Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 1286 on August 4, 2005 12:10 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1284

The National Science Teachers Association has issued a statement in response to President Bush’s comments about teaching “intelligent design”. The association is “the world’s largest organization of science educations”.

“We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom,” said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director….

“It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom,” said NSTA President Mike Padilla. “Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students’ knowledge of the natural world.”

(NSTA Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush)

The American Geophysical Union has also issued a statement. The union represents “43,000 Earth and space scientists”.

“Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification,” [Fred] Spilhaus [Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union] says. “The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis.”

“Ideas that are based on faith, including ‘intelligent design,’ operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method,” Spilhaus said.

(President Confuses Science and Belief, Puts Schoolchildren at Risk)

Don’t forget to check out what the blogsphere is saying.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #41191

Posted by carol clouser on August 4, 2005 2:05 AM (e)

It is not as simple as the science teachers seem to think.

Real scientists know, or at least ought to know, that even established scientific principles are tentative working assumptions subject to revision as new and additional data is obtained. Let us recall that a little more than one hundred years ago we had neither relativity nor quantum mechanics.

Scientific work proceeds on the basis of unproven axioms, just as everything in life does. Even Euclidean Geometry with all its logic is based on such axioms. For example, much of the theory of evolution assumes that the laws of nature as we see them in operation today were applicable billions of years ago. That might appear to some to be an eminently reasonable assumption, but an unproven assumption it remains. To overlook this important point is to treat science as another religion.

The difference between the scienctific and other approaches to the mysteries of life is in (1) the methodology and (2) the choice of assumptions. (Scientists will perform experiments where others will consult a certain book.) This contrast is among the ideas that science teachers ought to be conveying to their high school or elementary students. The contrast between evolution and creationism or Intelligent Design is a good opportunity to do so. These are among the tough choices to be made in life and teachers ought to help their students navigate the stormy waters.

A buzzword recently in vogue in educational circles is “interdisciplinary”. Students are encouraged to see connections between the various academic disciplines that are usually kept apart. So let educators be educators. Science courses need not consist of pure science so long as the contarst in methodology and choice of assumptions is made clear.

Comment #41193

Posted by SEF on August 4, 2005 2:36 AM (e)

NSTA Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush

That’s a very poor headline. It makes it sound like the president said something intelligent for once rather than precisely the opposite. The disappointment seems a little odd then (from anyone other than official opposition in private). They should have had something more like “NSTA Disappointed About Unintelligent Creationist/Ignorant Comments Made by President Bush”.

Comment #41196

Posted by SEF on August 4, 2005 3:13 AM (e)

So let educators be educators.

At the elementary and high school levels it has already been shown that many are not competent (or in some cases honest) enough to do so (and there’s been an obvious recent incursion at college level too). So, whether simply incompetent or actively dishonest, they will fail to explain why creationism/ID, homeopathy, alchemy, astrology etc are bad. You see there are already enough examples of historical and current pseudo-science without the creationists making up more of it. Some of them (ie creationist teachers) are just looking for an excuse to push their religion onto innocent victims in a fraudulent way (yes, they really are taking money under false pretences every day they do this and ought to be prosecuted but it seems no-one has the guts to do so).

Comment #41201

Posted by Harry Dale Huffman on August 4, 2005 4:39 AM (e)

From the blog at my URL (www.lulu.com/hdhsciences):

President Bush’s statements in favor of teaching alternative theories alongside evolution in schools have yet again brought out the worst in defenders of the current consensus in science.   My book, The End of the Mystery, cuts through the arguments of both evolutionists and creationists, by proving that a world-encompassing design is in fact inherent in the shapes and relative positions of the continents on the surface of the Earth today–and responsible, furthermore, for the very orientation of the solar system–and that this grand design was not a supernatural work of God, but the real, physical re-formation of the world, and the system, by an advanced race of men known as the “gods” of old.   Thus, there was not simply a one-time creation of the world, some 6,000 years ago (rather, the re-formation done by the “gods” was complete by then, and the rule by earthly kings begun), nor is the world simply the result of undirected physical processes (like continental “drift” due to plate tectonics, and undirected evolution within a natural, undisturbed biosphere).

