Oct 152007
 

The Darwinian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad syndrome.

EN&V

Roger DeHart and a particularly egregious example of Darwinian persecution that occurred in 2000 and 2001 in Burlington, Washington. DeHart, then a veteran Washington state High School biology teacher, tried to supplement his biology textbook with articles critical of Haeckel’s embryos and peppered moths from mainstream science publications, such as The American Biology Teacher, Natural History, The Scientist, and Nature. You can guess what happened next. The American Civil Liberties Union issued veiled threats of legal action, and the National Center for Science Education, a pro-Darwin lobby group, insisted that DeHart teach only the evidence that allegedly supports Darwinism. Bowing to the intimidation, the superintendent of DeHart’s school district prohibited him from distributing the articles– or even talking about them. DeHart was subsequently removed from his biology teaching position, replaced by a junior faculty member with a degree in physical education.

  30 Responses to “Darwinian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Syndrome”

  1. That is not an accurate description. DeHart did more than introduce the critical articles. DeHart taught Intelligent Design. More particularly, he used the text “Of Pandas and People”.

    DeHart: Well, I started there in 1987 and for ten years of the two week unit that we covered the topic of origins and spent one day covering the topic of intelligent design. I presented it as an alternative for students to once again get a different view from what the textbook– traditional textbook taught. I supplemented the text in 1992 with a portion of Pandas and People.

    A factual finding in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court decision was that “Of Pandas and People” was rewritten to replace “creationism” with “intelligent design” and “creationist” with “intelligent design proponent”. In a previous courtcase, Edwards v. Aguillard, it was determined that creationism was religion not science.

    These are the sworn statements of someone charged with teaching evolutionary biology to children:

    Q. What is your opinion in years the age of the earth?

    A. I’m fine with 5,000 to 100,000…

    Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no?

    A. No.

  2. That is not an accurate description. DeHart did more than introduce the critical articles.

    Can you provide another source for your quote other than the totally unreliable propaganda machine talkorigins.org. Using talkorigins here is analogous to asking an accused murderer on trial to be his own jury.

    Here is what I think DeHart really said.

    MR. ROGER DEHART (biology teacher): So in a two-week lesson plan, I would include one day of, “Here’s another viewpoint. Here’s what other scientists say. They hold the [intelligent] design paradigm instead of a Darwinian paradigm.”

    Zachriel: A factual finding in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court decision was that “Of Pandas and People” was rewritten to replace “creationism” with “intelligent design” and “creationist” with “intelligent design proponent” .

    This is a typical distortion by Darwinists. If “Of Pandas and People” was a rewriting, can you tell me what the original source book was? Maybe we can compare how these words were replaced, side by side.

  3. teleologist: Can you provide another source for your quote other than the totally unreliable propaganda machine talkorigins.org.

    You can get the official transcripts from the Kansas State Board of Education.

    teleologist: If “Of Pandas and People” was a rewriting, can you tell me what the original source book was?

    The earlier drafts were provided by the publisher under subpoena. The “deliberate and systematic replacement” was a finding of fact in the Kitzmiller decision:

    As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content

  4. You can get the official transcripts from the Kansas State Board of Education.

    Can you give me the specific link? I can’t find it.

    The earlier drafts were provided by the publisher under subpoena. The “deliberate and systematic replacement” was a finding of fact in the Kitzmiller decision:

    Well, again I have no way of knowing what those facts are. If they have these “putative earlier drafts” why don’t they print some examples of it or supply a copy of it as material evidence for others to see. I can’t make any inform judgment and neither can you based on hearsay.

    I’ve read the book “Of Pandas and People” , have you? I don’t see how it would make any sense in terms of Creationism, if cognates of the word creation were used in place of ID. I mean contextually if I reverse the substitution and replace ID with Creationism, it would distort what Creationism is. Creationism has some very distinctive premises that it works from and they are not necessarily compatible with ID. Frankly, I doubt Dean Kenyon would write a book laced with the word creation.

  5. teleologist: Can you give me the specific link? I can’t find it.

