From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Contents 1 So, Philip 2 re: this edit 3 Michael Dini - how does this fit the heading ? 4 Bergman and Bowling Green - is there more to the story ? 5 My revert

So, Philip

Are you going to put some absurd statement at the top of this page that blocks out anyone other than you from changing it? That would be consistent with other articles... Sterile 00:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So Sterile, are you going to prove that I have done such with other articles? And if you try to cite the talk:Creation-evolution controversy will you prove that those comments block anyone from me changing it? Or is this comment from you the one that should be called "absurd"? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What non-Philip changes to that article remain? Sterile 10:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What non-Philip changes were made that were reasonable and legitimate? Those ones. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

re: this edit

It was voted on, by a board, who declined. To call that suppression is to call Obama's election by a majority of the people, suppression of the Republicans. Ace McWicked 02:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

true ACE , but perhaps the board was biased.The board accepted the recommendations of the advisory committe and voted 6-1. hmmm seems like the advisory board made the choice first. Lets look at a quote from the article cited , from Kevin Carman, Dean of the LSU School of Science.

There is no major research university in this country that teaches intelligent design or anything like that. It is simply not science," Carman said, according to the Associated Press. "We need our textbooks to be focused on what is scientifically accurate and not religion."
Hamster 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

TheDoes the article claim that the board's actions (actually the advisory committee's actions) were discriminatory or a case of suppression? No, it did not. Rather, it cited the stated rationale for rejecting the calls of various people. Given that your reason for removal of the edit was incorrect, I will reinstate it. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your sentence doesn't make any sense. But the board went by the numbers - more people wanted evolution and no creation, I could see a case for suppression if there hadn't been a vote at all. But there was and you lost - that is not suppression. It is not justified to have it here. Ace McWicked 23:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

THIS may be of interest. The advisory panel voted 8-4 to endorse the textbook. textbook committees passed them on 12-0 and 11-1 votes. That is the result of serious discussion of the issues and the needs of the schools. Hamster 01:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed my sentence. The item is not there as evidence of suppression by approving certain textbooks, but as evidence of how dissent is misrepresented as being purely religious. If, for example, the vote had gone the other way, it doesn't change that Fox News falsely described ID as religious-based. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

it doesn't change that Fox News falsely described ID as religious-based. But the courts not Fox News describe it as religious so all fox is doing is reporting on what ID is considered legally within the United States. So I'll be removing it again unless you can come up with an argument as to why Fox shouldn't report it that way. Ace McWicked 02:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

News media (and others) have been referring to ID and creation science in such incorrect ways before any court decision, and still do in places and ways where that court decision does not apply, so there is no reason to believe that they are referring to it like that solely because of a court decision.

Fox was not citing the court opinion, but making the statement itself. Granted, the court opinion may give them some justification for doing so, but I've seen news media qualify a court decision as a court decision when they didn't agree with it themselves, but cite a court decision as fact when they did. Fox referring to it in this way shows their endorsement of it.

I also note that you've changed your argument to actually address a point of the edit rather than pointing out that it is not a case of suppression, but with no admission that you were on the wrong track before.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 09:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I not going argue further with you about this except to say I think its extremely dishonest of you to use this example. You had your chance and you lost the decision and unfortunately ID has been shown in a court to be unable to uncouple itself from religion despite what its adherents say. Now your bitter about it. Tough. Ace McWicked

er, Philip, this case was NEVER an example of suppression, unless you are a mentally disturbed conspiracy type. It is clearly shown that the final vote, which appears to be subject to confirmation by the full board bent over backward to listen to public comment. 4 groups each voted for the textbooks. Is very member 31-5 in 3 votes and then 6-1 in the last. Do you understand the implications of legal precedent in the US ? Judge Jones ruling is BINDING only within his courts area , but is precedent for EVERY lower court, and of Judicial notice to any Higher court. I dont see how the evidence of Pandas can be changed because there were no fine points of issue, it was 'cDesign Proponentsists' all the way. The website that declared "we believe the designer is the christian god" didnt help either. It goes to character and credibility. Another group may be able to resurect a scientific Hypothesis of design, but it does not appear to lead anywhere in science. I shall write an essay I think. Hamster 21:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You had your chance and you lost the decision... It was nothing to do with me, and nor was it even my "side", as I am a creationist, not a supporter of the ID movement.

...ID has been shown in a court to be unable to uncouple itself from religion... So you reject the concept that an idea is true or false regardless of the motives of its proponents, do you? So do you apply the same standard to evolution, invented to explain things without God (i.e. from a religious perspective) and promoted by atheists and agnostics for their religious reasons?

...this case was NEVER an example of suppression... As I have repeatedly said, it's not included in the article as an example of suppression. Ace misconstrued it that way and argued against it on those grounds, but eventually switched arguments. You are now ascribing that false notion to me!

