Texas voting on science textbooks for public schools - evolution vs. creation

[TeacherZee]

Here in America our culture has strong religious beliefs, mostly Christian but other beliefs as well. Majority of people believe that God exists. If this was Sweden or China it may be a different story. I think it's completely reasonable  to allow for this in our education system. 

 

It is fair to teach possibilities or ideas in science. In all science something has to begin as something that is not a fact or theory. ID and Creationism are still a popular belief and there is some credence to it. Those who believe in ID and Creationism are not morons! Taking a few days to discuss this in a classroom is healthy, good and creates a well rounded and balanced education. 

 

It could be that Texas is going about this all wrong, but the idea that Creationism and/or ID have no place in public school education system is incorrect in my opinion. 

 

ETA: It is true there are many theories of how the world came to be, especially when you add in religious theories. I don't think we have to share all the different ideas, certainly not in science class. That would be something for a world religions class to undertake. But, here in America, God is quite relevant and Him creating the world is still a very strong and relevant thought. It makes sense to teach it in science class. If you lived in China how much American History are you going to get? Education is geographical and cultural and relevant to the time whether we agree with the time and culture we are in or not. 

 

In Sweden we do teach creation stories. In religion and in Swedish/English. Religion is taught as a separate subject from K-9 + at least one year in grades 10-12. It is taught as comparative religion, with discussions of ethics. In Swedish/English it is taught as part as lit history. Science is taught as science.

[fraidycat]

Note to self for children's memory work.

 

Definition of a scientific theory. It's not "just" a theory. They will start tomorrow. :)

 

Did anyone else giggle at the use of the phrase "Pandora's Box" on this thread? Speaking of myths... I found it highly amusing. :)

[Saddlemomma]

If this is true, I'd love to hear your theories on why God created whales with vestigial leg bones, or why a certain percentage of human DNA comes directly from viruses.  Those seem like pretty big oopses if humans have always been humans and whales have always been whales, and always will be.

Here's your answer.  Please read the entire thing as it's not written by IDers or Creationists, but referenced from Evolutionists.

 

Vestigial Organs

Blind evolutionary bias is responsible for the fallacy of using vestigial organ evidence for evolution. Concluding that an organ with no apparent purpose was evidence of previous ancestral history, evolutionists have paraded such examples in classrooms as “proof†of evolution. However, discoveries revealing organ purpose and function reveal that the apparent non-purpose of organs was the result of ignorance of its purpose. Another oversight caused by blind bias was failure to recognize that organs without purpose were due to loss of function within the species not a remnant of ancient history.

What are vestigial organs? “Elements appearing in various life forms which, although often quite underdeveloped, are no longer needed or functional and represent a carry-over from more primitive forms. The human appendix is an example. (Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, edited by Douglas M. Considine, page 2281).

"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities" (Horatio Hackett Newman, 1990, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case, p. 268).

"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions†(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926).

Evolutionist Scadding wrote: "I suspect that this argument; [functionless organs] gained widespread use not because it proves anything about evolution, but because it was thought to have particular force against some varieties of creationism…."There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion [i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically….

"Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational science…. Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution" (S. Scadding, "Evolutionary Theory," quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190).

Below are a couple of examples of "vestigial" organs cited as evidence for evolution, but have been discovered to have function.

 

Appendix:

Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.

Fact: "There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure†(William Straus, 1947, Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 149).

'Anatomically the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function … There is experimental evidence as well that the vermiform appendix is a lymphoid organ which acts as reservoir of antibody producing cells.' "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory - Vol. 5 (May 1981) p.175.

Evolution myth: "The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost." Joseph McCabe, 1912, The Story of Evolution, p. 264

 

Some "vestigial" examples cited by evolutionists are of organs for which no purpose is known at this time. The point is that the so-called vestigial organs are considered evidence for evolution only if one has a bias for evolution. A question to ask your teacher is: "How is it determined that a vestigial organ is a remnant of evolutionary ancestry rather than 1) an organ of unknown function at this time or 2) an organ of lost function within the same species?"

"The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."—*S.R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May 1981), p. 394.

"Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology" (P. Erlich and R. Holm, 1963, The Process of Evolution, p. 66).

 

You see, here is a prime example of how those who believe in the Theory of Evolution misrepresent that which they are claiming is fact.  Ask yourself this:  Why did you not know that the vestigial organs thing had already been debunked by evolutionists?  Because it's not translated into the textbooks that are teaching our kids.  Nothing that is critical of evolution is allowed into those textbooks.  Therefore, you and your kids are still in the dark and citing erroneous information.

 

 

[nmoira]

Bolded mine. Dealing only with the question asked by Mergath.

 

Appendix:

Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.

 

This doesn't quite answer Mergath's question. It may or may not be true that the right whale is the only species with an additional vestigial bone attached to the vestigial pelvis (ETA: I do not know... and femurs are indicated in two other examples below), but a number of whale and dolphin species possess a vestigial pelvic bone.

 

Right whale pelvis and hind limb from here:

 

 

This page has pictures of pelvic bones from four whale species, picture below.

 

 

As to whether any function is retained for the right whale, well, that's beyond my level of expertise. However, I could find no evidence for this outside YEC websites.

[Saddlemomma]

The Theory of Evolution does not forbid belief in a a creator, you realise? There are evolutionary biologists who believe in a god and evolutionary biologists who don't. 

 

The trouble many people have with Intelligent Design is in order to accept it as a scientific theory, the actual definition of science must be changed. What you are asking is for the definition of science to be changed to include your religious beliefs. It is a big ask, don't you think? To change the definition of science?

 

It is not in the least incomprehensible to me that there might be higher powers than man. There *are* powers at play in the world that humans can't conquer. Good luck breaking the speed of light...