    You can contact them and request a transcript.

    teleologist: Well, again I have no way of knowing what those facts are. If they have these “putative earlier drafts” why don’t they print some examples of it or supply a copy of it as material evidence for others to see. I can’t make any inform judgment and neither can you based on hearsay.

    It’s not hearsay. It’s a legal finding. Try reading the testimony and court decision.

  6. It’s not hearsay.

    Sorry, it is worst than hearsay because the only source of information that you’ve provided is from an unreliable Darwinian propaganda website.

    Try reading the testimony and court decision.

    Where is the transcript? You quoted from an unreliable source to imply that DeHart introduced ID to supplant evolution. That is in direct contradiction to what he said in the video and his quote from the PBS website. DeHart wants his students to learn about evolution, all of evolution, its’ strength and weaknesses.

  7. teleologist: Sorry, it is worst than hearsay because the only source of information that you’ve provided is from an unreliable Darwinian propaganda website.

    The court decisions are available from a number of sources on the Internet, including Findlaw.com. If you don’t trust the reprints on the Internet, then go to the courthouse and request a court transcript. Write the school board and ask for a transcript of the hearing. Let me know if there is a discrepancy.

    Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
    Edwards v. Aguillard
    Kansas State Board of Education

  8. If you don’t trust the reprints on the Internet

    I have no problem with the internet, but I do have a problem with an unreliable source like talkorigins.org. Since you are the one that used that quote, it is incumbent upon you to provide a specific reliable reference source. Otherwise you are just repeating unsubstantiated defamation.

  9. teleologist: Since you are the one that used that quote, it is incumbent upon you to provide a specific reliable reference source.

    I provided the cites. There is no reason to believe that talkorigins fabricated the transcripts. Not everything is on the Internet, and you distrust the secondary sources that have posted the information, including Findlaw.com.

    Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
    Edwards v. Aguillard
    Kansas State Board of Education

    I can’t make you contact the primary sources. I can’t make you read the transcripts. You can believe what you will, but you won’t convince anyone with handwaving.

  10. I provided the cites. There is no reason to believe that talkorigins fabricated the transcripts.

    talkorigins has been shown to be bias against ID and has proven to misrepresent ID. As a Darwinist, you probably don’t have a problem with that, but as an IDist I do.

    and you distrust the secondary sources that have posted the information, including Findlaw.com.

    Wrong! I never said I distrust FindLaw. I ask you to give a specific link to a specific document that I can read. You can’t just toss out some ALLEGE quote out of context with the intent of defamation without providing the specific document to support it.

    You can believe what you will, but you won’t convince anyone with handwaving.

    I believe in facts. I am the only one here that has provided a neutral site with quotes that contradict your alleged accusations. People can also see and hear what DeHart himself actually said. It seems the only one that is handwaving here is you, my friend Zachriel.

  11. The “Memoradum Opinion” can be read here:
    http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

    From pages 32-33 (emphasis in the original):

    As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre- Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term “creation” was defined as “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P- 560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99- 100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as “special creation” of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe’s assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas. The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.

  12. The “Memoradum Opinion” can be read here:

    Judge Jones is a shill for the Darwinists and especially for Barbara Forrest who bought the Darwinian propaganda of “Creationism’s Trojan Horse” . I guess Pixie didn’t bother to read what I said.

    Well, again I have no way of knowing what those facts are. If they have these “putative earlier drafts” why don’t they print some examples of it or supply a copy of it as material evidence for others to see. I can’t make any inform judgment and neither can you based on hearsay.

  13. So, Tel, was Judge Jones so stupid that he was fooled by the Darwinists in his own court, even though the IDists had all the opportunity they wanted to present their side and to expose the Darwinist lies? How do you think the Darwinist managed to convince a federal court judge about Of Panda and People by the way? Did they fabricate evidence? Did the IDists not notice?

    Or is the “Memoradum Opinion” a deliberate deception in your opinion? Are you really going to make the accusation that a Christian federal judge is lying in his court summaries? Oh, wait, I bet you will claim he is not a real Christian. How can he be a real Christian if he disagrees with teleologist?

