In the debate over textbook content, the two major points of contention always seem to be the teaching of evolution, and American history overall. Students are schooled to believe that evolution is a fact, not a theory, and that America is a democracy, when it is in fact a Constitutional Republic, and that the Constitution is a living document that evolves over time.

Perhaps most disturbing is the absolute rewriting of history and blatant falsities that are being presented to the influential young minds in some textbooks, including concepts like “FDR saved America from depression” and “Woodrow Wilson was a progressive hero.” 

In light of the recent controversy surrounding the Texas Board of Education, and what may be an improvement on the information taught to America’s youth, I suddenly became curious about the “facts” found in the textbooks in my own state of residence: Florida.  

On evolution, Florida’s Holt Science and Technology textbook for eighth graders indicates: “Scientists observe that species have changed over time. They also observe that the inherited characteristics in populations change over time. Scientists think that as populations change over time, new species form. Thus, newer species descend from older species. The process in which populations gradually change over time is called evolution.” When discussing the evidence for evolution, the textbook refers to fossils and fossil records, case studies of whales, and DNA. Of course, there is an entire section dedicated to the greatness that was Charles Darwin, and much of the speculative language disappears. However, the textbook does refer to Darwin’s hypothesis on natural selection as a theory. 

The problem with the Holt Science textbook, however, is that even though it was copyrighted as recently as 2006, there is no mention of the alternative discoveries that dispute the theory of evolution. In 2001, the Discovery Institute launched a list of hundreds of scientists who dissent from Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. According to the Institute, “During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, “artificial intelligence” research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.” The letter of dissent states, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” 

Of the reasons for the dissent, the Center for Science and Culture indicated that Darwin’s theory of “microevolution,” changes within existing species, is uncontroversial and supported by a plethora of evidence, but that his theory of “macroevolution,” large-scale changes over geological time, was “controversial right from the start.” The Center states, “In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin’s theory went into eclipse.” Dissenting scientists argue that the genetic mutations necessary to account for the theory of “macroevolution” would produce mostly harmful effects, not positive effects like the development of the human eye. 

Now, I do not pretend to thoroughly comprehend evolutionary theory, but one thing seems certain. Evidence uncovered after Darwin’s death has created a divide between scientists who do and do not subscribe to the theory of macroevolution, and that it is certainly worth mentioning in the Science textbooks. According to the Center for Science and Culture, “Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin’s theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely … it is inaccurate to give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that all scientists have reached a consensus on the issue”. 

It seems fair to say, unfortunately, that political correctness plays too much of a role in the content of school textbooks. In fact, according to a Rasmussen poll, 55 percent of parents believe that to be the case. If a science textbook even suggests that Darwin’s theory of evolution may be false, the writers are charged with supporting creationism. To avoid that clash, they simply leave out contradictory data. 

In the same Rasmussen poll, a mere 31 percent of parents believed history textbooks portray American History accurately.  On Glenn Beck’s May 25 episode, he furiously discussed how history is being rewritten to be politically correct.  He pointed to a Virginia State McDonald Publishing History textbook that discussed the Declaration of Independence and said, “The declaration expanded these ideas that all men are created equal and they are endowed … with certain unalienable rights.” The words “by their Creator” were removed and replaced by ellipses. 

Fortunately, Florida’s McDougal Littell Creating America eight grade textbook does not attempt to remove God’s role from the founding of American independence from British rule.   

Where the textbook falls short, unfortunately, is in the discussion of FDR’s presidency. The book accurately asserts that “the New Deal did not end the Depression” and even states that the New Deal did forever change the U.S. government. However, in the half-page mention of the Japanese internment camps, little focus is given to the overall and blatant injustice of the internment program. The program is summed up as follows:

In the days and weeks after Pearl Harbor, several newspapers declared Japanese Americans to be a security threat.  President Roosevelt eventually responded to the growing anti-Japanese hysteria.  In February 1942, he signed an order that allowed for the removal of Japanese and Japanese Americans from the Pacific Coast.  This action came to be known as the Japanese-American internment.  More than 110,000 men, women, and children were rounded up.  They had to sell their homes and possessions and leave their jobs.  These citizens were placed in internment camps, areas where they were kept under guard.  In these camps, families lived in single rooms with little privacy.  About two-thirds of the people interned were Nisei, Japanese Americans born in the United States.