 

 

You must not have read my earlier posts when I said that microevolution, in my opinion, agrees with the Bible...

[Saddlemomma]

Also, I'm still anxiously awaiting an explanation for why whales have vestigial leg bones if they've always been whales.  Anyone?

 

I did reply to you....look for it. You probably won't like what you read.

[Saddlemomma]

Bolded mine. Dealing only with the question asked by Mergath.

 

 

This doesn't quite answer Mergath's question. It may or may not be true that the right whale is the only species with an additional vestigial bone attached to the vestigial pelvis (ETA: I do not know... and femurs are indicated in two other examples below), but a number of whale and dolphin species possess a vestigial pelvic bone.

 

Right whale pelvis and hind limb from here:

 

 

This page has pictures of pelvic bones from four whale species, picture below.

 

 

As to whether any function is retained for the right whale, well, that's beyond my level of expertise. However, I could find no evidence for this outside YEC websites.

 

You must not have read the whole post because it does address her question of how whale leg bones (and other vestigial organs) are explained.

[Saddlemomma]

Bolded mine. Dealing only with the question asked by Mergath.

 

 

This doesn't quite answer Mergath's question. It may or may not be true that the right whale is the only species with an additional vestigial bone attached to the vestigial pelvis (ETA: I do not know... and femurs are indicated in two other examples below), but a number of whale and dolphin species possess a vestigial pelvic bone.

 

Right whale pelvis and hind limb from here:

 

 

This page has pictures of pelvic bones from four whale species, picture below.

 

 

As to whether any function is retained for the right whale, well, that's beyond my level of expertise. However, I could find no evidence for this outside YEC websites.

Citing resources for this info: John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.

William Straus, 1947, Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 149.

 

[nmoira]

You must not have read the whole post because it does address her question of how whale leg bones (and other vestigial organs) are explained.

 

I quoted the only part dealing with vestigial whale bones. It made a misleading or erroneous statement about only one species of whale possessing them. Would you kindly repost just the relevant bits I missed?

 

Please note that bones are not organs.

[Saddlemomma]

"In this class we will focus on evolution because there is more scientific evidence that this was how things came to be." 

 

I think that would be sufficient.

 

Please specifically cite your scientific evidence for Darwinian Evolution, and remember, it must adhere to the scientific method to be considered fact.

[nmoira]

Citing resources for this info: John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.

William Straus, 1947, Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 149.

 

I did see that. It was part of my quoted text. 

 

The entire title of the book is:

 

The Early Earth-An Introduction to Biblical Creationism

 

and the author is hardly an "evolutionist."

 

Check your sources. :D

 

The other citation was wrt the human appendix, not whales.

[livetoread]

Biologists understand that vestigial does not necessarily mean useless. Sometimes vestigial structures are, but sometimes they do still serve a purpose.

 

Saddlemamma, you are putting your trust into organizations and materials that are not worthy of it. There is a reason the vast majority of even Christian scientists reject creationism in its publicly marketed form.

[Nancy Ann]

Coming out of my cave licking wounds from yesterday.

 

I am really impressed with you Saddlemomma in all the posts you have done on this thread. You have really stood tall and above all remained respectful. You have been smart and God honoring. 

 

I believe there is bias in the science community and many times good science get's shoved under the rug because it doesn't follow the world view or politics of the science community. There are tons of articles by professional scientists that support this. There are tons of opinions of graduate students who do not hold to any particular world view struggle in the research programs and drop out because of all the agendas. People's world view does impact science. It impacts what get's put in the textbooks. Current political agenda has huge impacts in what the authority figures in the scientific community will publish and what gets money for research. This is not to say everyone is doing it. But it's a big enough problem that people are starting to stand up and take notice. Mostly it's people from other studies that are noticing this. Professional people from the studies of mathematics and social sciences are noticing this and commenting.

 

Anyway, I just want to share this bible verse with other Christians who are reading this thread and may feel discouraged or upset and maybe even second guessing themselves and their faith. I have been in some dark places and I know how these sorts of threads can do that to people because it's happened to me often. God is real, God is good and God is the creator of this beautiful world. 

 

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. (1 Corinthians 3:18-19 KJV)

[Corraleno]

You see, here is a prime example of how those who believe in the Theory of Evolution misrepresent that which they are claiming is fact.  Ask yourself this:  Why did you not know that the vestigial organs thing had already been debunked by evolutionists?  Because it's not translated into the textbooks that are teaching our kids.  Nothing that is critical of evolution is allowed into those textbooks.  Therefore, you and your kids are still in the dark and citing erroneous information.

 

Thank you for providing such a perfect example of the way Creationist literature distorts and misuses quotes!!!  :hurray:

 

The reason that we "did not know that vestigial organs had already been debunked by evolutionists" is because it hasn't.

 

The "scholarly paper" by Steve Scadding that is cited over and over by Creationists as evidence that evolution is untrue was published in a journal that purposely seeks to publish speculative and not mainstream views. The same journal published a thorough rebuttal of Scadding, which Creationists, of course, leave out. They also leave out the quotes from Scadding's paper in which he clearly states that he believes that these sorts of structures ARE evidence for evolution, but due to homology rather than vestigiality.

 

Citing a couple of quotes, taken out of context, by ONE evolutionary biologist, who published an opinion that is not shared by the vast majority of biologists, in a journal that is not a standard scientific one, does not "debunk" evolution. If you think it only takes the opinion of one scientist, or even "a dozen" (as referenced in another of your posts), to "debunk" evolutionary theory, why are you totally unpersuaded by the millions of Christians who do not believe there is evidence for a literal interpretation of Biblical creation?

 

Jackie

[Saddlemomma]

I quoted the only part dealing with vestigial whale bones. It made a misleading or erroneous statement about only one species of whale possessing them. Would you kindly repost just the relevant bits I missed?

