LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Video: Bobby Jindal Supports Teaching 'Intelligent Design'

Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:06:37 pm PDT

He tries to dance around the issue to avoid offending either side, but it’s clear that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal favors the teaching of “intelligent design” in science classrooms. Thanks to Allahpundit for letting me steal his video clip; his comment is also on the mark:

The politics of this issue are convoluted — majorities want both evolution and creationism taught, but roughly twice as many voters are less likely to vote for creationist politicians than more likely — so Jindal’s non-answer is the safe way to play it. But can we please, at least, lay off the federalist rhetoric he uses here until it’s settled whether ID violates the Establishment Clause or not? It’s a fine conservative idea that local school boards should have more power than state boards or the DOE, but constitutional violations are constitutional violations all the way down the chain, federalism or no. Jindal surely knows that too, which I guess makes that his second dodge.

Youtube Video

Advertisement

1741 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 The Other Les  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:08:28pm

We need to start the Lizard Party.

2 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:08:44pm
3 harpsicon  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:08:58pm

This is the end for him as far as being McCain's VP is concerned. The moderates McCain needs to win will take this as a poison pill - hard to imagine an easier way to chase them all away.

Sarah Palin for VP!

4 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:09:14pm

Oh no, not again!

God could have come up with the current scene in many many ways.

Bye.

5 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:09:21pm

Play nice lizardoids!

6 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:09:44pm

re: #1 The Other Les


You think WE can agree on this issue? If so, you haven't been paying attention.

7 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:09:47pm

I don't know what it is about him, but I just think he is great.

8 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:10:42pm

Good Evening all, Just stopped by to say hi, but, I don't think I can take any more ID arguments. ID is just plain silly, and everyone over the age of six should realize that, IMO. (that is just about when I started questioning it.) Sorry if that offends anyone, don't mean to be insulting, but I am of the opinion that being asked to believe in ID insults MY intelligence.

9 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:10:54pm

I don't see the problem.
Why can't they teach either BOTH sides or neither.

10 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:11:41pm

re: #8 CapeCoddah

Good Evening all, Just stopped by to say hi, but, I don't think I can take any more ID arguments. ID is just plain silly, and everyone over the age of six should realize that, IMO. (that is just about when I started questioning it.) Sorry if that offends anyone, don't mean to be insulting, but I am of the opinion that being asked to believe in ID insults MY intelligence.


No offense taken.
I feel the same about those that think we just evolved from blobs of goo lol

11 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:11:42pm

Whistles. Taps foot. Goes away.

12 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:12:00pm

re: #9 Typicalwhitey

I don't see the problem.
Why can't they teach either BOTH sides or neither.

Because one side is science and one side is religion. Only the science belongs in a science classroom.

13 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:12:38pm

So now it's PC to insist on the scientific method. That's a nice way for a member of the right to smear his fellow travelers with the brush of the left and it's very dishonest.

14 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:12:50pm

re: #8 CapeCoddah

Yes that IS offensive. I am glad that you don't agree, but your smug, and insulting comments towards those that do are unecessary and rude.

Its ok if you disagree with the idea of G-d, but you should do so politely, and without insulting those that disagree with you.

15 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:13:18pm

re: #8 CapeCoddah

Crap, Im gonna get into it. We do not advocate teaching the true existence of Santa or the Easter bunny either. We should NOT be teaching this stuff to our kids in school. The educational system is already far enough in the toilet as it is in this country.

16 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:13:29pm

It would be nice if it could be taught in a scientific way, but I don't really see how.
Any teachers out there want to have a go at this?

BTW Charles, I truly enjoy being part of this community.

17 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:13:49pm

re: #12 Charles

One could argue that Science IS religion. (see the Global Warming "science" for example).

Both require a very large amount of faith.

18 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:13:55pm

re: #14 WrathofG-d

Yes that IS offensive. I am glad that you don't agree, but your smug, and insulting comments towards those that do are unecessary and rude.

Its ok if you disagree with the idea of G-d, but you should do so politely, and without insulting those that disagree with you.

Belief in "intelligent design" has nothing to do with belief in God.

19 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:14:11pm

re: #1 The Other Les

We need to start the Lizard Party.

Or a 527 called the "lizard coalition"

20 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:14:19pm

re: #15 CapeCoddah


Did you just compare the Real G-d, to the make believe "santa"?

You think this is going to help you?

21 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:14:20pm

re: #17 WrathofG-d

One could argue that Science IS religion. (see the Global Warming "science" for example).

Both require a very large amount of faith.

You could argue that, yes. But you'd be wrong.

22 winston06  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:14:26pm

I think the best policy s to let students choose what they want to learn.

23 snowcrash  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:14:54pm

If he wants kids exposed to "the very best science" then he is not talking about ID. It sounds like same old political doublespeak. No surprise there. I will wait to see what this man can do as Govenor of Louisiana before I make any judgements re his credentials for higher office.

24 abolitionist  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:15:10pm
25 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:15:24pm

re: #22 winston06

I think the best policy s to let students choose what they want to learn.


Uh well, mine would only take gym and music classes then lol

26 njspeer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:15:28pm

It's official. Science is the new religion, and NOONE is allowed to challenge the new religion.

27 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:15:32pm

re: #18 Charles


in that case then I am confused on the concept of "intellegent design' as I took it as "The World & creatures were created by G-d". The Intellegent Design being from the Intellegent Designer.

I should maybe look deeper into this. Maybe LGFrs can help out.

28 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:15:47pm

re: #22 winston06

I think the best policy s to let students choose what they want to learn.

Many would choose to learn nothing unrelated to video games.

29 jemima  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:16:24pm

#22
Most students would choose Wiccan 101 and the History of Football over science or literature. But yes, let's let them keep choosing the courses, it's worked out so well thus far.

30 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:16:56pm

re: #27 WrathofG-d

You wrote:

Its ok if you disagree with the idea of G-d...

It's a non sequitur. He said nothing about belief in God. He expressed disbelief in "intelligent design" and that is NOT the same thing.

31 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:17:15pm

re: #18 Charles

Belief in "intelligent design" has nothing to do with belief in God.

No it does not.

Better to perceive God, even in a thin way, than to believe in God, anyhow.

I know I said I wasn't going to pay attention to this thread.

Bye again.

32 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:17:15pm

re: #21 Charles

Ok so we disagree. However, I would argue that if one would accept the proof, much of what is claimed by religion can be actually prooven (ie: faith alone is not necessary. However if this has nothing to do with G-d, then I might just, again, be confusing the issues)

In addition, I would point out how much of Science's "proof" and "truths' have been shown to be horribly wrong.

33 winston06  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:17:16pm

re: #28 Sharmuta

Well, I meant letting them choose what they want to learn with respect to ID or Evolution.

I am an evolution believing infidel but I think people should be free to choose what they wish to learn. Nothing should be forced on people.

34 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:17:19pm

re: #29 jemima

#22
Most students would choose Wiccan 101 and the History of Football over science or literature. But yes, let's let them keep choosing the courses, it's worked out so well thus far.


My older kids hated that I had to approve the courses they took in high school. They thought they could try to skim by and take easy stuff only.

35 The Other Les  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:17:34pm

re: #17 WrathofG-d

One could argue that Science IS religion. (see the Global Warming "science" for example).

Both require a very large amount of faith.

Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't science. It's a con game.

As an atheist for three decades I could also say that Religion is a con game too. But I'm not a professional atheist so I'll stop right there.

36 Poopshoot  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:17:51pm

So seriously, why is this kind of thing always railed against here? It's like the global warming issue - seems the blog entries are always phrased such that "the debate is over".

