Show Notes:: The Junk of a Fallacy (Pt 3) - Random Chance

So, two weeks ago I left off with my "KISS" it

Background:: http://www.mrwallpaper.com/wallpapers/gradient-background.jpg

Let's look at each in a bit more detail

First up, Random Chance

And this is a point Michael (my initial adversary) alludes to, a common trope among the ID crowd, "order and information don't just come together by randomness and chance."  Well sir, last I looked I was not slammed together like the 747 or in your case a computer code. I am the product of my parental lineage which operated according to five principles of natural selection.  Which are, [1]

[I will be hitting the idea of "no new information" in a separate segment as it is a topic unto itself.]
 
Chance does plays a part in Evolution (ie. the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on it. Natural selection, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" features and eliminating "undesirable" ones.  [Again the oft twisted notion of "survival of the fittest"] As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution forward. [2]

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/evolutionandnaturalselectionwhms2012-121025115835-phpapp02/95/evolution-and-natural-selection-powerpoint-13-638.jpg?cb=1382441321

The most excellent example of this is HBD Kettlewell's 1952 Peppered Moth experiment: [1,3]

The classic case study of natural selection was recorded by H. B. D. Kettlewell in 1952. In a most interesting experiment, he concluded that an environmental influence, predation by birds, affected the total number of reproducing moths depending on their color. Kettlewell was working at Oxford University at the time and discovered a shard of information from the 1840s, 100 years earlier, that noted the first appearance of a dark morph of the peppered moth. Until that time, only white or pepper-colored moths had been observed. He connected the dates with the onset of heavy industrial output in that area. He also knew that the factories at that time and in his time produced [lots of] daily clouds of black smoke heavily laden with soot. He also knew that the peppered moths were common all over England; they were nocturnal and hid on tree trunks during the day; they were preyed upon by many species of birds. He hypothesized that the birds were preying upon the moths that were less camouflaged and therefore easier to see. In so doing, they were favoring the one morph type over another, which created uneven reproductive rates that favored an increase in one type of moth over the others.

,,,Those moths best adapted to the environment survived and reproduced; the others did not. Kettlewell's experiment is an example of how environmental pressures can determine the characteristics of species.

So taking the 5 basic principles of natural selection as outlined prior and comparing to Kettlewell's experiment this is what we see:

Background::http://www.psdgraphics.com/file/blurry-lights-background.jpg

What is interesting to note, as pointed out in my class on Genetics and Evolution [4], this genetic melanism continued until around 1980s, when the Clear Air Acts in 1956 and 1968 began to have an impact.  Instead of the dark morph, the peppered color is again the predominant. [5]

Another classic example would be Darwin's Finches. [6]  And I know y'all are familiar with this one.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6448/1315/1600/finches.0.gif

What Darwin discovered, with the assistance of ornithologist John Gould, these birds (14 different specimens), "although nearly identical in all other ways to mainland finches, had different beaks. Their beaks had adapted to the type of food they ate in order to fill different niches on the Galapagos Islands. Their isolation on the islands over long periods of time made them undergo speciation."   What Darwin had to say: [7]

http://www.dvd-ppt-slideshow.com/images/ppt-background/background-15.jpg

And finally, if you want to see NS in action, one needs to look no further than your medicine cabinet and take note of what is no longer there - Penicillin. [8]

From the time of discovery through WWII, penicillin was the "miracle drug" in fighting staph bacteria.  By 1947 the first resistant strain of staph was discovered; by the 1960s, 80% of staph isolates were resistant to penicillin.  Now, well virtually all the strains out there are resistant to penicillin.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/state/images/thanks_penicillin_sm.jpg

My battle with MRSA finally ended after 18 months of hell because of this adaptation by bacteria.  Three different antibiotics and one messed up belly, I have been MRSA free almost 2 years.  I did have one minor flair but that was thankfully dispatched quickly.

[FYI::As some may be aware, I am diabetic which at times can weaken my immune system hence I am prone to what is called CA-MRSA - Community Associated MRSA.  Although not a "serious" as the newsworthy cases, as it usually is confined to localized skin infection, it can be a fairly substantial battle.  My first bout was a case in point as I have a 1" scar in my armpit where a drainage hole was inserted.  Needless to say it was gross and I felt like shit for 3 months.]

One final important note concerning "chance", natural selection is a measurement "across a population and through generations. If a creationist someone starts talking about natural selection being random and pointing out individual responses to the environment, then we might not be talking about the same evolutionary mechanism anymore. Everything that happens within evolution is happening to populations. Individuals do not evolve. So natural selection is the differential survival of individuals (or genes, depending on your perspective), but it is measured through time and within the context of a population. [9]

An overly simplified explanation using the "Blueprint Analogy":

What I hope to have provided is 3 solid refutations to the notion that Evolution by Natural Selection is just "chance". [10]

NOTES:
[1]  http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/natural-selection.html Excerpted from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Biology (2004), Glen E. Moulton, Ed.D. 

[2]  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

[3]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettlewell%27s_experiment

[4]  Class notes: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution w/ Dr. Mohamed Noor, Lecture 1.1:  What is Evolution? https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/home/welcome

[5]  According to AIG, Ken Ham's racket, there is some "controversy" surrounding Kettlewell's experiment.  We may explore that a we bit next week.  https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/peppered-moth-again/

[6]  http://evolution.about.com/od/Darwin/a/Charles-Darwins-Finches.htm

[7]  Darwin's Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the world, under the Command of Capt. Fitz Roy, now known as Voyage of the Beagle, 379-380  http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F14&pageseq=392