And that’s it. There is no mention of what happened to the Japanese after the war, no real focus of what life was like in these internment camps, and no discussion of how most of these citizens did not have their properties restored to them upon their release. 

Likewise, the textbook does not mention the other prejudiced practices under FDR, including the imposition of restrictions on Italian and Germans living in the United States. According to the German American Internee Coalition, FDR “interned at least 11,000 persons of German ancestry” even though the law stated only “enemy aliens” could be interned. Under FDR, the Department of Justice (DOJ) “instituted very limited due process protections for those arrested.” Also under FDR, “pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, DOJ created a network of prohibited zones and restricted areas.  Enemy aliens were forbidden to enter or remain in certain areas and their movements severely restricted in others.... Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 9066, the military could restrict the liberties of citizens and aliens, as it deemed necessary.” 

Yet none of that information appears in the McDougal Littell textbook. Nor does the textbook discuss FDR’s creation of the Office of War Information, which virtually regulated all information in print, inhibiting freedom of press and speech. 

The issue with leaving out such pertinent information is that it lulls American students into a false sense of security about their government. To know history is to avoid repeating it. People who accuse governments’ critics of being “conspiracy theorists” are unaware that much of what people say could “never happen in America” already has. 

For these reasons, and many more, it is certainly no wonder the Texas Board of Education felt compelled to investigate the content of the textbooks. It should even prompt other states to take similar actions of scrutinizing textbooks to examine what is being left out or glossed over.  
 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (43)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Duder said:

Concerning your discussion of Evolution There is no contradictory data; in the decade since the Discovery Institute was founded they have failed to produce one single piece of experimental data to support their ideas. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing, evolutionary scientists are not having a debate over this in any way the only debate is the one trying to be introduced in any way. The list of scientists that the discovery institute posted is a complete Red herring and has not been updated in years; ask yourself why not. The organizations you reference both have political agendas and as such are not credible sources of information. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, nobody is conducting experimental work based on them as a hypothesis and they have produced no new information (data) of use to science in any way.

May 28, 2010

Soulf2 said:

Discovery Institute reference fail Wow, referencing the Discovery Institute without even looking into why they are not taken seriously is a major fail point for Raven Clabough. Anytime you want to know why the alt to evolution is not presented, just look it up on the talkorigins web site. talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html Every creationist claim is quoted, sourced, and cited. As for the general history books... WTF? Are you serious? No single book is going to go into extensive details unless that is it's focus topic. If it did, student text books would be MUCH longer and impossible to cover over such a short time span. Also, opinion pieces should not be inserted into history books, save that for philosophy. However, we are lucky that most students are then able later to take topic oriented classes later (after the base history has been established).

May 28, 2010 | url

The evils of evolution, Lowly rated comment [Show]

RickK said:

Why do you find it so easy to lie? You fail in the second sentence when you say: "Students are schooled to believe that evolution is a fact, not a theory". You are falsely interpreting "theory" to be like a "guess" or an "idea" or a "hunch". Species evolve - that's a fact. Evolutionary theory explains how. It is as well established as the Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Plate Tectonic Theory and the Germ Theory of Disease. As for the "Dissent from Darwin" list - how many biologists and paleontologists actually signed it? Did you know that you can believe in evolution but not believe that random mutation explains all diversity? Many signers of the list, when they saw how that list was being used, said "but I DO believe in evolution" and tried to have their names removed. But of course, they couldn't. You keep saying there is a divide between scientists, but there isn't. There is no presence whatsoever in published research of anti-evolutionary ideas. You imply "consensus" means 100% agreement - it doesn't. In the case of evolution, only a religiously-motivated fringe reject it. AND YOU KNOW THIS. Raven, why do you find it so easy to lie and distort the truth? What part of your upbringing taught you so little respect for the truth? Didn't you listen in church?

