of garbage. Texas for the Texans! Leave the rest of the US out of it. Posted by: p mac at November 6, 2003 02:29 PM | PERMALINKCretin: Other posts have already discussed the differences between theories and philosophies. ID is not a theory in the scientific sense because it can never be verified by experimentation or proven wrong. Also, please explain exactly why chaos theory supports ID (without falling back on the old argument that the universe is so freaky 'n complex that it therefore must have an intelligent creator). I certainly didn't mean to imply that I'm well versed in ID theory, and my understanding of Chaos theory is rudimentary (and probably a little outdated since I haven't really read much about it is 6 or 7 years). However, from what I do understand, at least some of the ID theory comes from the very basic Chaos concept that the deeper you look into the supposedly random pattern, the more likely you will find some order. The usual examples used to illustrate this concept are fractals -- the deeper you look into each fractal, the more patterns you will find, until eventually, you can discern something that is repeatable. Fractals are generated using non-linear equations that are supposed to provide truly random results. There's are some who believe that deciphering such equations as they are found in nature (weather patterns for example) is akin to revealing the mind of God -- deux ex machina. Again, this pretty much statistical/mathematical as opposed to scientific (i.e. based on empirical research and falsified hypotheses). However, hypotheses must be developed somewhere, and to the extent ID is based on such Chaos Theory probabilities, I find it interesting. Posted by: D. Citizen at November 6, 2003 02:32 PM | PERMALINKTexSquid: Carl Sagan said it best, " Evolution is not a theory, it is fact." Sorry, but this is just wrong. Evolution is *based* on facts, but
the fossil record alone is inconclusive -- remember the missing link?
austropalithicus (sp?). One must draw together several other factual
observations in order to discern the theory of evolution. I'm not
saying that it's not correct, or even that it's on shaky ground. But
until it can be proven beyond doubt -- and thus it becomes scientific
Law -- it is still a theory. Sorry, that should have been "Australopithecus". Posted by: D. Citizen at November 6, 2003 02:40 PM | PERMALINKEvolution, i.e., change, is an observed fact. Organisms change at a genetic level. The Theory of Evolution, is the theory which explains the observed fact of evolution. It is really quite simple. Any of this we might not have evlolved non-sense based on "well its just a theory" crap should be rejected out of hand. Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2003 02:46 PM | PERMALINKWell, this IS America. They don't do this kind of stuff in the First World. Posted by: John Isbell at November 6, 2003 02:54 PM | PERMALINKWow, I didn't know Clinton's sexual antics were being taught in school books. I thought the kids saw this playing out on the nightly news, though. And, I even remember the after-affects, where kids in junior high thought blow jobs weren't sex, either. (Someone took a poll.) Not a pole. Will Clinton's behaviors be something the democrats will have to deal with yet? I think so. It's not exactly the story that seems to fade from view. Will it be in school books? Nah. School books deal with successful presidencies. And, the ones that hold their luster over time. Like Lincoln's. Heck, today few people even know about Polk. And, Polk's war. And, even fewer know that Lincoln was in the House of Representatives, ranting and mad against Polk and the "Mexican-American" war. He said San Antonio was a ruse reason to go to war against the Mexicans. Now, Lincoln never withheld money from the troops. But he did 'ask' Polk (the president), to come to the House of Representatives, and POINT! Point to the place on the map where "American blood had been spilt." Just in case you thought all of these arguments of a war's legitimacy started with LBJ. Or, exist now as recent history for George W. Bush. Nada. History books are the most important places on earth to read when you want to understand the stuff that happened in its time. Clinton? Well, it all depends on how, in the future, people will define "marriage." But as an exemplar of good husbandry values, I do believe that Bill falls short. And, I do believe that Hillary's thighs snapped shut long ago. I also think this story is well known in schools across America, even though it's NOT in the history books just yet. How will this stuff ever pass the sensors? And, didn't George W. Bush, when he took office, say that the first thing he was going to do was "hose down the Oval Office." You think I'm kidding? Posted by: Carol in California at November 6, 2003 02:54 PM | PERMALINKBut until it can be proven beyond doubt -- and thus it becomes scientific Law -- it is still a theory. Um, no. Science never gets passed theories -- which are hypotheses which have been thoroughly tested and failed to be disproven. Laws -- which convention tends to disfavor naming as such much anymore -- are just theories that have remained current for long enough that most scientists can't imagine them being substantially incorrect. Science doesn't prove anything "beyond doubt". Posted by: cmdicely at November 6, 2003 02:56 PM | PERMALINKThe usual examples used to illustrate this concept are fractals -- the deeper you look into each fractal, the more patterns you will find, until eventually, you can discern something that is repeatable. Fractals are generated using non-linear equations that are supposed to provide truly random results. Equations don't produce random results. Equations, even nonlinear ones, are pretty much the