Why can't intelligent design be intelligently discussed?

37 winston06  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:17:59pm

re: #29 jemima

Seems Public Education system sucks both in Canada and the States

38 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:18:05pm

re: #33 winston06

Well, I meant letting them choose what they want to learn with respect to ID or Evolution.

I am an evolution believing infidel but I think people should be free to choose what they wish to learn. Nothing should be forced on people.

We knew that ;)

39 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:18:35pm

re: #30 Charles

Please see my #27. It seesms I am confused on the core issue here. When I hear ID I think "Created by G-d". It seems that you are trying to say that this understanding is incorrect.

40 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:18:46pm

Miracle

/runs away

41 Metal Man  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:18:48pm

ID is flawed as a topic to be taught in science class but so is the goracles Fahrenheit 9/11 religion tape.

The only good that will come from this debate is that Science will actually start being taught again. But that is not likely to happen before the monopoly in education is broken.

42 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:19:02pm

re: #36 Poopshoot

So seriously, why is this kind of thing always railed against here? It's like the global warming issue - seems the blog entries are always phrased such that "the debate is over".

Why can't intelligent design be intelligently discussed?


Personally I think that has to do with the separation of Church and State, which is always, imo taken too far.

43 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:19:03pm

re: #14 WrathofG-d

Yes that IS offensive. I am glad that you don't agree, but your smug, and insulting comments towards those that do are unecessary and rude.

Its ok if you disagree with the idea of G-d, but you should do so politely, and without insulting those that disagree with you.

Thank you! Nicely said. I try not to play on these threads for that very reason.

44 jim in virginia  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:19:29pm

Jindal is a Republican from the Deep South. (Lousiana is a special case but the argument still fits.) A significant part of the base is fundamentalist Christians. Regardless of whatever his personal beliefs are, it's simple political calculus.
Politicians have to act like politicians.

45 Agahnim  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:19:39pm

Weee!

46 Yashmak  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:20:08pm
So now it's PC to insist on the scientific method. That's a nice way for a member of the right to smear his fellow travelers with the brush of the left and it's very dishonest.

- Sharmuta

Now PC? It has nothing to do either with PC or the left, or dishonesty for that matter. The scientific method is the very foundation of the sciences. You want to teach as a science, it has to fit the definition. ID doesn't, and that's the long and short of it.

47 gopninja  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:20:10pm

this isnt nearly as damaging as his writings concerning catholicism and heretics. Weird exorcism stuff too, i dont know why it wasnt brought up more in his election.

48 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:20:19pm

re: #35 The Other Les

Yes you could say that....and the truth is that noone will really know until the Moshiach comes, or after we are dead.

I do not believe it is a con game, for many reasons, including that my religion doesn't allow anyone to specifically benefit from this "con". (we don't have centralized tithe or other forms of benefit to specific cleagy). Thus there is no benefit to the con.

49 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:20:22pm

re: #36 Poopshoot

So seriously, why is this kind of thing always railed against here? It's like the global warming issue - seems the blog entries are always phrased such that "the debate is over".

Why can't intelligent design be intelligently discussed?

We've had a lot of intelligent discussion and we'll have a lot more. But if you expect that to mean agreement with the intelligent design hoax -- well, you're going to be disappointed.

50 freakagriep  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:20:27pm

re: #18 Charles

So on one hand you say it's religion, but then you say it has nothing to do with God? How can one believe in a God who did not create? Don't get that one.

Also, why is the o in God censored?

51 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:20:34pm

re: #33 winston06

Well, I meant letting them choose what they want to learn with respect to ID or Evolution.

The problem with that is it's still not science and it will hurt the children's ability to further their education. If they want to learn about ID- then they should add a philosophy class to the school's curriculum, but it's not science.

52 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:20:38pm

re: #23 snowcrash

If he wants kids exposed to "the very best science" then he is not talking about ID. It sounds like same old political doublespeak. No surprise there. I will wait to see what this man can do as Govenor of Louisiana before I make any judgements re his credentials for higher office.

He has come out with a position on a hot button topic that is guaranteed to alienate many moderates from both parties. That alone is enough to poison his chances at the VP nom, regardless of any other credentials for higher office. One may wonder if that was his intent.

53 jemima  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:20:47pm

Public education will be so much better when it's like that madrassah in Virginia. No choice at all. No science except what mohammed unintelligently invented.

Just ask Barry, he'll tell you all about it. Maybe that's why he knows zip and cares less about the Constitution.

/

54 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:21:08pm

re: #43 vapig

My beliefs dont' require others to.

55 jim in virginia  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:21:19pm

re: #22 winston06

I think the best policy s to let students choose what they want to learn.


Then no one would ever take algebra.

56 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:21:43pm

May as well teach this too.

[Link: www.theflatearthsociety.org...]

57 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:22:18pm

re: #39 WrathofG-d

Please see my #27. It seesms I am confused on the core issue here. When I hear ID I think "Created by G-d". It seems that you are trying to say that this understanding is incorrect.

Intelligent Design was created to remove a specific mention of God or a specific religion so as to avoid the legal problems with trying to teach creationism in public schools. However, it still evokes the supernatural, which cannot be subjected to the scientific method.

58 Reno911  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:22:20pm

It's business time.

59 DeathtotheSwiss  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:22:22pm

Hey, since I'm not in the mood to argue against the creationists I'm going to take the easy way out.

First, formulate your argument against evolution. The find it among the many such arguments here: CREATIONIST CLAIMS

The responses to your argument will come from the link you click. Thanks.

60 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:22:25pm

re: #50 freakagriep

So on one hand you say it's religion, but then you say it has nothing to do with God? How can one believe in a God who did not create? Don't get that one.

Also, why is the o in God censored?

Good grief. Are you folks trying to misunderstand my point?

You can believe in evolution and believe in God.

61 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:22:25pm

re: #55 jim in virginia

Then no one would ever take algebra.

And Geometry.

62 Fat Jolly Penguin  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:22:26pm

re: #55 jim in virginia

Then no one would ever take algebra.

See, I'm psychotic. I love math. I'd be the only one in those classes!

63 Summer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:22:27pm

ID is not science.

Even some die-hard Christian scientists working in genetics and biology recognize that ID is not science and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

There is no "debate" about evolution, and there is no "other side" to the theory. ID believers are coming across in the mold of historical revisionists at this point.

Please leave ID out of the classroom and out of politics. You can keep it in your churches all you like. That's the real "debate" about the issue.

As Hitchens points out, if you truly are about "equal time", then start teaching evolution in churches as well. Until then, you're just being hypocritical.

64 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:22:28pm

re: #23 snowcrash

If he wants kids exposed to "the very best science" then he is not talking about ID. It sounds like same old political doublespeak. No surprise there. I will wait to see what this man can do as Govenor of Louisiana before I make any judgements re his credentials for higher office.

Good idea. From a Louisiana Lizard, who voted for Jindal as Gov. He has a lot of learning to do; and he needs to rethink how he manages.

65 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:22:38pm

re: #30 Charles

You wrote:


It's a non sequitur. He said nothing about belief in God. He expressed disbelief in "intelligent design" and that is NOT the same thing.

I'm as confused now as WrathofG-d, for I've always thought it to be the same thing just renamed so as not to upset the Establishment Police.

66 winston06  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:22:52pm

re: #55 jim in virginia

Some courses are part of the mandatory general education, right?

67 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:23:04pm

Wrath- start here.

