<
http://www.nurple.com/sideshow/
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TightFit.jpg
<
This is the ugly scene this morning outside
the Smithsonian Institution in Wa****ngton, D.C..
as David Iain Greig, moderator of talk.origins,
finds himself in a rather embarrassing situation.
<
"What a revolting development this is" Greig
seemed to be mumbling.
<
The popular evolutionist ringleader re****tedly was
practicing for the "Where the Sun Don't ****ne"
competition to be held at the Pseudoscientific
Establishment's next Howlerfest Olympics in
Philadelphia next week and accidentally
"greased up" with a tube of Crazy Glue instead
of Vaseline.
<
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
<
> MAN AS OLD AS COAL
< Petrified Human Remains Found Between Coal Veins
< http://www.edconrad.com
< Ed Conrad
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FINGERSx.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestHumanSkull.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/z11calv.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/skullb.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/z8femur.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/FOSSILS08/HumanFemur.jpg
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/TestResults.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Skullx.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Skully,jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/SkullBoulderSide.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FirstDiscovery.jpg
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/newtibia.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/zedjaw.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/HumanJaw3.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/OldestTool.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/MoreFossils.jpg
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate3.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate2.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/InSlate11.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladder1.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladder2.jpg
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/GallBladdery.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Fetus8.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Scorpion.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/PetrifiedPP.jpg
<
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> LIST OF PSEUDSCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
> THAT HAVE REJECTED INTELLIGENT DESIGN
<
All or nearly all national and international science academies
and professional societies have issued statements sup****ting evolution
and opposing intelligent design.
<
They, of course, have expressed their totally erroneous
opinion because they are vested-interst whores who have
no alternative but to protect their vested interests, knowing
full well they'd othewrise be selling apples on the corner.
<
This page "do***ents" [seudoscientific opinion as given by
pseudoscientific scientific bodies of national or international
standing, and ad hoc groups of opinion among scientists.
<
The American Association for the Advancement of Science is the world's
largest general scientific society. The AAAS serves some 262
affiliated societies and academies of pseudoscience, serving 10
million individuals but, nevertheless, phonier than a $4 bill.
<
A 2002 statement states: "The lack of scientific warrant for
so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as
a part of pseudoscience education."
<
A 2006 statement on the teaching of evolution: "Some bills seek to
discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of
evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others
insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and
cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific =93alternatives=94 to
evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to
"critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But
there is no significant controversy within the scientific community
about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy
surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."
<
Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design: Is intelligent design a
scientific alternative to contem****ary evolutionary theory? No.
Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but
they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful
tests for their claims, there are no re****ts of current research on
these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is
no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant
scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated
to be a scientific theory.[3]
American Association of University Professors "deplores efforts in
local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in
public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or
speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science,
and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design
hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not
only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can
deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific
consensus regarding evolution."
<
> American Astronomical Society
2005 letter sent to President George W. Bush by society President, Dr.
Robert P. Kirshner: "'Intelligent design' isn=92t even part of science =96
it is a religious idea that doesn=92t have a place in the science
curriculum."
<
2005 statement on the Teaching of Evolution: ""Intelligent Design"
fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its
proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide
evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by
subsequent researchers. Since "Intelligent Design" is not science, it
does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation=92s primary and
secondary schools."[6]
American Chemical Society The ACS includes 159,000 chemists and
chemical engineers. "urges... State and local education authorities to
sup****t high-quality science standards and curricula that affirm
evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation for the
origin and diversity of species."[7]
American Geophysical Union The AGU represents over 43,000 Earth and
space scientists. "Advocates of intelligent design believe that life
on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore
be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and,
therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."
<
American Institute of Physics has a Governing Board policy statement
sup****ting evolution and opposing creationism.[9]
American Psychological Association The Science Directorate and the APA
Council of Representatives issued a Resolution Rejecting Intelligent
Design As Scientific And Reaffirming Sup****t For Evolutionary Theory.
<
American Society of Agronomy The ASA represents over 10,000 members.
"Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be
taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has
neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as
a scientific discipline. There are at least 70 resolutions from a
broad array of scientific societies and institutions that are united
on this matter."
<]
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology The ASBMB is a
scientific and educational society representing 12,000 biochemists and
molecular biologists. ""Intelligent design" is not a theory in the
scientific sense, nor is it a scientific alternative to the theory of
evolution. ..."intelligent design" might be appropriate to teach in a
religion or philosophy class, but the concept has no place in a
science classroom and should not be taught there."