I dont see how the evidence of Pandas can be changed because there were no fine points of issue, it was 'cDesign Proponentsists' all the way. That was only one small part of the evidence, and only showed that there was some connection between creationism and ID in the minds of those responsible for that book. It doesn't prove more than that.

The website that declared "we believe the designer is the christian god" didnt help either. It goes to character and credibility. I also believe that the designer is Yahweh. But that doesn't make the idea unscientific nor religious, partly because what I think is a separate matter to what the hypothesis says. You should answer the same question as Ace: Do you reject the concept that an idea is true or false regardless of the motives of its proponents?

...a scientific Hypothesis of design, ... does not appear to lead anywhere in science. This tripe again? Then how do archaeologists infer design in stone tools? How do forensic scientists infer human activity rather than natural events at a crime scene?

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

invented to explain things without God (i.e. from a religious perspective) and promoted by atheists and agnostics for their religious reasons? This tripe again? So much wrong with this statement it's not worth addressing save for pointing and laughing. Ace McWicked 02:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)
Do you reject the concept that an idea is true or false regardless of the motives of its proponents? If a group produces a 'scientific' hypothesis, and then on their website says"of course the proposed designer is the Christian God of the Bible but we cant say that publicly" then YES ! I question their credibility. A scoentific hypothesis can not by definition consider a supernatural cause, so by the two statements together they are declaring their own hypothesis false at the start. Hamster 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

science is mrthodological naturalism, it is not phulosophical naturalism , the two are different. Hamster 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you dont support ID why do you spend so much time arguing in support of it ? Unless you know that ID is creationism in disguise and you are hoping for a foothold by any means Hamster 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Word. Ace McWicked 03:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

one more time. Design , intelligent or otherwise . is detectable by humans, when made by humans , because they both have the same basic structure and needs. An item may be smaller or larger than expected but within a range it is identifiable. The materials and manufacturing processes are also fairly well known. An iron bar with a hook on one end , two legs in the middle and a weight on end end might be the tripod for an M50 machine gun, but if found in a 4th century town , is more likely to be a cooking pot support for over a fire. A lot of archeological finds, or even stuff from great grandpas shed, cant be identified easily because modern humans dont need or use the tool. Beaver dams, hexagonal basalt coluns, certain shells have all been misidentified by humans as artificial constructs. Same with crime scene investigations. If an angel of death popped into a locked room, butchered the occupent, scattered the remains around the room , and then walked out through the outside wall of a twenty story building , leaving a gore soaked outline of itself on the wall, the CSI team would be standing there going WHAT! When you add the statement from a ID site that DNA is designed , therefore all life is designed, any meaningful discussion on what criteria you use to detect design is gone, you are left with a philosophers dream, ceaseless arguing on tiny points of the meaning of meaning. Hamster 16:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This tripe again? So much wrong with this statement it's not worth addressing save for pointing and laughing. It's quite normal for anti-creationists to mock and ridicule instead of address arguments. It's not so normal for them to explicitly say that that's what they do. (And when I used the phrase "This tripe again?", I backed it up with argument (in the form of questions).)

If a group produces a 'scientific' hypothesis, and then on their website says"of course the proposed designer is the Christian God of the Bible but we cant say that publicly" then YES ! I question their credibility. Okay, so it would be quite legitimate of me to question evolution on the grounds that its main promoters are atheists. I'll keep that in mind.

A scoentific hypothesis can not by definition consider a supernatural cause... Only by an atheistic definition.

...so by the two statements together they are declaring their own hypothesis false at the start. My question did not say anything about proposing a supernatural cause. You have (in theory) rejected a hypothesis because the proponents have a religious motive, and have invented a justification for doing so.

science is mrthodological naturalism, it is not phulosophical naturalism , the two are different. When "science" rejects a supernatural explanation because it's supernatural, it is philosophical naturalism. When scientists say that the universe is 14 billion years old, they are making a truth-claim about a past event; they are saying that the supernatural explanation is wrong. This is not a case of saying that science can only go so far, and can't test the supernatural claim; it's ruling the supernatural claim out.

If you dont support ID why do you spend so much time arguing in support of it ? Because I support the truth, regardless of the motives of who says it, unlike you who will question an idea if he doesn't agree with the motives of its proponents and invent a justification for doing so. And I said that I don't support the ID movement; I didn't say that I don't support the concept of intelligent design.

Design , intelligent or otherwise . is detectable by humans, when made by humans , because they both have the same basic structure and needs. So what you are saying is that we can recognise human design because it is the sort of design that we are familiar with. There are several problems with this claim:

• It presumes, without substantiation, that we are unable to determine design at a more fundamental level. I agree that many examples of archaeologists recognising stone tools as stone tools is a case of recognising human handiwork, but it's wouldn't all be. Not everything they find is going to correspond to things they've seen before.
• The SETI program is based on recognising alien design, something that you indicate is impossible.
• Dawkins has admitted that if (alien) design exists in living thing, it should, in principle, be detectable.
• It presumes that non-human design and human design are qualitatively different, yet the biblical creationary view is that humans are made in God's image, and therefore we are going to tend to do things the way He would. In other words, what He does would be recognisable by us (and that's also what He said: Romans 1:20). So you are making a circular argument: we can't detect God's design because God's design is undetectable by us.