    Or is it possible that Judge Jones is actually telling the truth?

    Perhaps yopu should consult the Discovery Institute wen site, and see what they say. They are, of course, well know for their unbiased reporting and honest representation of others. Not.

    Zachriel said: “A factual finding in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court decision was that “Of Pandas and People” was rewritten to replace “creationism” with “intelligent design” and “creationist” with “intelligent design proponent” . ” The “Memoradum Opinion” shows he was right. But let us suppose that this really is part of that conspiracy by “Darwinian Priors”. It is a sure bet that the Discovery Institute would want to expose that lie for what it is. Can you find a web page on their site that says that it is not true that creationism was systematically swapped with ID? The best I could find (and I admit I did not make a big effort) was here:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4.html

    … Where they are doing their best to explain it, but never suggest that the Darwinist lied in court. Why would that be?

  14. So, Tel, was Judge Jones so stupid that he was fooled by the Darwinists in his own court

    I don’t know if Jones is stupid in this case but I think Pixie’s question is stupid. This question is stupid because what is Pixie trying to imply? Is Pixie trying to imply that because of Jones credential that he is incapable of stupidity? Is it because he is a Republican or a Christian therefore he is incapable of being stupid? Or is Pixie suggesting just because Jones was presented with arguments from both sides that he is incapable of being stupid? Frankly, in this case I don’t think he is stupid as much as he already has a predisposed antagonism toward ID — at least that is what the evidence seems to show.

    How do you think the Darwinist managed to convince a federal court judge about Of Panda and People by the way? Did they fabricate evidence? Did the IDists not notice?

    Probably the same way that Pixie was convinced, that is, he’s already made up his mind and don’t want to be confused by the facts.

    Or is the “Memoradum Opinion” a deliberate deception in your opinion? Are you really going to make the accusation that a Christian federal judge is lying in his court summaries?

    I can’t read his mind so I have no idea if he is deliberately lying or not. He probably believes in the biased propaganda he espouses. Does Pixie think that Jones being a Christian makes his opinion more legitimate? In that case maybe we should consider what the critics of ID are saying about Jones.

    3. The Implosion of the Kitzmiller Ruling by Judge Jones. A year after Dover, Judge Jones’ opinion in Kitzmiller is not wearing well. The book Traipsing into Evolution documents the many errors of fact and analysis in Jones’ opinion as well as its overreach in trying to decide whether intelligent design is science, and the recent study co-authored by David DeWolf and myself reveals how Jones’ “brilliant” analysis of whether intelligent design is science did not represent his own work but was copied (errors and all) virtually verbatim from language submitted to him by ACLU attorneys. Practically the only defense of Judge Jones’ wholesale copying offered thus far has been the false claim that”everyone is doing it,” a response that has been too much even for some Darwinists to swallow. It is noteworthy that at least one staunch critic of ID in the legal community has joined ID proponents in taking Judge Jones to task for his judicial opinion’s overreach. Boston University law professor Jay Wexler has argued forcefully that “[t]he part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion.” (emphasis added)

    Oh, wait, I bet you will claim he is not a real Christian. How can he be a real Christian if he disagrees with teleologist?

    I know Pixie loves create some sort of dissent from ID by a Christian that is supposed to somehow invalidate all of the IDist’s argument. This is just another variation of the argumentum ad verecundiam. Because Pixie is so fond of this tactic, it often results in him being an insincere debater and quote mining.

    I don’t know if Jones is a real Christian or not, because I don’t know his theological views. What is pathetic is Pixie’s insinuation that somehow I am a standard for measuring who is or is not a real Christian. If Pixie was not so stupid about Christianity he would understand what makes someone a Christian.

    In any case I am an atheist who vehemently disagrees with Pixie’s faith in the Darwinian fairy tale and his unbelief in God, does this mean that Pixie is wrong about evolution and about the existence of God, according to Pixie’s reasoning? Oh, wait, I bet Pixie will claim I am not a real atheist. How can I be a real atheist if I disagrees with Pixie?.