68 solomonpanting  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:23:07pm

I thought life sprang from a coke bottle.

69 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:23:11pm

re: #50 freakagriep

Jews use a - instead of an "o" in the name of Ha'Shem (ha! now I'll have to explain that too), the Creator because Judaism believes that out of respect for G-d and the name of G-d that His name shall never be erased. Thus if you use an - instead of an "o" you aren't actually using a "name" of G-d and therefore when the page goes bye bye the name isn't erased.

Its to show reverence to the holy name of the Creator.

70 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:24:02pm

re: #14 WrathofG-d

Sorry, Wrath, but maybe YOU can answer a question I asked Father many years ago as a child, and got sent home for: If god created only Adam ans Eve to populate the Earth, who the hell did their children marry? Where did it go from there? It simply makes no sense. I believe in God, and I have faith in God. I also believe organized religion was devised as a way to police an early, extremely superstitious population, who had not the knowledge yet of how things worked. We have come too far and learned too much about what is real. The bible is a vastly entertaining book, and gives us great insight about how early humans thought. The ID "theory" is nothing more than early man's attempt to answer questions that no one had figured out yet. I also believed as a young child that if I dug a hole deep enough, I could end up in China. With education, and reasoning, I grew to understand that was not true.

71 cajunbelle  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:24:34pm

OT, but the young gaffer has struck again:

Obama on "President Maliki"

72 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:24:43pm

How soon will this thread evolve to 1000 posts, on another subject by that time?

73 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:24:49pm

re: #40 Catttt

Miracle

/runs away

Ok! That there is FUNNY!

74 yochanan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:25:06pm

i for one don't give a hoot about this one way or the other,

an IRANIAN NUKE going off is my major issue the obamamassah will do nothing to prevent it.

75 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:25:33pm

re: #57 Catttt

Why couldn't one "proove" scientifically that in order to have the molecules, etc., there would have to be a Intellegent Designer (ie: G-d).

The best Scientific explaination I have heard for this "prooving-up", was the book: The Science of G-d.

76 Poopshoot  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:25:39pm

re: #49 Charles

I'll start with a scientific argument (because, well, I'm a scientist, both by education and philosophy):

Entropic arguments preclude the assemblage of complex molecules from a "primordial soup".

77 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:25:48pm

re: #62 Fat Jolly Penguin

See, I'm psychotic. I love math. I'd be the only one in those classes!

I liked math too. I'd be there too. :D

78 Fat Jolly Penguin  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:26:13pm

re: #77 Catttt

I liked math too. I'd be there too. :D

Yay! A kindred spirit! XD

79 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:26:18pm
80 njspeer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:26:21pm

Why isn't ID science? Can someone explain this?

81 Racer X  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:26:36pm

re: #60 Charles

You can believe in evolution and believe in God.


Just in case anyone missed it.

82 jemima  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:26:38pm

#70

Perhaps the Torah (Old Testament) is not meant to be taken at face value. It requires study and thought. It's not like a comic book that you read then throw away when you're done.

83 Inquisitive  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:26:44pm

re: #27 WrathofG-d

in that case then I am confused on the concept of "intellegent design' as I took it as "The World & creatures were created by G-d". The Intellegent Design being from the Intellegent Designer.

I should maybe look deeper into this. Maybe LGFrs can help out.


I guess I am wrong also because I thought the same thing.

I also brought up the ? on the last ID thread of whether we are talking about Biology Evolution which is
Evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next ---I could agree on this due it is prov en that genes/DNA is passed from one generation to the other, but if talking about evolution as us evolving from a blob, then I could not agree because as an ID believer I believe GOD created all.
So will someone not only explain to me what distinction we are discussing and if Wrath and I are wrong on the term of the meaning of ID will you please let me know what it is.

84 thinkingmom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:26:44pm

Teach evolution only, if you must, but at least have the intellectual integrity to point out its flaws (for instance, the lack of a fossil record). As I see it, the problem is that macro-evolution theory is presented as scientific fact, and any dissent that points out a lack of real evidence (eg. a fossil record) is somehow anti-science. The refusal to admit the mere possibility that there may actually be evidence of intelligent design in life-forms suggests (to me, at least) a lamentable lack of objectivity.

85 the_vig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:26:47pm

I have changed my mind on teaching ID in schools. Obviously it ID is a very complex subject so it requires prerequisites so that the discussion can be useful for the kids involved. The Prereqs. should be advanced calculus (college level), advanced biology (college level), advanced chemistry and physics (college level). The will allow the teachers and students to actually explore the merits of Intelligent design.

86 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:26:48pm

re: #41 Metal Man

ID is flawed as a topic to be taught in science class but so is the goracles Fahrenheit 9/11 religion tape.

The only good that will come from this debate is that Science will actually start being taught again. But that is not likely to happen before the monopoly in education is broken.

Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't connected to Algore's global warming farce, that was something else entirely.

87 jim in virginia  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:26:48pm

re: #62 Fat Jolly Penguin

See, I'm psychotic. I love math. I'd be the only one in those classes!

First they hook you on algebra, then they turn you on to the harder stuff. Trig, calculus, differential equations. Before you know it you're addicted to vector calculus.

88 freakagriep  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:27:07pm

re: #60 Charles

Gotcha.

89 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:27:20pm

re: #32 WrathofG-d

Like Galileo, for example?

90 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:27:21pm
91 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:27:42pm

And Wrath? I hope you pay close attention to this quote from the founding father of the ID moveement:

"The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"

Is that what you really want kids exposed to in public schools?

92 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:27:51pm

re: #84 thinkingmom

Teach evolution only, if you must, but at least have the intellectual integrity to point out its flaws (for instance, the lack of a fossil record). As I see it, the problem is that macro-evolution theory is presented as scientific fact, and any dissent that points out a lack of real evidence (eg. a fossil record) is somehow anti-science. The refusal to admit the mere possibility that there may actually be evidence of intelligent design in life-forms suggests (to me, at least) a lamentable lack of objectivity.

There is no lack of a fossil record. Seriously. This is simply not true. Please research it for yourself, before believing the dishonest claims of the creationists.

93 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:28:09pm
94 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:28:19pm

re: #3 harpsicon

I like Palin, too, but she'll be better in four years.

Will moderates see this as a poison pill? I doubt it. Social conservatives have long been the bane of moderate Republicans and libertarians. The abortion issue has taught them not to throw the candidate out with the bathwater when it comes to Presidential politics, because they know social change will come through the courts or on the state and local level.

The federal gov't doesn't have a lot to do with schools. There was the No Child Left Behind legislation years ago, but that's a pretty rare scenario. Jindal probably doesn't have the desire or the Congressional backing to even get a bill out of committee.

95 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:28:26pm

re: #16 Typicalwhitey

It would be nice if it could be taught in a scientific way, but I don't really see how.
Any teachers out there want to have a go at this?

BTW Charles, I truly enjoy being part of this community.

Well, if you attempted to teach it in a scientific way, you'd have to account for all the evidence contradicting intelligent design.

Start with, for example, the fact that the neural connections for the human retina are "backward" from the way you'd engineer it if you were designing it from scratch, resulting in a blind spot in your visual field where the optic nerve passes through the retina that your visual cortex then has to fake the data for and patch over.

"Intelligent" design apparently only got it right in the cephalopods. (see Fig. 1)

96 mean Gene  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:28:54pm

Couldn't this have waited till a Friday or Saturday night drinking thread time?

97 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:29:01pm

Ok, I'm leaving. Charles, any chance of an open thread for those of us sick of the whole thing?

Let me know when the bannings are done.