May 28, 2010

Peter Peter said:

Darwin Once we step out of the bounds of HARD science – amenable to study using the scientific method with quantifiable reproducible results, into the soft sciences – if it works use it, we step into a world driven many times as much by speculation, emotion, and politics as by facts. Evolution falls into the latter category. Obviously, we cannot reproduce something that happens over millennia or even quantify much of the bases of the theory. If one reads Darwin’s criteria for proof and disproof of his theory, the theory currently fails. The main reason is that there are ZERO intermediate species in the fossil record between differing species. Since Darwin’s time, the theory has been split into micro and macro evolution to bolster it. Evolution is supported in the K-12 textbooks with examples of micro evolution – which is dishonest. Micro evolution is accomplished for example when people breed dogs for differing characteristics. These changes happen WITHIN SPECIES under natural pressures also, and in relatively SHORT PERIODS of time. But this is NOT what most people understand evolution to mean. .

May 29, 2010

Darwin - Part 2, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Peter Peter said:

Darwin - Part 3 The attempt to verify the theory of evolution by the only means, historical reconstruction, has fallen WOEFULLY short. The gaps are profound. In addition, had Darwin been then aware of today’s discoveries at the microbiology level, he would never have published Origins. I believe that though he was a weak man, he was not unethical. .

May 29, 2010

Try this DVD - The Case for a Creator, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Darwin, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Tornado in a Junkyard!, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Duder said:

Present some evidence, I double dog dare you Present one single piece of empirical data that I can test that shows Creationism or Intelligent Design to be true.

May 29, 2010

DavidK said:

... Tornado in a Junkyard? If you are willing to read the book you will clearly see that Evolution is about as possible as a "tornado ripping through a junkyard and leaving in its wake, a fully functional 747 Jetliner"! Ah, not an explanation of evolution, but of creationism / intelligent design, for their premise is that life was created instantaneously by their god (oops, the "intelligent designer") out of dirt, same as a garbage dump. An evolutionist would never expect instanteous appearance of life forms to pop out of the air, but that's exactly the idea behind creationism/intelligent design. It's unfortunate that creationists/ID'er's, and author Raven, don't even examine their own flawed arguments, but continue to whine in the face of overwhelming evidence showing evolution happened/happens. The anti-evolution people are clearly religiously motivated, that's all there is to their argument. The real smokescreen is junk like intelligent design and the notorious Dishonesty Institute that hasen't produced one shred of evidence to support their wild claims, and that includes the phony "research group" they're bankrolling that's staffed with creationists.

May 29, 2010 | url

The ID Argument, Lowly rated comment [Show]

The ID Argument 2, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Duder said:

Dear Peter Peter Where is the testable part of your rambling statement of belief, once again you are inferring design instead of looking for actual evidence. This is the problem with taking your religious beliefs and trying to call them science. There are questions you should be asking about Creationism and Intelligent Design that you are not; have you turned your mind completely off? To develop a Hypothesis into a true Scientific Theory you have to keep asking questions until you dredge something testable out of it; if you can’t do that you have a big fat nothing. If you want to believe in the Christian god you are, of course, perfectly entitled to do so. Trying to call that belief Science and force it on young children is reprehensible. I have yet to have one single piece of evidence presented in support of an Intelligent Designer. Your response is a perfect example of convoluted reasoning that is neither evidence nor reasonable. By the way, when the Hubble telescope turned out to be flawed due to human error on initial launch it wasn’t faith that fixed it; and it isn’t faith that made your computer work, it’s called Industry Standards.