    Where they are doing their best to explain it, but never suggest that the Darwinist lied in court. Why would that be?

    I have to admit this is an excellent link. Let me highlight this specific quote from EN&V

    Yet pre-publication drafts of Pandas juxtaposed the word “creation” with statements to the exact opposite effect, noting that science cannot scientifically detect a supernatural creator. Consider these important excerpts from pre-publication drafts of Pandas, making it clear that from the beginning, their project did not advocate what the courts have defined as “creationism”:

    This is in direct dispute to what Zachriel and Pixie are saying. Let me remind the reader what they said.

    (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID

    What Pixie and Zachriel wants you to believe is that in an earlier draft of Of Pandas and People, cognates of the word creation were used 150 times and in the final version each time that these words were used, it is not replace with the word ID in its’ place. This is a fallacious representation of the fact. In fact, cognates of the word creation were used but in a way that disputes creationism. More important it was not an in situ replacement. This is what Darwinians have to do in criticizing ID, resort to misrepresentation and distortion of the facts.

    Why is it so hard for Pixie and Zachriel to present the proof that shows the 150 replacement of the cognates of creation with the phrase ID. They claim that they have the earlier draft. Show us the documents side by side comparison instead of making defamatory accusations and misrepresentations. Instead of bloviating and citing links that do not directly addresses my question, just show the evidence that you claim to have. But maybe, just maybe that evidence doesn’t exist and you are perfectly willing to forward innuendos and defamation as long as it is directed toward IDists, right?

  15. teleologist: This is in direct dispute to what Zachriel and Pixie are saying. Let me remind the reader what they said.

    (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID

    That is what a court of law determined. The trial was a matter of public record. There was no appeal of the court’s ruling, though the parties had every opportunity to do so.

  16. That is what a court of law determined. The trial was a matter of public record. There was no appeal of the court’s ruling, though the parties had every opportunity to do so.

    Come on Zach, you are smarter than this. The question is not about appealing any specific court ruling. I just want to see the evidence that you and the Jones memorandum claims to show, i.e., there is a wholesale word substitution of certain words for another. I just want to see the drafts and compare that to the final print version. I also want to see the actual court transcript that shows DeHart saying what you claim he said in context. That’s all. I am not interested in any appeal. I don’t have the money to fight against the Darwinian ruling class.

  17. teleologist: I just want to see the evidence that you and the Jones memorandum claims to show, i.e., there is a wholesale word substitution of certain words for another.

    Waving your hands doesn’t constitute an argument. You have been provided a cite to the court transcript, but you reject this secondary source. You might try and research the primary source, though that might take some effort on your part.

  18. Waving your hands doesn’t constitute an argument. You have been provided a cite to the court transcript, but you reject this secondary source. You might try and research the primary source, though that might take some effort on your part.

    Stop acting like a dunderhead Zachy. You can’t even quote from this so call court transcript. In fact if this alleged court transcript that you cited has the information that you quoted, I suspect many of your Darwinian buddies would have quoted from it directly already. Why don’t you admit that you haven’t even seen this court transcript with the quote that you attributed to DeHart? You also have never seen a side by side comparison of different versions of Pandas that shows the replacements that you are claiming.

    With each passing comment that you failed to produce these evidence only shows what Darwinians do best, bluffing. Well, I am calling your bluff and you have to show your cards. The world is waiting…

  19. Complete transcript of the trial:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

    Forrest is examined, talking about Of Pandas and People, here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html#day6am889

    Obviously this is on TalkOrigins, so you will dismiss it out of hand, assuming that as TalkOrigins is an anti-ID site they must be liars. What I find interesting is that the DI seem not to contend this at all. I could find nothing that suggests the DI believe TalkOrigins are in any way misrepresenting what really happened in court. I can only think of one reason why they would not accuse TalkOrigins of deceit here, and that is that there is no deceit.