98 Dayenu  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:29:27pm

Forgive me, but I got to ask... is this issue really such a big deal? What with the war on terror, the rise of Islamic Supremacism, a Democratic party with its head firmly in the sand, if not outright aiding our enemies... and we're worried about whether or not kids learn that Evolution is a totally random process, or perhaps, just perhaps, there's a reason behind it?

I once taught Evolution in a Environmental Science class at a trade college. Only to find as soon as I said the word, I had some religious students say: "Evolution isn't true! It's just a theory!" It was like being sent back to my High School chess club bull sessions.

My response was that Evolution is what the scientists believe, whether they believe it or not didn't matter to me as long as they understood the basics of Evolution. And if the college ever asked me to teach a Religion class, I'd teach that G-d created life on Earth. But that class was Science. Somehow this argument worked and I could finish the lesson in relative peace.

From some of the stuff I looked into, "Microevolution," where species adapt to their situations, is pretty much proven. "Macroevolution" where a species evolves into a completely different species, has not been demonstrated nearly as conclusively. And, as always, there's the question of "first cause" which is virtually synonymous with G-d anyhow, so what's the big deal?

I kinda put this in the same ball park as Gay marriage... an issue which, in the larger scope of things, doesn't amount to hill of beans. There are huge problems in the Schools, certainly. But trust me, Evolution is the least of the Schools' problems.

99 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:29:36pm

re: #75 WrathofG-d

Why couldn't one "proove" scientifically that in order to have the molecules, etc., there would have to be a Intellegent Designer (ie: G-d).

The best Scientific explaination I have heard for this "prooving-up", was the book: The Science of G-d.

Wrath, your link circles back to this post. Can you provide another link?

100 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:29:51pm

"Religion is concerned with man's attitude towards nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with human mutual relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of accepted ideals.
It is this mythical, or rather symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. "

(Albert Einstein, 1948)

101 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:30:04pm

re: #12 Charles

Because one side is science and one side is religion. Only the science belongs in a science classroom.

Amen (that word deliberately used).

Keep religion out of the public square, for its own protection. Sharia will be the destroyer of Islam, because it exposes religion (the search for spiritual truth, the betterment of the soul) to the expediencies required of governance.

102 njspeer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:30:11pm

re: #93 buzzsawmonkey

Hmm, so it's not the theory, but the advocates? I that what you're saying?

103 Summer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:30:14pm

re: #75 WrathofG-d

Why couldn't one "proove" scientifically that in order to have the molecules, etc., there would have to be a Intellegent Designer (ie: G-d).

The best Scientific explaination I have heard for this "prooving-up", was the book: The Science of G-d.

There is no proof of God. People have been trying for thousands of years to prove God. It hasn't been done yet. Believe me, people have tried. If you know something that the entire rest of the world doesn't know, and can actually prove the existence of God, or a designer, in a scientific way...then you have the biggest Nobel prize coming to you - not to mention the adulation of every single religious organization in the world today and most of their adherents. But you can't do it. Nobody can do it. And until you can, it isn't "proof" that belongs in a lab, a scientific paper, or a science classroom.

Religious writings are not "proof" of god; not in the Bible, the Koran, the Gitas, the Eddas, or anything else. Just as I don't take religious writings to "prove" to me that the earth is flat either.

104 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:30:20pm

re: #79 buzzsawmonkey

Oops! That's the first time I hit the minus button by mistake. Meant to plus you.

105 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:30:21pm

I thought that S.J. Gould's theory of punctuated equlibrium was advanced because of the acknowledged gaps in the paleontological record.

106 jim in virginia  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:30:51pm

Everything evolves. Architecture evolves. Music evolves. Human beings in North America are now, on average, taller and live longer than they did two hundred years ago.
Why is it not possible for an omnipotent g-d to have used the process of evolution to create the world we see today?

107 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:31:13pm

re: #80 njspeer

Why isn't ID science? Can someone explain this?

Read up on the scientific method and tell us how one can apply ID to it.

108 gotha  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:31:44pm

How horrifc. The thought of truth being taught in school. That's terrible.

109 MellyMel  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:31:52pm

Ya know, I don't have a horse in this race as I really don't care what others believe and am not sold on creationism or ID being taught in schools.

However, I did get a kick out of my AP Bio teacher in high school. Whenever anyone asked a question that science couldn't answer, she would always say "Why is the sky blue?"

/Of course we all knew the answer to that scientifically, but it was a cool way of saying man doesn't know everything.

110 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:31:53pm

re: #27 WrathofG-d

in that case then I am confused on the concept of "intellegent design' as I took it as "The World & creatures were created by G-d". The Intellegent Design being from the Intellegent Designer.

I should maybe look deeper into this. Maybe LGFrs can help out.

My understanding is that "creationism" is a literal belief of the world's creation as described in the book of Genesis. Creationists oppose evolution, believe the earth is young, and doubt that the evolutionary process exists.

"Intelligent Design" is one of the ways in which creationists attempt to insert their non-scientific view of the world's creation into science classes, rather than in religion classes, which is where I think God's creation of the world should be taught.

Charles mentioned "wedge strategy", and so I found this at Wikipedia:
Wedge Strategy

This contains an explanation of the Creationist / Intelligent Design as well as other informative links.

111 Summer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:31:57pm

And for the record, there is no lack of a fossil record. Haven't you people ever been to a museum?

Please read up on this stuff outside of AnswersInGensis.org before making such incredibly bogus claims.

112 freakagriep  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:32:15pm

It would be sweet to get some live updating ajax comment ratings going on in here. Although I suppose that would really slow things down.

113 sultan_knish  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:32:17pm

re: #91 Sharmuta

And Wrath? I hope you pay close attention to this quote from the founding father of the ID moveement:

Is that what you really want kids exposed to in public schools?

so the point of teaching ID then is arguably to promote a Christian-centered worldview, while the teaching of Evolution is arguably meant to promote a God-less worldview

not exactly any goodies on either side for religious Jews

I'm not surprised Jindal is taking the middle ground. He's in a fairly religious and if he wants to be a Republican VP, he's going to have to do his share to bring in the religious vote.

114 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:32:18pm
115 Russkilitlover  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:32:23pm

re: #84 thinkingmom

Lack of a fossil record? What about eohippis? You can go from there to mesohippis and all the rest of the gang and wind up with the modern horse. It's a nice fossilized record of evolution.

116 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:32:47pm

re: #105 Gagdad Bob

I thought that S.J. Gould's theory of punctuated equlibrium was advanced because of the acknowledged gaps in the paleontological record.

"Gaps" are not the same thing as "a lack."

117 UFO TOFU  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:32:53pm

#96 mene Gene
Couldn't this have waited till a Friday or Saturday night drinking thread time?

We can't drink on a Monday?

118 jim in virginia  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:33:13pm

re: #98 Dayenu
Hear hear! I'd give you a dozen up dings if I could.

119 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:33:41pm
120 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:33:54pm

re: #111 Summer

And for the record, there is no lack of a fossil record. Haven't you people ever been to a museum?

Please read up on this stuff outside of AnswersInGensis.org before making such incredibly bogus claims.

Your great great great great uncle was o T-Rex?

121 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:34:08pm

re: #79 buzzsawmonkey

Gave you a plus because I think you're right, and also to make up for Charles' error.

122 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:34:20pm
Good grief. Are you folks trying to misunderstand my point?

You can believe in evolution and believe in God.

I tell my kids that evolution is intelligent design.
Works for us.