June 01, 2010

Soulf2 said:

@Peter Peter @mm @Freedom2.0 @JJ Surprise @Peter Peter @mm @Freedom2.0 @JJ Surprise Your arguments are old and busted. Each of your statements was already addressed and busted years ago on the talkorigins list. Please review the list at talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html to understand why you are restating ignorance of others. The talkorigins site also lists the source of data that has disproven your statements. Please review this list before you embarrass yourself again. Then attempt to post something original and not already found to be dishonest.

June 01, 2010 | url

Peter Peter said:

Intelligent Design Dear Duder, The reason that you are confused is that you are not paying attention. The existence of the physical laws are proven fact. Pick up any textbook on Physics. Study the 'laws' that we have discovered. These laws have already been tested to the point that we apply them in various technology that we have become almost totally dependent on, and that we use for life and death decisions and applications. I urge you to reread my prior posts on the issue. All I am demonstrating is my prior argument is what we already KNOW about these physicals laws: 1) they are mathematically precise 2) they are invariable 3) they are simple 4) they are in complete harmony Our technology DEPENDS COMPLETELY on these properties of physical laws. WHERE DID THEY COME FROM ?? Again, there is obvious ORDER and DESIGN in the material universe. * How a design and no designer * .

June 01, 2010

Peter Peter said:

Intelligent Design @@soulf2 I did go to the site you suggested and nowhere did it address the arguments that I post above. The site was more concerned about defending evolution from ID. It's a trap that many IDers having fallen into. As I stated above, the ID argument is much cleaner and meaner if it's made without entangling itself in the evolution issues - which are a mess of obfuscation. C'mon, soulf2. You can think for yourself. Read my argument, think about it, and reach your own conclusions. You don't need other people doing your thinking for you. They may not be as smart as you believe.

June 01, 2010

Duder said:

Peter Peter If it is so obvious present your evidence for a designer. your words, or arguement, are not proof. You have, at best, an hypothesis which you now need to prove. I am breathless with anticipation.

June 01, 2010

Soulf2 said:

@@Peter Peter You have exposed your own ignorance @@Peter Peter You have exposed your own ignorance "The site was more concerned about defending evolution from ID" And you think attempting to justify ID with philosophical questions is the answer? Why don't you attempt or try to answer any of your own questions with actual research? Or better, point us to someone that has done the research that is testable, repeatable and proves your point. BTW, yes, almost all of your questions were already answered on the talkorigins site in sections CI000 to CI410. So you obviously did not read it or attempt to show why the research that proves you are incorrect is false. When I think about it, you give absolutely no reason as to why you have any credit in your statements. But you do ask allot of questions and then instead of finding the answers (like most of us have) you just fill in your own knowledge gaps with the word "design". You have yet to prove gravity is a design. And since the only common factor in everything we know about the universe is gravity, why don't you start there? If you can prove or show how gravity was designed, then you have a basis of design for every molecule in the universe. I’ll even get you started with a fill in the blank statement: Gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime that was designed by ______ for the purpose of _____. This can be tested and proven by doing _____. Please Peter Peter keep us updated on your research as we are all looking forward to you posting actual information instead of philosophical questions.

June 02, 2010 | url

Duder said:

... An argument has no causal or logical dependencies if I can remove the phrase Intelligent Designer and replace it with something else without altering the statements meaning. If I can remove Intelligent Designer and replace it with Flying Spaghetti Monster and it still reads correctly then your argument is flawed and has no logical basis. For Example: The physical laws that govern our universe are so exact, so precise that it is obvious an Intelligent Designer of great and awesome intelligence must be the designer of the universe. And then … The physical laws that govern our universe are so exact, so precise that it is obvious a Flying Spaghetti Monster of great and awesome intelligence must be the designer of the universe. Which one of these statements is true and which one is false? Why? Are they equally true? If they are not equally true then provide proof for the one you favour; measurable quantitative data.