    So to bolster your denial, I suggest that you claim the transcript is a fake, and just refuse to actually look at what the DI have or have not said about it (you might even wonder why the DI have ot published the real transcript). I mean, the last thing you want to do is actually find out for yourself. You might discover you were wrong.

  20. teleologist: You can’t even quote from this so call court transcript. In fact if this alleged court transcript that you cited has the information that you quoted, I suspect many of your Darwinian buddies would have quoted from it directly already.

    You’re been provided a link to the Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover School District, et al decision from the uscourts.gov domain. Other relevant court documents, including transcripts and links to the offical court website, are conveniently available on the Talk Origins Archives.

    As to the Kansas Science Hearings, you can actually listen to DeHart’s own voice in the audio download. You will find DeHart about two hours into day two, with cross examination at two and a half hours. You can verify the Talk Origins transcript yourself. At which time, I’m sure you’ll apologize.

    You have been provided the appropriate resources. No one can make you look.

  21. A favorite part is when DeHart doesn’t understand how cross examination works.

    Q. Intelligent cause is a disguise for a supernatural answer. Correct?

    A. Darwinism masquerades as materialist– materialism.

    Q. That’s not my question. Listen carefully. I asked you whether or not the suggestion that intelligent design is a masquerade for a supernatural answer. Correct?

    A. That’s a leading question.

    Q. Of course it is.

    The honest teacher never directly answers the question, of course.

  22. You’re been provided a link to the Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover School District, et al decision from the uscourts.gov domain. Other relevant court documents, including transcripts and links to the offical court website, are conveniently available on the Talk Origins Archives. ” The honest teacher never directly answers the question, of course.

    Why are you being such a hypocrite Zacho? How can you accuse DeHart of not directly answering the question when you haven’t directly answered my question for 21 comments now? You claim the book Of Pandas and People have over 150 cognates of the word creation that has been replaced with the phrase ID. You continue to push these as though it actually has some content that answers my question. You are not fooling anyone with this gibberish. Anyone reading this post can follow those link and they will not find any document in there that provides a side by side comparison of the versions. If the evidence that I asked for exists in these links you can easily cut and paste or transcribe it in your comments for all to read. Furthermore, if the court fact finding documents contain such a comparison, you can bet Zacho’s favorite propaganda site would have it up on their website in some form. Why must you be so typical Darwinian?

    With each passing comment that you failed to produce this evidence only shows what Darwinians do best, bluffing. Well, I am calling your bluff and you have to show your cards. The world is waiting…

    As to the Kansas Science Hearings, you can actually listen to DeHart’s own voice in the audio download. You will find DeHart about two hours into day two, with cross examination at two and a half hours. You can verify the Talk Origins transcript yourself. At which time, I’m sure you’ll apologize. ” As to the Kansas Science Hearings, you can actually listen to DeHart’s own voice in the audio download.

    Thank you. It only took you 20 comments to provide an actual reliable link to DeHart’s quote in question. Actually shouldn’t you be the one that apologize to me for weaseling until now before you provided this link from audible.com?

    Now that you’ve finally produce something that we can use to base our discussion on, we can come back to the OP, i.e. egregious Darwinian persecution of a biology teacher, Roger DeHart.

    Roger DeHart and a particularly egregious example of Darwinian persecution that occurred in 2000 and 2001 in Burlington, Washington. DeHart, then a veteran Washington state High School biology teacher, tried to supplement his biology textbook with articles critical of Haeckel’s embryos and peppered moths from mainstream science publications, such as The American Biology Teacher, Natural History, The Scientist, and Nature.

    To this Zachy retorted,

    DeHart did more than introduce the critical articles. DeHart taught Intelligent Design. More particularly, he used the text “Of Pandas and People” .

    So Zach’s argument is that the Darwinian persecution of DeHart is justify because 1. he taught ID and 2. he used the book Of Pandas and People to do it.

    I would disagree with both of these arguments for the persecution of DeHart. First, contrary to Darwinian propaganda, ID is not about teaching supernaturalism or creationism. ID consist of two components, one is to teach all the evidences of evolution, i.e. the evidences for and against Darwinian evolution. The second is the hypothesis of design as an explanation for diversity and complexity.