 

Please note that bones are not organs.

 

First the grammar police and now this.  I knew you wouldn't take my word for it, me being an uninformed, ignorant, uneducated Christian and all, so I provided evidence for you:

 

From http://www.biologyreference.com/Oc-Ph/Organ.html#ixzz2fS8vbAMF "Bones are organs; although they consist primarily of osseous tissue, bones have a vast supply of nervous tissue in their nerves, fibrous tissue lining their cavities, and muscle and epithelial tissue in their blood vessels. The skin (integument) is an organ consisting of an epithelium (epidermis) overlying a thick layer of connective tissue (dermis) rich with blood vessels and accessory structures such as secretory glands."

 

This is why many Christians refuse to engage, because of the constant implication that we are somehow inferior, lack intelligence, are ignorant and uninformed despite providing factual evidence and valid, reasonable counterarguments to discussions.  Christians are constantly accused of wearing blinders.  Well, it's certainly obvious from this thread that we don't have the corner on the blinders market.  Our lack of knowledge and inferior intellect has constantly been alluded to here in many subtle ways.  So, being a pre-hypertensive and not wanting to go on medication, I will bow out of this arrogance fest and let the misinformation flow.

 

Have at it!

[Free]

You see, here is a prime example of how those who believe in the Theory of Evolution misrepresent that which they are claiming is fact.  Ask yourself this:  Why did you not know that the vestigial organs thing had already been debunked by evolutionists?  Because it's not translated into the textbooks that are teaching our kids.  Nothing that is critical of evolution is allowed into those textbooks.  Therefore, you and your kids are still in the dark and citing erroneous information.

 

I did actually know that one of the favorite tactics of creationists is to take quotes out of context from scientific papers and present them in a way that would create an impression that there is debate among scientists about the TOE.

 

I think you should be the one asking yourself why you choose to believe in people who indulge in such dishonest practices in the name of God.

 

The Scadding quotes that you seem to be proudly strutting about have been discussed in detail here, should you care to educate yourself.

For those interested, you can find more about quote mining over here.

 

 

[nmoira]

First the grammar police and now this. I knew you wouldn't take my word for it, me being an uninformed, ignorant, uneducated Christian and all, so I provided evidence for you:

 

From "Bones are organs; although they consist primarily of osseous tissue, bones have a vast supply of nervous tissue in their nerves, fibrous tissue lining their cavities, and muscle and epithelial tissue in their blood vessels. The skin (integument) is an organ consisting of an epithelium (epidermis) overlying a thick layer of connective tissue (dermis) rich with blood vessels and accessory structures such as secretory glands."

Read more: http://www.biologyreference.com/Oc-Ph/Organ.html#ixzz2fS8vbAMF

 

This is why many Christians refuse to engage, because of the constant implication that we are somehow inferior, lack intelligence, are ignorant and uninformed despite providing factual evidence and valid, reasonable counterarguments to discussions. Christians are constantly accused of wearing blinders. Well, it's certainly obvious from this thread that we don't have the corner on the blinders market. Our lack of knowledge and inferior intellect has constantly been alluded to here in many subtle ways. So, being a pre-hypertensive and not wanting to go on medication, I will bow out of this arrogance fest and let the misinformation flow.

 

Have at it!

I can take correction graciously, and I'll admit to being a number of years past my last biology class. I was thinking bone tissue. Thank you.

 

Unfortunately, my error doesn't change the fact that your source on the question at hand (vestigial whale bones) was not from an "evolutionist" and was also not wholly forthcoming. You didn't answer Mergath's question about whale bones, or about viral DNA in humans (and other species).

 

ETA: I *never* corrected your grammar.

[Desert Strawberry]

The major ones (Christianity, Islam...) and what ever minor ones based on the population. In my area it would mainly be the Christian prospective but also Buddhists since we have some of those around. As far as different sects of Christianity, I'm not sure which theories would have differences.

Buddhism does not have a singular creation myth.

Each Asian culture has their own, predating the introduction of Buddhist ideas.

 

AFAIK, the only truly Buddhist explanation ( and the one I believe and teach my kids) is that existence has always and will always be in some, everchanging form. There is no beginning and no end. 

 

None of which in any way contradicts evolution. If anything, Buddha was a big proponent of observation, analysis, and drawing one's own conclusions. IOW, science. 

[Desert Strawberry]

I think so, let the students make informed arguments. I'm all for learning about about different beliefs and the reasoning behind those beliefs.

I believe this is called comparative religion. Not science. 

[Corraleno]

This is why many Christians refuse to engage, because of the constant implication that we are somehow inferior, lack intelligence, are ignorant and uninformed despite providing factual evidence and valid, reasonable counterarguments to discussions.  Christians are constantly accused of wearing blinders.  Well, it's certainly obvious from this thread that we don't have the corner on the blinders market.  Our lack of knowledge and inferior intellect has constantly been alluded to here in many subtle ways.  So, being a pre-hypertensive and not wanting to go on medication, I will bow out of this arrogance fest and let the misinformation flow.

 

Have at it!

 

I'm sorry, but quoting non-mainstream scientists in misleading and inaccurate ways does not equal "factual evidence," nor does the claim that religious creation stories should be taught in public school science classes "because many Americans are Christian" constitute a "reasonable counterargument." If you are reading this sort of Creationist literature without checking any of the sources for accuracy, then I'm afraid you are "uninformed." Maybe you should consider reading some of the books that Tracy linked earlier in the thread, in order to correct that problem.

 

Jackie

[nmoira]

I'm going to ask one last time, though I'm not expecting an answer from proponents of including information about Creation in a science class. This is the question that vexes me.