The physical fact of the design is readily observed, as I have laid out, many times over–conceptually, visually and above all quantitatively (demonstrating the precision of the design)–in The End of the Mystery.   On top of the physical facts, all of the ancient testimony of mankind around the world–all of the sacred and once-sacred traditions, the very origin of every culture–points directly back to the central elements, the central images, of the design.   There is simply no doubt about it.   My research findings are above and beyond any evidence or authoritative statements of belief that have previously been aired, and they do what others presently find unthinkable: They harmonize the ancient beliefs and the modern scientific understanding.

The End of the Mystery reveals an entirely different picture of the origin of the world–and solar system–than the current debate will allow.   That “debate” is really a misdirected, emotion-ridden conflict.   My work has built a bridge, a safe passage, past the raging fire and flood of that conflict.   I beckon the world from the safety of the other side–though I emphasize that I do not claim to have all the answers:   My work is just the beginning of revealing the designs of the “gods”, which must be confronted and substantially understood before one can reasonably consider the real origin of the material universe, the original creation.

Comment #41203

Posted by ts on August 4, 2005 5:08 AM (e)

The NSTA has it a lot more right than Carol Clouser does. There is no “methodology” of intelligent design; it’s a political movement with some phony pseudo-scientific gloss, and has no place in science classes, or anywhere else in public pre-collegiate schools, except perhaps in a class on civics and current events. As for the assumption that the laws of nature don’t change over time, this could be mentioned in a foundations of science class, but has no bearing on the ID discussion. Variability in the laws of physics does play a role in YEC theories, but this is best discussed in a course on rhetoric when discussing the meaning of “ad hoc”.

Comment #41204

Posted by SEF on August 4, 2005 5:11 AM (e)

Re the Comments on Comments thread, are these book-pushers who are turning up drive-bys or persistent trolls?

Comment #41208

Posted by aaron on August 4, 2005 5:40 AM (e)

Completely unrelated guys, but im inquiring as to the written version of kent hovinds seminars.
thankyou

Comment #41211

Posted by Ash on August 4, 2005 6:15 AM (e)

It is as simple as science teachers think. Science works on the principles of science, ID does not and to present it as science is inaccurate and misleading

Comment #41212

Posted by Alan on August 4, 2005 6:17 AM (e)

Mr Huffman says

There is simply no doubt about it.

Really?

and

I do not claim to have all the answers

I fear not.

Comment #41216

Posted by ts on August 4, 2005 6:51 AM (e)

Re the Comments on Comments thread, are these book-pushers who are turning up drive-bys or persistent trolls?

Well, Carol Clouser is a publicist for a science-is-compatible-with-biblical-literalism book who has only posted here a few times, but didn’t mention the book this time. Harry Dale Huffman looks like a drive-by crackpot.

Comment #41219

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 4, 2005 7:15 AM (e)

President Bush’s statements in favor of teaching alternative theories

Can someone tell me what these “alternative theories” might be?

What the heck *IS* the scientific theory of ID? What, according to this scientific theory, did the ID do? What mechanisms, according to this scientific theory of ID, did the ID use to do whatever the heck they think it did? Where can we see these mechanisms ina ction today?

Or are IDers simply lying to us when they claim they have an “alternative scientific theory”?

Comment #41225

Posted by kay on August 4, 2005 8:09 AM (e)

at this point i don’t have a problem with teaching ID in schools… you can get it out of the way in half a lecture.

“So, also, there’s this thing called Intelligent Design that states that some of the mechanisms we just went over when studying Evolution are too complicated to happen by themselves and require an external intelligent agent. The bunch of white pages in your textbook are reserved for when the ID folks put together a theory that needs more than one paragraph to be explained.”

Comment #41227

Posted by MrDarwin on August 4, 2005 8:20 AM (e)

Did anybody else hear the interview with Rick Santorum on NPR this morning? He was asked specifically about ID and Bush’s comments on the subject. His answer (ID does not belong in the science classroom, but the “flaws” and “problems” with evolution should be taught) shows that he’s been paying attention at least to the ID side of the issue, whereas Bush has obviously been paying attention to neither side of the issue.