How Darwin describes the findings,

The remaining land-birds form a most singular group of finches, related to each other in the structure of their beaks, short tails, form of body and plumage: there are thirteen species, which Mr. Gould has divided into four subgroups. All these species are peculiar to this archipelago; and so is the whole group, with the exception of one species of the sub-group Cactornis, lately brought from Bow Island, in the Low Archipelago. Of Cactornis, the two species may be often seen climbing about the flowers of the great cactus-trees; but all the other species of this group of finches, mingled together in flocks, feed on the dry and sterile ground of the lower districts. The males of all, or certainly of the greater number, are jet black; and the females (with perhaps one or two exceptions) are brown. The most curious fact is the perfect gradation in the size of the beaks in the different species of Geospiza, from one as large as that of a hawfinch to that of a chaffinch, and (if Mr. Gould is right in including his sub-group, Certhidea, in the main group) even to that of a warbler. The largest beak in the genus Geospiza is shown in Fig. 1, and the smallest in Fig. 3; but instead of there being only one intermediate species, with a beak of the size shown in Fig. 2, there are no less than six species with insensibly graduated beaks. The beak of the sub-group Certhidea, is shown in Fig. 4. The beak of Cactornis is somewhat like that of a starling, and that of the fourth subgroup, Camarhynchus, is slightly parrot-shaped. Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends. In a like manner it might be fancied that a bird originally a buzzard, had been induced here to undertake the office of the carrion-feeding Polybori of the American continent.

For a more modern take on Darwin's finches, ie science never stops seeking answers

Darwin's finches are a classic example of species diversification by natural selection. Their impressive variation in beak morphology is associated with the exploitation of a variety of ecological niches, but its developmental basis is unknown. We performed a comparative analysis of expression patterns of various growth factors in species comprising the genus Geospiza. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5689/1462.abstract

Researchers at Harvard Medical School have taken the story one step further. Using modern genetic analyses, they found a molecule that regulates genes involved in shaping the beaks of Darwin finches. "Calmodulin is a protein that binds and activates certain enzymes, which triggers a signal that eventually turns specific genes on or off," explains Arkhat Abzhanov, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard. These signals alter the behavior of cells responsible for beak sculpturing.  http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/31-finches.html and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/abs/nature04843.html

[8]  Class notes: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution w/ Dr. Mohamed Noor, Lecture 1.3:  Acceptance of Evolution  https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/home/welcome

[9]  http://forthesakeofscience.com/2011/02/20/is-natural-selection-random/

[10] Adam Lee has a very nice explanation as to why the JA of chance is such bunk.  What I really like is his summation:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/why-evolution-isnt-chance/

But evolution itself is a science, and like all sciences, it tells us only what is, not what should be. It is a description of one particular aspect of reality, and that is all it is. It would be foolish to use it in an attempt to derive a moral code, a purpose for our lives, a meaning to life, or any such thing. Those things do not fall within the realm of science, and science will not give us answers to them; it is up to us as individuals to decide that for ourselves. Some people seek answers to these questions through religion, while others find them through other paths.

When creationists say that one who accepts evolution must believe that life is nothing but the result of random chance, they are abusing the theory. In the scientific sense, this conclusion leaves out the most important part of the entire theory, and in the metaphysical sense, this is a deceptive attempt to derive from the theory an explanation of something it was never meant to explain. Evolution does not tell us that our life is the purposeless result of chance; it does not say anything on the topic at all. Either way, the creationists’ conclusion is flatly inaccurate. Their strategy is to tar evolution with offensive-sounding implications and turn people away from it regardless of the evidence, but this fallacious attack will always wither before the truth.

Other Images Used:
http://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/prod/primary/lg/10-3-085.jpg
https://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mutant-snake.jpg
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/Charles_Darwin_Wide.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biston.betularia.7200.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biston.betularia.f.carbonaria.7209.jpg
http://plaidcircuitry.com/computational_thinking/images/pepper-moth-line-graph.png
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/penicillin.jpg
https://jonarnefoss.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/penicillin-vk-500mg.jpg

Show Notes:: The Junk of a Fallacy (Pt 2) - A side trip

If you remember, in part one I introduced the basics of the JA.  I also made mention that my adversary had a "a very polished apologistic agenda".  I want to briefly expand on that point before continuing.  What many people, religionists and non-believers, don't fully grasp is the importance of the Theory of Evolution and why some Creationists or IDers cling so tightly to their refusal to accept science.

Simply put, eliminate the Creation mythos you eliminate the authority of the "church".  As I have noted before, "It's all about manipulation and control.  Without Genesis, the creation narrative, there is no Christ and he becomes just another myth."  But there is a deeper level to the controversy.

In an article titled "Were There Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?", Jeffrey Goldberg writing for The Atlantic spoke with Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson of AIG.  The gist of both men can be summarized by the following. [1]

Background::http://greeknews.eu5.org/images/background/ambient/ambientturquoise.jpg

As Goldberg notes, Mortenson stayed on the subject of gay marriage.

Background::http://www.idealhut.com/file/deep-dream/1440x900.jpg

While Goldberg seems to have a simplistic view of the controversy, "I found this preoccupation with gay marriage significant, because it suggests that perhaps at least some of those who profess a belief in creationism might simply be signaling their preference for a more traditional social order, rather than a rejection of modern science and free intellectual inquiry."  I beg to differ based on Ham's own words. 