 

How many kids make it to middle school or high school never having been exposed to their family's creation myth/story of choice? Or, if from a secular family, are unaware of at least one story? *For whose benefit and for what purpose* is information about creationism to be included in a science curriculum?

[amsunshine]

Buddhism does not have a singular creation myth.

Each Asian culture has their own, predating the introduction of Buddhist ideas.

 

AFAIK, the only truly Buddhist explanation ( and the one I believe and teach my kids) is that existence has always and will always be in some, everchanging form. There is no beginning and no end. 

 

None of which in any way contradicts evolution. If anything, Buddha was a big proponent of observation, analysis, and drawing one's own conclusions. IOW, science. 

I agree.

[Corraleno]

People's world view does impact science. It impacts what get's put in the textbooks. 

 

Yes, that is exactly what we are debating in this thread — the fact that some people in Texas want their religious beliefs inserted into science texts, where it does not belong. And yet I haven't seen anyone lobbying to require that the theory of evolution be taught in churches. Funny how that works.

 

 

God is real, God is good and God is the creator of this beautiful world. 

 

Millions of people who agree with this statement also understand and accept evolutionary theory. The idea that one cannot both believe in God and accept evolutionary theory is a completely false dichotomy.

 

Jackie

[TracyP]

Saddlemamma, do you ever wonder why the source you are getting your info from doesn't use more recent information? I see a couple 1940's, a 1912, and a couple 1980's. I used to be where you are. But this was one of the things that didn't add up for me. I decided to study evolution and realized that the evidence is overwhelming. I am still a Christian. My faith has nothing to do with evolution... or plate tectonics...or gravity... or anything science related.

 

These anti-evolution sources cherry pick information to make it look like the case for evolution is weak. They cite sources that are very outdated or twisted out of context. Sometimes they even flat out lie. :( That shouldn't be necessary. I highly recommend you educate yourself on the topic of evolution. Why Evolution is True and Your Inner Fish are two of the books that I read. The first laid out a stronger scientific case, but the second was a more interesting read, IMO. If the case for evolution is weak, it should be easy for you to see that for yourself. It should only make your argument stronger to be well informed on the topic.

[Mergath]

Here's your answer.  Please read the entire thing as it's not written by IDers or Creationists, but referenced from Evolutionists.

 

Vestigial Organs

Blind evolutionary bias is responsible for the fallacy of using vestigial organ evidence for evolution. Concluding that an organ with no apparent purpose was evidence of previous ancestral history, evolutionists have paraded such examples in classrooms as “proof†of evolution. However, discoveries revealing organ purpose and function reveal that the apparent non-purpose of organs was the result of ignorance of its purpose. Another oversight caused by blind bias was failure to recognize that organs without purpose were due to loss of function within the species not a remnant of ancient history.

What are vestigial organs? “Elements appearing in various life forms which, although often quite underdeveloped, are no longer needed or functional and represent a carry-over from more primitive forms. The human appendix is an example. (Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, edited by Douglas M. Considine, page 2281).

"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities" (Horatio Hackett Newman, 1990, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case, p. 268).

"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions†(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926).

Evolutionist Scadding wrote: "I suspect that this argument; [functionless organs] gained widespread use not because it proves anything about evolution, but because it was thought to have particular force against some varieties of creationism…."There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion [i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically….

"Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational science…. Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution" (S. Scadding, "Evolutionary Theory," quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190).

Below are a couple of examples of "vestigial" organs cited as evidence for evolution, but have been discovered to have function.

 

Appendix:

Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.

Fact: "There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure†(William Straus, 1947, Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 149).

'Anatomically the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function … There is experimental evidence as well that the vermiform appendix is a lymphoid organ which acts as reservoir of antibody producing cells.' "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory - Vol. 5 (May 1981) p.175.

Evolution myth: "The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost." Joseph McCabe, 1912, The Story of Evolution, p. 264

 

Some "vestigial" examples cited by evolutionists are of organs for which no purpose is known at this time. The point is that the so-called vestigial organs are considered evidence for evolution only if one has a bias for evolution. A question to ask your teacher is: "How is it determined that a vestigial organ is a remnant of evolutionary ancestry rather than 1) an organ of unknown function at this time or 2) an organ of lost function within the same species?"

"The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."—*S.R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May 1981), p. 394.

"Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology" (P. Erlich and R. Holm, 1963, The Process of Evolution, p. 66).

 

You see, here is a prime example of how those who believe in the Theory of Evolution misrepresent that which they are claiming is fact.  Ask yourself this:  Why did you not know that the vestigial organs thing had already been debunked by evolutionists?  Because it's not translated into the textbooks that are teaching our kids.  Nothing that is critical of evolution is allowed into those textbooks.  Therefore, you and your kids are still in the dark and citing erroneous information.

 

First of all, when you're having any kind of discussion about biology, cutting and pasting quotes that are several decades old (over half a century for one quote) isn't going to do you any favors.  If you don't understand something well enough to discuss it without pasting entire Creationist websites, you should really do a little research so you know what you're talking about.

 

Also, as others have mentioned, the quote about the Right Whale being the only one with vestigial legs is just plain incorrect.  They've found individuals from various species of whales with entire atavistic limbs.  Something that's rather hard to explain if the vestigial legs were never legs.

 

And while the whale legs are merely the most well-known example, there are many, many examples of vestigiality in animals (humans included) and plants.  Humans also have quite a bit of vestigial DNA that has absolutely no function for us, but does have a function in other animals with common ancestors.  And let's not forget that eight percent of our DNA is viral:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107103621.htm

 

Something that makes very little sense if we're all special snowflakes created by God to never, ever evolve.

 

So I'm sorry to tell you that posting a bunch of ancient Creationist nonsense that can be summed up as "The appendix has a purpose!!!  Evolution is a lie!!!" doesn't do much to bolster your argument.