123 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:34:30pm

re: #70 CapeCoddah

I will ignore the fact that you compared "belief" to digging for China.

I am not a biblical scholar, but I will attempt (to the best of my very very limited ability) to answer your question about Adam and Eve. IIRC they had many children. I do not know who those children married (if they did at all), nor do I know all the detailas about their children (which is what I believe your true question is.) I do recall howeer that their children did have children (although I could be wrong) So i would say that the book doesn't say. But just because it doesn't say doesn't mean that it cannot be a true understanding of what it does say. I would also warn against placing your current belief about how the world works and trying to impose it on the times oif Adam and Eve. The world did not work then as it does now. (unless you know people specifically speaking and interracting with G-d himself). Thus the "they had to have sex to have babies formula doesn't apply.

All of that being said; what does it matter. There is much that the Torah leaves out specifically. But the same can be said about Science but I dont think that you would throw Science out because it cannot explain how a frog became a Dog, or cross species evolution. Like in Science, the problems we have with religion usually are based on the limits of our own understanding.

124 njspeer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:34:35pm

re: #107 Sharmuta

re: #107 Sharmuta

"Why isn't ID science? Can someone explain this?

Read up on the scientific method and tell us how one can apply ID to it."

Sorry, but this isn't much of an answer.

125 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:34:42pm

re: #120 VegasRick

Your great great great great uncle was o T-Rex?


You have met my Grandfather I take it?
Lol

126 Poopshoot  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:34:45pm

Whatever the case, I'd think we could all agree that it is completely unscientific to fail to question any currently accepted hypothesis.

So, as with global warming, the debate is not over, nor should it ever be (the explanation for observed phenomena).

127 Summer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:34:49pm

re: #120 VegasRick

Wrong family branch. That comment just proved to me, funny though it was, that you know nothing about Evolutionary theory. =)

Sorry, go back to school.

128 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:35:07pm

re: #113 sultan_knish

"Evolution is atheism" is a DI talking point. It's just not true that evolutionary scientists are all atheists.

129 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:35:13pm
130 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:35:17pm

re: #79 buzzsawmonkey

My point however is that both religion and science require a good amount of faith.

131 debutaunt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:35:18pm

re: #114 buzzsawmonkey

You had me worried there for a moment.

If he had really meant it, the screen on your computer would have cracked.

132 yochanan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:35:23pm

if you bring this subject up you will get a debate, don't be suprised if that happens I just plan on not taking part, i vote for a open thread. so i can put hoof in mouth for using colorful lang on a subject i care about. for me this subject should happen after 11 pm central standard time so it can aid me falling asleep.

133 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:35:28pm

re: #119 buzzsawmonkey

Its advocates either know this, in which case they are mountebanks, or they do not know this, in which case they are tools.

They do know it. The Discovery Institute (main promoter of the hoax) uses any number of dishonest means to advance their agenda.

134 mean Gene  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:35:51pm

re: #117 UFO TOFU

Maybe you can.
But I'm kind of a vodka martini girl.
So, a few sips and I'm gone.
Heh.

135 Racer X  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:35:52pm

As comparison, one could like listening to The Ting Tings, while other times enjoy a good blast of Led Zeppelin .

Probably not during the same set.

136 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:36:03pm

re: #50 freakagriep

why is the o in God censored?

I think it's a Jewish rule that one should not speak/write the name of God. I follow it sometimes ... merely as a sign of respect for the Deity.

137 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:36:06pm

re: #127 Summer

Wrong family branch. That comment just proved to me, funny though it was, that you know nothing about Evolutionary theory. =)

Sorry, go back to school.

Seriously, what fossils do you refer to that somehow prove evolution.

138 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:36:20pm

Intelligent Design debunked in a 1:23 video.

139 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:36:26pm

re: #84 thinkingmom

Teach evolution only, if you must, but at least have the intellectual integrity to point out its flaws (for instance, the lack of a fossil record). As I see it, the problem is that macro-evolution theory is presented as scientific fact, and any dissent that points out a lack of real evidence (eg. a fossil record) is somehow anti-science. The refusal to admit the mere possibility that there may actually be evidence of intelligent design in life-forms suggests (to me, at least) a lamentable lack of objectivity.

Are you saying that because there is not a complete fossil record, that there is none at all? It would be wrong to do that. I have unearth fossils myself as a child in San Diego. It was create fun to break open rocks from an ancient sea bed and find fossils of long dead plants embedded within them.

ID may be an interesting hypothesis, but until there is some evidence that some intelligent designer stepped in and added their ingredients to the soup, then that is all it can be.

140 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:36:27pm

re: #126 Poopshoot

Whatever the case, I'd think we could all agree that it is completely unscientific to fail to question any currently accepted hypothesis.

So, as with global warming, the debate is not over, nor should it ever be (the explanation for observed phenomena).

That's exactly right - it's not over. There is an enormous amount of debate and research and revision of theories in the evolutionary science community. It's a vibrant, living field of study that is constantly changing.

141 Alouette  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:36:30pm

re: #115 Russkilitlover

Lack of a fossil record? What about eohippis? You can go from there to mesohippis and all the rest of the gang and wind up with the modern horse. It's a nice fossilized record of evolution.

Yeah, well, they found these bones on different continents where none of these separate species ever had any contact with the other.

142 sultan_knish  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:36:38pm

re: #103 Summer

No there is no proof of God. re: #98 Dayenu

Forgive me, but I got to ask... is this issue really such a big deal? What with the war on terror, the rise of Islamic Supremacism, a Democratic party with its head firmly in the sand, if not outright aiding our enemies... and we're worried about whether or not kids learn that Evolution is a totally random process, or perhaps, just perhaps, there's a reason behind it?

I once taught Evolution in a Environmental Science class at a trade college. Only to find as soon as I said the word, I had some religious students say: "Evolution isn't true! It's just a theory!" It was like being sent back to my High School chess club bull sessions.

My response was that Evolution is what the scientists believe, whether they believe it or not didn't matter to me as long as they understood the basics of Evolution. And if the college ever asked me to teach a Religion class, I'd teach that G-d created life on Earth. But that class was Science. Somehow this argument worked and I could finish the lesson in relative peace.

From some of the stuff I looked into, "Microevolution," where species adapt to their situations, is pretty much proven. "Macroevolution" where a species evolves into a completely different species, has not been demonstrated nearly as conclusively. And, as always, there's the question of "first cause" which is virtually synonymous with G-d anyhow, so what's the big deal?

I kinda put this in the same ball park as Gay marriage... an issue which, in the larger scope of things, doesn't amount to hill of beans. There are huge problems in the Schools, certainly. But trust me, Evolution is the least of the Schools' problems.

It's not a big deal. It's a social issue in a culture war, which I honestly don't care much about. It's two sides arguing over a matter of faith. But culture wars have a way of obscuring serious issues and serious problems.

Right now we lack the knowledge or the scope to come down on one side or the other. So all this is academic, literally. There are bigger threats and bigger issues to worry about.

And that will be my last comment on the great evolution debate I expect. I really have no interest in jumping into angry debates over a matter of theology with people whom i otherwise agree with.

143 philosoteric  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:36:39pm

I'm really not in the mood to read the same arguments and objections over again, so I'm out. See ya.

144 paint-right  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:36:46pm

re: #76 Poopshoot

I'll start with a scientific argument (because, well, I'm a scientist, both by education and philosophy):

Entropic arguments preclude the assemblage of complex molecules from a "primordial soup".

does that mean that evolution is not possible?