If an angel of death popped into a locked room, ... the CSI team would be standing there going WHAT! Yes, they would be wondering how the human did that—not thinking that it occurred naturally—because they would recognise that it couldn't have occurred naturally.

When you add the statement from a ID site that DNA is designed , therefore all life is designed, any meaningful discussion on what criteria you use to detect design is gone... Huh? Why? That's a perfectly rational statement (whether true or not).

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's quite normal for anti-creationists to mock and ridicule instead of address arguments. It's not so normal for them to explicitly say that that's what they do. Sometimes, not always, but sometimes when someone makes a comment so breathtakingly inane and so wrong it isn't even wrong anymore the only response can be to laugh. Unfortunate? Maybe, but true. Ace McWicked 19:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's quite normal for anti-creationists to mock and ridicule instead of address arguments. It's not so normal for them to explicitly say that that's what they do. What is the correct response that those of us who have literally seen evolution and are willing to acknowledge that fact (you, surely have seen it)? Why am I not allowed to laugh and mock those who willfully refuse to use their brains? To be fair, it's not just creationist that we scientist mock. Those who don't believe in climate change, flat earthers and the geocentric wingnuts give us a good chuckle sometimes too. We shouldn't be laughing though, given how truly sad and pathetic it is. Jesuit 22:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

...the only response can be to laugh. So now you claim an inability to mount reasoned argument!

What is the correct response that those of us who have literally seen evolution... You have???! Then where's your paper describing it, which should earn you the Nobel Prize? Even Dawkins admits that he hasn't seen it while it's happening. More seriously, what do you mean by "evolution"? The issue that is in dispute is not changes in living things, but the evolutionary family tree, and one kind of creature changing in a different kind.

...you, surely have seen it No, I've never seen an amphibian change into a reptile, a dinosaur into a bird, an ape into a human, or etc.

Why am I not allowed to laugh and mock those who willfully refuse to use their brains? Huh? We are talking here about people who do use their brains. But part of the anti-creationist tactic is to justify their mockery by maligning those they disagree with, as you do here, rather than engage in reasoned debate.

To be fair, it's not just creationist that we scientist mock. Those who don't believe in climate change... Yes, I've noticed that they are also mocked rather than their arguments and evidence addressed. The resort of someone without an adequate argument themselves is to accuse the other side of not having an argument worth arguing with. That's hardly intellectually honest. Also, you draw a false line between "creationist" and "scientist"; the two are not mutually exclusive.

We shouldn't be laughing though... Yet you do it. You malign others, but admit that you fail to keep even your own low standards. And you consider yourself morally superior! Amazing.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So now you claim an inability to mount reasoned argument No, but why argue with such inanity? It'd be like debating Gene Ray. So better to just laugh. Ace McWicked 17:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it would be quite legitimate of me to question evolution on the grounds that its main promoters are atheists. I'll keep that in mind. er beg pardon, run that past me again slowly. I was saying that anyone who proposes a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis and then privately specifies a SUPERNATURAL cause is suspect. How does that apply to an athiest doing science, which regardless of what you believe , has been methodological naturalism for a long time ? Hamster 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

a false line between "creationist" and "scientist"; the two are not mutually exclusive. no maybe not, if the creationist is applying methodological naturalism to his hypothesis. The moment they bring in supernatural explanations they are not doing science and lose by definition the scientists tag Hamster 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that using archeology to support the idea of detecting intelligent design is flawed for the reasons stated. Recognition of designed items is not great even when dealing with other human design. Trying to recognise alien design is a big step farther. Dembski claimed to have a mathematical "design filter" but I have never seen it stated so other people can work with it. Perhaps you have a source ? Are bee honycombs intelligent design ?

The issue of DNA is that once you declare DNA is designed you can quit, because all life using DNA is therefore designed because of DNA. Its pretty much an arguement from incredulity.
wandering far from the original issue here anyway. Hamster 17:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) So now you claim an inability to mount reasoned argument! That is an incredulous lie, Phil. I NEVER ONCE said anything of that nature. NEVER.

You have???! Then where's your paper describing it, which should earn you the Nobel Prize? Wow, just wow. You get upset when one doesn't bother learning the form of creationism you subscribe to and yet you fail to understand the basic concepts of genetics-based evolution. They don't give Nobels for pointing out what has been known for decades. Examples of seeing evolution are (in no particular order): you having different traits than your parents, the common dog, Lenski's observations...

The issue that is in dispute is not changes in living things, but the evolutionary family tree, and one kind of creature changing in a different kind. So why can't a Mastif mate with a Chihuahua?

