Don,

talk to you on http://www.talkorigins.org/ in few weeks after I've had a
chance to study the site and others, and formulate a hypothesis where I
don't have to bend science or scripture to make either accommodate the
other. Then I would welcome any constructive insights of yours. Thanks for
opening my eyes about ICR: I will be very careful about using any of their
data directly. Until then, I think I've lost interest in playing this game
because, you know, games that are very scientific usually are more work than
fun.

Dave Spencer
merdave at televar.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Baccus <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Tweeters - for fun?


>At 02:18 PM 11/10/98 -0800, Richard D. Spencer wrote:
>
>>>Those of us who
>>>understand
>
>>Where have I heard that before?
>
>Ahhh...so we want to start a flamefest, now, do we?
>
>>> that the only way to understand biology is through a thorough
>>>understanding of evolutionary sciences
>
>>A very narrow view-point indeed! This would even eliminate the most
>>important activity on earth - bird watching!
>
>Birding is a *recreational* activity, not a science. Perhaps this
>misunderstanding helps explain why you believe "scientific" creationism
>is science?
>
>Jim's correct, you can't understand the SCIENCE of biology without
>understanding evolutionary theory, because the latter is the very
>foundation of biology. As has been pointed previously, remove evolution
>and you demolish modern biology, just as thoroughly as removing
>quantum theory and relativity would demolish modern physics.
>
>Why don't we talk about something else in the bible, for instance
>literal statements that can only be true if the earth is flat. You
>know, there is a Flat Earth Society that still has an active membership.
>All you biblical literalists should join...
>
>>> are concerned with the many forces
>>>that are trying to destroy that type of education. It requires a constant
>>>vigilence to keep track of these forces so we can manage to keep the U.S.
>>>somewhat involved with modern science.
>>
>>I taught Darwinism for 7 years in a public school quite a while back and
I'm
>>not sorry that I did. What I do regret is that I did not know then that
>>there is some data that doesn't quite fit within the concept of classical
>>Darwinism and I should have been teaching that information as well.
>
>None of that data has anything to do with scientific creationism, though.
>
>1. where did that data come from? SCIENTISTS
>2. what did they do with that? What always happens in science, they
modified
> classical Darwinism. They're fighting over just how to account for new
> facts.
>
>>Of
>>course, this information was not brought to my attention while I was
>>studying to become a teacher and the situation has not changed any. I
>>wonder why?
>
>For the same reasons most high school physics teachers are not intimately
>familiar with string theory and the like.
>
>1. Introductory texts lag behind research. This will always be true, it
> takes time to write texts and most school districts will try to get a
> decade or so use out of expensive texts.
>
>2. Textbooks are always simplifications. In physics, perhaps a 100 or so
> mathemeticians in the world are capable of digesting the latest
theoretical
> model current in partical physics. It is silly to presume all high
school
> teachers, much less all high school students, could do so.
>
>We still teach Newtonian physics in High School, along with very watered
>down versions of relativity.
>
>Does this mean high school physics students are being "lied to"? Should we
>now jump to the conclusion that earth is flat?
>
>>I also think that an understanding of animal/human behavior and anatomy
and
>>an understanding of ecology could be very useful to a student of biology
>>even if that student had no knowledge of evolution.
>
>You can't understand ecology in any deep sense without understanding
>and least the basics of evolution.
>
>> Native Americans did
>>very well for thousands of years with an working understanding of these
>>subjects minus evolution.
>
>What does this have to do with biology? They were successful at killing
>animals therefore they had an innate understanding of biology? I don't
>get it.
>
>>>It is difficult to remain polite and
>>>considerate with people who are determined to undermind the education
>>>effort.
>
>>Difficult but not impossible. "Word rage" doesn't get much done.
>
>Some times it makes people go away. In the case of so-called "scientific
>creationists", that's a good thing.
>
>>
>>> If they wanted to just go off and talk to themselves that would be
>>>fine but they keep trying to make in-roads into the education system and
>>>that is when they cross the line, in my opinion, and to me it is not a
>>>matter of being nice or having any kind of fun. It is quite serious.
>
>>What is even more serious is that in our local school system it is
possible
>>for a student not to receive any science instruction at all for 1 year!
>>Why? Because the school is constantly having to deal with a whole range
of
>>real and imagined problems. So basic education gets less and less time and
>>money. Is it reasonable to note that these problems are coming from a
>>society that has generally rejected the Bible and the wisdom/values that
it
>>teaches?
>
>It is more reasonable to note that it is the conservative Christian Right
>that keeps pushing an agenda to fuck up our schools. It is from this
>segment of society that proposals to disband the Department of Education
>stem from. It is this segment of society that works to cripple our public
>schools.
>
>Strangely, it seems to be folks like myself who aren't religous who keep
>screaming that we need more funding for public schools, that the fact
>that public university tuitions in my state of Oregon, which have increased
>far faster than inflation due to (again) the actions of the conservative
>Right which dominates our legislature, are disgracefully out of reach of
>many poorer students unless they put themselves tens of thousands of
>dollars in debt, etc.
>
>So you can note imagined correlations all you want. A better thing to
>do is to convince the Christian Right to quit trying to demolish our
>public school system just because they can't teach religous subjects
>in them anymore - including but not limited to so-called "scientific"
>creationism.
>
>>Now I have a question. Do you get just as serious when other
>>religious/special-interest groups inject themselves into the public
>>education system who are as nonscientific as these apparently lunatic
>>Christians with whom you are doing battle? Such as those who agree with
>>your stand on evolution? Just curious.
>
>Sure.
>
>
>- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
> http://donb.photo.net
>