Comment #41231

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on August 4, 2005 8:55 AM (e)

Did anybody else hear the interview with Rick Santorum on NPR this morning? He was asked specifically about ID and Bush’s comments on the subject. His answer (ID does not belong in the science classroom, but the “flaws” and “problems” with evolution should be taught) shows that he’s been paying attention at least to the ID side of the issue, whereas Bush has obviously been paying attention to neither side of the issue.

I heard it. So he’s up on the official Discovery Institute talking points, but he’s out of step with George Gilder who acknowledges that IDC consists entirely of criticisms of evolution.

Comment #41236

Posted by timfc on August 4, 2005 9:30 AM (e)

Hey, right now on the Dianne Rheim show there’s open calls talking about the ID Vs. Science issue. Director of AAAS is talking to the Head of the Southern Baptist Convention.

AAAS keeps saying: it’s not science.

Preacher keeps saying: there are scientists who say it is. Go read discovery.org.

Call: (202)885-1200 or 1-800-433-8850

Email: DRshow@wamu.org

Comment #41244

Posted by PvM on August 4, 2005 11:23 AM (e)

carol clouser seems to have some misconceptions about Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is scientifically vacuous as it is based on an argument from ignorance. We do not know how chance and/or necessity can explain it thus it was intelligently designed. While ID proponents sometimes argue that science as is, excludes intelligent design a priori, they also point to examples where science succesfully infers intelligent design. In other words, intelligent design as used by ID proponents is not about science but about the supernatural.

See Dr Ryan Nichols

Proponents of Intelligent Design theory seek to ground a scientific research program that appeals to teleology within the context of biological explanation. As such, Intelligent Design theory must contain principles to guide researchers. I argue for a disjunction: either Dembski’s ID theory lacks content, or it succumbs to the methodological problems associated with creation science-problems that Dembski explicitly attempts to avoid. The only concept of a designer permitted by Dembski’s Explanatory Filter is too weak to give the sorts of explanations which we are entitled to expect from those sciences, such as archeology, that use effect-to-cause reasoning. The new spin put upon ID theory-that it is best construed as a ‘metascientific hypothesis’-fails for roughly the same reason.

R. Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly , 2003 , vol. 77 , no 4 , pp. 591 - 611

or Patrick Frank author of “On the Assumption of Design”, Theology and Science, Volume 2, Number 1 / April 2004, pp. 109 - 130.

Abstract: The assumption of design of the universe is examined from a scientific perspective. The claims of William Dembski and of Michael Behe are unscientific because they are a-theoretic. The argument from order or from utility are shown to be indeterminate, circular, to rest on psychological as opposed to factual certainty, or to be insupportable as regards humans but possibly not bacteria, respectively. The argument from the special intelligibility of the universe specifically to human science does not survive comparison with the capacities of other organisms. Finally, the argument from the unlikelihood of physical constants is vitiated by modern cosmogonic theory and recrudesces the God-of-the-gaps.

Even some ID proponents have bravely come forward to make statements about the lack of a theory of ID or lack of content of ID.

Comment #41248

Posted by kay on August 4, 2005 11:34 AM (e)

At this point I would like to see a properly funded and structured task force studying the possibility of ID… if Bush is serious about it. Problem for him is, it would actually backfire on the fundies: if ID were actually true, then a whole host of theological questions about the way God acts in the world become scientific questions. Among other things, we can start asking questions about the rationality and psychology of God’s behavior (and that doesn’t look good for God).

Comment #41249

Posted by Tracy P. Hamilton on August 4, 2005 11:36 AM (e)

“So, also, there’s this thing called Intelligent Design that states that some of the mechanisms we just went over when studying Evolution are too complicated to happen by themselves and require an external intelligent agent. The bunch of white pages in your textbook are reserved for when the ID folks put together a theory that needs more than one paragraph to be explained.”

So IBM developed ID theory long ago? This page left intentionally blank.

Comment #41251

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on August 4, 2005 12:11 PM (e)

Everybody stop worrying: Dr. Fuz will explain it all -

Separation of Church and State Has No Legitimate Bearing on Science Education says Creation Scientist

To: National Desk

Contact: Kathleen Campbell, Campbell Public Relations, 877-540-6022; kcampbell@thecompletesolution.com

NEWS ADVISORY, Aug. 4 /Christian Wire Service/ – Internationally respected biochemist and one of the world’s top three leading experts in origin of life research, Fazale “Fuz” Rana, PhD, is available for comment on the validity of teaching “Intelligent Design” in public schools. Dr. Rana states:

“Science is not about being politically correct. It is about discovering truth and following the evidence where ever it leads. The scientific evidence increasingly indicates that the Universe and life bears the hallmark of a Creator. Students needs to be aware of the most recent discoveries and their implications.