    So what was DeHart’s crime that was so heinous that he must be eradicated from the school system? DeHart had the audacity to go against the Darwinian priesthood and teach a comprehensive view of evolution, for that, he was ostracized.

    Was DeHart teaching supernaturalism or creationism as the Darwinians have claimed? Absolutely no! Take a look at the transcript,

    DeHart: I would then allow students to critically analyze. I would always put this in the third person saying that this was differing views from other scientists. And then I would allow students to either write a position paper stating 3 best evidences for or against Darwinian evolution, and then those students who would like to have the opportunity to debate the topic in front of the class. It was always done in an even handed way. There was the same number of students for both sides who have the same amount of time. It was a good experience.

    Q. When you were directed to remove– well, let me ask you this, the information that you were teaching for 11 years to your students that you could no longer teach, was that information relevant to a comprehensive understanding of biology of evolution?

    A. I never shied from teaching the complete theory of evolution —

    Q. When you were directed to remove– well, let me ask you this, the information that you were teaching for 11 years to your students that you could no longer teach, was that information relevant to a comprehensive understanding of biology of evolution?

    A. I never shied from teaching the complete theory of evolution

    Nowhere in the hearing does it show that DeHart taught anything other than the complete understanding of evolution. He was not teaching about God, creationism or supernatural causes.

    The second complaint against DeHart was that he taught evolution using the book Of Pandas and People. First of all, there is nothing wrong with using this as a textbook. There is nothing in the book that teaches anything other than evolution and the scientific theory of Design. If Zach or other Darwinists want to challenge that I would demand that you quote the page and text from the book to make your argument.

    In addition DeHart under pressure retreated to teach ONLY the complete understanding of evolution, which includes the criticisms of evolution.

    It was at that time that I tried to seek– strike a comprise with the school district and agreed only to present criticisms of the textbook so I submitted materials to my curriculum review committee. They were all turned down in 1999 in the spring. They were turned down because the– some of them were written by Jonathan Wells who was here previously, even though they were published in the American Biology Teacher, the most widely reviewed journal for– for biology teachers. They were also turned down– even things like a diagram of Corvettes and things like that, stating that they overshadowed the existing curriculum.

    So any ways, they did back off that and they said, well, we’ll allow you to offer one article and so I did. I showed them to people. A section that once again talked about the analogy between DNA being information and that organisms such as giraffe seemed to be instead of a collection of mutations seems to be more of a complete unit of design.

    It was after that that once again a group had formed, of course, and it made a lot of press in our town and outside groups threatened much of our school district, and so it was during that time that the board and the superintendent felt a lot of pressure and so they reversed and said now we’re going to deny those materials. So I had to once again think what am I going to do now. So instead of presenting materials that were written by ID proponents I chose only mainstream scientific journals like those articles that were written by Steven J. Gould that appeared in Natural History. Jerry Coyne that appeared in Nature. Those– Gould’s article, Et Skewick (sp) [Teleo: I removed talkorigins propaganda addition which they had inserted here between these brackets.] dealt with the Haeckel’s embryos that have already been mentioned.

    The second, Jerry Coyne, dealt with the peppered moth, black not white, that appeared in Nature. Elizabeth Pennisi, her article that once again revealed Michael Richardson’s research on Haeckel’s embryos and then a Boston Globe article. Those were also all turned down the next year, even though they were written by Darwinists and committed to Darwinists. Then once again I was– there’s no other way to say I was censored.

    I was to teach only the textbook and I could not submit any supplemental articles. All of my articles that I submitted were sent to the University of Washington and to Western Washington University. I had to submit a handwritten summary of all that I was to say in the two week unit, and then finally I was reassigned to Earth Science at the end of that year, and so that was 2001.
    At the end of 2001 school year– in fact, that was an indirect– many interesting stories that went on surrounding that, but the person who took my job was a former student. He was a PE major. He had zero years of teaching experience. I left the school district, my love of biology, I taught that for 28 years at that time it was 23 years. That’s what I was trained to do.

