Monday, April 30, 2018

Meet Jamie Jensen: What Are They Teaching at Brigham Young University?

Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics

Rachel Gross’ recent article about evolutionist’s public outreach contains several misconceptions that are, unfortunately, all too common. Perhaps most obvious is the mythological Warfare Thesis that Gross and her evolutionary protagonists heavily rely on. Plumbing the depths of ignorance, Gross writes:

Those who research the topic call this paradigm the “conflict mode” because it pits religion and science against each other, with little room for discussion. And researchers are starting to realize that it does little to illuminate the science of evolution for those who need it most.

“Those who research the topic call this paradigm the ‘conflict mode’”?

Huh?

This is reminiscent of Judge Jones endorsement of Inherit the Wind as a primer for understanding the origins debate, for it is beyond embarrassing. Exactly who are those “who research the topic” to which Gross refers?

Gross is apparently blithely unaware that there are precisely zero such researchers. The “conflict mode” is a long-discarded, failed view of history promoted in Inherit the Wind, a two-dimensional, upside-down rewrite of the 1925 Monkey Trial.

But ever since, evolutionists have latched onto the play, and the mythological history it promotes, in an unabashed display of anti-intellectualism. As Lawrence Principe has explained:

The notion that there exists, and has always existed, a “warfare” or “conflict” between science and religion is so deeply ingrained in public thinking that it usually goes unquestioned. The idea was however largely the creation of two late nineteenth-century authors who confected it for personal and political purposes. Even though no serious historians of science acquiesce in it today, the myth remains powerful, and endlessly repeated, in wider circles

Or as Jeffrey Russell writes:

The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of Earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement.

Rachel Gross is, unfortunately, promoting the “general lie” that historians have long since been warning of. Her article is utter nonsense. The worst of junk news.

But it gets worse.

Gross next approvingly quotes Brigham Young University associate professor Jamie Jensen whose goal is to inculcate her students with Epicureanism. “Acceptance is my goal,” says Jensen, referring to her teaching of spontaneous origins in her Biology 101 class at the Mormon institution.

As we have explained many times, this is how evolutionists think. Explaining their anti-scientific, religious beliefs is not enough. You must believe. As Jensen explains:

By the end of Biology 101, they can answer all the questions really well, but they don’t believe a word I say. If they don’t accept it as being real, then they’re not willing to make important decisions based on evolution — like whether or not to vaccinate their child or give them antibiotics.

Whether or not to give their child antibiotics?

As we have discussed many times before, the equating of “evolution” with bacterial resistance to antibiotics is an equivocation and bait-and-switch.

The notion that one must believe in evolution to understand bacterial resistance to antibiotics is beyond absurd.

It not only makes no sense; it masks the monumental empirical contradictions that bacterial antibiotic resistance presents to evolution. As a university life science professor, Jensen is of course well aware of these basic facts of biology.

And she gets paid to teach people’s children?

Religion drives science, and it matters.

60 comments:

  1. Years ago on CNN Bill Nye used antibiotic resistance to allegedly refute Creationists who he sez claim no change ever takes place. And antibiotic resistance is always trotted out alongside peppered moths as evidence for evolutionism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The notion that one must believe in evolution to understand bacterial resistance to antibiotics is beyond absurd."

    Yes, thank you for laying it down where the hogs can get it.

    Usually, the so-called intellectual elite evolutionist will quote Dobzhansky. The idea that you have to believe in evolution to be a scientist could be perhaps the greatest disservice the "religion of evolution" could bestow upon the population. Of course, we always have to hear the opposite about how we are the ones holding science back.

    Meanwhile, most of science has nothing to do with evolution but you know if you throw in a few words in your discussion about evolution and how your work progresses that idea then it makes it easier to get published.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And she gets paid to teach people’s children?

    We pay people to teach facts about geology and physics too. Just because a handful of whiny anti-science Luddite Creationists reject on religious grounds the solid sciences which confirm the fact of evolution doesn't mean the rest of us have to listen to their BS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't any solid science when it comes to evolutionism, timmy. That is the whole problem.

      You don't have any testable hypotheses with respect to the proposed mechanisms. It's all dogma.

      Delete
    2. The only anti-science commenters on this blog are the dirt licking Darwinists. They're superstitious to a fault. They poof everything into existence.

      Delete
    3. LOL! Good old angry YEC Joke and Louis the Fruit Loop. Cornelius must feel so blessed to have his board illuminated by two of Creationism's best and brightest. :D :D :D

      Delete
    4. The anti-science dirt licker is triggered. I suspect he was molested by a priest or some fundamentalist pastor at a young age. He's obsessed with hurting Christianity.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    5. Ghostrider,

      Biology can be taught with zero reference to evolution, so how do you draw the conclusion that teaching evolutionary biology is teaching THE facts?