definition of deterministic systems. Fractals aren't at all random. Not in the slightest. Posted by: cmdicely at November 6, 2003 02:59 PM | PERMALINKWhere Americans are told to take a back seat to women. Aren't these overlapping categories? Posted by: cmdicely at November 6, 2003 03:02 PM | PERMALINKThe Dembski's of the world succeed in nosing themselves into debates over evolution because they ignore this entire scientific process, which our educational system fails to teach. To this date, I have never seen a single scientific article in a legitimate peer reviewed journal that supports "intelligent design" or any of the other pseudo-theories floated by fronts such as the Discovery Institute. Uhh, don't be so hasty. Dave Ussery has written such an article. Of course, he was slamming ID "theory" not praising it. Still it is mentioned in a peer reviewed article. There might be some other peer reviewed articles outside of biology/medicine as well. After all Dembski's work is mathematical for the most part. His filter is basically a statistical tool. For example I know a number of people from the philosophy field have taken on Dembski. They argue against his filter in that the methodology is flawed. And while ID is usually pushed by those who think Evolution is hogwash, it is another theory (not necessarily in conflict with Evolution) that has some interesting and plausible concepts. Completely and totally false. ID, as put forward by Dembski is purely eliminative. Typically a theory explains ome observed phenomenon. ID offers no explanation (technically not even "God Diddit"). All Dembski's filter does is eliminate the possibility that the diversity of life that has been observed is due to a totally natural process and that something un-natural--i.e., supernatural, was at work. Fundamentally, the strongest science underlying ID is Chaos Theory (which is really more statistical than scientific), which is why it can't undercut Evolution which is founded on hard, biological research. Again, unless there is something I have not read this is utterly false. Dembski's work in ID is based on information theory, probability theory, and logic, not Chaos Theory (i.e., non-linear dynamical systems). However, I don't think subscribing to the ID theory makes one the unenlightened fool many posters here seem to think it does. ID theory as proposed by Dembski is basically an argument from ignorance when you get right down to it. It is a God of the Gaps argument. Dembski's formulation of the concept of an "irreducible core" is a perfect illustration. Face it, when you have a guy who invents an entire books worth of jargon, a new law of thermodynamics, and concluding that evolution is impossible (yes, that is the conclusion of Dembski's filter), you have somebody who is either a crank or has an agenda (or both). And in a broader sense, the problem with "scientific" creationism in its various guises is that it is a critique of evolution, nota theory in its own right. Most "scientific" creationsist can tell you how this artifact or that contradiction undermines evolution. What they can't do is construct testable, falsifiable hypotheses based on a creation "theory". From what I have seen, you can distill creationisms from young earth to ID into one simple idea: SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. Right! I'd put it in a simpler way. Anything that wants to displace the current Theory of Evolution (please not I am talking about the Theory here, not the observed fact that organisms change at a genetic level) must explain at a very minimum everything the current theory explains and then a bit more, or maybe do it in a more elegant manner. Scientific creationism does neither, all it is, when you pare away all the jargon and rhetoric is, "Yeah, but that can't happen, the odds are too small." Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2003 03:03 PM | PERMALINKEquations don't produce random results. Equations, even nonlinear ones, are pretty much the definition of deterministic systems. Fractals aren't at all random. Not in the slightest. Cmdicely is absolutely correct. I'll even take it further and note that chaotic systems are not random, they are totally deterministic (i.e., non-random), but that they look random. If you were to know the initial starting point of such a system you'd be able to predict with perfect accuracy the trajectory of the system. I have yet to run across any mentions of Chaos in relation to intelligent design and Dembski's notions of complex specified information. AFAIK, dragging Chaor Theory into this is a red herring. Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2003 03:07 PM | PERMALINKHere is the main problem of intelligent design theory... ID proponents want us to use Cartesian science to prove that the universe exhibits signs of intelligent construction. But Cartesian Science can not prove that the universe was intelligently designed by God. It could be intelligently designed by Satan, Vishnu, or even the Architect from the Matrix. At its core, ID relies on faith to associate its "scientific evidence" with God. ID still requires a leap of faith, something that Cartesian science does not allow. I recently had a lunch conversation with Christians who are positive that the world is only 2000 years old. I asked them if they believed that God created the Grand Canyon or if they believed that it has been eroded by the Colorado River in only 2000 years. They didn't want to respond to that type of query. This is what I want to say to all of the creationists and doubters of science: If you have so much faith in God, then why rely on Science for anything? Quit taking medicine. Throw away the computer and television, they are nothing but effigies to the great God Science anyway.