Background: http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6000000/Howrse-Background-howrse-6034876-757-597.jpg

From Ham's 2002 posting, "The Evolution Connection": [2]

Many Christians, including most Christian leaders, don’t understand the connection of evolution to the social ills of our culture and the difficulties in getting people interested in Christianity. They see evolution as something totally separate from such issues. I think the main reason for this misunderstanding is because many Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that evolution is factual science.
,,,
It is true that most evolutionary scientists, the media and the average public school textbook today present atheistic (perhaps subtly rather than overtly) evolution as fact. Students are taught that the universe and all life arose by strictly material causes. God is not given any place in the ‘origin of anything.’ Over the years, the teaching of evolution has intensified in our school systems and through the media. So much so that the average person believes that scientists have proved the earth is billions of years old and that the different forms of life arose through an evolutionary process of death and struggle.
,,,
The more evolutionary ideas pervade the culture, the more a person’s whole way of thinking will change. For them, right and wrong will be whatever they determine for themselves, if they can get away with it. If they are just an animal, then no-one owns them, so their body is their own. Thus, why can’t they do what they want with sex? Also, if this life is all there is, and death ends it all, then if things get tough, why not commit suicide now and get out of it—after all, a person won’t remember they ever had life, so what’s the point anyway? And, if we get rid of spare animals by killing them, then what’s wrong with getting rid of spare babies by abortion?
,,,
Some people misunderstand me when I say there’s a connection between evolution and these social ills mentioned above. I’m not saying that evolution is the cause of abortion or school violence. What I am saying is that the more a culture abandons God’s Word as the absolute authority, and the more a culture accepts an evolutionary philosophy, then the way people think, and their attitudes, will also change. I’m not saying that a student says to himself, ‘Now, I’m just an animal—I know evolution is true—therefore there’s no basis for right or wrong—so there’s nothing to stop me from shooting my teacher.’

What people need to keep in mind is what Ham means by "authority" and how and where it is applied.  In the Christian theocratic mind-set, that authority is their particular simplistic interpretation of what the Bile states devoid of any actual hermeneutical principles.  In other words they are biblical "letteralists". [3]  Some day I may revisited that premise, but for now I am safe in saying there really is an apologistic agenda to those with a "polished" ID presentation.[4]


In other words they want what the Kleins and Kim Davis want. [5] In essence,

Background: http://mytwitterbackgrounds.com/backgrounds/images/bg_hl2u/906.jpg

Or,

Background:: http://www.ryanmulready.com/images/background.png

They want what Ted Cruz [6] wants and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. [7]  Yes, I am talking about Dominionist.  Listen to the 3 characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:

Background:: http://www.psdgraphics.com/file/fresh-green-background.jpg

It is an ideology that has been well polished and implemented within the ranks since, at least, 1982 when the failures of the Religious Right were examined and the need to "reconstruct" the church began. [8]

Background:: http://wallpoper.com/images/00/31/33/51/black-background_00313351.jpg

I know I went a bit off-topic today, but it is relevant especially in light of recent headlines.  Dan Arel's battle with AIG's, Ark Encounter - Kentucky bill looks to extend summer vacation to promote creationism. [11]  Dan Courtney and Katherine Stewart's ongoing battle with the Good News Club infiltrating schools. [12]  Or, Roy Moore's continued fight with the supremacy of SCOTUS rulings. [13]


I can't say for sure that Michael's agenda goes quite this deep but his association with the Discovery Institute makes his motivations suspect.  Religionists can not "lose" this battle as I mentioned prior, to do so would undermine the whole of Christianity.  It is a battle they have been waging since the 1968 Epperson trial [9], through Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) [10] and more recently the 2006 Kitzmiller trial.  The Reich's tactics might change but the desired outcome is still the same.

How do I know this, because Phillip E. Johnson admitted as such as the architect of the Wedge Document: [14]

I promise that next week to get back to dismantling the JA but I think y'all  may understand why fighting against such bullshit is important.  Nothing is as simple as the creationist loons make it out to be.  It has nothing to do with "it's just a belief" or simple denial of science and much to do with manipulation and control.

NOTES:
[1]  http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/10/were-there-dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark.html
 
[2]  http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/07/creationism-in-classroom-causes-concern.html

[3]  I have prior spoken about the hermeneutical principles I still adhere to from my bile-thumping days http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/12/no-homos-in-my-church-pt-1.html

Back in 1983 or 1984 (maybe even 1985 things are kind of a blur going back that far), I was taught that there were two prominent, overall thought processes in regards to biblical interpretation.  The "literal view" asserts that a biblical text should be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context; its meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors.  The second process is what my professor referred to as the "letteral view" of interpretation.  In essence it is a strict almost legalistic point of view.  A good example, that illustrates both views, Christ versus the Pharisees.   Within the Bible, the Pharisees are seen as people who place the letter of the law above the spirit (cf. Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6)

[4]  In concluding his 5-part presentation on the Arrogance of Creationists,  KC in part 3 talks about how Creationists love to use vague and misleading terminology which leads to equivocation and moving the goal posts.  This equivocation, as KC explains is due to that same view concerning authority that both Ham and Mortenson both have, "in the case of most creationists it is because of a dogmatic adherence to a literal interpretation of their sacred texts,,,.  Discourses in science are not centered around learning but to rationalize that which they adhere to as unquestionable." [paraphrased]

In other words, we have one big circle-jerk: 1] the Bible is inerrant and authoritative in all things (science included); 2] this leads to equivocation and shifting the goal-posts; 3] in order to rationalize their dogmatic adherence the Bible.

[5]  http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2015/09/what-is-so-sad-pathetic-really-is-this.html

[6]  http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2013/10/christian-dominionists-support-ted-cruz.html

[7]  http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/06/rafael-cruz-preaches-seven-mountains.html

[8]  http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/4/3/155629/6754 Christian Reconstructionism is often described as the movement that wants to execute adulterers, blasphemers, and homosexuals, by stoning.  Since this is not likely to happen any time soon, the movement is often dismissed as fringe and inconsequential.  The preoccupation with the stoning aspect has obscured the fact that many other foundational components of the movement have been mainstreamed in the Religious Right since the time when Gary North wrote the following words.

Gary North writing in the first volume of the journal Christianity and Civilization, published by the Geneva Divinity School in Spring, 1982.  The entire issue was dedicated to a symposium on "The Failure of American Baptist Culture."  http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/cc_1/cc_1.html  (40-25)

[9]  Susan Epperson challenged the Arkansas law that prohibited public school teachers from teaching, or using textbooks that teach, human evolution.