      Delete
    6. Biology can be taught with zero reference to evolution

      Not with any depth or credibility.

      how do you draw the conclusion that teaching evolutionary biology is teaching THE facts?

      Think hard Nic. Maybe the course title evolutionary biology will give you a clue. :)

      Delete
    7. What? Biology doesn't need evolution. People can learn all about biology without ever hearing about it.

      Add evolutionism all students have to do is ask their teachers how to test the claim that natural selection did it (produced whatever structure they are discussing). Then sit back and watch as the teachers struggle and then fail to answer.

      How is that helpful? How does that add credibility and depth?

      Delete
    8. Ghostrider,

      "Not with any depth or credibility."

      And you would be the judge of that how?

      "Maybe the course title evolutionary biology will give you a clue. :)"

      Biology does not need evolution but evolution needs biology. What does that tell you?

      Delete
    9. You can learn to drive a car without knowing the physics behind an internal combustion engine. That doesn't make the physics be wrong. :)

      Delete
    10. Yeah, all science so far

      Delete
    11. Ghostrider,

      "You can learn to drive a car without knowing the physics behind an internal combustion engine. That doesn't make the physics be wrong. :)"

      So you're saying you can learn about evolution without understanding biology? I guess you're right as it seems to be happening all the time. :)

      Delete
  4. All students have to do is ask their teachers how to test the claim that natural selection did it (produced whatever structure they are discussing). Then sit back and watch as the teachers struggle and then fail to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I find this argument, "like whether or not to vaccinate their child or give them antibiotics" to be the most childish.

    Anti-vaxers do not use an evolutionary argument, they tend to argue (from mostly anecdotal evidence) that vaccines do more harm than stated, and less good than stated.

    The biggest case against antibiotic use is its effect on the gut microbiome. Again not in any way an evolution rejecting argument. When mainstream sources such as Time magazine suggest that antibiotics may cause weight gain (http://time.com/4082242/antibiotics-obesity/) they are not without support.

    The fact that Jensen uses such arguments to prove that (neo-Darwinian) evolution needs to be preached as fact proves that her case is vacuous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find Cornelius’s reference to Epicureans in both this post and others to be interesting. I think he’s meaning it primarily to mean “materialism” but Epicureanism, while it does have an “atomic” worldview (Epicurean physics) also encompasses many other very specific philosophical tenets and practices. I’m not sure the people he describes as being Epicureans are likely to follow some of the Epicurean ethics.

    As far as I can tell I don’t think the practice of Epicureanism is particularly widespread at all anymore (unlike Stoicism which is garnering increasing interest and adoption over the last few decades).

    So since Epicureanism is largely a defunct philosophy and only is partially relevant in this case, why not just use the term “materialist”? Just curious as to what Cornelius is getting at here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From wikipedia on epicureanism, "His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention."

      I think it's the "anti-divine intervention" that calls Dr. Hunter to use the label.

      Delete
  7. So since Epicureanism is largely a defunct philosophy and only is partially relevant in this case, why not just use the term “materialist”? Just curious as to what Cornelius is getting at here.

    Makes him sound more erudite which helps disguise the bog-standard Creationist attacks on science he's conducting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is attacking science, thigh-boy. If you knew what science was you would know that. But you think that thighs are below the knees. Clearly you are pathetic

      Delete
    2. LOL! Joke the Internet Tough Guy was back to making his usual empty threats, saying he would "kick everyone's ***es". I merely pointed out with his thunder thighs he couldn't kick any higher than his knees. :D

      Joke just isn't very bright, especially when he already lost one job for making physical threats.

      Delete
    3. That doesn't even make any sense. And I have never made an empty threat. I was just telling you that sense you want to make this personal we should meet and get it over with. But you are too much of a coward and have to hide behind your mommy.

      Delete
    4. I have never made an empty threat.

      Joke Gallien the cowardly lyin'

      Joke just isn't very bright, or honest.

      Delete
    5. That isn't an empty threat, loser.

      Delete
    6. Tell us Mr. Internet Tough Guy, how many evolutionists have you actually physically assaulted and beaten up?

      None?

      Looks like you are a cowardly lying sack after all. :D

      Delete
    7. What? That doesn't even follow, moron.

      I have been in and won more than my share of fights against mouthy cowards like you. And that doesn't even cover what I did in Colombia and Iraq

      Delete
    8. LOL! Here we go. The Internet tough guy now will brag about how he was an Iraqi war hero who single handedly won major battles despite never being in the military, and how he helped captured drug lords in the jungle. All while repairing toasters from the safety of his basement.