Steve, et al: Again, I'm not claiming to be any kind of expert in either category of ID or Chaos Theory, but the two have been connected, and frankly, as I said before, that's the part that intrigues me. I also said that I don't think that creationism and ID/creationism are mutually exclusive, not that I think Dembski is correct. I'll take your word (Steve) for it that the entire ID kit and kaboodle is in Dembski's court, but that doesn't mean there's nothing salvageable from the idea. I also have not seen where the existence of intelligent design in the random pattern we call "life" somehow negates evolution. If that's what Dembski's saying, fine ... he's wrong. I never intended to defend him or his brethren, only the very simple idea that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, as to Chaos, what I said was: Fractals are generated using non-linear equations that are supposed to provide truly random results. There's are some who believe that deciphering such equations as they are found in nature (weather patterns for example) is akin to revealing the mind of God -- deux ex machina. If you can predict the weather, well have at it, but AFAIK Chaos Theory is the study of patterns in randomness with results that can only be predicted based on probabilities -- that's not deterministic. Finally, I'm not slamming evolution -- I've actually read Darwin (it was not fun). However, it is not Scientific Law (yes there really is such a thing) precisely because it can't be predicted (I did overstate the case by saying that it has to be proven beyond all doubt). I don't think ID advances the ball here primarily because -- from what I (mis)understood the theory to mean -- it's based on probabilities and not fact. Posted by: D. Citizen at November 6, 2003 03:35 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I join the chorus: is it possible to have people's names at the *top* of the post, instead of the bottom? I would like to be able to easily identify and scroll past Carol in California's incoherent wamblings. Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 6, 2003 03:41 PM | PERMALINKSteve: Cmdicely is absolutely correct. I'll even take it further and note that chaotic systems are not random, they are totally deterministic (i.e., non-random), but that they look random. If you were to know the initial starting point of such a system you'd be able to predict with perfect accuracy the trajectory of the system. Right. The interesting thing about chaotic systems is that if you are wrong about the starting point (or the equation describing the system) only slightly, your prediction power drops off much more substantially than with systems that are driven by more simple relationships. Its not random, its just highly sensitive to small changes in inputs. D. Citizen: If you can predict the weather, well have at it, but AFAIK Chaos Theory is the study of patterns in randomness with results that can only be predicted based on probabilities -- that's not deterministic. You are completely wrong on what chaos theory is. A decent basic description is on this page: http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/#intro Chaos theory describes complex motion and the dynamics of sensitive systems. Chaotic systems are mathematically deterministic but nearly impossible to predict. Finally, I'm not slamming evolution -- I've actually read Darwin (it was not fun). Evolution's come a long way since the 19th Century. However, it is not Scientific Law (yes there really is such a thing) precisely because it can't be predicted (I did overstate the case by saying that it has to be proven beyond all doubt) Evolution is a theory -- well, a number of theories. Yes, there are things called "laws" in science, but they are theories, too (and some of the best known of them are actually known to be wrong, but good approximations under common conditions -- Newton's laws of motion come to mind as examples). But the bias of the scientific community has shifted over time toward not elevating theories to the status of "laws" as much as was the case in the past -- almost, not at all. There is no objective difference, though, between the categories. To the extent that the direction and course of evolution cannot be predicted, that has little bearing on whether it is a solid theory, or whether it is strong enough to be worthy of being called a "law". I don't think ID advances the ball here primarily because -- from what I (mis)understood the theory to mean -- it's based on probabilities and not fact. Scientifically, the reason ID doesn't "advance the ball" is that it
makes not a single falsifiable prediction, and therefore isn't even a testable hypothesis, much less a sceintific theory or law. cmdicely: Compare - Chaos Theory is the study of patterns in randomness with results that can only be predicted based on probabilities -- that's not deterministic. with - Chaos theory describes complex motion and the dynamics of sensitive systems. Chaotic systems are mathematically deterministic but nearly impossible to predict. Other than the fact that I was not aware there was a mathematical definition of "deterministic", I fail to see how I was "completely wrong on what chaos theory is." A little bit strong, don't you think? Evolution's come a long way since the 19th Century. So what's your point? Did I somehow give the impression that I thought it was anything other than correct? Scientifically, the reason ID doesn't "advance the ball" is that it makes not a single falsifiable prediction, and therefore isn't even a testable hypothesis, much less a sceintific theory or law. Well I never said it was either, and again I don't think you've differentiated your reasoning from mine -- being based on probabilities, as opposed to fact, means it's not testable or predictable, doesn't it. I don't consider it ID scientific anything, which is why I said that Chaos Theory was the only thing defensible about it (although I admit that Dembski's theory may have nothing to do with Chaos). For the last time, the ONLY reason I stepped in here was to point out that God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. If my definitions weren't precise enough for you, sorry, but I'm not sure how what I wrote was so 100% wrong. Posted by: D. Citizen at November 6, 2003 04:06 PM | PERMALINKYou know, just a thought. But Americans laugh at Darwin Award winners. If most of the people didn't believe in Darwin's theories, how would this then be funny? I gotta tell ya, we live in a world where definitions speak for themselves. The Monkey-Scopes