[10]  Which held that traditional creationism is a religious doctrine that cannot be taught in public school biology classes.

[11]  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2016/01/kentucky-bill-looks-to-extend-summer-vacation-to-promote-creationism/

[12]  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/atheist-parents-take-on-christian-good-news-club-with-better-news-club/2015/01/08/3487b884-9766-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html

[13]  http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_alabama_chief_justice_issues_order_blocking_same_sex_marriage_licenses

[14]  Bohlin, Ray, ed. (2000). Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science: Probing the Headlines That Impact Your Family. Foreword by Phillip E. Johnson. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, p. 5.

Other Images used:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl9F9BMrngl5KObXi-eUabJNK391v3J4D0A4tqm7A83Xx_I2M8f-gF2Cr57IoXsejey0opoilg6QLAf014CLNcaJ0KfTx75ZVrInfD7NVrfiKM5UL0s75Nz-7C1x038X7bZI0KbLknZHo/s1600/Signs_foil_hat-thumb-550x373-17996.jpg
http://traditores.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/man_pulling_card.jpg
http://media.salon.com/2012/11/shutterstock_108806891.jpg
http://christianworshiplife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/spiritual_authority_s.jpg
http://downtrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Aaron-Melissa-Klein-Oregon-Bakery.jpg
http://media.salon.com/2013/10/ted_cruz7.jpg
http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/107057041/Polished_Concrete.jpg
http://www.payer.de/fundamentalismus/fund0247.gif
http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/edwards.gif
https://modernatheism.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/pandaam.jpg?w=630

Show Notes::The Junk of a Fallacy (Pt 1)

 

http://funny-pictures-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Stupid-People-vs.-Genius_1.jpg

 
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjcLhPdLm8ZyZf9FeEaCc7t3rZg9oakxS9nFWljkdT_fOoXL9Dthyphenhyphenw1c6OwrAFJZR6gjWoJqsnF_imDafH7sYtop0qY9BhaDr2UT5u0X-cEgRnHcZrO5R8MADxKcP-puWX2biw255FpH8/s320/intelligent+design+vs.+evolution.jpg

So recently I became involved in a discussion concerning Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution or more specifically the principle of Natural Selection. (In retrospect the discussion goes much deeper than that but I will save that for another day.)  Debating such is NOT my forte, and I approach it from a layman's POV but considering I was unprepared, I think I held my own.  While the gentleman (Michael was the name he gave) involved, claimed he was not a biblical Creationist per se he was referring to a "creator" or "creative force"; his arguments where basically the standard fare presented in such discussions.  Michael's fall back position, used prominently throughout the conversation - besides the rejection of peer review [1] because of alleged bias against thinking outside the box [2],  ie. Christian persecution complex - Natural Selection does not account for the introduction of new genetic material. (No shit Sherlock, if you would quit conflating NS as Evolution you may not be so confused.  NS is only one mechanism of Evolution.)  Like I said standard fare.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/interviews/naturalselection1.gif

http://deacondance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/debating.jpg

http://nerdreactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Jeremy-Brett-as-Sherlock-Holmes-sherlock-holmes-14711342-630-799.jpg

What I would like y'all to do whilst listening, is to remember I am a layman.  I am not a scientist nor a researcher.  Just like y'all I get into these discussions and sometimes flounder around trying to hold my own against individuals who have a very polished apologistic agenda. In other words, they are religious fucktards. Science, on the other hand, does not have an agenda; it is either true or it is not.  You either accept it or you don't.

http://www.funpawcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/10152001_10152298414362070_1978698415_n.jpg

My confrontation with Michael, was in essence the straw that broke the camels back.  It was time for me to become better able to counter his type of bullshit.  I wanted to know exactly "how" bad I did and where I could improve. If his "research" (he actually referred to "his team" and taking into consideration an "author" he cited was published by the Discovery Institute, I can imagine who his team consisted of) is so fucking brilliant and groundbreaking, why then is he hawking his shit on a BTR program? [3]  I even asked him where his paper was published and when he was receiving his Nobel prize.  But to no avail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Privileged_Planet.jpg

This segment is the result of such.  This segment is the accumulation of my google-foo over the years.  It is a look at specific points with (what I think are) solid examples to refute those points.  [Whether a Creationist or IDer chooses to accept such evidence is a whole different story but at least I know I ain't crazy.]

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/8f/08/dna_500.jpg?itok=bGfMKquZ

What was missing at first listen though was the "Tornado in a Junkyard Fallacy".  It was there but I missed it in the beginning as Michael re-packaged the fallacy in more modern sounding terms, a computer coding analogy as well as moving the interjection of the "creative force".  It was an analogy I was unfamiliar with and have come to learn, that it is not new and has been around for some time.  So his "claim" for original thinking falls flat.  Just as with standard apologia, there is nothing new;  just re-packaged garbage.  Other forms I have come across:  DNA is like a computer, or DNA is like data on a hard drive.  There are others, but I think you get my drift.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg25Bpqd_ckCq7BvQj9xNBpDyWzoWf2-vjF1cHuuSOwtnBwQu2fGRQZGcyMnB7vSpk06ySA9n3S6x5fQ54rzr47XasQiqmjJBnkJx-V7rbSwjLnrdG0_5rDRewlELSOi96H01KVUu4pygM/s1600/computer-code.jpg

So today we're going to take a look at this analogy and why it is a fallacy AND even if there was a prime mover Michael would still have to show this PM's existence.  Which we all know is not a possibility.  And, even if this PM existed, Evolution would still be true.  [Note::  It was at this point that Michael abruptly disappeared from the conversation.  Stan another participant, had alluded to this point and I was going to drive the point a bit more, but didn't get the chance.]  

