This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Antievolutionism in a marine science textbook

Antievolutionism in a marine science textbook - Comments

Jeff (HandyGeek) Handy's Avatar Comment 1 by Jeff (HandyGeek) Handy

When there is enough buzz, action follows quickly sometimes.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/education/os-science-book-creationism-20100923,0,5239590.story

Orlando Sentinel reveals that the FL DOE got the publisher to agree to cull the questionable text. We'll keep an eye out in FL.

Jeff (HandyGeek) Handy Member and supporter of Florida Citizens for Science

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:41:44 UTC | #523971

John Jones's Avatar Comment 2 by John Jones

I think we should learn to count all the dead, and not just our own:

Darwinism has been brought closer to the church by Dawkins. If we criticize one, we criticize the other. Dawkinian evolution interprets evolution in terms of a christian morality (sin and selfishness, altruism, etc), and also adopts some of the principles of transmigration.

Be that as it may, it is only one reason why the interpretation of the physical facts of evolution hasn't been adequately, conceptually, presented - the creationists choose to ignore the plain facts altogether in their pursuit of a materialist God.

However, while the materialism of the creationists mucks up the facts, the materialism of Darwin and Dawkins mucks up what the facts actually stand for. Thus we have, in keeping with spirituality, a Dawkinian idea that a material copy can help a gene survive across the boundary of death. That's the logical consequence of "survival". If dawkins abandoned this odd idea then the gene could not express manifestations that fall in with the metaphor of selfishness.

Count all the dead please.

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:52:58 UTC | #523978

The Plc's Avatar Comment 3 by The Plc

the vast majority of biologists (probably more than 95%)"

That's not very generous from the creatards. The real figure is certainly about 99.999999%.

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:00:30 UTC | #523983

Narvi's Avatar Comment 4 by Narvi

@John Jones: Could you try speaking English, please? I've spent ten minutes trying to figure out what you're trying to say, and I'm getting nothing (I've had the same trouble on several of your most recent comments).

From what little sense I could make of your ramblings, you're saying that genes are actually ghosts, and I don't think that was your intent.

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:00:32 UTC | #523984

Roedy's Avatar Comment 5 by Roedy

If you feed kids junk science, they won't be able to do their work as adults. Their degrees will be worthless. They don't realise it but, creationists are doing their best to shove their kids to the bottom of the wealth pile.

Given enough time, the creationists should eliminate themselves.

The United States is falling behind the rest of the world in science largely because its schools have been taken over by medieval superstitions. No amount of money can fix that.

No oil company could possibly afford to hire or humour creationist geologists because they would be unable to find any oil. Ditto for the other sciences. Creationists might as well be putting crack on their kids' cornflakes.

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:18:29 UTC | #523991

John Jones's Avatar Comment 6 by John Jones

Comment 4 by Narvi

@John Jones: Could you try speaking English, please? I've spent ten minutes trying to figure out what you're trying to say, and I'm getting nothing (I've had the same trouble on several of your most recent comments).

From what little sense I could make of your ramblings, you're saying that genes are actually ghosts, and I don't think that was your intent

Dawkins and the Church share similar moral aims and the same spirituality. The fact that one "type" of being (God) is rejected by Dawkins doesn't significantly diminish their similarity.

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:34:07 UTC | #524001

Matt B's Avatar Comment 7 by Matt B

Dawkins and the Church share similar moral aims and the same spirituality. The fact that one "type" of being (God) is rejected by Dawkins doesn't significantly diminish their similarity.

First of all, Professor Dawkins has made it clear that he does not believe in any type of "being." So any comparison along these lines are irrelevent.

Second, I don't see how the Professor and the church share similar aims. The church, I feel, aims to save peoples immortal souls from the bowels of hell. Professor Dawkins aims to create an environment of education and critical thinking. Once again, you're comparing apples and elephants.

I am not trying to be rude, but to simply point out what I see as false arguments.

Matt B

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:02:44 UTC | #524012

RDfan's Avatar Comment 8 by RDfan

Comment 4 by Narvi

@John Jones: Could you try speaking English, please?

Yes, I've read that comment three times and I still have no idea what he is talking about.

Maybe he is saying that genes, like souls, "survive death", which is true in the former and unlikely (to be generous) in the latter.

But the genes that survive do so in another body i.e off spring (evolution), not in the after-life (Christianity) of the deceased. I think John Jones is conflating two very different meanings of survival.

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:28:47 UTC | #524023

Saganic Rites's Avatar Comment 9 by Saganic Rites

Ignore John Jones, he knows not what he does.

He seems to think that all books should be read in the same way as his bible: Give it a cursory glance, disregard all that you have read; make up your own interpretation of the book (the further from the original meaning the better); convince yourself that your interpretation is 'The Truth'; try telling clever people 'The Truth; get laughed at (a lot)!

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:53:12 UTC | #524035

Scot68's Avatar Comment 10 by Scot68

Just a question, the article seems to make an issue of the sidebar saying that Darwin claimed that life originated with inorganic matter, and that seems to be something people want eliminated. Isn't that what most evolutionists think happened? What am I missing here?