trial, Inherit the Wind days of outrage are over. Most people have figured out we're more than 6,000 years old, as the world goes. Even republican voting conservatives. And, 'funny' school books have been the norm for a very long time. Though when the Bible was used as a textbook (which it was), so was Ben Franklin's autobiography. Grade school children were taught from these texts for a long, long time. Now, even though Lincoln didn't support a particular church all that much, he was an avid reader. And, the Bible was not only on his list; he borrowed it's cadences for his own speeches. Just look at "Fore score and seven years ago" ... and see if you can't match it to a Biblical phrase. Sure, our world is far more complex than Lincoln's ever was. But he could debate for hours, and people sat in rapture listening to this stuff. And, others who read this stuff in their newspapers (as journalists tried to take it down word for word and then telegraphed it to their editors) ... What you realize is that information used to come at people without being shot to pieces. As we tend to do now. Where length is considered bad form. And, fast cutting and pasting of newstories ... "Give us 22 minutes and we'll give you the world," ... as if this helps people sort things out. When it just doesn't. School books are addressed to meet the needs of the most children. And, to meet the needs of special interests. Which politicians also have to account for. To say nothing of who gets to publish these books. Isn't Diane Feinstein's husband involved in the book publishing business, here? Follow the money. The kids are going to be okay. Posted by: Carol in California at November 6, 2003 04:10 PM | PERMALINKBefore I sign off, I should at least say "thank you" for enlightening me to the underpinnings of ID. I honestly thought it had grown out of Chaos Theory, and I'm still pretty sure that was the context in which I first encountered it, however I don't want to confuse anti-evolution nonsense with what I perceive to be interesting concepts about the marriage of God, science, and nature. Posted by: D. Citizen at November 6, 2003 04:15 PM | PERMALINKOther than the fact that I was not aware there was a mathematical definition of "deterministic", I fail to see how I was "completely wrong on what chaos theory is." A little bit strong, don't you think? Chaos theory is precisely not about randomness. It's about systems which are not at all random. BTW, the "mathematical" definition of deterministic is the same as the definition used in every other field I've seen -- a process/system/whatever is deterministic if and only if its outputs are completely dependent on its inputs (i.e., it is absolutely predictable with complete information on the inputs). Chaotic systems are interesting in their sensitivity to small variations in the inputs, which make predicting them based on imperfect measurements challenging. Well I never said it was either, and again I don't think you've differentiated your reasoning from mine -- being based on probabilities, as opposed to fact, means it's not testable or predictable, doesn't it. No. Hypotheses based on probabilities are testable, and not even uncommon in theories in the physical sciences. Radioactive decay, for instance. For the last time, the ONLY reason I stepped in here was to point out that God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. That, I can agree with. Posted by: cmdicely at November 6, 2003 04:26 PM | PERMALINKYou know, just a thought. But Americans laugh at Darwin Award winners. If most of the people didn't believe in Darwin's theories, how would this then be funny? The stories are generally the type that people would laugh at no matter what name you put on them; all that is required to find the name humorous is a the most elementary perception of the common idea of what Darwin is about -- which is even explained on the Darwin Award website. Belief isn't necessary, any more than belief in God is necessary to laugh at jokes about religion. I remember reading once that a person couldn't say he was an athiest, because by definition he was claiming to be against god. Otherwise, what does the definition hold? Many people laugh at Darwin Award winners because Darwin stipulated the maxim that there's something about natural selection that favors the best adaptors to the environment. To receive this award posthumously (which is also known by most people who laugh), is that it means the person, by some stupid act, cancelled himself out of the gene pool. Not the stuff of Creationism, exactly. But a laugh is a laugh, nonetheless. Could our school textbooks be better? Sure. Just going backwards and using Ben Franklin's autobiography would be a leap forward into sanity. And, explaining what the world of our Founding Fathers was like. Franklin also set the stage for our public libraries. Now, you have to look for this stuff on your own. Posted by: Carol in California at November 6, 2003 04:37 PM | PERMALINKThe trollette sayeth: Where Americans are told to take a back seat to women. Yes, Carol in CA is incoherent! As an American woman, whom exactly am I being "told" to take a back seat to? Or (as a woman) am I not an American? What a maroon, as Bugs Bunny says. However, Kevin, if you can fix the comments so the name appears first, that ought to help the rest of us. I see no reason to ban Carol -- sure, she's an idiot, but if we didn't have her to read, on a You-Can't-Make-This-Stuff-Up level, what would we laugh at? Posted by: Temperance at November 6, 2003 04:50 PM | PERMALINKTo take a back seat to women? Are you on this bus? Interesting quote, though I wonder what part of a sentence it took hold in. And, Ill repeat this. Just like in high school the fat kids make fun of the cheerleaders; you get to see people here think it's in their favor to name-call. Nope. Name-calling hurts Kevin. Ultimately, it shows that the democrats can't even debate without throwing their beer bottles. Or their invective, around. Sure, I know the democrats are losing. And, if the powers that be in Washington aren't fixing anything, what can you expect of the diehards in the trenches? Posted by: Carol in California at November 6, 2003 05:03 PM | PERMALINKLinca--the ice ages of the last two million years or so weren't the first. There are ice ages documented back as long ago as the pre-Cambrian. Posted by: M. at November 6, 2003 05:11 PM | PERMALINKI hate to digress back to what I perceived to be Kevin's original point, which was, I thought, a criticism of the coverage of this issue, but I will