145 songbird  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:36:55pm

I don't think belief or non belief in Evolution, ID or Creationism has anything to do with a person's skills in leading a government.

Hopefully, this won't be the new "litmus test" for elected officials.

146 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:37:05pm

re: #113 sultan_knish

so the point of teaching ID then is arguably to promote a Christian-centered worldview, while the teaching of Evolution is arguably meant to promote a God-less worldview

Belief in evolution is not the promotion of a god-less world-view. People can believe in the science of evolution AND ALSO believe that God created the world, including the means by which evolution has occurred.

147 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:37:43pm

re: #82 jemima

ANY of the bibles books should be, IMO viewed as fables. Tall tales with a lesson. Lot's wife did NOT turn into a pillar of salt, Job was NOT eaten by a whale etc.... Thats a lot to ask modern science to believe.

148 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:37:52pm

re: #124 njspeer

Sorry to not spoon feed you, but I took the time to read up on what I didn't understand and I can now state that I agree that ID is not science.

149 the_vig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:37:59pm

re: #137 VegasRick

Seriously, what fossils do you refer to that somehow prove evolution.

All of them.

However, not prove, supports the theory. What Fossil do you have that disproves the theory?

150 sultan_knish  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:38:28pm

re: #136 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I think it's a Jewish rule that one should not speak/write the name of God. I follow it sometimes ... merely as a sign of respect for the Deity.

When writing in a destructible or erasable medium, many religious Jews don't spell out God fully to avoid erasing it

151 Inquisitive  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:38:30pm

Would someone please answer my question I have asked two times --once on previous evol/ID thread and on this one
On teaching Evolution are we speaking of just Biology Evolution? Genes/DNA as passed from one generation to other or complete evolution from the begining? Biology no problem, but not complete.

152 Mr Spiffy  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:38:35pm

It's not like a comic book that you read then throw away when you're done.

People throw away comic books?
{had to sell my 9000+ issue collection some years ago; haven't bought any since *sigh*}

153 Metal Man  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:38:49pm

re: #86 Mars Needs Neocons

Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't connected to Algore's global warming farce, that was something else entirely.


Crap latched onto the wrong tape my kids were fed in high school. Should have said "An Inconvenient truth".

154 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:38:57pm

I don't find either ID _or_ Darwin the perfect answer. (I kinda side with Von Braun.) There's big holes in both. I guess that's why they call them Theories? But I do know that poor Bobby Jindal is screwed here at LGF.

155 Jim in Virginia  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:39:04pm

re: #141 Alouette

Yeah, well, they found these bones on different continents where none of these separate species ever had any contact with the other.


Do a quick google on plate tectonics or continental drift.

Reunite Pangaea!

156 Summer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:39:10pm

re: #137 VegasRick

Look at comment #115. That's a darn good start.

You're asking us to provide you with an entire historical account of the fossilized record in this blog, and then you'll just turn around and say "that goes against what I believe in", which is disingenuous at best. So I won't do it because, as a moderate conservative, I believe that people should help themselves if they can. You have access to scientific papers, you can look it up. You can read about evolution outside of the stupid creationist circles who are spouting these bogus lies about a lack of a fossilized record.

Again, haven't you ever been to a museum? Something tells me that if you had, you missed something along one of the hallways.

157 Shr_Nfr  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:39:20pm

"Just Poop."

/closes browser, picks up St. Augustine's "Confessions" wonders where he put his copy of Dawkins and returns to the sanity of reading.

158 sultan_knish  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:39:37pm

re: #146 reine.de.tout

Belief in evolution is not the promotion of a god-less world-view. People can believe in the science of evolution AND ALSO believe that God created the world, including the means by which evolution has occurred.

accordingly one could also believe in atheism and believe that God created atheism

but such a position tends to fragment badly from its own contradictions and has no real staying power

159 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:39:48pm
re: #12 Charles
re: #9 Typicalwhitey

I don't see the problem.
Why can't they teach either BOTH sides or neither.

Because one side is science and one side is religion. Only the science belongs in a science classroom.

Dead-on.  Well, that's two potential running mates that will lead me not to vote for McCain.  Neither Bobby Jindal nor Huckabye <sp?> will get a vote from me in the veep seat.

}:)     [Ah, well ... so Thompson and Guiliani <sp?> are still out?]

160 freakagriep  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:40:04pm

re: #138 ted

Good example of microevolution. Not macro, though.

161 Intrepid  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:40:09pm

re: #117 UFO TOFU

#96 mene Gene
Couldn't this have waited till a Friday or Saturday night drinking thread time?

We can't drink on a Monday?

Actually, I've heard it told that it is acceptable to drink on any Monday that has as a date divisible by 4.

Today is the 16th. So we're in the clear!

Yay!

162 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:40:16pm

re: #106 jim in virginia

Everything evolves. Architecture evolves. Music evolves. Human beings in North America are now, on average, taller and live longer than they did two hundred years ago.
Why is it not possible for an omnipotent g-d to have used the process of evolution to create the world we see today?

It is possible, certainly. But it cannot ever be proven in a scientific sense.

Hence, it is not science.

163 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:41:22pm

re: #159 Kulhwch

Dead-on.  Well, that's two potential running mates that will lead me not to vote for McCain.  Neither Bobby Jindal nor Huckabye <sp?> will get a vote from me in the veep seat.

}:)     [Ah, well ... so Thompson and Guiliani <sp?> are still out?]


Seriously?
I have never just voted or not voted on just one issue.

164 mean Gene  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:41:26pm

I happen to like what I've heard from Bobby Jindal.
He does really well on live TV, I might add.

I also can say that I spent a good deal of time in life learing then unlearning various lies from various scientists who swore they had each found the ''missing link'' or oldest human skull or proof of this or proof of that in the archeological record.

National Geographic, Science magazine, Nature magazine and others have all been taken in from time to time, so it's not like I'm the idiot
.
Could it be that there are liars and miscreants in both areas of this debate?
(I know "the Huckster" plays with the truth oftimes.)

165 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:41:46pm

re: #146 reine.de.tout

If you find the book I linked to above (Science of G-d) it actually points out that the Torah itself describes evolution (they were made from the dust of the Earth.... or something like that).

I think that a evolution concept actually enforces the belief in a Creator. The specificity needed for evolution and the beings that it supposedly created is too huge to be a fluke.

The problem I believe most have with the Genisis explaination and the evolution theory is TIME. They look at the Torah and state "that couldn't have happened in just so many seconds" but the Torah doesn't claim that the "Day" was exctly as it was now, or that a "second" was just what it is now. (Human evention by the way time is).

Thus in the time of Adam, a "day" could have been a recent equivalent of thousands of years, etc.

In this frame work, evolution is not a competing myth against the Torah & G-d but instead proof of His plan.

166 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:42:01pm

BTW, apologies if my spelling runs amok.  I've been up since 4:00 am (had to drive to SF for some medical care) and just got back.  These long days just take it out of me anymore.

}:)     [Hmmm ... better wait until 6:00 for anything other than ibuprofen ... if I'm still awake then ... ]

167 Summer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:42:12pm

Interesting as this conversation is (It's not...I'm actually tired of this topic, but I will never give up in general), I have stuff to do. So to the ID people out there: GO TO A MUSEUM INSTEAD OF A CREATIONIST WEBSITE.

And if you have kids, please take them too.

I'm out for now.

168 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:42:16pm

Evolution thread!

169 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:42:38pm

re: #164 mean Gene

I happen to like what I've heard from Bobby Jindal.
He does really well on live TV, I might add.