There is no question whatsoever about the truth of Evolution. The only debates that exist about Evolution are about the relative importance of different forces on particular cases [4].  With that said,,,

http://www.codeanapp.co.uk/wp-content/themes/thesis_184/custom-sample/rotator/Toaster-Code.gif

The Fallacy

Background:  http://www.planwallpaper.com/static/images/1968081.jpg

Originally coined by British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, it was originally used as an argument against Abiogenesis not Evolution.  It is an oversimplifying of a complex theory hence a strawman. Abiogenesis does not suggest that complex high-order beings appeared from primordial soup in one magical step. As an argument against Evolution, it also fails as one of the main mechanisms of Evolution is Natural Selection which is non-random. [5]

 

 https://unzipyourgenes.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/haldane_s_primordial_soup_by_invaderxan-d5yhjwg.jpg

Michael wants to know the "initial formulation" of DNA as it comes together in a "system kind of way."

If I am understanding his POV we have this:

As much as Michael likes to state that he is NOT speaking to Abiogenesis (see show notes) [5], he is in fact making such a claim ("the initial formulation of DNA") but he makes his first mistake by referring to DNA.  What he "should" have said - for a better, but still flawed analogy - is GENOME which is the complete set of DNA (the hereditary material that makes up the genome or the "ordered code" of which DNA is a part of). [6]

That aside for the moment, it matters not in the grand scheme of things whether genome or DNA.  Arguing from analogy is a bad idea and always fails. Instead of discussing the actual issues (Intelligent Design vs Evolution) the conversation devolves to arguing the points of the analogy. "Analogies are a teaching tool. They are for describing a difficult concept to someone who has no experience with that concept. By relating that concept to something that they already understand, then they can begin to see how that concept works." [7]

https://criticalthinkersworld.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/warning-analogies13.jpg

BUT,,,

DNA cannot be placed in isolation, or taken out of context.  "It is not a stand alone piece of the puzzle."  As blogger Smilodon notes, it get us into some really techie areas of chromatids, histones and effects on replication, translation, and mutations, etc,,,.

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/4/b/1/3/13302772611564692152jigsaw-puzzle-piece.jpg

One final point concerning analogies [8]. As with Paley's Watch, [9] the JA , is comparing a nonliving object to living things capable of self-reproduction and subject to mutations.  Again as Smilodon points out, ",,,there is a false analogy.  Because watches and living things are so very different, a comparison between the two cannot be valid."  It is an invalid argument regardless of whether living things have a designer or not. [10]

So what is this analogy?

https://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/2009-12-01.png

Let's take a we bit of a closer look.

As noted prior, the Junkyard Analogy can be attributed to Fred Hoyle, as an argument against Abiogenesis.  What was not mentioned in that brief introduction, the JA is a statistical analysis applied to Evolutionary origins.  In other words, the statistical probability of life originating by chance.  There are earlier iterations alluded to by the ID crowd such as the so-called "Borel's Law" [11] as well as other bad analogies. [12] Regardless of which is used, they all fail as noted prior "[b]ecause watches and living things are so very different, a comparison between the two cannot be valid."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emile_Borel-1932.jpg

Also it gets into the sticky wicket of a Probability argument after the fact. 

Ian Musgrave in "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" highlights 5 problems: [13]

Background::  http://www.planwallpaper.com/static/images/colorful-triangles-background_yB0qTG6.jpg

While Musgrave goes into much more detail, his overall conclusion, "The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies."   Remember Abiogenesis, or origin of life is not Evolution.  They are two distinct fields with Natural Selection (Michael's apparent issue) being just one aspect of the later.  As Dr Mohammed Noor references in my class on Genetics and Evolution: [14]

Background::http://feelgrafix.com/data/background-images/Background-Images-11.jpg

In essence the JA is well, junk.  It doesn't really explain what IDer's or Creationists thinks it does and over looks the differences between complex living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves with inanimate objects that are unable to pass on any reproductive changes.

http://www.vivianpartnership.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/garbage-in-garbage-out.jpg

What about us peons?

So that in a nutshell is a more technical look at what is wrong with the JA, but what about for us peons that do not have the "science" at our finger tips to counter the bullshit?  What can we do besides using our google-foo?

Ten years ago I came across a really nice break-down of what is wrong with the JA, I have broken it down even further to "KISS" it. 

Background:: http://www.mrwallpaper.com/wallpapers/gradient-background.jpg

So next week we will take a look at what I consider four primary points of contention with the JA and how one can begin to counter the bullshit.

Notes:

[1]  https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-scientific-peer-review-a-sacred-cow-ready-to-be-slaughtered/

[2]  http://www.forwardprogressives.com/time-say-creationists-arent-christians-theyre-cult/

While I disagree that, "God and science can co-exist", I do agree with Clifton's overall point.

"To me creationists aren’t Christian (though they might believe in God and Jesus), they’re something entirely different.  I see them more like a cult than a religion.  A brainwashed grouping of people who reject all proven science for the sake of unrealistic beliefs.
,,,
But the fact is, Christianity is a faith – not science.  That’s something creationists fail to understand.  That’s why creationism doesn’t belong in a science class, because it’s not science."
,,,
And that’s the mindset of most who join cults.  They ignore all the reality outside of their system of beliefs and convince themselves (despite all facts to the contrary) that they’re right and everyone else is a part of some massive conspiracy to cover up the truth.  Just like creationists believe that science is some conspiracy to “get rid of God.”

[3]  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theforbiddenfruit/2015/12/16/things-arent-like-they-used-to-be-back-in-the-day-intellegent-design

[4]  Class notes: Introduction toGenetics and Evolution w/ Dr. Mohamed Noor, Lecture 1.1:  What is Evolution? https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/home/welcome

[5]  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

[6]  http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/24/the-genome-is-not-a-computer-p/

[7]  http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/09/10/dna-is-not-like-a-computer/#comment-1586623594

[8]  I lied, here is another pertinent point from Smilodon concerning computer-DNA analogies http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/03/23/evolution-analogies-and-why-they-arent-arguments/:

,,,DNA is nothing like a computer program. A computer program executes steps in a particular order. DNA can be transcribed in any order and each cell on uses part of the DNA. Again, a reasonably competent programmer can understand the code, figure out what it’s doing and even repair the program. Not so with DNA.