No, I've never seen an amphibian change into a reptile, a dinosaur into a bird, an ape into a human, or etc. That is a completely false characterization of evolution and Medelin genetics. I declare straw man.

We are talking here about people who do use their brains. Creationist REFUSE to use their brains. That is why they bow to superstition.

as you do here, rather than engage in reasoned debate. You can't reason with an unreasonable, totally irrational person who is willing to deny what they see with their very eyes.

That's hardly intellectually honest. Phil, mocking someone based on their stupidity has NOTHING to do with intellectual honesty. The most that can be said is that it is a lack of tact but intelligentsia really doesn't give a damn.

And you consider yourself morally superior! Amazing. Phil, you are a liar and a cheat. I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED MORAL SUPERIORITY. I NEVER WOULD BECAUSE I CANNOT. STOP LYING, I DEMAND IT-TO CONTINUE TO DO SO WILL BE CONSIDERED DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. Jesuit 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but why argue with such inanity? It'd be like debating Gene Ray. So better to just laugh. So no inability, just an unwillingness to have rational debate.

er beg pardon, run that past me again slowly. I was saying that anyone who proposes a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis and then privately specifies a SUPERNATURAL cause is suspect. Okay, so when you were supposedly answering my question, you were being like a politician in answering the question you wanted to answer rather than the one I asked. Then how about answering the question I asked?

science, ... regardless of what you believe , has been methodological naturalism for a long time Really? The term was first used (in a publication) in 1986, and it seems to be used primarily in the context of rejecting creationism. A Google search for define:science doesn't return any definitions that include the term "methodological naturalism". A Google search for science "methodological naturalism" brings up (for me; is this Google giving me tailored results?) as the first three entries Wikipedia, TalkOrigins, and RationalWiki—all sites which are explicitly or can be considered anti-creationist. However, further down the list there are some more-reasonable sites, including this on the web-site of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), this on a different site but apparently also originating with the ASA, and this (on the Access Research Network) by Alvin Plantinga, one of America's leading philosophers. All three articles are apparently written by Christians, but all three by people who are not biblical creationists. All three argue that methodological naturalism is not or should not be considered part of science. The second one also argues that it wasn't part of Baconian science in the way it is now applied.

The moment they bring in supernatural explanations they are not doing science and lose by definition the scientists tag By definition of the athiests' science tag.

Recognition of designed items is not great even when dealing with other human design. Practical problems don't change that the principle of recognising design is scientific.

Are bee honycombs intelligent design ? That depends on whether the honeycomb is part of the bees' original design or not.

The issue of DNA is that once you declare DNA is designed you can quit, because all life using DNA is therefore designed because of DNA. Its pretty much an arguement from incredulity. Huh? No incredulity is involved. It's an argument from logic; from premise to conclusion.

That is an incredulous lie, Phil. I NEVER ONCE said anything of that nature. NEVER. I never said you did. If you see what I quoted that I was responding to, I was quoting Ace, not you, therefore replying to Ace, not you.

Wow, just wow. You get upset when one doesn't bother learning the form of creationism you subscribe to and yet you fail to understand the basic concepts of genetics-based evolution. I don't fail to understand it at all. I understand that evolutionists have broadened the definition of "evolution" to include any biological change so that they can use the "bait and switch" tactic. Evolution was invented to explain how all living things descended from the original living thing (goo-to-you evolution), and that's still part of the definition and is how the public generally understands it. But the broader definition is used so that evolutionists can claim to have observed evolution (i.e. biological change) and thereby give the impression that goo-to-you evolution has been observed. In my answer I explicitly mentioned the narrower definition because I was aware of the broader definition. I also pointed out that the evidence of the broader definition (i.e. biological change) is not in dispute, and that the dispute is over the narrower definition; over goo-to-you evolution.

Examples of seeing evolution are (in no particular order): you having different traits than your parents, the common dog, Lenski's observations... They are all examples of the broader definition (biological change), not of goo-to-you evolution, the very thing in dispute.

So why can't a Mastif mate with a Chihuahua? What does this have to do with anything? Because of physical size, not genetic nor evolutionary differences. Both are dogs; they have not changed into a different kind of creature.

That is a completely false characterization of evolution and Medelin genetics. I declare straw man. Of Mendellian genetics, I agree, but then I was disputing evolution, not genetics. And no, that is not a false characterisation of evolution. That is exactly what evolution proposes. (Note that I did not claim changes from fully one type to fully another type in a single step; merely that evolution proposes those changes.)

Creationist REFUSE to use their brains. That is why they bow to superstition. and Phil, you are a liar and a cheat. On this web-site we do not allow people to throw around gratuitous insults like that without being able to substantiate them. As an Umpire of this site, I require you to substantiate that claim or withdraw it and apologise, or you will be blocked.