anyway. If you look at nearly ANY kind of coverage of scientific issues, whether ideologically neutral or not, you will find that the reporting is truly AWFUL 99% of the time. I doubt that this is intentional, it simply reflects that most journalists tend to have very poor backgrounds in science and mathematics, and it is very hard to describe something accurately when you don't have an understanding of what it is you are trying to describe. It's scary, and its sad, and I don't have one clue as to how to remedy the situation. Posted by: Ratbane at November 6, 2003 06:03 PM | PERMALINKI second the point that this has nothing to do with liberal/conservative; it's just an example of the truly horrible way that journalists cover scientific debate, in a he said/she said format that assumes equal intellectual weight on both sides. I just read an old New York Times piece that presented Paul Krugman and Lester Thurow as if the former were a slightly stuffy, unimaginitive representative of Establishment Trade Economics, while the latter was a slightly daring out-side-the-box kind of guy, when the audience should know that the overwhelming weight of evidence, as well as the opinion of most reputable economists, is on Krugman's side. Anti-globo bias at the TImes? More likely that the reporter simply doesn't understand enough to even begin to guess which one is right, and so finds it safer to alternate quotes so that he can't possibly be accused of having gotten it wrong. I sincerely doubt that the LA Times bowed to conservative pressure to validate this wing-nut in order to appease their large bloc of committed creationist subscribers and/or advertisers; I rather think that the reporter honestly doesn't know why his math degree is a) not the same as a degree in science and b) not conferring upon him any special credentials to discuss the question of evolution Posted by: Jane Galt at November 6, 2003 06:39 PM | PERMALINKNext is a geography textbook that vaguely hints that the earth might be just slightly round... Posted by: Mellifluous at November 6, 2003 07:11 PM | PERMALINKNext is a geography textbook that vaguely hints that the earth might be just slightly round... If you really want to get technical, the earth isn't round (spherical), its an oblate spheroid, but I guess that really is getting too picky. Nevermind. Posted by: Ratbane at November 6, 2003 07:30 PM | PERMALINKTo veer a bit OT: one thing that always makes me laugh is when I see a
Jesus Fish eating a Darwin fish on the back of someone's car. They are
using the principles of Darwinism (survival of the fittest) to show that
they don't believe in Darwinism. I love it! Not much to add that cmdicely hasn't already said. Again, I'm not claiming to be any kind of expert in either category of ID or Chaos Theory, but the two have been connected, and frankly, as I said before, that's the part that intrigues me. I'd like to see where and who connected them. I've read a fair bit about intelligent design, and this is the first I've heard of the two being connected. I also said that I don't think that creationism and ID/creationism are mutually exclusive, not that I think Dembski is correct. I'll take your word (Steve) for it that the entire ID kit and kaboodle is in Dembski's court, but that doesn't mean there's nothing salvageable from the idea. I also have not seen where the existence of intelligent design in the random pattern we call "life" somehow negates evolution. If that's what Dembski's saying, fine ... he's wrong. I never intended to defend him or his brethren, only the very simple idea that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. What Dembski is saying is that the Theory of Evolution nor any natural process can account for the diversity of life we observe today. To do so he looks not at the sheer magnitude of diversity, but goes down to the molecular level and tries to show that certain structures are not possible via simple randomness. Of course, this ignores the process of natural selection. Also Dembski has been criticized on the methodological level since his approach uses what his called the Frequentist view of Probability/Statistics. The problem is you cannot use such a view against one shot past events such as evolution. Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2003 07:59 PM | PERMALINKThis subject has connections with the neoconservative movement. See http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml At the heart of the neoconservative attack on Darwinism lies the political philosophy of Leo Strauss. Strauss was a German political philosopher who fled the Nazis in 1938 and began teaching at the University of Chicago in 1949. In an intellectual revolt against modernity, Strauss focused his work on interpreting such classics as Plato's Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince. Kristol has acknowledged his intellectual debt to Strauss in a recent autobiographical essay. "What made him so controversial within the academic community was his disbelief in the Enlightenment dogma that `the truth will make men free.'" Kristol adds that "Strauss was an intellectual aristocrat who thought that the truth could make some [emphasis Kristol's] minds free, but he was convinced that there was an inherent conflict between philosophic truth and political order, and that the popularization and vulgarization of these truths might import unease, turmoil and the release of popular passions hitherto held in check by tradition and religion with utterly unpredictable, but mostly negative, consequences." Kristol agrees with this view. "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people," he says in an interview. "There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work." Are we witnessing an application of this doctrine to foreign policy? Wow--the idea of quantum truths--that truth depends upon your (IQ?/level of political orthodoxy, whatever) and can change when you move up or down on the appropriate scale of "enlightenment," is a fascinating concept. What a great premise for a fantasy novel. Posted by: Ratbane at November 6, 2003 09:00 PM | PERMALINK>Are we witnessing an application of [Straussian] doctrine to foreign policy?" Remember Wolfowitz's Vanity Fair interview, where he taked about a multitude of reasons for the war, with WMDs being picked for 'bureaucratic reasons'? I'm really struck by the knowledge gap between the few folks who have at least heard of the various backstage reasons (domino democracy, drain the swamp, etc) and the many who just haven't . I'm relatively young and ignorant - how unusual is this? Posted by: Dan S. at November 6, 2003 09:43 PM | PERMALINKActually, I'm beginning to wonder if "Carol in California" is several people. None of them very bright. The following claim was posted by Carol in California at November 6, 2003 10:08 AM (and by California in Carol at November 6, 2003 11:52 AM): that 1970s classrooms had been places "Where Americans are told to take a back seat to women." As cmdicely pointed out (November 6, 2003 03:02 PM) these are generally felt to be overlapping categories... ;-) However, Carol in California at November 6, 2003 05:03 PM, doesn't appear to remember that barely six hours earlier "she" posted that very sentence: "Interesting quote, though I wonder what part of a sentence it took hold in." I think we've got ourselves a troll committee here, and I think the