I also can say that I spent a good deal of time in life learing then unlearning various lies from various scientists who swore they had each found the ''missing link'' or oldest human skull or proof of this or proof of that in the archeological record.

National Geographic, Science magazine, Nature magazine and others have all been taken in from time to time, so it's not like I'm the idiot
.
Could it be that there are liars and miscreants in both areas of this debate?
(I know "the Huckster" plays with the truth oftimes.)

You're right, there have been mistakes and frauds in biological science too.

But they were debunked by the application of MORE science, not by resorting to religion.

170 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:43:29pm

re: #149 the_vig

All of them.

However, not prove, supports the theory. What Fossil do you have that disproves the theory?

"All of them" - That is quite a response. I would think that your side of the argument would have LOTS and LOTS of half this/half that type of fossils to provide and my side would need only one ore two types. Where all of these half this/half that fossils? Did God clear them from earths surface?

171 cajunbelle  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:43:50pm
172 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:44:01pm

re: #169 Charles

You're right, there have been mistakes and frauds in biological science too.

But they were debunked by the application of MORE science, not by resorting to religion.

And that's exactly what will happen with the global warming hoax.

173 freetoken  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:44:18pm

Politicians, when entering the field, surely must be required to take a tap dancing class.

174 yochanan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:44:34pm

re: #150 sultan_knish

When writing in a destructible or erasable medium, many religious Jews don't spell out God fully to avoid erasing it

the law is really about writing it in Hebrew, in other lang. it is just a custom to build a fence around the law to prevent you from committing a transgression.

science is science when it is used in science when it is used to justify a political belief it is no more science than a theological belief is science. since we have freedom of religion if those who want to believe in I.D. can do it just as those who want to believe in man made climate change as science when it is mostly a political belief.

175 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:44:38pm

re: #150 sultan_knish

When writing in a destructible or erasable medium, many religious Jews don't spell out God fully to avoid erasing it

Hmm! (-:
Sounds elegantly Jewish, and I mean that as a compliment.

(I'm nominally Methodist.)

176 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:44:54pm

re: #104 Charles

Oops! That's the first time I hit the minus button by mistake. Meant to plus you.

In that case, I will upding it for you.

And of course, by saying this Charles, you have probably made quote #79 by buzzsawmonkey the highest rated quote in Lizard history.

177 Poopshoot  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:44:57pm

re: #95 Dar ul Harb

Well, if you attempted to teach it in a scientific way, you'd have to account for all the evidence contradicting intelligent design.

Start with, for example, the fact that the neural connections for the human retina are "backward" from the way you'd engineer it if you were designing it from scratch, resulting in a blind spot in your visual field where the optic nerve passes through the retina that your visual cortex then has to fake the data for and patch over.

"Intelligent" design apparently only got it right in the cephalopods. (see Fig. 1)


And similarly, entropy would preclude not only the assemblage of highly complex molecules from much simpler ones, but the evolution of sexually reproducing species from organisms that reproduced by division. Explain the evolution of cells with exactly half of the proper number of chromosomes using thermodynamic (statistical mechanics) arguments.

178 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:45:04pm

The fossil record is indisputable unless proven otherwise.

179 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:45:30pm

Re the gaps -- the point is, there is a conflict between the theory and the empirical data, in that the former allows for no sudden "leaps" of evolution. Thus the theory of punctuated equilibrium -- which many biologists do not accept, since it clashes with orthodoxy. One is reminded of the creed of the economist: sure it works in reality, but will it work in theory?

It is an interesting question as to whether there are any ontological discontinuities in the cosmos. In my opinion there clearly are, e.g., between matter and life, life and mind, and mind and spirit. Or, to be precise, these radical discontinuities cannot be comprehended "from the bottom up." For example, to comprehend Darwinism is to have ipso facto transcended it on pain of renouncing its truth.

180 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:45:33pm

re: #156 Summer

I have been to museums. Tell me which fossils I missed.

181 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:46:08pm

re: #124 njspeer

ID is an untestable hypothesis.

The theory of evolution is, too, because no one can live 10,000 years to conduct the experiment, nor would anyone give you the money to try.
However, the mechanisms of evolution are very testable, such as genetics, mutations and selective breeding.

Furthermore, no real scientist would ever say they've proven anything to be true. All we really can do is say we've ruled everything else out. Evolution has yet to be ruled out.

ID has not been ruled out, either, but it can't be. It is outside of the scientific method.

That's all I'm going to say.

182 the_vig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:46:23pm

re: #151 Inquisitive


I can help you on this question. First refer to this link.
.Wondering how life got stated.

As the video here describes Evolution is the realm of biology.

Abiogenisis is how Chemistry leads to life. Abiogenisis is a very advanced topic. Should it be taught in School? Maybe in an advanced class, but I really wish schools would concentrate on basic science and math

183 FrogMarch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:46:34pm

Can't you take Theology in College?
If so - why not just separate intelligent design from science and stick it in the "theology" dept.

184 yochanan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:46:42pm

re: #162 Charles

science not that long ago believed in leeches and blood letting. remember scientists are still men. and men can be wrong.

185 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:47:14pm

re: #165 WrathofG-d

What you said is essentially the same thing I learned (in my Catholic catechism classes!) And I believe this is where that explanation belongs - in catechism or religion or religious studies classes, not science classes.

186 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:47:18pm

Let's not forget that the greatest scientists of its time "prooved" that the sun went around the Earth.

Just because our science is too primitive to yet proove the Creator, it doesn't mean it is automatically not true.

We couldn't proove micronisms for a very long time, yet one today could not argue they don't exist.

187 sultan_knish  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:47:37pm

re: #174 yochanan

Yes I know. Which is why I mostly don't do it as we already use a Kinui in Hebrew and in English it becomes redundant.

Science when properly applied is a wonderful way of understanding the world. When misapplied it becomes an ideology. A good way to tell the difference is when people begin getting angry about science, you can tell it has drifted into the area of ideology.

188 Racer X  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:47:54pm

42

189 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:48:06pm

re: #184 yochanan

science not that long ago believed in leeches and blood letting. remember scientists are still men. and men can be wrong.

No - 'leeches and bloodletting' had nothing to do with science. That was pure superstition.

It was medical science that ended that kind of superstition -- not religion.

190 Teacake!  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:48:19pm

kids in the Louisiana public school system don't pay much attention to much of anything taught in school, they won't notice this. Teachers spend most the class time just getting kids to shut up and settle down.

191 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:48:20pm

re: #180 VegasRick

I have been to museums. Tell me which fossils I missed.

This one:

[Link: english.pravda.ru...]

192 solomonpanting  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:48:23pm

re: #188 Racer X

42

Nope.

43

193 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:48:29pm

A question about the Establishment Clause...
My understanding is that this was a federal decision. Does that mean that even though the case was tried in Pennsylvania that it would apply in Louisiana as well or would there need to be a new trial. I assume Jindal is is going to sign the "Academic Freedom" bill when it shows up on his desk soon. What happens after that?

194 mean Gene  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:48:40pm

re: #169 Charles

You're right, there have been mistakes and frauds in biological science too.

But they were debunked by the application of MORE science, not by resorting to religion.

Egos are involved.
That's why the data gets skewed.
That's why the air time gets awarded.
Later, when the truth exposes the lies it makes it to page 16.
Maybe.
I've been reading about peer reviewing and how hard it is to get data to recheck stories that don't have the ring of truth.
A good recent example of it is found here:
[Link: freebornjohn.blogspot.com...]