You can't reason with an unreasonable, totally irrational person who is willing to deny what they see with their very eyes. No, but I am not talking about such people here.

Phil, mocking someone based on their stupidity has NOTHING to do with intellectual honesty... But no stupidity was involved, so the criticism stands.

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED MORAL SUPERIORITY. Perhaps "moral" was misleading. You refer to others as refusing to use their brains and as wingnuts, and now you call me a liar and a cheat. So either you think all these things apply to you or you think you are better than those people you mock and insult. Which is it?

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said you did. If you see what I quoted that I was responding to, I was quoting Ace, not you, therefore replying to Ace, not you. Yet another lie that anyone with eyes can see. You quoted me then said I claimed moral superiority. Stop lying-you have already made false allegations now apologize for your behavior. I've heard you're better than Andy but given this I fail to see that. This is same nonsense Andy pulls-say whatever you want then deny, deny, deny.

Evolution was invented to explain how all living things descended from the original living thing (goo-to-you evolution), and that's still part of the definition and is how the public generally understands it. False. Evolution was theorized as a way to explain the observations of Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin. "The public" is inept at science...which is why there are people who devote their lives to the study and understanding of science. Do you claim to have taken a single course above the high school level that taught basic evolutionary theory? Given these words there is serious reason to doubt you have.

They are all examples of the broader definition (biological change), not of goo-to-you evolution, the very thing in dispute. They are all examples of the broader definition (biological change), not of goo-to-you evolution, the very thing in dispute. I grouped these together because they speak to a VERY IMPORTANT POINT, PHIL. The definition of speciation is lack of interbreeding with another animal. Since Mastiffs and Chihuahuas cannot breed they are a different species altogether. We know they came from a common ancestor because it's in recorded history.

That is exactly what evolution proposes. (Note that I did not claim changes from fully one type to fully another type in a single step; merely that evolution proposes those changes.) No it most certainly is not, Phil. In a single lifetime you will never see a "amphibian change into a reptile." Evolution would never make the claim. Evolution claims that you are different from your father and mother and the beneficial characteristics, if also found in others, would eventually incorporate into an entire population. That is what evolution is.

As an Umpire of this site, I require you to substantiate that claim or withdraw it and apologise, or you will be blocked. This is why I called you a liar: "So now you claim an inability to mount reasoned argument!" I never said that. I never insinuated that. I never came close to suggesting that I couldn't. The reason I called you a cheat was because that response, to me, seemed to be a ridiculous and sad way to mount a straw man argument against me. Cheaters and hacks use straw men, Phil. I absolutely won't let you get away with flat out lying about my and other scientists position and I deem it valuable enough to defend publicly. I will call an orange a orange so if you lie I will call you a liar. There is nothing gratuitous about this. YOU LIED ABOUT MY POSITION AND WHAT I SAID.

But no stupidity was involved, so the criticism stands. What would you call a lack of basic understanding of evolutionary theory then? Willful ignorance?

So either you think all these things apply to you or you think you are better than those people you mock and insult. Which is it? There is no moral claim of superiority in calling you a liar when you lie. I insult a bit because I don't know a way to get through to you that even though you, for one reason or another, believe you understand even the basics of evolution it is obvious you are completely clueless given your line of questioning. I'm not trying to be belligerent here, but I have to stand up for truth. What you claim as evolution is simply not correct. I have seen others try to correct you but you simply delete what they say...which is the reason I stay on the talk pages. I hope that anyone who would read your article on evolution would also read the talk pages so they can see there are numerous scientists who say you're wrong in almost every characterization of what evolution is. Jesuit 05:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So that this is clear:

1. Ace McWicked posted: ...the only response can be to laugh.
2. Philip J. Rayment quoted that and responded to Ace:So now you claim an inability to mount reasoned argument!
3. Jesuit quoted Philip's post and stated:That is an incredulous [sic] lie, Phil. I NEVER ONCE said anything of that nature. NEVER.
4. Philip replied to the accusation of lying with: I never said you did. If you see what I quoted that I was responding to, I was quoting Ace, not you, therefore replying to Ace, not you.
5. Jesuit quoted that and responded: Yet another lie that anyone with eyes can see

As per aSK:Civility breach Jesuit has been instructed by an Umpire to either substantiate y his/her accusation or withdraw it and apoloigise. The users response was This is why I called you a liar: "So now you claim an inability to mount reasoned argument!" I never said that. This is not a substantiation - because not only is it fallacious it was shown to be fallacious the first time Jesuit stated it. Neither is it a withdrawal and apology. This latest post contains several further accusations. The original breach, the refusal to abide by an Umpire's instructions, and several additional accusations make up at least three breachs. I am blocking Jesuit for a week, per aSK:Sanction policy. LowKey 06:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Evolution was theorized as a way to explain the observations of Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin. Evolution (ignoring pre-Darwinian evolution) was invented by Darwin, and had nothing to do with Mendel's observations. Once Mendel's observations became widely known, evolution had to be modified to accommodate it, leading to what has been called neo-Darwinian evolution. My comments related to Darwinian evolution, which is the basis of the modern version of evolution, and my comments about why it was invented are correct.