DNA is also not something that runs on some kind of platform. It is an integral part of the ‘platform’. Indeed, it is the “hardware” as well as the “software”. Oh and it’s also the memory and it’s also the CPU. Even further, the DNA can undergo some pretty drastic changes to the code and still work.  In fact, random changes to DNA can actually result in new effects and improvements in the resulting proteins. Which simply does not happen with software.

[9]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

[10]  http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/01/29/argument-by-analogy/

[11]  Any discussion concerning Emil Borel, while fascinating, is way beyond the scope of this presentation.  I note it only because 1) I'm  an information junky, and 2) as John Stockwell notes, it is another bit of science (in this case mathematics) that has been hijacked by creationists to suit their "needs".  The only issue, once examined the hijacking is thwarted.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.

As noted by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado, "[t]he true law being referenced is actually the Strong Law of large numbers, but creationists have taken a simple statement made by Borel in books written late in his life concerning probability theory and called this statement Borel's Law."  Under his subsection "A Discussion of Borel's Law", Stockwell explain how and why this hijacking may have occurred and why such is in error, ",,,Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.

[12]  With all the various analogies floating about, I will admit to some confusion.  These are but a few ideas to explore in a bit more depth:

• “[W]hat is the probability that a monkey (or chimpanzee) with a typewriter randomly pounding on the keys could produce the works of Shakespeare?” A better analogy is a monkey with a word processor, whose program (like your spell checker) automatically deletes or fixes mistakes, so that even by typing random keys, the monkey will eventually assemble a recognizable string of words.

• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
,,,
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

• Richard Dawkins (in The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, and Climbing Mount Improbable, 1996) has provided many interesting examples and computer models that show just how easily this can be done. This is the fundamental misunderstanding: evolution is not just “random chance” but a strong non-random force capable of changing genomes and acting upon material provided by chance.

• Explosion in a print shop producing a dictionary

• DNA in a blender producing a human being

[13]  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[14]  Class notes: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution w/ Dr. Mohamed Noor, Lecture 1.4:  Responding to Criticisms of Evolutionary Theory https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution/home/welcome

Bob Dyer: Cuyahoga Falls students get faulty science - Local - Ohio

In the immortal words of the great philosopher Alice Cooper, school’s out for the summer.

Here’s hoping the long vacation will enable a group of students from Cuyahoga Falls to forget some of the things they were taught this spring.

On one of the last days of the school year, a big yellow Cuyahoga Falls school bus was parked in front of the Akron Fossils & Science Center in Copley, just south of Copley Circle.

Giving your students a science lesson at the Copley Fossils & Science Center is the equivalent of hiring Alice Cooper to be your principal.

This “science” center is nothing of the sort. It is a paean to creationism.

[,,,]
So why would an educational institution bring students to a place that teaches the opposite of what is taught in its classrooms?

Two reasons:

•The name of the place is deceptive.

•Educators are not doing their basic homework.

Cuyahoga Falls Superintendent and CEO Todd Nichols says that last week he wasn’t able to get ahold of the teacher who organized the May 30 field trip, but says she is new, and he assumes she just didn’t know what she was getting into.

She’s in good company.

As I noted five years ago, the name fooled the Akron Zoo, the Cleveland Orchestra and even COSI, the renowned science center in Columbus. All three groups contributed to a fundraiser for the center without understanding what they were contributing to.

[,,,]
Now, wouldn’t you think that if people truly believe in their mission, they would be right up front about the nature of that mission? But when I asked why the place isn’t called the “Akron Creation Museum” or the “Akron Intelligent Design Center,” I was told that wasn’t necessary because their “science” deserves equal time.

Bob Dyer: Cuyahoga Falls students get faulty science - Local - Ohio

5 States Gunning to Make Their Kids As Scientifically Illiterate As Possible by Teaching Creationist B.S. | Alternet

In the US however, the battle to bring creationism and intelligent design into the classroom is alive and well. Ever since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in which the teaching of evolution was found to be a violation of Tennessee law, banning the teaching of human evolution in any publicly funded school.

The battle finally came to a head in 1987 when the Supreme Court heard Edwards v. Aguillard, in which Don Aguilard took the state of Louisiana to court over a law that required that creationism be taught in public schools.

The case, which made it all the way to the Supreme Court dealt a massive blow to the religious right when the court ruled that teaching creationism in publicly funded schools was unconstitutional because the original law was specifically intended to promote a particular religion.

A similar blow was dealt decades later when in 2005 when a US District Court ruled that intelligent design was not scientific and even encompassed creationism and teaching either to be unconstitutional.

So one would think that since both creation myths that are endorsed by the religious right have been struck down in the highest courts in the country that this debate would be settled. How one earth could we still be fighting the creationist proponents when they have been dealt solid deathblows?

According to the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an organization that tracks anti-science bills around the US that deal with evolution and global warming, almost every southern and bible-belt state in the US has at the very least attempted to pass education bills that either remove evolution from the curriculum or make it legal for teachers to offer alternative theories to human origins.

The states fighting to pass these laws are predictable if you pay attention to any national politics, the more red a state votes, the more it fights to remove science education from its schools or at the very least, replace science classes with a form of Bible study.

So what states and bills have been the worst to science education? Here are five examples of states either enacted or relentlessly fighting to pass anti-evolution and or anti-science bills to change their educational standards to appease the Christian Right.