“Darwin’s Theory of Biological Evolution dominates academic thought and public discourse as the only valid explanation for humanity’s origin. Yet numerous, recent scientific discoveries are causing many scientists to question traditional evolutionary accounts in favor of a radically different explanation. Belief in a literal and historical Adam and Eve as recounted in the Bible has greater scientific credibility today than at any other time in human history, while recent scientific advances raise serious concerns for biological evolution.”

Dr. Fazale Rana and his colleague and co-author, renowned astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross, are neither natural evolutionists nor proponents of the Intelligent Design movement. In their book, Who Was Adam?, these scientists discuss the cutting-edge advances in the most recent origin of life research, and propose a new model for human origins–a model that is fully testable, falsifiable, and predictive–the very argument that the natural evolutionists use to discredit those who espouse Intelligent Design by saying they cannot scientifically prove their case for a creator.

To interview Dr. Fazale “Fuz” Rana contact Kathleen Campbell; Campbell Public Relations; 877-540-6022; kcampbell@thecompletesolution.com

# # #

______________________________________________

The preceding was forwarded to you by the Christian Communication Network.

You can always find the latest press releases at www.ChristianWireService.com

Dunno why those big gap shows up (at least in preview) - there’s only a single line between “….com” and “NEWS…”, and a space between Campbell’s phone # & email, as I send this. Perhaps some god needs more elbow room…

Comment #41257

Posted by Ron Zeno on August 4, 2005 1:09 PM (e)

carol clouser wrote:

It is not as simple as the science teachers seem to think.

Science is not as simple as carol would like us to think either. All the more reason to only teach science in science class.

Scientific work proceeds on the basis of unproven axioms, just as everything in life does. Even Euclidean Geometry with all its logic is based on such axioms.

No. Science is not math.

The difference between the scienctific and other approaches to the mysteries of life is in…

Wrong again. Are you just redefining science for your own purposes, or do you honestly not understand what science is? Either way, just more reasons for better science education, not worse.

Comment #41287

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 4, 2005 5:49 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #41292

Posted by carol clouser on August 4, 2005 5:54 PM (e)

SEF,

Are you suggesting (#41196) that most teachers are incompetent and/or dishonest? Or do you propose that public policy be based on the small minority of teachers who are apt to abuse the policy?

What about the vast majority of students who ought to be introduced to the reality of the struggle in the world of ideas - that all (including scienctific and faith-based principles) is based on unproven chosen assumptions and that those assumptions combined with the methodology employed is what differentiates one approach from the other?

I think it is intelectually healthy for students to be engaged in this issue and the evolution vs. creation debate is a great opportunity to do so. Instead of fighting this discussion in the classroom, scientists ought to be supporting it.

RON ZENO,

I stand by everything I wrote, your comments not withstanding.

Comment #41293

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 4, 2005 6:00 PM (e)

that all (including scienctific and faith-based principles) is based on unproven chosen assumptions

I invite you to test this hypothesis. I will help. Near my house is a very long bridge over Tampa Bay (the Sunshine Skyway Bridge). I hereby offer to drive you, at my own expense, to the Sunshine Skyway Bridge so you can loudly delcare to all and sundry that gravity (like every other scientific principle) is based on unproven chosen assumptions, then you can loudly declare to all and sundry that YOUR chosen assumption is “gravity does not exist”, and then you can step off the bridge right in front of everyone to demonstrate that your chosen assumption is just as good as any other chosen assumption.

I’ll even volunteer to call the Coast Guard to trawl your body out of the Bay before the fish eat it.

Are you game?

Comment #41297

Posted by SEF on August 4, 2005 6:31 PM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

most teachers

I’m not merely suggesting but stating as an empirically demonstrated fact (#41292) that either you are genuinely incapable of reading, comprehending and reporting other people’s posts accurately or you are dishonest in wilfully misrepresenting them. Your opinion of them becomes worthless as a consequence.