"The public" is inept at science... Which, in this context, is irrelevant, as I wasn't citing the public's expertise as an authority.

I grouped these together because they speak to a VERY IMPORTANT POINT, PHIL. The definition of speciation is lack of interbreeding with another animal. Loosely put, yes it is. But...

Since Mastiffs and Chihuahuas cannot breed they are a different species altogether. Despite the definition, no they are not. Both are varieties not only of the same species but the same sub-species, Canis lupus familiaris, as explained here: "Biologists clearly continue to include the two types of dogs within the same species..." Actually, given that the "two types" they discuss are the very two you mention, I can't help wondering if that was your source but you misread it. In any case...

We know they came from a common ancestor because it's in recorded history. So? You seem to be under the false impression (as was that article I just linked to) that creationists reject that speciation has occurred. Leading creationists don't reject that at all.

No it most certainly is not, Phil. In a single lifetime you will never see a "amphibian change into a reptile." Evolution would never make the claim. But I didn't claim that it occurred in a single lifetime; I claimed that evolution claims that it occurred. Perhaps, though, you are pointing out that it couldn't be observed because it happens so slowly. I agree that evolution does claim that it happened slowly, too slowly to observe. So you are (a) claiming that evolution has been observed, and (b) explaining why it can't be!

Evolution claims that you are different from your father and mother and the beneficial characteristics, if also found in others, would eventually incorporate into an entire population. True, but inadequate. Evolution claims that you are different from your father and mother by having something novel, whereas this has (essentially) never been observed and the science of genetics helps us understand why it doesn't occur. The reason that you are different to your parents is for a different reason than this; it's due to you having half the genes from each parent, so you are effectively a compromise between the two of them. This is not evolution that will eventually turn you (your descendants) into something that is not human.

Bradley has addressed the issues of me supposedly lying, so I'll skip most of that, but...

I have seen others try to correct you but you simply delete what they say... I'm not in the habit of deleting comments by others.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Dini - how does this fit the heading ?

From the article it seems he did not deny anyone a credential, or harmed them in any way whatever. He set in advance 4 conditions, one of which was an A grade. Lets see a quote from the cited source.
"The designated criteria for a letter of recommendation should not be misconstrued as discriminatory against anyone's personal beliefs. Rather, the goals of these requirements are to help insure that a student who wishes my recommendation uses scientific thinking to answer scientific questions."
Hamster 05:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone feeling that they had to move to another school could be called being "harmed" (I'm presuming that you weren't talking about physical harm). And clearly he would have denied someone their credentials it it got that far (from memory, he was forced to remove the requirement). Atheists (and I'm not saying Dini is one) often have the attitude that people are welcome to hold whatever beliefs they want, as long as they don't go as far as actually claiming them to be true. That is, as long as it is "just a belief". I believe that Dini's claim to not be discriminatory should be understood in that light. He won't discriminate against someone simply for being a Christian (i.e. holding those beliefs), but draws the line at people who believe that what the Bible says about origins is actually true. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

he asked for a scientific answer to a scientific question. That he would withold a credential is your opinion not supported by any facts in evidence , and he is direct in his requirements, applied equally to all students. He is not denying anyone a place in a post-graduate program, merely refusing a recommendation letter. You might as well say he discriminates against students who only manage a B , or those he doesnt personally know. It may be true in a very strict sense but it happens all the time. It is also not unusual for students to do post-grad work at another institution, there are limited spaces so competition is fierce. Hamster 16:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

he asked for a scientific answer to a scientific question. And also made it clear that "scientific answer" meant "evolutionary answer".

That he would withold a credential is your opinion not supported by any facts in evidence... He made it clear that students should not even ask.

...he is direct in his requirements, applied equally to all students. So? Nobody accused him of being inconsistently discriminatory; only of being discriminatory.

You might as well say he discriminates against students who only manage a B ... Discrimination itself is not wrong, but discrimination on the basis of not believing one hypothesis over another is.

It is also not unusual for students to do post-grad work at another institution... Maybe not, but they shouldn't feel forced to on improper grounds.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

since evolution has been the ruling theory in biology for about 100 years , yes scientific does mean evolution. He made it clear that students who dont meet his prerequisites should not ask for a personal letter of recommendation. I dont see anything that relates to the granting of a BSc or whatever degree they were working on. Its not a matter of one hypothesis over another . Its a matter of the leading Theory of biology for 100 years, unchallanged in that time, well tested etc , and a hypothesis which may qualify as a hypothesis if it is very carefully worded, which hasn't been tested , reviewed etc and which is NOT remotely a theory. The hypothesis has also been declared by at least one court to be unconstitutional, and that ruling is a precedent for any other US court. Hamster 03:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

since evolution has been the ruling theory in biology for about 100 years , yes scientific does mean evolution. A "theory" is a well-substantiated explanation. Evolution does not qualify. But more to the point here, "scientific does mean evolution" is a non-sequitur, as what you are arguing is that evolution is right and therefore alternatives must be wrong. "Scientific" is not a synonym for right, but is a reference to a methodology involved in study. That methodology can be used for mutually-exclusive explanations, so even if evolution was scientific, that doesn't exclude alternative explanations also being scientific.