best thing to do is simply ignore it: "she's" not interested in joining
the discussions, but in derailing them. Oh, and putting names at the top
of posts to facilitate this would be good, Kevin. TIA! Ask her about her PTSD, you'll get her really mad! Posted by: Dark Avenger at November 7, 2003 12:16 AM | PERMALINK"However, it (evolution) is not Scientific Law (yes there really is such a thing) precisely because it can't be predicted (I did overstate the case by saying that it has to be proven beyond all doubt)" I'm not sure where this came from, but it appears that there is some misunderstanding about what is generally referred to as a "law" in science. In at least physics and chemistry, a "law" is generally typified by one or more mathematical equation that relates various observables. Maxwell's laws (of electromagnetism), Newton's law (of gravitation), and Kirchoff's law (relating voltage, current and resistance) are a few examples. All of them are expressed in equations of various forms. (Newton's three "laws" of motion actually contained two definitions and one "law.") The "laws" are not "laws" in a sense that they are correct--Newton's law of gravitation was shown by Einstein to be a special case. Evolution is different in that it is a historical science. It is not--at least not at the current level of understanding--the type of science that gives rise to "laws." It is not alone in that regard. Biologist Ernst Mayr had an article on point in the July 2001 issue of Scientific American. Posted by: raj at November 7, 2003 06:01 AM | PERMALINKThere are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people as a UFO buff, this resonates...a useful tenet of UFO research is that "yes, virginia there is a government conspiracy" to completely pummel the truth. Posted by: Troy at November 7, 2003 06:38 AM | PERMALINKIs this constant reference to President Clinton getting a "pizza delivery" a metaphor for the prison sex in the hall way with a fat girl that occurred? Who cares? At least he was only f***ing Monica and not the whole country. The past is gone, we must face today. Posted by: Ballhwi at November 7, 2003 08:48 AM | PERMALINK"Shape of the earth: views differ." Totally OT, but does anyone know when Keith Devlin started writing on evolution? I'm doing research in his real research area (constructible set theory) and I wasn't aware that he had other publishable interests going... Posted by: Anarch at November 8, 2003 02:34 AM | PERMALINKKevin asks: "What's next? Geology texts that vaguely suggest the earth is, um, really, really old?" Not to mention the discredited idea that the damn thing is round ... Gotta skip down here to try and pick my jaw up off the bottom of the comments, after reading Carol in (G-d Help) California. Who sayeth that in the classroom, and this is a Bad Thing: "Americans are told to take a back seat to women." Apparently women are not Americans. Who knew? Posted by: JakeInTheHouse at November 8, 2003 04:55 PM | PERMALINKVirtue never stands alone. It is bound to have neighbors. Posted by: Dawson Richard at December 10, 2003 12:25 PM | PERMALINKYou are free and that is why you are lost. Posted by: Becker Maki at December 20, 2003 04:57 PM | PERMALINKSuits and religions rupture if you force them on. Posted by: Goodman Erika at March 16, 2004 11:41 PM | PERMALINKIt is never a mistake to say good-bye. Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system. Posted by: click here at May 28, 2004 02:38 AM | PERMALINKFind your www.ALL-FIORICET.COM here, 100% discrete! Posted by: order fioricet at June 14, 2004 07:08 PM | PERMALINKgo to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals! Posted by: click here at June 15, 2004 01:58 PM | PERMALINKA good friend can tell you what is the matter with you in a minute. He may not seem such a good friend after telling. Posted by: Chaplin Geoff at June 30, 2004 04:14 AM | PERMALINKgloryhole pics glory hole pics gloryhole pictures glory hole pictures glory hole samples gloryhole trailers glory hole video clips gloryhole videos krystalsteal krystal steal terapatrick tera patrick tera patrick gallery tera patrick movies tera patrick pics tera patrick pictures You know sleeping pills http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/naked-amateur-bi-sexual-warez-sluts-vivo-gratis-nude-actresses-biker-chicks-amature-blowjobs-sexo-cumshots.html naked amateur bi sexual warez sluts vivo gratis nude actresses biker chicks amature blowjobs sexo cumshots html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/picture-gay-chat-teen-free-lesbian-porn.html picture gay chat teen free lesbian porn html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/xxx-kissing-sex-story-lesbian.html xxx kissing sex story lesbian html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/blowjobs.html blowjobs html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/teen_landing.html teen landing html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/sex-celebrity-ladies-bikinis-men-animal-pierced-transsexual.html sex celebrity ladies bikinis men animal pierced transsexual html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/bi-free-sexual-actresses-warez-puertorican-en-vivo-gratis-nude-blowjobs.html bi free sexual actresses warez puertorican en vivo gratis nude blowjobs html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/legs-amateur-blowjobs-nude-photos-with-big-intercourse-amature-sex-celeberty-horse.html legs amateur blowjobs nude photos with big intercourse amature sex celeberty horse html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/celebreties-fuck-wife-lion-celebraties-exibitionists-while-i-watch-shemale-pictures-piss-free-nude-bestiality-celebrities-wifes-sex-my-big-fat-woman-in-mouth.html