[Violet Crown]

I'm going to ask one last time, though I'm not expecting an answer from proponents of including information about Creation in a science class. This is the question that vexes me.

 

How many kids make it to middle school or high school never having been exposed to their family's creation myth/story of choice? Or, if from a secular family, are unaware of at least one story? *For whose benefit and for what purpose* is information about creationism to be included in a science curriculum?

Unfortunately way too many, judging by my Sunday School classes. I used to be able to count on third-graders at least having heard of 7 Days of Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and David and Goliath. For a while, most of them had videos of Prince of Egypt at home, and were excited to learn that the Bible had done a version of their favorite Disney. Now? Cultural illiteracy has made the Old Testament a complete mystery to most of them, and the stories are an excitingly new part of their long slog toward Confirmation and the blessed release from religious education that follows.

 

However, if you restricted your question to "How many kids from families that care what their kids are taught, I think your answer will be much closer to zero.

[nmoira]

Unfortunately way too many, judging by my Sunday School classes. I used to be able to count on third-graders at least having heard of 7 Days of Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and David and Goliath. For a while, most of them had videos of Prince of Egypt at home, and were excited to learn that the Bible had done a version of their favorite Disney. Now? Cultural illiteracy has made the Old Testament a complete mystery to most of them, and the stories are an excitingly new part of their long slog toward Confirmation and the blessed release from religious education that follows.

 

However, if you restricted your question to "How many kids from families that care what their kids are taught, I think your answer will be much closer to zero.

Wow. That's sad. I'm atheist, but my kids are well versed in Bible stories for the sake of cultural literacy if nothing else.

 

Not that I think science class is an appropriate place to remedy this. :) Though I'm still hoping someone will address the meat of my question wrt whose benefit and to what purpose.

[Saddlemomma]

As a last ditch effort to illustrate why many Christians don't believe Darwinian Evolution and why it is not fact:

 

http://godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

 

http://godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

 

http://godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

 

Two of these articles were written by Richard Deem who earned his bachelor of science degree in biological sciences at the University of Southern California. He received his master of science degree in microbiology from California State University, Los Angeles, and has been working in basic science research since 1976. He has authored and co-authored a number of studies, included several areas of molecular biology and genetics, immunology, inflammatory bowel disease (1-17), natural killer cells (18-22), and infectious diseases (23-24). In addition, he has presented his work at a number of national and international scientific meetings.

Mr. Deem has been working for Dr. Stephan Targan since 1983 and is employed as a Senior Researcher/Specialist in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. He is currently collaborating with Dr. Rivkah Gonsky on the role of T-cells in inflammatory bowel disease, specifically on transactivating nuclear factors involved in activation pathways of lamina propria (gut-associated) T-cells.

 

In short, he is an actual scientist with a real education. Are his credentials good enough for you?  Have a great evening!

[WishboneDawn]

As a last ditch effort to illustrate why many Christians don't believe Darwinian Evolution and why it is not fact:

 

http://godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

 

http://godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

 

http://godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

 

Two of these articles were written by Richard Deem who earned his bachelor of science degree in biological sciences at the University of Southern California. He received his master of science degree in microbiology from California State University, Los Angeles, and has been working in basic science research since 1976. He has authored and co-authored a number of studies, included several areas of molecular biology and genetics, immunology, inflammatory bowel disease (1-17), natural killer cells (18-22), and infectious diseases (23-24). In addition, he has presented his work at a number of national and international scientific meetings.

Mr. Deem has been working for Dr. Stephan Targan since 1983 and is employed as a Senior Researcher/Specialist in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. He is currently collaborating with Dr. Rivkah Gonsky on the role of T-cells in inflammatory bowel disease, specifically on transactivating nuclear factors involved in activation pathways of lamina propria (gut-associated) T-cells.

 

In short, he is an actual scientist with a real education. Are his credentials good enough for you? Have a great evening!

If I post evidence rebutting that, if I spend time on that, will you read it and address it? I spent a lot of time reading the article on Darwin's Doubt (as you asked) and doing the research I needed to construct a rebuttal and you didn't acknowledge it.

[WishboneDawn]

Coming out of my cave licking wounds from yesterday.

 

I am really impressed with you Saddlemomma in all the posts you have done on this thread. You have really stood tall and above all remained respectful. You have been smart and God honoring.

 

I believe there is bias in the science community and many times good science get's shoved under the rug because it doesn't follow the world view or politics of the science community. There are tons of articles by professional scientists that support this. There are tons of opinions of graduate students who do not hold to any particular world view struggle in the research programs and drop out because of all the agendas. People's world view does impact science. It impacts what get's put in the textbooks. Current political agenda has huge impacts in what the authority figures in the scientific community will publish and what gets money for research. This is not to say everyone is doing it. But it's a big enough problem that people are starting to stand up and take notice. Mostly it's people from other studies that are noticing this. Professional people from the studies of mathematics and social sciences are noticing this and commenting.

 

Anyway, I just want to share this bible verse with other Christians who are reading this thread and may feel discouraged or upset and maybe even second guessing themselves and their faith. I have been in some dark places and I know how these sorts of threads can do that to people because it's happened to me often. God is real, God is good and God is the creator of this beautiful world.

 

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. (1 Corinthians 3:18-19 KJV)

Thanks. I'm not in a dark place though.

[Violet Crown]

Wow. That's sad. I'm atheist, but my kids are well versed in Bible stories for the sake of cultural literacy if nothing else.

 

Not that I think science class is an appropriate place to remedy this. :) Though I'm still hoping someone will address the meat of my question wrt whose benefit and to what purpose.