I dont see anything that relates to the granting of a BSc or whatever degree they were working on. Apart from it being in the section titled 'Discrimination in examinations and granting qualifications', it doesn't claim any more than that he wouldn't supply a personal letter of recommendation. However, in the case of the student who changed universities, "Dini was the only professor whose recommendation would be relevant to Spradling's career plans", and the student "was not in a position to wait for the mess to be sorted out the following year. He transferred to Lubbock Christian University. He almost didn't get in because the classes were full, but when LCU officials were shown Dini's original policy, they relented and made a place for him.".[1] That seems to me to be saying that the refusal to supply the letter had the potential to have the result that the student was unable to obtain his qualification.

...unchallanged in that time... Someone's in denial.

...well tested etc... Much of it cannot be tested, and many of the tests have failed.

...and a hypothesis which may qualify as a hypothesis if it is very carefully worded, which hasn't been tested , reviewed etc ... The hypothesis has also been declared by at least one court to be unconstitutional... Errr, what hypothesis are we talking about? The only issue here is whether one has to believe evolution or is allowed to disbelieve it. Nobody mentioned an alternative hypothesis or theory.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 10:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned an alternative hypothesis or theory. actually you did , if I read this comment correctly. Discrimination itself is not wrong, but discrimination on the basis of not believing one hypothesis over another is. I assumed you meant ID because thats the only hypothesis thas even remotely scientific if careflully stated. Hamster 15:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

to summarize . Discrimination is fine except when it affects YOUR beliefs. A proffessor is not to be permitted to chose who he gives a PERSONAL recommendation too, but MUST support unscientific answers to scientific questions. Not supporting ID or creationism is an offense against God and must not be tolerated. That seems to be it. Hamster 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I assumed you meant ID because thats the only hypothesis thas even remotely scientific if careflully stated. Nonsense. You are trying to understand what I meant by presuming your beliefs.

Discrimination is fine except when it affects YOUR beliefs. More nonsense, twisting what I'm saying to something quite different to what I'm saying.

A proffessor is not to be permitted to chose who he gives a PERSONAL recommendation too,... A "personal" recommendation in his capacity as the students' professor. Are you suggesting that if a professor chose to not give any students letters of recommendation for some silly reason such as he couldn't be bothered to, then that would be okay?

...but MUST support unscientific answers to scientific questions. For one thing, part of the problem was wanting to impose a philosophical view about what is "scientific". For another, the issue was that the student had to believe in evolution, not just be able to give an evolutionary answer.

Not supporting ID or creationism is an offense against God and must not be tolerated. That seems to be it. No, not supporting the atheistic origins myth of evolution must not be tolerated. That is it, as so many examples of discrimination (of which this article only has a taste) demonstrates, and I'd thank you to not ascribe such intolerance to me.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

the issue was that the student had to believe in evolution, not just be able to give an evolutionary answer. can you point out where the professor says that. I believe I quoted the phrase which simply says 'a scientific answer to a scientific question'. How is anyone going to know what a person trulty believes. Look at Jason Lisle, did he stand before the PhD commitee and talk about a young earth and the Sun as a burning ball of gas ? I think not. Hamster 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that if a professor chose to not give any students letters of recommendation for some silly reason such as he couldn't be bothered to, then that would be okay? YES , its a PERSONAL recommendation. It puts the professors reputation at risk. He can use any criteria he likes. If it were part of his duties as a Professor to provide a PROFESSIONAL assesment of students then he would be obligated to do so, but thats something quite different. In my experiance it is rare for a professor to give such a recommendation Hamster 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

can you point out where the professor says that. The question that supposedly required a scientific answer was, "How do you think the human species originated?" He was asking the student about his personal beliefs. He also said, "How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology?" (my emphasis) and maked other comments in line with saying that the students must believe it to be true.

NO Once again you ignore what the Professor in question has clearly stated in fairly simple english and used your own preference in its place. Hamster 20:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How is anyone going to know what a person trulty believes. By asking them and getting an honest answer. And a Christian shouldn't be dishonest.

Look at Jason Lisle, did he stand before the PhD commitee and talk about a young earth and the Sun as a burning ball of gas ? I think not. Assuming the committee didn't know his views, he was probably fortunate that they didn't ask (like Dini would have asked).