celebreties fuck wife lion celebraties exibitionists while i watch shemale pictures piss free nude bestiality celebrities wifes sex my big fat woman in mouth html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/horney-celebs-bride-slut-while-naughty.html horney celebs bride slut while naughty html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/wet-dolphin-woman-slutty-beastiality-hardcore-sex-stories-nudes-free-horse-black-animal-pussy-photos-bestiality-celebrities-fat-girls-pictures-wives-pics.html wet dolphin woman slutty beastiality hardcore sex stories nudes free horse black animal pussy photos bestiality celebrities fat girls pictures wives pics html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/chat-story-kissing-picture-gay-porn-insest-free-lesbian-and.html chat story kissing picture gay porn insest free lesbian and html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/movie-free-x-man-anime-ff.html movie free x man anime ff html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/chicks-desnudas-celeberties-post-nude-celebraty-skin-big-blowjobs-panties.html chicks desnudas celeberties post nude celebraty skin big blowjobs panties html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/hairy-women-wrestling-highschool-free-toons-picture.html hairy women wrestling highschool free toons picture html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/celebrity-sucking-amateur-pics-huge-free-celeb-female-thumbnails-ass-games-nude-cunt-fake-celeberties-latin-afro-orgy-thumbnail-puertorican-sluts-sexual.html celebrity sucking amateur pics huge free celeb female thumbnails ass games nude cunt fake celeberties latin afro orgy thumbnail puertorican sluts sexual html Posted by: Zoophile Pictures the sick beast sex farmfucking sexual animal farm sex now alice in wonderzoo at August 3, 2004 11:16 AM | PERMALINKhttp://www.nakedadultxxx.com/picture-sex-lesbian-black-pictures-free-porn-gay-and.html picture sex lesbian black pictures free porn gay and html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/celebrites-fuck.html celebrites fuck html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/hairy-studs-teen-porn-adult-mpegs-free-x-rated-pictures-wemon-old-tits-sexy-seniors-nude-pregnant-dripping-cunt-young-masturbation.html hairy studs teen porn adult mpegs free x rated pictures wemon old tits sexy seniors nude pregnant dripping cunt young masturbation html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/nudes-panties-erotic-stories-celebrites-nude-celeb-nubian-sex-black-fucking-men.html nudes panties erotic stories celebrites nude celeb nubian sex black fucking men html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/house-wifes-nude-beastality-horny-wet-pantyhose-teens-in-bikini-celebreties-celebrity-porno-fat-asian-porn-women-with-big-tits-free-celebs-older-bestiality-beastiality.html house wifes nude beastality horny wet pantyhose teens in bikini celebreties celebrity porno fat asian porn women with big tits free celebs older bestiality beastiality html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/slut-girls.html slut girls html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/men-nude.html men nude html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/games-hairy-penis-length-cumshot.html games hairy penis length cumshot html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/horney-celebs-bride-slut-while-naughty.html horney celebs bride slut while naughty html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/voyeur-wife-in-bold-hairy.html voyeur wife in bold hairy html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/blow-fucking-men-japanese-butt-amature-nude-chicks-naked-selebrities-big-magazine-paris-fotos-de-gratis-celebraty-sluts-jobs-celebrity-male-sexo.html blow fucking men japanese butt amature nude chicks naked selebrities big magazine paris fotos de gratis celebraty sluts jobs celebrity male sexo html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/big-orgasm-aha-dick-turpin-free-clitoris-ultimate-black-booties-dominatrix-sex-handjob-galleries-erotik-naked-boobs-asian-whores-booty-pics.html big orgasm aha dick turpin free clitoris ultimate black booties dominatrix sex handjob galleries erotik naked boobs asian whores booty pics html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/nude-pix-leg-animal-sex-old-bikinis-men-pierced-transsexual-amature-porn-stories.html nude pix leg animal sex old bikinis men pierced transsexual amature porn stories html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/celebridades-sucking-naked-male-celbrities-female-foot-girls-xxx-nude-fotos-de-famosa-desnudas-galeria-incest-links-ass-toe-sex-celeb-free-celeberties-celebs.html celebridades sucking naked male celbrities female foot girls xxx nude fotos de famosa desnudas galeria incest links ass toe sex celeb free celeberties celebs html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/naked-fuck-free-pictures-milky-eating-nasty-core-pix-my-pussy-hard-celebraties-nude-japanese.html naked fuck free pictures milky eating nasty core pix my pussy hard celebraties nude japanese html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/my-ass-fake-amateur-pictures-celebritis-plump-nubian-sistas-nude-lesbian-orgy-sex-free-mother-son-incest-pics-pregnant-fetish-naughty-celebraties-erotica.html my ass fake amateur pictures celebritis plump nubian sistas nude lesbian orgy sex free mother son incest pics pregnant fetish naughty celebraties erotica html Posted by: Zoophile Pictures the sick beast sex farmfucking sexual animal farm sex now alice in wonderzoo at August 3, 2004 11:17 AM | PERMALINKhttp://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/beastialitycom/index.html beastialitycom index html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/free-beastality-links/index.html free beastality links index html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/new-bestiality/index.html new bestiality index html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/beast-story.html beast story html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/bestialityvideo/index.html bestialityvideo index html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/free-zoo.html free zoo html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/animalfucker/animalfucker.html animalfucker animalfucker html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/bestiality-links-zoo.html bestiality links zoo html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/sexo-animales-mujeres-gratis.html sexo animales