It is indeed sad. I'm a mouth-breathing reactionary Trad, and my kids know their Bible, but even I don't buy the fixer-upper version of a Creator whose creation doesn't reflect the nature of the Logos and whose existence is incompatible with randomness understood in any meaningful way. Fortunately my job is to just tell the kids the stories.

 

I admit to having been a little light-headed at the thought of a science class teaching children creation stories from a wide variety of traditions and classic literatures. Maybe it wouldn't be science, but at least it would be education in something. Maybe on those days, the Language Arts teacher could explain natural selection and adaptation?

[WishboneDawn]

It is indeed sad. I'm a mouth-breathing reactionary Trad, and my kids know their Bible, but even I don't buy the fixer-upper version of a Creator whose creation doesn't reflect the nature of the Logos and whose existence is incompatible with randomness understood in any meaningful way. Fortunately my job is to just tell the kids the stories.

 

I admit to having been a little light-headed at the thought of a science class teaching children creation stories from a wide variety of traditions and classic literatures. Maybe it wouldn't be science, but at least it would be education in something. Maybe on those days, the Language Arts teacher could explain natural selection and adaptation?

There we go! A compromise!:D

[Nancy Ann]

I'm going to ask one last time, though I'm not expecting an answer from proponents of including information about Creation in a science class. This is the question that vexes me.

 

How many kids make it to middle school or high school never having been exposed to their family's creation myth/story of choice? Or, if from a secular family, are unaware of at least one story? *For whose benefit and for what purpose* is information about creationism to be included in a science curriculum?

 

I would say any family that even remotely cares about their belief system the children will pick up stories and beliefs from them. Either the child will ask a question and the parent will answer according to their belief or it will just come up in conversation.

 

From a secular family I would assume kids will pick up less. Not because of ignorance on the parents part but mostly because of priority. If it comes up they may talk about it. Again kids ask questions. 

 

I have no statistical data to back this up, the is just my general opinion. 

 

The benefit is simple. Many still believe that there is value and good science in opinions that contradict some of the elements of evolution. You may disagree with them and others may disagree. But, no amount of stomping feet and calling names and yelling at the roof tops that the science for creation and intelligent design is outdated, misrepresented and misinformed is going to change that the science is good, real and relevant to our time.  If you and others want to believe that the mainstream science is pure, not tainted with personal world view bias, or doesn't have it's own misinformation and misinterpretation, than you can live in your fairy land. I am happy in my fairy land so please, by all means be happy in yours!  

 

You won't like my answer, but there it is. The reason I never answered it before is because it seems like you already have an answer and are just waiting for a response so you can contradict and give your reasons why the person is wrong. So, like an idiot I play the game.

 

Anyone read The Butter Battle Book lately? The word sparring between Old Earth and Young Earth and ToE and Intelligent Design seem very similar to that of this book.   

[nmoira]

We study the history of science as well as the process: Good, bad, warts and all. It's something I would absolutely agree is appropriate to integrate into a science curriculum at a basic level and through all years of study. Nobody is claiming science is "pure" or "untainted." At its forefront are people who, being people, have various biases and blind spots and who make mistakes (and sometimes intentionally deceive). But science is a process, and errors are caught, cheaters outed, new discoveries made, etc. Results are replicated or not.

 

What I don't see is how introducing religion, creation myths into a science class helps to understand these very real issues in science. It won't help children understand the difference between established science and that in the cutting edge, or how to evaluate new research, or to read articles in popular media about science with a skeptical eye. I want kids to learn science in science class, and I still don't understand why you want to bring in religion.

[WishboneDawn]

I would say any family that even remotely cares about their belief system the children will pick up stories and beliefs from them. Either the child will ask a question and the parent will answer according to their belief or it will just come up in conversation.

 

From a secular family I would assume kids will pick up less. Not because of ignorance on the parents part but mostly because of priority. If it comes up they may talk about it. Again kids ask questions.

 

I have no statistical data to back this up, the is just my general opinion.

 

The benefit is simple. Many still believe that there is value and good science in opinions that contradict some of the elements of evolution. You may disagree with them and others may disagree. But, no amount of stomping feet and calling names and yelling at the roof tops that the science for creation and intelligent design is outdated, misrepresented and misinformed is going to change that the science is good, real and relevant to our time. If you and others want to believe that the mainstream science is pure, not tainted with personal world view bias, or doesn't have it's own misinformation and misinterpretation, than you can live in your fairy land. I am happy in my fairy land so please, by all means be happy in yours!

 

You won't like my answer, but there it is. The reason I never answered it before is because it seems like you already have an answer and are just waiting for a response so you can contradict and give your reasons why the person is wrong. So, like an idiot I play the game.

 

Anyone read The Butter Battle Book lately? The word sparring between Old Earth and Young Earth and ToE and Intelligent Design seem very similar to that of this book.

Nancy, part of my frustration is the things you dismiss, the outdated or misrepresent information for instance DO speak to how "good" the science is. Science is not just content, it's a method and procedure where a misrepresentation of information DOES call into question the claim being made.

 

And this kind of challenging that creationism is getting here, from a scientific perspective, should be welcome. It should be a chance to root out the bad bits, tighten the argument, etc. But part of my frustration is that when the bad bits are pointed out people get defensive...if they respond at all. And for those of us who are Christian the gates go down and we are left issue the walls as those inside claim evolution is some form of atheist aggression.

 

Yes, folks will get snarky. It's one of those topics. But that doesn't mean there aren't excellent points being made.

 

ETA I just wanted to add that a lot of the time when we're pointing out quotes that misrepresent what a sciences actually thinks or said it's not acting to discredit creationism, it's acting to dispute the claim that creationism has weight because such-and-such (insert impressive scientist name here)

said this supportive thing. It's disputing a very specific claim.