YES , its a PERSONAL recommendation. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have an obligation to provide them, at least in situation where they are required (from here, my emphasis: "Another situation where recommendation letters are a common requirement is for entry into undergraduate and graduate programs at a college or university."). Therefore he should only refuse if there are valid reasons for doing so, and a person's beliefs are not a valid reason.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

perhaps referring to the Universsities rules and retgs would have been better than some third party website. Hamster 20:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again you ignore what the Professor in question has clearly stated in fairly simple english and used your own preference in its place. Errr, I quoted what the professor stated.

perhaps referring to the Universsities rules and retgs would have been better than some third party website. Does that say something different? Perhaps you should cite that?

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bergman and Bowling Green - is there more to the story ?

I dont have access to the book. Is that it , a story told by Bergman ? Did he document a complaint to the school head, board of regents or whatever.? Did he suggest the students commence legal action and help them find a lawyer or contact the ACLU on a clear discrimination case ? Hamster 05:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bergman relates that the student did appeal, but the university rejected the appeal on the grounds that "it was the professor's prerogative to assign whatever grade on whatever grounds he wished, as long as his standards were consistently applied. The professor's judgment was held to be absolute in this area (which is usually the case)". (That's a quote from Bergman, not the university.) In other words, he's allowed to discriminate as long as he does so consistently!

...contact the ACLU on a clear discrimination case ? Are you trying to be funny? They are one of the worst offenders!

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

the ACLU does in fact take on cases of descrimination on religious grounds, so do several religeous groups, it should not have been hard to get a reversal of an anti-religion bias if the papers submitted were good. Most universities have a review channel to meet this situation . Hamster 16:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

...it should not have been hard to get a reversal of an anti-religion bias if the papers submitted were good. Yet it didn't happen.

Most universities have a review channel to meet this situation . Given that it was the university that rejected the appeal, obviously that channel is what failed to counter the discrimination.

Your line of argument is essentially that because the claimed discrimination was not countered, it must have been justified. That is, you are putting your faith in the system regardless of the evidence. Perhaps I should also add (from memory, as I don't have the book with me at the moment) that Bergman has not just repeated claims, but investigated each case and got both sides of the story in each case, and only included each in his book if he felt that the claim was justified.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

as I said at the start I dont have and can not get his book. I have placed an email to the university chancellor (or whatever they call him) and may post more when I get a reply. I have worked at several universities and the sort of bias claimed is simply not tolerated in my experiance. I do know its fairly easy to get legal representation on matters of religious bias, at least in the USA because of the constitutional issues in the first amendment. I am not saying the claimed bias was justified, I just dont see it being taken very far. Hamster 03:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The book not only documents that such discrimination is tolerated, it also documents cases where it is openly supported.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have had a reply from the University , I will quote part of it here.

• For instance, you could file either or both a grade appeal or a discrimination complaint with the BGSU Office of Equity and Diversity
• You could also make a complaint to an external agency such as the Ohio Civil Rights Commission or the Department of Education
• The ACLU also replied with the local contact for a student in that location to use.
  

Note: the ACLU pointed out that this is a clear first amendment issue.

So by my count thats 5 lines of action that can be taken in a situation as described. Hamster 16:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

--Unsigned comment by Hamster (talk)

As I said, the student did appeal. And given the ACLU's track record, I'd take their reply with a grain of salt (although I believe that there has been the odd exception to the rule). But they are right: this is a clear first amendment issue, yet the university as well as the teacher trampled this right, as so often happens in such cases, and that's the point. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

My revert

I did this revert because:

• The "defamatory statement" was referenced, and I also have another reference from the other side[2] which implies the same thing but tries to excuse it.
• It is not "petty" to point out the blatant hypocrisy of so-called "freethinkers" trying to stop people thinking about a point of view they disagree with, nor of only wanting balance when it is not your side being promoted.
• The reference added by Pendrive was removed because it was already there in the same sentence.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that it's highly unlikely that you have made a mistake but I can't see this reference

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3524676.stm in the article. No doubt this is my mistake and it is there somewhere, but I wonder if you could tell me where? I only added it so that people could see how ridiculous the original BBC claims were. But as the BBC article is still up it seems only reasonable to link to the original copy as well as saying how wrong it is.--Pendrive 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking so politely. Some others here could take note. This article has many of its references in the form of author, year or author, year, page number, which are references to particular sources listed in the "Bibliography" section. This form of referencing has its pros and cons, but saves repeating the same expanded reference over and over with different page numbers. The sentence you added the reference to says "The [BBC]...produced a television program and web article^[66] about Noah's Ark in 2004." Reference 66 says "Bowen, 2004". If you look in the Bibliography for Bowen, it has "Bowen, Jeremy, Did Noah really build an ark?, BBC News, 19 March 2004.", with the link there being the one you are talking about. As the BBC produced both a television program and a web article, I put the reference to the web article against the mention of that, rather than at the end of the sentence. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 22:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)