Comment #41299

Posted by ts on August 4, 2005 6:39 PM (e)

Are you suggesting (#41196) that most teachers are incompetent and/or dishonest?

SEF didn’t (does Carol really not understand the difference between “many” and “most”?) but I will – most high school teachers are not competent to teach comparative epistemology. Beyond that, there is no place for such a thing in the high school curriculum, certainly not in science classes where students are taught the current state of consensus scientific knowledge.

Comment #41301

Posted by carol clouser on August 4, 2005 7:02 PM (e)

Rev Dr Flank,

Nowhere did I suggest that ANY chosen assumption is “as good as ANY OTHER chosen assumption”. I choose not to adopt the assumption you propose. Some assumptions can quite reasonably be contradicted by other assumptions (in this case that gravity will continue to exist when I get to your bridge) or by data. But that has no bearing on the discussion at hand. (It is POSSIBLE that the value of G is a function of time elapsed since the big bang and that that dependence will accelerate downward on the day we do your proposed excursion.)

SEF,

I was not quoting you. You used the term “many” and I was inquiring whether you meant most or just some small percentage. In either case your tirade informs me that you wish to avoid the gist of the issue I was raising. That is fine with me.

Comment #41305

Posted by ts on August 4, 2005 7:34 PM (e)

Nowhere did I suggest that ANY chosen assumption is “as good as ANY OTHER chosen assumption”. I choose not to adopt the assumption you propose.

Whether to adopt the “assumption” that “gravity does not exist” is not a “choice” that we have.

It is POSSIBLE

Logical possibility has virtually no relevance to what goes on in our lives or to the content of our discussions and debates, other than as a cheap ploy.

Comment #41315

Posted by SEF on August 4, 2005 8:15 PM (e)

Carol Clouser wrote:

I was not quoting you.

Irrelevant. Though perhaps you should habitually quote people if you are incapable of avoiding misrepresenting them any other way.

Carol Clouser wrote:

I was inquiring whether you meant most

No you weren’t. Perhaps you intended to do so but in that case you were surprisingly incompetent at it. Your follow-up question was even more bogus and incoherent and the remainder of your post was largely a collection of false premises and general garbage.

I addressed what was easily the most pertinent part of it. You are an example of the failure of the school system to even instil the basics.

Comment #41338

Posted by carol clouser on August 4, 2005 11:39 PM (e)

As an addendum to my original post (#41191) may I also make the following point. As things currently stand, science teachers must refrain from saying anything about creationism in the science classroom. To do otherwise is to court trouble. But when the student goes home to his or her fundamentalist parents, or discusses the evolution he learned in class with his fundamentalist minister, those folks have no hesitancy in attacking evolution. The net result, dear fellow scientists, is that we fight the battle for the hearts and minds of the young with both hands tied behind our backs.

Inserting a discussion of faith based alternatives provides an opening we can employ to great advantage. Teachers can then compare and contrast the basic assumptions and methodologies of science vs. the alternatives. They can “take on” the alternatives and let it all “hang out” and the chips can then fall whichever way they will. Students will thereby be much better equipped to deal with these issues in an objective manner.

We should support classroom discussion of alternatives to evolution instead of short-sightedly fighting this losing battle.

Comment #41342

Posted by ts on August 5, 2005 12:56 AM (e)

Teachers can then compare and contrast the basic assumptions and methodologies of science vs. the alternatives.

Oh, right. The fundies, and religious parents in general, will be just thrilled to have high school science teachers contrasting the methodologies of science with the “methodologies” of religion. Much as I personally might like students in public schools to be instructed in the failure of religion as an epistemic source, that isn’t acceptable in our culture and with our laws separating church from state.

We should support classroom discussion of alternatives to evolution

The only “alternative” to evolution is denial of evolution. If the student goes home to an environment where people deny evolution, there’s nothing that can be done in a science class other than to inform the student of the massive evidence supporting evolution, and of the elements that make up the explanatory framework that is the theory of evolution.