5 States Gunning to Make Their Kids As Scientifically Illiterate As Possible by Teaching Creationist B.S. | Alternet

GOP candidate for SC schools chief wants to teach ‘scientific theory of intelligent design’

“There is plenty of science and research behind the theory of intelligent design, and yet it is not allowed in the classroom,” Few added. “There is no reason why the scientific theory of intelligent design should not be taught in the classroom alongside the theory of evolution, and that way children would receive an objective education and they could also — for Christian children — could point to their God though the theory of intelligent design. Children need to have an objective education.”

GOP candidate for SC schools chief wants to teach ‘scientific theory of intelligent design’

UPDATE::Antievolution bills die in Missouri | NCSE

An update to this previous story from February,,,

Two antievolution bills died in committee in the Missouri House of Representatives on May 16, 2014, when the legislature adjourned.

House Bill 1472 would have, if enacted, required school districts to allow parents to have their children excused from learning about evolution,,,Interviewed by the Kansas City Star (February 6, 2014), the bill's sponsor Rick Brattin (R-District 55) described evolution as "just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the air as, say, any religion."

[,,,]
HB 1587 would have required state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies and permit teachers "to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution"; it would have prevented such authorities from "prohibit[ing] any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of biological or chemical evolution whenever these subjects are taught."

Antievolution bills die in Missouri | NCSE

Repeal effort revived again in Louisiana | NCSE

Senate Bill 175 (PDF), prefiled in the Louisiana Senate on February 25, 2014, and provisionally referred to the Senate Committee on Education, would, if enacted, repeal Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:285.1, which implemented the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act, passed and enacted in 2008,,,

The law targeted for repeal calls on state and local education administrators to help to promote "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning"; these four topics were described as controversial in the original draft of the legislation. It also allows teachers to use "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner" if so permitted by their local school boards. A sponsor of the bill told the Hammond Daily Star (April 6, 2008) that the bill was aimed at promoting the discussion of "scientific data related to creationism."



Repeal effort revived again in Louisiana | NCSE

South Dakota lawmakers kill intelligent design, 'personhood before birth' bills | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com

An update on South Dakota's SB 112 ( as well as SB 101) which stated, "No school board or school administrator may prohibit a teacher in public or nonpublic school from providing instruction on intelligent design or other related topics."

Monroe said he was prompted to withdraw SB 101 because he feels personhood before birth has already been discussed at length by the legislature. Since sponsoring the bill dealing with the instruction of intelligent design, he said he has been contacted by “think-tanks” all over the country.

"It was getting too big for the amount of benefit that would come of it," Monroe said about SB 112. "I think there are better ways to do this that don't scare the daylights out of school boards and get everybody riled up."

Monroe said he still feels passionate about the topic, and will continue to pursue it outside of the legislature. He said students should be allowed to "see both sides."


South Dakota lawmakers kill intelligent design, 'personhood before birth' bills | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com

Intelligent design in South Dakota: Bill would allow teaching of creationism in public schools.

This juicy news bite comes from Phil Plait of "Bad Astronomy" fame. I would be curious of the total time and monies spent and wasted on these frivolous pieces of legislation nation wide. How much taxpayer money has gone into defending them and couldn't this money be better spent?

Of course, brevity and legality are two different things. As I have pointed out many times before, teaching intelligent design in public schools is illegal, because ID is the same thing as creationism, and that’s religion, which is a no-no to teach in schools. In fact, it’s unconstitutional (that link goes to the written opinion of Judge John Jones in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case—a federal judge, and, I’ll note, a conservative one).

Intelligent design in South Dakota: Bill would allow teaching of creationism in public schools.

State lawmakers prove to be anti-science - Northwest Missourian: Opinion

,,,It appears that Andrew Koenig (R- District 99) wants to redefine those long-held ideas along with several other Republican congressmen.

Last week, Koenig introduced House Bill 1587, the second anti-evolution bill presented in the state legislature in less than a year. The first tried to force the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution at all public schools, including introductory biology courses at colleges. I’ll spare you from much of the pseudo-science BS that occupies much of the text of this bill and focus on phrases that cause serious concern.

One section of the bill forces educational authorities to “...assist teachers in finding more effective ways to present science curriculum where it address scientific controversies.” Now in ordinary circumstances, this language is fairly innocuous. However, in the hands of a religious-minded politician, it’s a chance to inject creationist ideas into public schools. You see, evolution is not a controversy in the scientific community, no matter which way you look at it. As stated before, there is large consensus among professional men of science who have concluded its validity. Does that mean they aren’t open to ideas that are contrary to that evolution? Of course not. Science is founded upon the ability for one to refute and critique its theories by presenting a legitimate, scientific answer to them. If the counter-theory is valid and is consistent with the data, it gains credibility within the scientific community over time. The problem is that evolution has withstood endless scrutiny from all scientific circles for more than 150 years. If you formulated a theory that actually disproved evolution, you would likely win a Nobel Prize for your work,,,

State lawmakers prove to be anti-science - Northwest Missourian: Opinion

6 Biggest Religious Right Threats to America

Lawmakers like Fiscus often push their agenda in defiance of established constitutional law, and sometimes hope they can create a case to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn previous decisions that contradict their personal beliefs. Americans Uni­ted combated a wide array of state-level leg­islative schemes in 2012 that sought to tear down the critical safeguards that keep church and state separate,,,With most state legislatures starting their annual sessions this month, here is a look at some of the top threats to church-state separation expected in 2013, including school voucher bills, creationism ploys, “conscience” exemptions, anti-shar­iah legislation and so-called “religious freedom” and “prayer” caucuses.

[,,,]  Advocacy groups have worked hard to build support for vouchers. StudentsFirst, the Memphis Commercial Appeal says, has given thousands of dollars to candidates in legislative campaigns in the last two years. The newspaper said that group donated $427,000 through its Tennessee PAC between January and November 2012 alone.