    At this point DeHart was no longer teaching ID nor was he even using any materials from ID proponents to teach the criticism of Darwinian evolution. DeHart has restricted all his materials that are critical of Darwinian evolution to strictly be from Darwinists. Still he was force out because Darwinists has made evolution into a religion and sacrosanct from criticism. Evolution to Darwinists is no longer a scientific pursuit of knowledge that is open to criticism and testing, and ultimately revised in light of new evidence, it is now a religion for the atheists.

  23. Obviously this is on TalkOrigins, so you will dismiss it out of hand, assuming that as TalkOrigins is an anti-ID site they must be liars.

    Absolutely, why should I accept such an untrustworthy site when the original source can’t be found.

  24. teleologist: It only took you 20 comments to provide an actual reliable link to DeHart’s quote in question.

    What are you talking about? The audio is linked on Talk Origins, and the “unreliable Darwinian propaganda website” happens to provide a reliable transcript. This was all available to you, but you refused to look.

    teleologist: The second complaint against DeHart was that he taught evolution using the book Of Pandas and People. First of all, there is nothing wrong with using this as a textbook.

    Previously, you indicated it was an “unsubstantiated defamation“.

    My first comment on this thread was “DeHart did more than introduce the critical articles. DeHart taught Intelligent Design. More particularly, he used the text Of Pandas and People”. Since then, you have swept away these statements as unsubstantiated, while repeatedly ignoring relevant cites.

    teleologist: Darwinists has made evolution into a religion and sacrosanct from criticism.

    The Theory of Evolution is constantly being scientifically investigated and frequently revised in the light of new evidence. Evolutionary biology is a very active field of study.

  25. What are you talking about? The audio is linked on Talk Origins

    Well, why didn’t you just point to the “specific” link in the first place. I told you that the site was not trustworthy.

    Previously, you indicated it was an “unsubstantiated defamation”.

    My first comment on this thread was “DeHart did more than introduce the critical articles. DeHart taught Intelligent Design. More particularly, he used the text Of Pandas and People” . Since then, you have swept away these statements as unsubstantiated, while repeatedly ignoring relevant cites.

    Two points, first that phrase was meant for both your DeHart comment and your attack on the book Of Pandas and People. You still have not provided any evidence for your attack on the book. Second, at the time I made that statement you still have not provided a “specific” reliable link such as the audio file that you’ve just provided in your previous comment.

    Now the problem still remains even with the actual audio, the testimony still does not substantiate your attack on DeHart as I’ve already painfully explained.

    The Theory of Evolution is constantly being scientifically investigated and frequently revised in the light of new evidence. Evolutionary biology is a very active field of study.

    That is baloney. The treatment of DeHart is a prime example of why what you said is not true. No one is ever allowed to challenge the religious adherence of ToE. Try it like DeHart did and try to present evidence that falsifies Darwinian evolution and see what you get. You may be delusional about ToE but don’t expect other to buy into your delusion.

  26. teleologist: I told you that the site was not trustworthy.

    You keep saying that, but the evidence indicates that the transcript is reliable.

    teleologist: You still have not provided any evidence for your attack on the book.

    I provided a finding of fact by a federal court. The trial evidence is part of the court record, and you have access to the transcript and the decision. The parties had ample opportunity to appeal.

    teleologist: Now the problem still remains even with the actual audio, the testimony still does not substantiate your attack on DeHart as I’ve already painfully explained.

    I didn’t attack DeHart. I quoted him. He taught Intelligent Design to children in the public schools, and he used Of Pandas and People as part of that lesson. He also stated he thinks the world is 5-100 thousand years old and that humans are not related by common descent with prehominid ancestors. This was all pointed out in my first comment.

    teleologist: Try it like DeHart did and try to present evidence that falsifies Darwinian evolution and see what you get.

    DeHart didn’t “present evidence” to the scientific community. He teaches children. Public schools are not the proper forum for resolving scientific disputes.