<
Botanical Society of America "The proponents of creationism/
intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of
learning. As professional scientists and educators, we strongly assert
that such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an
incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes."
<
Council of Europe In 2007 the Council's "Committee on Culture, Science
and Education" issued a re****t, The dangers of creationism in
education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as
'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any
scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for
science cl*****." In describing the dangers posed to education by
teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-
science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual
deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of
science."[14]
Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative This
organization has 38 Nobel laureates, who wrote a letter calling upon
the Kansas Board of Education to reject intelligent design. "Logically
derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the
result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and
natural selection. As the foundation of modern biology, its
indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to
study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally
unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its
central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a
supernatural agent."[15]
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology The
Federation represents 22 professional societies and 84,000 scientists,
and its statement FASEB Opposes Using Science Cl***** to Teach
Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Non-Scientific Beliefs was
adopted by the FASEB Board of Directors
Intelligent Design is not Science Initiative This initiative was
brought forth by a coalition organized by the Faculty of Science at
the University of New South Wales representing more than 70,000
Australian scientists and science teachers with signatories from the
Australian Academy of Science, the Federation of Australian Scientific
and Technological Societies, and the Australian Science Teachers
Association. "(Intelligent design) is a theological or philosophical
notion... Evolution meets all (scientific) criteria but ID meets none
of them: it is not science."
<
Interacademy Panel Statement on the Teaching of Evolution This is a
joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67
countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society, warning that
scientific evidence about the origins of life was being "concealed,
denied, or confused". It urges parents and teachers to provide
children with the facts about the origins and evolution of life on
Earth
<
The International Society for Science and Religion declared that "[w]e
believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good
theology."<
Kentucky Academy of Science states "...in the strongest and most
determined ways possible deplores the decision to substitute "change
over time" for "evolution" in the state teaching standards, urges that
the original wording be reinstated, and decries any attempt to remove
the teaching of basic evolutionary theory..." Adopted by KAS Governing
Board November 6, 1999. Passed unanimously by KAS member****p November
6, 1999. Unanimously approved again at its annual business meeting on
November 11, 2005. The KAS also voted to endorse the October 2002 AAAS
Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory.[20]
The Kentucky Paleontological Society Statement on Teaching Evolution
states that "KPS is opposed to any attempt to teach creationism or
omit mention of evolution from public school instruction. Furthermore,
evolution should be called "evolution" in curriculum guidelines and
other do***ents; euphemisms such as "change over time" are
intellectually dishonest for they attempt to conceal the terminology
used by scientists." Executive Committee approved this statement in
1999.[21]
National Science Teachers Association NSTA is a professional
association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators. "We stand
with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists,
including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in
stating that intelligent design is not science.=85It is simply not fair
to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom."[22]
Project Steve A statement signed by over 800 scientists, all named
Steve. "It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically
irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited
to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula
of our nation's public schools."[23]
National Academy of Sciences
That academy wrote a statement entitled "Science and Creationism: A
View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition National
Academy of Sciences" which said that "Creationism, Intelligent Design,
and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or
of species are not science" [24]
There was also a letter from Bruce Alberts, former President, NAS: "We
stand ready to help others in addressing the increasingly strident
attempts to limit the teaching of evolution or to introduce non-
scientific 'alternatives' into science courses and curricula. If this
controversy arrives at your doorstep, I hope that you will both alert
us to the specific issues in your state or school district and be
willing to use your position and prestige as a member of the NAS in
helping to work locally." [25]
The Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences responded to
faculty member and intelligent design proponent Michael Behe's claims
about the scientific validity and usefulness of intelligent design,
publi****ng an official position statement which says "It is our
collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science,
has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as
scientific."[26]
The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Ottawa Centre, said, "The
RASC Ottawa Centre, then, is unequivocal in its sup****t of
contem****ary evolutionary theory that has its roots in the seminal
work of Charles Darwin and has been refined by findings ac***ulated
over 140 years. Some dissenters from this position are proponents of
non-scientific explanations of the nature of the universe. These may
include "creation science", "creationism", "intelligent design" or
other non-scientific "alternatives to evolution". While we respect the
dissenters=92 right to express their views, these views are theirs alone
and are in no way endorsed by the RASC Ottawa Centre. It is our
collective position that these explanations do not meet the
characteristics and rigour of scientific empiricism."[27]
The Royal Society "opposes the misrepresentation of evolution in
schools to promote particular religious beliefs" and states
"[...]intelligent design has far more in common with a religious
belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on
evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of
evolution is sup****ted by the weight of scientific evidence; the
theory of intelligent design is not."
|