 

I admit, I do not like the way people dismiss creationist sources out of hand. The soundness of an argument tests on the argument, not what website it's published on.

[Corraleno]

But, no amount of stomping feet and calling names and yelling at the roof tops that the science for creation and intelligent design is outdated, misrepresented and misinformed is going to change that the science is good, real and relevant to our time.  If you and others want to believe that the mainstream science is pure, not tainted with personal world view bias, or doesn't have it's own misinformation and misinterpretation, than you can live in your fairy land. I am happy in my fairy land so please, by all means be happy in yours!  

 

Actually, no amount of stomping feet and yelling from anti-science blogs that the pseudoscience for creationism and intelligent design isn't outdated, misrepresented and misinformed is going to change the fact that it is not good, real, or relevant to our times.

 

I don't know anyone who believes that the process of science is pure or untainted by any worldview bias, but what makes science different is that it's not based on fairy tales, it's not based on faith, and ultimately the misinformation and misinterpretations will be corrected when better information is available. YE Creationism cannot be "scientific" because it starts from the assumption that the scripture of one particular religious group contains scientific facts that can never be disproved, and it attempts to prove an unprovable hypothesis: that God exists. That is not science, and it will never be science, even if a handful of Christians with science degrees, and lots of dishonest bloggers, claim it is.

 

Jackie

[Rosie_0801]

You must not have read my earlier posts when I said that microevolution, in my opinion, agrees with the Bible...

 

 

You must not have read past the second sentence in my post.

[Rosie_0801]

 I still don't understand why you want to bring in religion.

 

All I can see is those people disagree with the dictionary definition of science.

[nmoira]

I admit, I do not like the way people dismiss creationist sources out of hand. The soundness of an argument tests on the argument, not what website it's published on.

 

I agree to a point. However, when something portrayed as "mainstream science" or coming from an "evolutionist" clearly isn't, I think it's absolutely fair to note.

 

ETA: Added missing "an."

[Nancy Ann]

nm

Edited September 20, 2013 by Moderator
That was uncalled for.

[Mergath]

As a last ditch effort to illustrate why many Christians don't believe Darwinian Evolution and why it is not fact:

 

http://godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

 

http://godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

 

http://godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

 

Two of these articles were written by Richard Deem who earned his bachelor of science degree in biological sciences at the University of Southern California. He received his master of science degree in microbiology from California State University, Los Angeles, and has been working in basic science research since 1976. He has authored and co-authored a number of studies, included several areas of molecular biology and genetics, immunology, inflammatory bowel disease (1-17), natural killer cells (18-22), and infectious diseases (23-24). In addition, he has presented his work at a number of national and international scientific meetings.

Mr. Deem has been working for Dr. Stephan Targan since 1983 and is employed as a Senior Researcher/Specialist in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. He is currently collaborating with Dr. Rivkah Gonsky on the role of T-cells in inflammatory bowel disease, specifically on transactivating nuclear factors involved in activation pathways of lamina propria (gut-associated) T-cells.

 

In short, he is an actual scientist with a real education. Are his credentials good enough for you?  Have a great evening!

 

You really can't see that his website is exactly the same as that other stuff you posted?  This guy picks a few specific points in regard to evolution, misrepresents them (couched in scientific jargon, because fewer people will notice that way), cherry-picks a few dated quotes, and claims to have disproved evolution.  For example, he claims that nothing in molecular biology has proven evolution, then picks one specific thing, pulls some decades old quotes, and calls it a day.  What he fails to mention is that everything we've learned about DNA further reinforces what we already know about evolution.  But of course, he's not going to mention any of that stuff.

[nmoira]

I am really unable to answer all the questions and present more scientific information like you guys all want. For one I don't have the time to go through all the sources that I consider to be warranted. Secondly, I feel it would be a complete waste of my time because it will just be refuted. Not because the information is bad but because one will always find fault in it. It will go back and forth and back and forth. These things always do. The silence from Christians on this topic is not because of ignorance, stupidity or lack of good knowledge but wisdom. The wisdom to not get involved in something that is fruitless and endless. Obviously, you will have a retort for that as well. 

 

You do realize that a good number of the people you are "debating" with are Christian? [i am not.]

[Mergath]

I am really unable to answer all the questions and present more scientific information like you guys all want. For one I don't have the time to go through all the sources that I consider to be warranted. Secondly, I feel it would be a complete waste of my time because it will just be refuted. Not because the information is bad but because one will always find fault in it. It will go back and forth and back and forth. These things always do. The silence from Christians on this topic is not because of ignorance, stupidity or lack of good knowledge but wisdom. The wisdom to not get involved in something that is fruitless and endless. Obviously, you will have a retort for that as well. 

 

I am wondering why people think it's reasonable to gang up on someone. It's obvious in this thread that only one Creationist has been speaking at a time and several people go after them at once. This ganging up on is very difficult to deal with and actually ends up shutting down a good discussion. It's one thing to try and answer the questions of one person but to try and answer all the questions and remarks of several people at once is near impossible, frustrating and really upsetting. But, no one seems to care about the person. I guess, it's more important for someone to get their point across than to restrain themselves when they see a person being bombarded. It's more important for them to just add more to the pile. 

 

 We are undertaking a huge job by educating our children. But it seems our individual ideas are more important than people and relationships. People would rather stick their opinion in the conversation than be kind and uplifting to the other person. People uses excuses all the time, "Oh I am not being unkind, I am just giving my opinion and if they can't handle it than it's THEIR responsibility to leave the discussion" It is sad when people don't look out for each other. 

 

 

First of all, when everything that gets posted in regard to Creationism is refuted by multiple sources, it's not because we're bullies.  It's because there is zero evidence for Creationism in the first place.