  27. You keep saying that, but the evidence indicates that the transcript is reliable.

    I never said the site was completely inaccurate. Even a liar is capable of telling the truth some of the time. They are unreliable because they have shown in the past to mischaracterized ID. Did you know that even in the transcript that you quoted from there are significant errors? I haven’t bothered to point it out because it is not germane to the points that I am currently making. So please don’t try to tell me how reliable that propaganda site is.

    I provided a finding of fact by a federal court. The trial evidence is part of the court record, and you have access to the transcript and the decision. The parties had ample opportunity to appeal.

    Why must you continue to duck the question? You have never seen a side by side comparison of the different versions of Pandas that shows the replacements that you are claiming, have you? You are not fooling anyone with this gibberish. Anyone reading this post can follow those link and they will not find any document in there that provides a side by side comparison of the versions. If the evidence that I asked for exists in these links you can easily cut and paste or transcribe it in your comments for all to read. Furthermore, if the court fact finding documents contain such a comparison, you can bet Zacho’s favorite propaganda site would have it up on their website in some form. Why must you be so typical Darwinian?

    With each passing comment that you failed to produce this evidence only shows what Darwinians do best, bluffing. Well, I am calling your bluff and you have to show your cards. The world is waiting…

    I didn’t attack DeHart. I quoted him. He taught Intelligent Design to children in the public schools, and he used Of Pandas and People as part of that lesson.

    You attacked DeHart in your first comment as you are doing now, through your implicit sanctioning of his dismissal because he taught a comprehensive theory of evolution. If you want to have a meaningful debate, stop hiding behind the Darwinian mantra of “he taught ID and used Pandas” . Address the substantive arguments that I’ve made in comment #22.

    He also stated he thinks the world is 5-100 thousand years old and that humans are not related by common descent with prehominid ancestors. This was all pointed out in my first comment.

    Big fat deal. Did he teach that to his students in his biology class? The OP deals with DeHart’s unjust dismissal as a biology teacher for ultimately teaching a comprehensive theory of evolution which included the criticism of evolution. By the persecution of DeHart, it demonstrates that ToE is not science and is a religion.

    DeHart didn’t “present evidence” to the scientific community. He teaches children. Public schools are not the proper forum for resolving scientific disputes.

    That is bogus. Strengths and weaknesses of a theory is taught in every field of science why should biological evolution be any different?

  28. teleologist: “I never said the site was completely inaccurate.”

    No, just a “totally unreliable propaganda machine“.

    teleologist: “Why must you continue to duck the question?”

    We can discuss related issues if you want, but you should first admit to my initial comment on this thread.

    Zachriel: DeHart did more than introduce critical articles. DeHart taught Intelligent Design. More particularly, he used the text “Of Pandas and People”.

  29. No, just a “totally unreliable propaganda machine”.

    Do you understand the difference between “totally unreliable” and “completely inaccurate” ?

    We can discuss related issues if you want, but you should first admit to my initial comment on this thread.

    Zachriel: DeHart did more than introduce critical articles. DeHart taught Intelligent Design. More particularly, he used the text “Of Pandas and People” .

    I ALREADY DID. Do you even bother to read what I wrote or are you just trying to waste my time? I addressed this in comment #22 and I asked again in comment #27 to address #22. To help you out I started by saying, ” So Zach’s argument is that the Darwinian persecution of DeHart is justify because 1. he taught ID and 2. he used the book Of Pandas and People to do it.”

    I want the reader to take notice! Zacho is still ducking after 28 comments to produce the evidence he claim to have for the wholesale replacement for the cognates of the word creation to ID. With each passing comment that you failed to produce this evidence only shows what Darwinians do best, bluffing. Well, I am calling your bluff and you have to show your cards. The world is waiting”

  30. Zachriel: We can discuss related issues if you want, but you should first admit to my initial comment on this thread.

    Zachriel: DeHart did more than introduce critical articles. DeHart taught Intelligent Design. More particularly, he used the text “Of Pandas and People” .

    teleologist: I ALREADY DID.

    I take that as a sufficient clarification. That’s all I requested. Thank you.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.