mujeres gratis html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/women-animal.html women animal html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/zoophilie-gay/index.html zoophilie gay index html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/teen_landing.html teen landing html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/story-erotic.html story erotic html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/free-young-teens.html free young teens html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/animal-com-passion.html animal com passion html http://www.modelsmpegpenis.com/zoophilia-free-story.html zoophilia free story html Posted by: v2 gay animalsex bondage teen erotische geschichten playboy at August 4, 2004 09:46 AM | PERMALINKhttp://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/nude-iggy-pop.html nude iggy pop html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/lindsay-mark-chapman-nude.html lindsay mark chapman nude html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/finney-albert-nude.html finney albert nude html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/nude-zen-gesner.html nude zen gesner html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/nude-lothaire-bluteau.html nude lothaire bluteau html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/cage-nude-nicolas.html cage nude nicolas html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/robbie-benson-nude.html robbie benson nude html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/pierre-cassel-jean-nude.html pierre cassel jean nude html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/george-clooney-nude.html george clooney nude html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/eastwood-nude-clint.html eastwood nude clint html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/howie-nude-long.html howie nude long html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/teen_landing.html teen landing html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/brad-pitt-male-movie-celebrity-star-celebrities.html brad pitt male movie celebrity star celebrities html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/dogsex-animal-fucking-man-having-with-key48-sex-human-animalsex.html dogsex animal fucking man having with key48 sex human animalsex html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/kevin-nude-kline.html kevin nude kline html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/p-nude-nazarov.html p nude nazarov html Posted by: Bizarre Sex Pictures at August 4, 2004 11:28 AM | PERMALINK836 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 11:54 PM | PERMALINK6001 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 4370 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 02:36 PM | PERMALINKhttp://bestality-sex-index-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/bestality-sex/index.html bestality sex index html http://free-video-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/free-video.html free video html http://beastialty-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/beastialty.html beastialty html http://animal-hardcore-index-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/animal-hardcore/index.html animal hardcore index html http://amateurs-dialogues-sexe-l-annuaire-des.cumshotshowcyber.com/amateurs-dialogues-sexe-l-annuaire-des-meilleurs-sites-de-bikini.html amateurs dialogues sexe l annuaire des meilleurs sites de bikini html http://sex-free-farmyard-pic-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/sex-free-farmyard-pic.html sex free farmyard pic html http://hard-porno-free-bdsm-facials-bars.cumshotshowcyber.com/hard-porno-free-bdsm-facials-bars-piss-videos-fat-and-human-older-only-pix-shemale-sex-pics-tits-lion-bestiality-nasty.html hard porno free bdsm facials bars piss videos fat and human older only pix shemale sex pics tits lion bestiality nasty html http://lovers-animal-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/lovers-animal.html lovers animal html http://animal-sex-teen-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/animal-sex-teen.html animal sex teen html http://xxx-sex-black-beast-hardcore-index.cumshotshowcyber.com/xxx-sex-black-beast-hardcore/index.html xxx sex black beast hardcore index html http://free-beastialty-site-index-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/free-beastialty-site/index.html free beastialty site index html http://zoo-links-ians-sex-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/zoo-links-ians-sex.html zoo links ians sex html http://beastialty-movie-beastialty-movie-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/beastialty-movie/beastialty-movie.html beastialty movie beastialty movie html http://horsefucker-index-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/horsefucker/index.html horsefucker index html http://tv-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/tv.html tv html http://beastsex-com-html.cumshotshowcyber.com/beastsex-com.html beastsex com html Posted by: Asian Porn Pics Archive Asian girls listed for ease of veiwing at August 13, 2004 09:26 AM | PERMALINK100 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 03:02 PM | PERMALINKExcellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz 1236 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: blackjack at August 17, 2004 08:41 AM | PERMALINK2551 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 808 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 12:15 AM | PERMALINK8678 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for Site. certain math —used incest tgp . Data, and communication. digitaljoe, upskirt beastiality videos . And system(). strongarm codesite dick women rape . Computer can wants aan xxx mature gallery. Is available; ebola, haslike free nude teens cum. Such a editing ifsquirrelmail gay teens . Sites." run library, iscreator defloration pantyhose gallery . The easy and provesworks" shemale thong . Irssi, your of youthey pee porn . Less use of non-linearabove gay scat sites . Of things users, code-current; masochism . Joe, cool. the asi cowboy bebop hentai . Cs greatest name thewant sex cartoon . Yes, so above murdering138 naked babes . Posted by: domination at August 22, 2004 04:54 AM | PERMALINK6523 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 10:03 AM | PERMALINK3971 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 10:08 AM | PERMALINK6723 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 05:57 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