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:09:03 UTC | #524040

Saganic Rites's Avatar Comment 11 by Saganic Rites

@Scot68: I may be wrong here, or using the wrong terminology (it's late, so forgive me if I'm wrong), but my basic understanding is that 'animate' matter (life) originated from inanimate organic (not inorganic) matter.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:25:02 UTC | #524045

khendar's Avatar Comment 12 by khendar

Comment 10 by Scot68 :

Just a question, the article seems to make an issue of the sidebar saying that Darwin claimed that life originated with inorganic matter, and that seems to be something people want eliminated. Isn't that what most evolutionists think happened? What am I missing here?

Darwin never discussed the origins of life in his book. His book is about selection and speciation, not origins. Its a common mistake that Creationists make, to assume that Darwin wrote about the origins of life. Usually it just proves that they never read his book.

He does discuss abiogenesis in other writings, but it appears nowhere in Origins of Species. That's the error in the sidebar.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:31:22 UTC | #524052

Most curious's Avatar Comment 13 by Most curious

When I was on a textbook adoption committee for the state of NM, we made sure all the science texts met state/national science standards. The person from the state education department wanted us to "approve" of several texts I didn't find very well done. We didn't endorse them. We also found out that there were several creationists that were trying to ram some standards and texts through at the state senate adoption confirmation vote. Luckily, there were a couple of the teachers from the adoption committee that stood up and publicly denounced that effort. They didn't get their agenda through. It takes a lot of dilligence to make sure these nutcases don't succeed. Someone in florida was asleap.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:02:56 UTC | #524060

some asshole's Avatar Comment 14 by some asshole

Comment 4 by Narvi : @John Jones: Could you try speaking English, please? I've spent ten minutes trying to figure out what you're trying to say, and I'm getting nothing.

Same here. Except I gave up after less than 1 minute.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:21:15 UTC | #524062

Austin K's Avatar Comment 15 by Austin K

John Jones, congratulation on inventing the word "Dawkininan" I only wish I had the slightest hope of understanding what the heck you're talking about.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:17:05 UTC | #524078

drjam's Avatar Comment 16 by drjam

John Jones - ditto along with Austin K et al - couldn't really fathom what the hell you were trying to say.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 03:40:06 UTC | #524090

Jeff (HandyGeek) Handy's Avatar Comment 17 by Jeff (HandyGeek) Handy

Can no one spot a troll anymore? John Jones obviously fits that description.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 03:46:15 UTC | #524092

InYourFaceNewYorker's Avatar Comment 18 by InYourFaceNewYorker

This is really sad. I'm guessing books on other subjects go through more rigorous review from qualified people, right? And whoever wrote the sidebar article needs to pick up The Greatest Show on Earth and The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable... RIGHT NOW. I only read about three paragraphs of the sidebar, but that was enough.

The things people will do for Jebus...

Julie

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 04:30:11 UTC | #524094

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 19 by Enlightenme..

America badly needs another Sputnik moment, here's hoping the Chinese get a move on & land on the moon so that Science gets considered a matter of national security again.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 05:42:39 UTC | #524100

thebaldgit's Avatar Comment 20 by thebaldgit

I am in the camp of not understanding what John Jones was blathering on about, but if there is chat about spirits I hope that I get caught by ghosties rather than ghoulies. I suppose that there is no great surprise that a state like Florida is trying to sneak creationism in again.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:04:19 UTC | #524152

John Jones's Avatar Comment 21 by John Jones

Comment 7 by Matt B

Dawkins and the Church share similar moral aims and the same spirituality. The fact that one "type" of being (God) is rejected by Dawkins doesn't significantly diminish their similarity.

First of all, Professor Dawkins has made it clear that he does not believe in any type of "being." So any comparison along these lines are irrelevent.

Second, I don't see how the Professor and the church share similar aims. The church, I feel, aims to save peoples immortal souls from the bowels of hell. Professor Dawkins aims to create an environment of education and critical thinking. Once again, you're comparing apples and elephants.

I am not trying to be rude, but to simply point out what I see as false arguments.

Matt B

Dawkins and the Church have similar moral aims in that they both believe in altruism and the moral failure at the heart of life (selfishness, sin). There are alternatives to these models.

Dawkins and the Church both have similar spiritualities in that they both believe in an essence that transcends death. For the Church it is a human essence or soul that transcends death across generations (as "reincarnation or "rising from the dead"); for Dawkins it is the genetic soul or essence that transcends its own death across generations (as "survival").

So, the fact that Dawkins does not believe in Hell or God are quite minor points related to the details of personal experience and the sort of entities that populate their spiritual domains. All Dawkins has done is translate Christianity into a genetic metaphor, but the essentials remain the same.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:38:24 UTC | #524167

Paula Kirby's Avatar Comment 22 by Paula Kirby

John Jones: Dawkins and the Church have similar moral aims in that they both believe in altruism and the moral failure at the heart of life (selfishness, sin)

What makes you think Dawkins believes there is moral failure and selfishness at the heart of life?