 

Second, disagreement is not meanness.  You can take your toys and go home if you want, but just because a majority disagrees with you, it doesn't mean that we're nasty people.  What do you expect SWB to do, come into the thread and say, "Now seven of you on the evolution side have to switch to Nancy Ann's team because otherwise it's just not fair and we don't want her to feel bad."  Come on.  If you really believe that respectful disagreement shouldn't be tolerated, you're probably going to want to avoid the internet completely.  Or any kind of human company, for that matter, because respectful disagreement is pretty common.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Moderator
Cut out the nasty swipe at the boards in the quoted post. It's against the rules anyway.

[Pretty in Pink]

Actually, no amount of stomping feet and yelling from anti-science blogs that the pseudoscience for creationism and intelligent design isn't outdated, misrepresented and misinformed is going to change the fact that it is not good, real, or relevant to our times.

 

I don't know anyone who believes that the process of science is pure or untainted by any worldview bias, but what makes science different is that it's not based on fairy tales, it's not based on faith, and ultimately the misinformation and misinterpretations will be corrected when better information is available. YE Creationism cannot be "scientific" because it starts from the assumption that the scripture of one particular religious group contains scientific facts that can never be disproved, and it attempts to prove an unprovable hypothesis: that God exists. That is not science, and it will never be science, even if a handful of Christians with science degrees, and lots of dishonest bloggers, claim it is.

 

Jackie

 

Yes to all of this, but esp the bolded. Creationism is not science, period. Creationism is built upon premises that, by their very definition, can never be proven or disproven. Those premises are not testable. That is not science. Creationism is, in fact, the antithesis of science. It is built upon faith. How can that possibly belong in a science classroom?

 

[Nancy Ann]

First of all, when everything that gets posted in regard to Creationism is refuted by multiple sources, it's not because we're bullies.  It's because there is zero evidence for Creationism in the first place.

 

Second, disagreement is not meanness.  You can take your toys and go home if you want, but just because a majority disagrees with you, it doesn't mean that we're nasty people.  What do you expect SWB to do, come into the thread and say, "Now seven of you on the evolution side have to switch to Nancy Ann's team because otherwise it's just not fair and we don't want her to feel bad."  Come on.  If you really believe that respectful disagreement shouldn't be tolerated, you're probably going to want to avoid the internet completely.  Or any kind of human company, for that matter, because respectful disagreement is pretty common.

 

 

I expect the thread to be shut down.

 

Just because respectful disagreement is common does not make it right or good. 

Edited September 21, 2013 by Moderator
Removed the personal crack.

[kroe1]

Wow, lots of interesting posts. I have nothing to add other than to the poster who is convinced that since humans and viruses share some DNA (and RNA) humans must come from viruses. Since viruses act as DNA and RNA vectors all the time for all species, even as we speak, viral DNA and RNA can enter a species, and proliferate providing conditions are favorable, at any time in a species' history. It does not mean humans are necessarily derivatives of viruses. For example, if we were to crunch up the corpses of HIV infected people and test their RNA, we would find HIV RNA as a component of the human RNA and DNA. This is not a separate group of RNA, but rather a definite intertwining of the human. Yet, I cannot make the claim that humans are descendants of HIV. I can also not make the claim that they are not descendants for that matter. It really tells me nothing.

 

Fortunately, many are working with viral vectors now in hopes to understand the natural phenomena and ability of viruses to become a part of a species. By tagging viruses with important protein coding DNA, we are able to begin to fight many diseases never before possible. It is the most exciting part of medicine right now, in my opinion.

[nmoira]

 

I expect the thread to be shut down.

 

Just because respectful disagreement is common does not make it right or good. 

 

I am truly baffled by your last statement. Nobody is forcing you to participate. 

 

Online bullying is indeed a real problem (as is bullying in general). If someone were to find your email address, or Facebook account, and send you unwelcome messages or PMs or seek you out  in any other way or follow you around, they'd be bullying you. That is unwelcome and unwanted contact. Often, but not necessarily, threatening in nature. Your choosing to participate in a thread on what is typically contentious topic and happening to find that some other people who similarly chose to participate disagree with you is not comparable.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Moderator
Quoted post had a personal attack. Removed.

[Rosie_0801]

Just because respectful disagreement is common does not make it right or good. 

 

 

What style of disagreement would you prefer?

 

 

If respectful disagreement is not ok, then disagreement of any kind must not be ok? I can't imagine how this means anything other than you do not believe we are treating you properly if we disagree with you. 

 

 

 

If you can't juggle multiple conversations on the same topic with more than one person, you need to avoid doing it. We can't do that for you without ignoring you.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

I expect the thread to be shut down.

 

Just because respectful disagreement is common does not make it right or good. 

 

Are you suggesting that respectful disagreement is wrong? Do you really think people should nod their heads and agree with everything you say? I have to agree that the internet is probably not a good place for you. But, I can't imagine even living a life where every single person I meet thinks exactly the same way that I do and never disagree with me. It is way, way far out of my life experience. 

[Nancy Ann]

Are you suggesting that respectful disagreement is wrong?

 

Sometimes yes.

 

I do not think people should change their opinion. I also do not expect everyone to have my opinion. It is very obvious that all of you have not comprehended my post. I only mean there are times when a discussion should stop. 

 

If there were a table of 6 friends all of them talking about a heated topic. 5 of them all agreed with each other and the other one disagreed. Even in respectful disagreement that one person is going to get overwhelmed, frustrated and inevitably it will lead to some sort of melt down. I think it's hard for anyone to take that kind of pressure. 

 

The argument that says " the person can just leave, or the person can just not go online" is not something I agree with because I think we should be better than that. We should show restraint and not continue to bombard the person. 

 

I am only saying that if it seems a thread is going one sided maybe it would be wise to shut it down.