June 02, 2010

Peter Peter said:

Dear Duder Again, pay attention. The evidence is the EXISTENCE OF PHYSICAL LAWS which are completely ORDERED. 1) mathematically precise 2) invariable 3) simple 3) in harmony with one another Tell me truthfully. If astronauts found a very sophisticated craft sitting on Mars the first time man landed there, one which the astronauts could get in and travel around the surface of Mars (equivalent to say a Tesla electric automobile), would you buy the explanation that no one had designed and made it, that there was no intelligent being behind it, that it just 'happened' to be there ? As I stated before, the sophistication of the design of the universe, as seen in its physical laws, is many many many orders of magnitude greater than a Tesla. As for your argument about monsters, it is YOU who have added to the character of this Intelligent Designer. Therefore it is you who must prove that the Intelligent Designer is a monster. All I have proved is that whoever/whatever us behind the design of the universe must be VERY intelligent and VERY powerful. .

June 02, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@@soulf2, open your eyes that you may see! Again, on talkorigins I did not see anything addressing directly the existence of the physical laws of the universe. You may want to point me to the exact reference. The existence of the physical laws is a FACT not a philosophical argument. I draw my conclusions from existing evidence - no more research needed. Read my response to Duder above. I ask you the same question that I ask Duder about finding a craft on Mars. Would you assert that there was no design behind it ? I will say this. If your answer is 'yes', you have your eyes and mind tightly closed indeed.

June 02, 2010

Duder said:

@Peter Peter While you want to discuss hypotheticals, the rest of us are discussing reality. You are trying to make the fine tuned universe argument which has been shot down time and time again. Your insistence that the Physical laws of the universe are too complicated to be understood is another example of simply throwing up your hands and saying god/designer/superman did it. Your question about the car on Mars is silly and has no meaning. Neither does the frequent example ID proponents use of Mount Rushmore, one cannot look at a face in the mirror every morning and then not assume design when a face is seen carved into a mountain. For example: The Sun is bigger than the Jupiter and Jupiter is bigger than the Earth and the Earth is bigger than Mars, so therefore the universe displays a sense of order and design that indicates an intelligent designer. The above claim is exactly as logical as yours. You are claiming a sense of order and design that you can not prove, you are simply making a claim; substantiate it or move on to something else. You are also assuming we have identified and understood all the forces at work in the universe. You need to focus on what we know, what we can observe and measure with our senses and the tools at our disposal. Your opinion, which is all you have presented here, that the Physical laws indicate a designer is not proof or evidence; do not know how to make this clearer

June 02, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@Duder Now you are 'putting words in my mouth', creating straw men that you can then knock down and claim that you won. Very dishonest, dude. 0) The existence of the physical laws, and their properties, is NOT a hypothetical. 1) I am NOT making the 'fine tuned universe' since my argument avoids life issues. 2) I did NOT claim or insist that the physical laws are too complicated to be understood. 3) My question about the vehicle on mars is NOT silly. It's only a test of your ability to draw a logical conclusion. Thus far, it appears you can't. 4) I did NOT make any argument involving Mount Rushmore. Again, pay attention! You might learn something. Read my argument again. .

June 02, 2010

Duder said:

@Peter Peter The one not paying attention is the one you see in the mirror. I have repeatedly asked you to present some kind of evidence to support your argument but you do not. My comments are meant to try to explain to you the logical and causal breakdown in your argument, your condescending and hostile replies are informative, but not in the way you think they are. Your insistence that the existence of 'physical laws' that are 'mathematically precise' are evidence in support of your argument is simply false. Fill in the blank: The existence of physical laws that are mathematically precise, invariable, simple and in harmony with one another prove that an Intelligent Designer exists because ______________________________ _______________________________________________________ ___________ _______________________________________________________ __________. Despite your statements that your argument is proof, you have failed to provide any proof. The words you type here are not proof, your argument is not proof, your opinion is not proof. You are inferring design instead of proving it. I ask you to stop repeating yourself and actually try to respond to my critiques of your argument; that is how debate works.