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:47:40 UTC | #524171

k_docks's Avatar Comment 23 by k_docks

Quick hide the truth from the public before they see the farce evolution really is!

No oil company could possibly afford to hire or humour creationist geologists because they would be unable to find any oil. Ditto for the other sciences. Creationists might as well be putting crack on their kids' cornflakes.

Under an evolutionary world view oil must be a renewable energy source, being created around us all over the place! Vast quantities of vegetation being buried under millions of tonnes of sediments in multiple locations around the globe - sounds like global flood conditions to me!

the vast majority of biologists (probably more than 95%)" That's not very generous from the creatards. The real figure is certainly about 99.999999%.

Wow now that's a worrying error! I can see the need to eliminate this from the text, it's just not scientific.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:20:09 UTC | #524187

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 24 by Quetzalcoatl

K_docks-

Under an evolutionary world view oil must be a renewable energy source, being created around us all over the place! Vast quantities of vegetation being buried under millions of tonnes of sediments in multiple locations around the globe - sounds like global flood conditions to me!

The global flood didn't happen.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:34:51 UTC | #524193

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 25 by Tyler Durden

Comment 23 by k_docks :

Under an evolutionary world view oil must be a renewable energy source, being created around us all over the place! Vast quantities of vegetation being buried under millions of tonnes of sediments in multiple locations around the globe - sounds like global flood conditions to me!

Do you have any evidence for this "global flood"? Geological, scientific, independent, testable, convergent, consilience evidence.

And if you're citing the "Noah's flood" myth from your big bible book of fairy tales for adults, can you also explain why the approx 20 million people, who inhabited the planet Earth when that myth allegedly took place, had to die, and where is the evidence for them having "drowned".

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:36:46 UTC | #524195

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 26 by Roger J. Stanyard

Message to John Jones - you're postings are basically unsubstantiated gibberish. You make think you are clever. Right now, to everyone in this forum, you sound like an idiot. Your inconherent drivel is also completly off topic.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:43:19 UTC | #524197

k_docks's Avatar Comment 27 by k_docks

Quetzalcoatl-

The global flood didn't happen.

And your geological, scientific, independent, testable, convergent, consilience evidence for this claim is what?

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:09:34 UTC | #524209

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 28 by Quetzalcoatl

k_docks-

There is no evidence to suggest that any kind of flood of global proportions took place. It is completely unsupported by geology, the fossil record and historical data. Study of genetics has shown that the entire population of the world is NOT descended from seven people. Not to mention that the whole idea of the flood story is completely absurd and not at all feasible.

If you have evidence for it, please, go ahead. I could use a laugh to get me through the next few hours at work.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:15:45 UTC | #524210

gos's Avatar Comment 29 by gos

@John Jones:

Analogies can be incredibly powerful tools for understanding. Few people living today demonstrate this better than Professor Dawkins. However, pointing out a few shallow similarities, often by conflating different meanings of a common term (e.g. "believe in"), does not a useful analogy make.

Pointing out similarities between broad opinions, worldviews, and philosophical systems is an easy armchair philosophy exercise. It is just as easy to point out similarities between Islam and feminism, post-modernism and Satanism or spiritualism and stamp collecting as it is to point out similarities between Dawkins' stated opinions and the various, often contradictory, Christian values. (If you doubt this point, I invite you to read wikipedia's article on Islamic feminism).

Doing this in a useful manner, that leads to an understanding of deep similarities in structure, and helps people to use their pre-existing knowledge to better understand something else, is much harder. I think I speak for most people here in saying that you have failed to achieve this, in an embarrassing manner.

I would like to add that you did not mention (and likely do not understand) the key difference between the Christian worldview and Professor Dawkins' beliefs: How they were arrived at.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:21:45 UTC | #524212

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 30 by Stevehill

@k-docks

Oh dear. I'll rise to it.

To indundate the planet the water would have to be about 8.85km higher than sea level, to cover Mt Everest.

That means 4.5 billion cubic kilometres more water than now exists on the planet had to appear from "somewhere" - it's not just sitting up there in the clouds. It had to come from off the planet. (This is a lot of water - more than three times as much water as now exists on the planet.)

The highest recorded rainfall was 1825mm in 24 hours (Reunion, in 1966, tropical storm Denise). If it rained consistently at that rate it would take over 13 years to cover Everest - plenty of time for people to latch on and build more arks.

When the flood subsided, 4.5 bn cubic km of water had to go back to "somewhere" other than on this planet. To reach escape velocity requires 7.89 kilowatt hours of energy per kilogramme of mass. That's 7,890 KwH per cubic metre; or 7.8 billion KwH for each and every one of those 4.5 billion cu km of water.

The energy expenditure to shift such a volume of water would be colossal: the planet would not survive.

Assuming you believe the "flood" was relatively recent, within the last few thousand years, the very large amount of water sent into space would still be detectable by quite simple astronomical instruments.

It is not there.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:32:22 UTC | #524216