Comment #41352

Posted by SEF on August 5, 2005 2:57 AM (e)

Besides which it isn’t necessary to hold up modern religious nutters as an example of why religiously “informed” “science” is rubbish. There are plenty of old examples where the religious or philosophical motivation is largely forgotten and thus less contentious for the wilfully ignorant of today, eg astrology, alchemy, and the humours - and there is more to be learned in a normal science class from the genuine but failed scientific attempts than the deliberately dishonest machinations of the religious. However, in a more advanced psychology, philosophy or even history class it might be appropriate to discuss how and why certain religious and religiously motivated ideas arise and/or render their holders brains dysfunctional.

There are also plenty of other examples of current pseudoscience, eg homeopathy, which should probably take precedence over wasting time on creationism. If the children/adults can’t then abstract from the examples they are already given to see exactly why certain religious claims are also bogus, there is probably little chance they will ever get it on their own and they are always going to fall prey to the next conman to come along. Unless one institutes massive care in the community programs for all people with the inability to reason for themselves, it is silly to make single exceptions for just the latest flavour of incompetence and dishonesty in creationism.

Comment #41356

Posted by ts on August 5, 2005 3:18 AM (e)

it is silly to make single exceptions for just the latest flavour of incompetence and dishonesty in creationism

And besides, it’s just a ruse to allow anti-evo teachers to spout their ignorance under the guise of “teaching the controversy”. All your other examples serve our interests much better – well noted, SEF.

Comment #41357

Posted by SEF on August 5, 2005 3:28 AM (e)

Yes, I agree it’s just a ruse from the point of view of the dishonest anti-evolution creationists but it’s important to show why it’s also wrong in principle. Otherwise someone only warned about that one ruse might fall for the next ruse to come along …

Comment #41384

Posted by Paul Flocken on August 5, 2005 7:13 AM (e)

ts

In Re Comment #41299
Can you recommend any good books for studying comparative epistemology? That is something I think I would like to read up on.
Paul

Comment #41609

Posted by ts on August 5, 2005 11:30 PM (e)

Can you recommend any good books for studying comparative epistemology?

Well, I don’t recall ever seeing the phrase before using it above, but google indicates that there’s a course on the subject at Texas Tech; here’s the prof’s page, with contact info:

http://www.philosophy.ttu.edu/rupert/cv.htm

Beyond that, I’d say read lots of books on epistemology and compare them. :-) On my own shelf, I have “Philosophic Problems: An Introductory Book of Readings”, ed. Mandelbaum et. al., which I think is quite good, though no doubt there are better. Google even turns up a used copy for $38:

http://www.longaeva.com/product_info.php?cPath=58_169&products_id=581792&PHPSESSID=15934d2626117f494f45b0da9fa60bff

Comment #41699

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on August 6, 2005 7:15 PM (e)

Carol Clouser: … dear fellow scientists

ts earlier stated that CC is a book publicist, which she has never disputed on this thread.

Now she claims to be a scientist. How ‘bout that?

Ms/Dr/Prof Clouser, could you kindly resolve (or at least “teach”) this controversy by providing a few highlights from your C.V.?

Comment #41709

Posted by ts on August 6, 2005 8:04 PM (e)

ts earlier stated that CC is a book publicist, which she has never disputed on this thread.

See http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001161.html
where she repeatedly touted Judah Landa’s “IN THE BEGINNING OF, A New Look at Old Words”, which she claimed to have found at Amazon.com. Then, after Amiel Rossow did some sleuthing, she admits that “I am the Scholarly Book Editor at a small publishing firm whose name is Jay El Publications.” Jay El is the publisher of Landa’s book (and also his initials).

Comment #41765

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on August 7, 2005 9:39 AM (e)

Googling “Jay El Publications” produces a grand total of five listings (including the PT thread ts cites), including library & used bookstore listings for In the Beginning Of and How to Study Physics (1994) by Judah Landa.

Perhaps Clouser could function more effectively in creating a web presence for her employer by setting up a site for Jay El itself? Just a thought…

Comment #41806

Posted by ts on August 7, 2005 3:54 PM (e)

Perhaps Clouser could function more effectively in creating a web presence for her employer by setting up a site for Jay El itself? Just a thought…

This is one of the many thoughts expressed in that long PT thread, which pretty much exhausted – and then some – the subjects of Jay El, Judah Landa, his book, and Ms. Clouser.