June 03, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@Duder :-) Well, I have convinced you at last to desist from making your own far more condescending and hostile remarks. If you go back, you will see that you started down that road first. I am not easily intimidated. Now we may have to have a discussion of what is a proof, a philosophical argument. You see now why I ask you the question about the first astronauts finding a vehicle on Mars. It cuts out a whole lot of BS and GOES RIGHT TO THE HEART of the matter. In essence, it asks the VERY SAME QUESTION as the one you ask above, the one you ask me to complete. So you don't need ME to fill it out. YOU already know how to do it. Fill it out yourself with the same answer as you fill out mine - which was first: If a sophisticated mobile electric vehicle was discovered on Mars by the first astronauts to land there, this would prove that an Intelligent Designer for the vehicle exists because ______________________________ _______________________________________________________ ___________ _______________________________________________________ __________. "If today you hear His Voice, harden not your heart." - Hebrews 4:7

June 03, 2010

Duder said:

@Peter Peter Not sure why you won't engage in a proper debate or try to prove your own argument. We seem to be stuck at some point where you want to prove a mechanical object found on Mars is analogous to the conceptual 'Physical Laws' of the universe you referenced in your argument; I'm not going to agree to that as it is not logically consistent. As i have repeatedly stated your argument is not logical and has no causal linkages. You also fail to account for an imperfect understanding of the way the universe operates; I know of nobody that would claim humanities' understanding of the universe is complete. However i will fill in the blank for you. If a sophisticated mobile electric vehicle was discovered on Mars by the first astronauts to land there, this would prove that an Intelligent Designer for the vehicle exists because the Dolphins beat us to the moon and Dolphins are intelligent. Please provide some evidence to support your argument.

June 03, 2010

Duder said:

correction I meant Mars, not the moon. I am also trying to point out the logical problems with your argument by example; for the third or fourth time.

June 03, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@Duder THERE YOU GO !! Your conclusion is that the vehicle had an intelligent cause. Though you may have been trying to be ridiculous, you STILL got it right. Why ? Because that's the ONLY logical answer. Don't feel bad - most people agree with you. Congratulations, amigo. Spread the word ... :-) I enjoyed the discussion. Bye now. .

June 03, 2010

Duder said:

Just sad Well I tried to engage in a meaningful debate but got nowhere, pretty typical. There was no discussion Peter, you repeated yourself pointlessly and have completely failed to contribute anything of value. I'm glad you are happy with the Dolphins on Mars answer. It should prove to you that your argument is nonsense, but if you want to see it it as sense I can't stop you.

June 03, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@Duder Are you saying you made some points ... :-) I presented certain FACTS (physical laws) as the EVIDENCE (intelligent design) for my argument and CONCLUSION (intelligent designer). You may assert that the physical laws are not a design, but that would empty the word 'design' of any meaning. You may assert that the design is not intelligent. That would empty the word 'intelligent' of any meaning. You may assert that, given an intelligent design, an intelligent designer is not the ONLY logical conclusion. That would empty the word 'logic' of any meaning. The evidence presented is SUFFICIENT TO PROVE the case. We need not go digging for more evidence as though that were not true. Thousands of Physicists have already done the digging and the testing over centuries. I don't believe that, even today, anyone has seen an electron. But no one doubts its existence because its EFFECTS have been rigorously studied and cataloged. .

June 03, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@Duder I suspect, given your penchant to add more information about the designer such as 'monster' and 'dolphin', that your real objection is that you believe there is no way to do MORE RESEARCH, find out MORE about this designer. Actually, there is. But it doesn't fall into the realm of hard science. It falls into the realm of Theology, the Queen of sciences. Millions even billions of people can testify as to their interactions with the Intelligent Designer. He has spoken to some men and indeed has sent His Son to live for about 33 years as Man in order to save Man from the effects of his rebellion against Him. This is not a forum to discuss religion. But briefly I can tell you that one of the main things the Designer values in Man is the virtue of humility. If you want to know more about Him, humble yourself, get down on your knees and say this simple prayer: "Lord of the Universe, if you are there and you care about me, I don't want to miss you. If you are there, I want to know why you made me and what meaning my existence has. I will keep my eyes and my heart open, Thank you." You may realize, or not, that we accept ON FAITH that REASON will lead us to the truth. Alas, some people have lost their faith in reason, or have narrowed the sphere of reason to such an extent that they miss many important aspects of life. We need both faith and reason. If you make the prayer I suggest in the manner I suggest I have faith that God will honor it. May God bless you, amigo. .