[,,,]  “If a student thinks something isn’t true, then they can question the teacher and the teacher would have to come up with some kind of research to support that what they are teaching is true or not true,” Kruse told the Indianapolis Star,,,But Micah Clark, executive director of American Family Association of Indiana, was a little more forthcoming about the bill’s true intent. He told the Star that he sees the proposal as a form of protection for teachers who want to discuss creationism and intelligent design.

[,,,]  Legislators regularly come up with new schemes to allow coercive prayer and proselytizing in public schools, and Americans United staffers expect this year to be no exception,,,In Virginia, a proposal was filed just ahead of the 2013 legislative session that would create a state constitutional amendment to “secure further the people’s freedom of speech and right to acknowledge God” on public property and presumably in public schools.

[,,,]  The news media has reported widely on the campaign by the Cath­olic bishops and the Religious Right to win “conscience” exemptions from provisions of the Obama health care reform, but this issue has also filtered down to the state level. Sectarian lobbies want to exempt religious institutions and individuals from a broad range of laws that ensure civil rights and civil liberties,,,A leading proponent of this type of legislation is the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a Washington, D.C., group that advocates public policy based on the “Judeo-Christian moral tradition.”

[,,,]  A similar movement to the one orchestrated by the EPPC is under way thanks to the efforts of U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.),,,That may not sound so sinister, but critics say it’s every bit as misleading as the EPPC “religious freedom” caucuses. The CPCF claims to encourage state lawmakers to “partner with churches and para-church organizations, and ultimately preserve faith in God as lifeblood of America.”

[,,,]  The U.S. Constitution already prohibits government enforcement of religious law, but right-wing groups are insisting that legislatures take the extra step of banning shariah – Islamic law,,,As of press time, anti-shariah legislation had been pre-filed for the 2013 legislative sessions in Alabama and Florida. Texas has pre-filed a bill proposing a ballot measure to amend the state’s constitution to prohibit enforcement, consideration or application of any “religious or cultural law.”


6 Biggest Religious Right Threats to America

Keeping Watch: The Latest, Biggest Threats From The Religious Right

These are very real threats to real religious freedom. Make no mistake, there are groups of fundamentalists who have the agenda of dominionism, to create a Christian nation in America. They have no thought for the Constitution. No respect for other faiths. No love for democracy. They are backed by powerful monied interests. Some of the things I’ve written about are simply religious nuts trying to force their faith on the rest of us. But these Christian Reconstructionists are dangerous. We must know and understand the difference while resisting all attempts to align U.S. laws with religion – any religion. When it comes to government, the only thing we should worship is the Constitution. Outside of that, hey, whatever floats your boat. Just don’t try to sink mine.

Creationism Case: John Freshwater Lawyers Spar With Mount Vernon School Board In Ohio Bible Case

The issue I have with any case concerning ID/evolution is this,,,IF they want to teach the "controversy" they need to include ALL creation accounts (all 300+) not just the biblical account of abiogenesis, IF they are not advocating a religious position,,,

Another issue is with what IDers present as "evidence of the gaps or flaws in evolutionary theory" most of these so called gaps/flaws are themselves wrong or lack the scientific evidence to back such claims,,,ALL science should be treated equally, in other words a modification (or abandonment) of  a theory if presented with enough contradictory data,,,

Also can someone please explain to me how the teaching of ID advances society as a whole, especially in regards to health and well being,,,how does belief/acceptance of ID advance humanity??  Eradicate disease?? Or feed the hungry??

A lawyer for the school board that dismissed John Freshwater in 2011 said he waved a Bible at his students, handed out religious pamphlets and espoused creationism in his evolution lessons.

Freshwater violated the constitutional separation between church and state and was rightfully fired, said David Smith, an attorney for the Mount Vernon School Board.

Smith said Freshwater can't "teach evolution from a Christian perspective" without violating constitutional protections against government establishment of religion.

"There is no academic freedom of the teacher to do that," Smith argued. "This is not a case about industrial hemp. It's not a case about the Iraqi war. Political sociological viewpoint is something completely different."

Freshwater's attorney, Rita Dunaway, said accounts of Freshwater's class conduct were exaggerated and he was exercising his academic freedom to explore controversial ideas.

Creationism Case: John Freshwater Lawyers Spar With Mount Vernon School Board In Ohio Bible Case

"Intelligent design" bill in Missouri | NCSE

Among the substantive provisions of the bill, applying both to Missouri's public elementary and secondary schools and to introductory science courses in public institutions of higher education in the state: "If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught."

For public elementary and secondary schools, HB 291 also provides, "If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design." After the bill is enacted, new textbooks purchased for the public schools will have to conform to the equal treatment requirement. A committee will develop supplementary material on "intelligent design" for optional interim use.

[,,,]
HB 291 is apparently a descendant of HB 911 in 2004, which was also dubbed the Missouri Standard Science Act,,,HB 911 was widely criticized, including by the Science Teachers of Missouri. A sequel bill, HB 1722, also introduced in 2004, contained the same language as HB 911, but omitted provisions,,,[i]n 2012, HB 1227, also dubbed the Missouri Standard Science Act, was introduced by Rick Brattin (R-District 55).

[,,,]
Brattin is the main sponsor of HB 291, which is identical to HB 1227 in 2012; its cosponsors are Andrew Koenig (R-District 99) and Kurt Bahr (R-District 102), both of whom were cosponsors of HB 1227. HB 291 is the sixth antievolution bill of 2013, joining Colorado's HB 13-1089, Missouri's HB 179 (with Brattin, Koenig, and Bahr among its cosponsors), Montana's HB 183, and Oklahoma's HB 1674 and SB 758.


"Intelligent design" bill in Missouri | NCSE

Oooooh I like this one

How to defeat intelligent design in one sentence

One for every culture

The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths) | LiveScience