      Joke just isn't very bright.

      Delete
    9. Internet bully/ real life coward, timmy Horton is a jealous loser

      Delete
  8. And for the record- I am not an internet tough guy. I am just someone calling out an internet bully/ real life coward-> timmy Horton.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I’m wondering why Cornelius believes there is *not* a “war” between science and religion. It is clear to me at least that atheists are waging a war against religion, and using evolution as a weapon in that war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, atheists want there to be a war between science and religion. Yet some of ten greatest scientists who have ever lived were very religious.

      Delete
  10. That is the point evolution (or evolutionism) is not science is religion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm appalled at the name-calling in the comments on this blog. No good comes of it. I'm talking to both sides here. Evolution is ridiculous and unscientific, but that doesn't mean we should deride its adherents. Speaking to all: do you really think name calling will convince your opponent to switch sides or stop their current behavior?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There isn't any convincing the people who attack me. And I am not going to just sit here and be attacked by mental midgets. Our opponents have nothing but to attack.

      This blog is moderated and I would have thought that would be to eliminate that.

      Delete
    2. Joke: ”There isn't any convincing the people who attack me.”

      Attack you? Laughing at you isn’t attacking you.

      Delete
    3. I think name calling is a lot of fun. I, for one, am not trying to convince the dirt licking Darwinists to change side. They can kiss my behind. I just enjoy ridiculing them and rubbing their noses in their own feces.

      I don't think you know or understand who or what we're up against. We are not wrestling against flesh and bone.

      Delete
    4. willie I don't mind ignorant punks, like you, laughing at me. I expect it

      Delete
    5. OK now you guys are making me laugh. But usually when I see the banter, it doesn't strike me as funny, it strikes me as acrimonious.

      Delete
    6. http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2018/05/letter-to-some-young-creationists.html

      Delete
    7. Joke the angry YEC and Louis the Fruit Loop aren't here to discuss science because they're both scientifically illiterate. Their primary goal seem to vent their frustration over their ignorance and impotence. The rest of us just laugh at them. Especially Joke, the Internet Tough Guy who'll beat you up if you don't agree with his stupidity. :D

      Delete
    8. Nice projection, timmy the internet bully/ real life coward

      Delete
    9. Ghostrider reminds me of that other dirt licking monkey, Richard Dawkins. Their interest in evolution has nothing to do with science. It's all about getting retribution against Christianity because they got sexually abused as a kid by some perverted priest or pastor. They can't stop talking about Christianity. The selfish gene BS is still a howler.

      Delete
    10. Ooops. I forgot to laugh.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
  12. We need to vent frustrations sometimes. Otherwise we are getting along just fine :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By "sometimes", do you mean about 25 times per day, Eugen? The constant bickering is wearisome. I had hoped that involvement in his blog would allow conversations with Cornelius, but it doesn't seem to be something he is currently interested in.

      Delete
    2. Yes, with the constant name-calling and bickering, it's no wonder Cornelius has no interest in it....

      Delete
    3. It can all be stopped in moderation.

      Delete
    4. The dirt worshippers deserve to be treated like shit. Relentlessly. They have an insufferably pompous (We are right and you are idiots) and self-righteous attitude that comes across every time they open their lying mouths.

      I will never tire of showing them nothing but disrespect and contempt. Heck, I enjoy bashing them.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    5. If I were moderating, I know exactly where I would start...

      Delete
    6. Eddie, if you are who I think you might be... we should start email correspondence again!

      Delete
    7. Curtis, you should start with the first person spewing insults and name calling. My bet it will be ghosty or willie.

      Just sayin'

      Delete
    8. Joe, you need no dirt worshipper's blessing, especially one who pretends to be a theist. Yahweh Elohim does not use dirt to do his mighty work for him. That is an insult to the creator.

      Delete
    9. Joke: "Curtis, you should start with the first person spewing insults and name calling. My bet it will be ghosty or willie."

      Not likely.

      Delete
    10. Curtis Henderson, I seriously doubt I'm who you think I am. I don't recall ever knowing a "Curtis Henderson". But, I am touched! Have a great day.

      Delete
    11. Curtis Henderson, my last name ends with the letter "p".

      Delete
    12. ghosty, definitely. willie, absolutely after getting its arse handed to it, as usual

      Delete
    13. Blessing? I don't need no steekin' blessing, Louis. ;)


      I was just telling Curtis how it should be and how it would go.

      Delete
    14. Blessing? I don't need no steekin' blessing, Louis. ;)

      LOL. I like that.

      Delete
    15. Apparently, it was a case of mistaken “ident-Eddies”. Har har

      Delete