June 03, 2010

Duder said:

still not proof or evidence Peter Peter Way to repeat the same thing again, still no information from your argument, just a bunch of letters arranged into words. Meanwhile real science will be done to advance humanities' understanding of the world we live in. You are using Intelligent Design as a cloak for religion; what are you ashamed of? Call it what it is, talk about your god instead of an Intelligent Designer.

June 04, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@Duder You keep repeating two things: 1) you want empirical data 2) you want a hypothesis I am going to put it in that format A) DATA (a small subset of physical laws) 1) Maxwell's equations * The antisymmetric infinitesimal field tensor Fαβ, corresponding to the field 2-form F old{F} := rac{1}{2}F_{alphaeta} ,mathrm{d},x^{alpha} wedge mathrm{d},x^{eta}. * The current-vector infinitesimal 3-form J old{J} := {4 pi over c } j^{alpha} sqrt{-g} , epsilon_{alphaetagammadelta} mathrm{d},x^{eta} wedge mathrm{d},x^{gamma} wedge mathrm{d},x^{delta}. * the Bianchi identity mathrm{d}old{F} = 2(partial_{gamma} F_{alphaeta} + partial_{eta} F_{gammaalpha} + partial_{alpha} F_{etagamma})mathrm{d},x^{alpha}wedge mathrm{d},x^{eta} wedge mathrm{d},x^{gamma} = 0, * the source equation mathrm{d} * old{F} = {F^{alphaeta}}_{;alpha}sqrt{-g} , epsilon_{etagammadeltaeta}mathrm{d},x^{gamma} wedge mathrm{d},x^{delta} wedge mathrm{d},x^{eta} = old{J}, * the continuity equation mathrm{d}old{J} = { 4 pi over c } {j^{alpha}}_{;alpha} sqrt{-g} , epsilon_{alphaetagammadelta}mathrm{d},x^{alpha} wedge mathrm{d},x^{eta} wedge mathrm{d},x^{gamma} wedge mathrm{d},x^{delta} = 0. 2) relativistic doppler effect: fL = sqrt [(c - v)/(c + v)] * fS 3) conversion of mass and energy: E=mc2 4) 1st law of thermodynamics: Q = delta-U + W

June 04, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@Duder B) HYPOTHESIS The apparent mathematical precision, invariability, simplicity, and harmony of these laws of the Universe show Order, Design, Intelligence, and hence an Intelligent Designer(s) for the Universe. C) PROPOSED RESEARCH Study the Universe looking for similar data. If hypothesis is true, expect to find other physical laws with similar properties. D( RESULTS Ooooh, what d'ya know. Thousands of other physical laws with the same four said properties without which the Universe would COLLAPSE INTO CHAOS. E) CONCLUSION The known Universe has an Intelligent Designer(s).

June 04, 2010

Duder said:

@Peter Peter At no point do you directly link the creation of the laws to your Designer. There are no fingerprints or a trademark stamp to establish that anything designed the laws. There are explanations for how all of this works that is not dependent on any design; as you well know. At no point during any of your posts have you ever tried to directly respond to my claim that your argument is lacking in logic and does not show any causal links. You made the argument and seem to be unwilling to defend your position or engae in debate. Despite having cut and pasted in some scientific formulas you have just repeated the same argument again. You are starting with know laws and working backward to prove design. Use your argument to discover a new law and you'll have something.

June 04, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@Duder The REALITY is that I proved my case IN MY FIRST 3 POSTS. Since then I have just been presenting the proof to you in several different ways to help you see it. Yes, the last format was artificial, but just another of my attempts to help you see. I have science degrees so I can cut and paste those equations without guilt. As I stated, no more data is necessary, The existing physical laws are sufficient evidence. If I walk into a room and stand there for ten minutes without passing out, what other evidence do I need to tell me there is oxygen in the room ? All the facts I need to make the conclusion have already been discovered. Sure oxygen isn't new but neither are intelligent designers. Don't we have some of those among us ? Similarly the existing physical laws prove an Intelligent Designer(s). Designs don't happen without designers. Man, who some believe is the apex of intelligence, has only weakly imitated a few systems already found in the Universe like lighting, flight, spaceships, nuclear reactions, submarines, etc, found in far more sophistication already existing. I think some humility is called for, don't you ? And the acid test was my question about the first astronauts finding a sophisticated working vehicle on Mars. You avoided answering the question seriously which tells me you are not being straight up. You throw around jargon like it actually has meaning in this context. As you see I don't fall for it by reacting. And there are no alternative explanations to "how all this works" that can logically be defended ALL YOU KEEP REPEATING in different ways is "I don't understand it." And that's fine. Most people will. .

June 04, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@Duder First sentence in prior post, I meant: my first two posts on the ID issue ... .

June 04, 2010

Duder said:

@Peter Peter I have tried and tried but you will not defend your argument. If this was a legal procedding you have only completed opening arguments, you have not presented your case. If you fail to do so you lose. It is really that simple. You, like many others, have an ulterior motive that you are not being honest about. You call your God and Intelligent designer and try to convince people you are not religiously motivated. Everything you have posted on here is dishonest. This is the only thing left for me to say as you will not debate or expand your argument; your reason is that no other research (thought) is required. Complete and total fail.

June 05, 2010

Peter Peter said:

@Duder LOL ... and more blah blah blah ... I leave you with this: "THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE"

June 05, 2010

CRW said:

ID vs. "laws" of physics There is a level of certainty that Peter Peter asserts in the "laws" of physics that doesn't really exist. Relativity showed where Newtonian mechanics broke down in the extremes, quantum mechanics challenges some of the claims of relativity, and much of cosmology has contradictions because of the extreme scale of the problem. Physics has at best qualified certainty, and known failings. Many things are observed and measured without being explained in the causal sense. The laws of physics are not harmonious, complete or elegant. They break constantly or work only in narrow ranges. Many pseudoscientist misuse physics and thermodynamics to suit their purposes. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has been misunderstood by thousands of people as a statement about randomness in the universe. It says nothing of the sort, but is rather a physical limit on the observational assertions that can be made regarding quantum particles. Science does not imply an intelligent designer. This is a human concept because of our desire to say patterns must emerge from somewhere. Computer simulations on artificial life have identified the concept of emergent behavior, which is amazing apparent complexity with a large system of simple parts. Emergent behavior is the concept behind the apparent random emergence of true life and some of the things the creationist crowd claim are impossible with evolution. ID is sophistry, meaning a logical chain of assertions that begins with a false premise - all patterns must have intelligence behind them. When you remove this false premise, ID has no foundation.

June 05, 2010

Thomas Craig said:

Stop the Madness How in god's name can religious zealots claim Evolution to be "only a theory" when it's been proven by countless experiments and scientific evidence accumulated for over 150 with NOT ONE SINGLE CASE disproving its manifested truth? If there was or is ONE case disproving Evolution, it would make World Headlines by now. Religious fundamentalists believe scientists are wrong regarding both Macro and Micro Evolution. Yet Evolution is a foundational pillar and mainstay of the following (and not a complete list) scientific disciplines: Anthropology, Archeology, Biology, BioChemistry, Earth Science, Computer Science, Linguistics, Palentology, Psychology, Sociology, Genetics, Geology, Cosmology, and Natural Science. The anti-evolution madness of religious zealots is a frightening display of dark age mentality. It's shocking that in this day and age cases like the Dover, Penn public school battle (2005) and many others can actually arise.

June 07, 2010 | url