To study the paper properly, I needed to have the authors' data. So I e-mailed Dr. Chuine, asking for this. The authors, though, were very reluctant to let me have the data. It took me eight months, tens of e-mails exchanged with the authors, and two formal complaints to Nature, to get the data. (Some data was purchased from Météo France.) It is obviously inappropriate that such a large effort was necessary.

And why was Dr. Chuine so reluctant?
Because he knew he had gotten away with skewing his data and getting published in Nature magazine!
He had lied.
It is way too common.
And we are surrounded by people who believe the lies that suit their own worldview.

195 Mars Needs Neocons  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:49:15pm

re: #153 Metal Man

Crap latched onto the wrong tape my kids were fed in high school. Should have said "An Inconvenient truth".

Both were "creative" works of fiction so I understand.

196 sultan_knish  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:49:47pm

re: #175 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Hmm! (-:
Sounds elegantly Jewish, and I mean that as a compliment.

(I'm nominally Methodist.)

Thank you. It derives from a biblical warning about not destroying anything Godly. In Hebrew a name of God is religiously only spelled out in holy books, which is a big part of what makes them holy. Destructible sheets of paper and such will commonly use a substitution letter.

197 paint-right  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:49:58pm

re: #186 WrathofG-d

micronisms?

198 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:49:59pm

re: #170 VegasRick

Why do whales have leg bones?

199 bellamags  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:50:08pm

re: #184 yochanan

They actually still use leaches for some medical purposes. and maggots.

200 yochanan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:50:25pm

re: #187 sultan_knish

my point exactly.

201 Racer X  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:50:28pm

re: #192 solomonpanting

Hmmm. The Guide says 42.

202 krypto  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:50:37pm

re: #9 Typicalwhitey

I don't see the problem.
Why can't they teach either BOTH sides or neither.

The creationist claim of wanting to have students hear both sides and decide is bogus. It is of course a cover to get religious indoctrination into the science curriculum.

High school and elementary school kids are doing well if they just learn the basic ideas of biology, physics, and chemistry at what is actually an extremely elementary and limited level - to gain the rudimentary level of knowledge required by curriculum standards of what science is all about and how it works.

They just don't have the background or experience, or remotely have the expertise, to be the ones who actually decide which theories are sound and unsound in a way that affects anything, or seriously decide the relative merits of real science and religion passing itself off as science.

If a biology class is being taught as it should be, the students are not asked to decide something like that and are not being indoctrinated in any way either - they only need to learn what evolution is to the extent required of them, and can personally believe whatever they choose about religion and disbelieve whatever they want about evolution, just so long as they show that they know what the theory of evolution is and how it works.

They are tested on their knowledge, not their beliefs.

203 Artki  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:50:47pm

Ok, one strike against Jindal. And 100s of reasons for supporting him so I won't worry about his ID quirk.

204 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:50:52pm

re: #139 CyanSnowHawk

Are you saying that because there is not a complete fossil record, that there is none at all? It would be wrong to do that. I have unearth fossils myself as a child in San Diego. It was create fun to break open rocks from an ancient sea bed and find fossils of long dead plants embedded within them.

ID may be an interesting hypothesis, but until there is some evidence that some intelligent designer stepped in and added their ingredients to the soup, then that is all it can be.

My spelling is still evolving apparently.

205 markx  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:51:15pm

I really think you just start threads like this to yank our chains.

I mean, really Charles, you knew where this would go, LOL.

Another 1,000+ post thread and everyone mad.

I'll just pop some corn and watch tonight... This is good theatre.

206 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:51:38pm

re: #123 WrathofG-d

BS. What is, is. That is an unfortunate train of thought, and completely ignores reality. You say that somehow, babies appeared, without the act of procreation? Bah. you make no sense. The SCIENCE will not have changed, no matter the time that has passed, noe wether it was understood at the time. FACT: If Adam And Eve were the first two humans created on, was it the sixth day,? that would have meant that their children had no option but to procreate with each other, incest. We have the SCIENCE to prove that would not have worked out too well genetically, and the human race could not possibly have survived more than a generation or two, and the succeeding generations would not have even been able to feed themselves, because the retardation would have been overwhelming.

207 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:51:54pm

Supersition was the science of its day. it was the height of the understanding of the world (which is what science is).

One cannot just state that the failures of sceience to be right then are not just to be considered silly "superstition".

The best scientists of that time believed that they understood how disease worked. It was "cured" by leeches. Just like we once believed the sun revolved around the Earth, etc. We could even "proove" it to the best of our ability at that time. That is all science can do, attempt to explain the cusp of where we are today. Many of these "truths" could very easily be prooven wrong later (and probably will).

Thinking that science is any more reliable then religion requires a larger amount of faith then believing in G-d.

208 sultan_knish  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:52:05pm

re: #184 yochanan

science not that long ago believed in leeches and blood letting. remember scientists are still men. and men can be wrong.

Until recently scientists still believed that some races were inferior to others. Some still do.

Enough said.

Humans come with human prejudices and there is no such thing as objectivity, only recognizing those prejudices and acknowledging that anything we do is fallible. When science does that, it works through trial and error. When it fails to do that, it becomes clogged by its own vanity.

209 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:52:08pm

re: #189 Charles

No - 'leeches and bloodletting' had nothing to do with science. That was pure superstition.

It was medical science that ended that kind of superstition -- not religion.

True, BUT ,leeches can stlll be used.
[Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...]

210 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:52:33pm

re: #75 WrathofG-d

Why couldn't one "proove" scientifically that in order to have the molecules, etc., there would have to be a Intellegent Designer (ie: G-d). /blockquote>

You cannot prove that there must be a supernatural cause to a given thing with the scientific method. Merely saying something has not been proven does not make the obverse to the theorum true.

The supernatural cannot in any way be proven scientifically. Also, merely thinking there must be a God requires faith, which is in no way scientific.

Apples and oranges.

211 StPatrick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:52:37pm

re: #124 njspeer

In science, an idea only qualifies as a theory if it is testable, and can be disproven. Since ID is dependent upon the empirically non-proveable (or deniable) existence of an intelligent designer, it cannot be scientifically tested.

An additional note: Darwin's theories never touched upon the genesis of life - he dealt only with the differentiation of species, and never claimed that God was or was not a part of the process. That is the major difference between the 3 schools of thought. Literalists (those that believe in Genesis as a factual history) acknowledge a Judeo-Christian God as the creator of the world, and Genesis as the account of that creation. ID followers substitute God for an "Intelligent Designer", stating that life is too complex to have arisen without supernatural help. Evolutionists accept the existence of life as a fact, and seek to understand how species have developed since the inception of life. Those who follow the scientific method do not make statements about where it came from, because that is beyond the scope of Darwins', and other evolutionary biologists', work.

212 justdanny  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:52:41pm

For the record, as if someone is keeping one. I am an atheist. I would never allow a child of mine (I have no children) to attend a class that taught religious doctrine as scientific fact.

having said that, I am not an activist atheist. I wish to recruit no one to my way of thinking on this issue. I wish no harm or ill will on people of faith. I have what I believe and others are just as enitiled to own what they believe.

Elective religion classes, I have no problem with. "In God we trust" and "One nation under God", I have no problem with. Judeo Christian morals and ideas have contributed to making this the best country in human history.

God and religion and all such "things" belong at home or in places of worship. Not public schools. To me "Freedom of religion", means freedom from religion.

213 rightymouse  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:52:46pm

Scientists were excited this week at having isolated a brief

sound which occurred immediately before the Big Bang.

Apparently, that sound was “uh oh.”

214 phoenixgirl  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:52:47pm

re: #198 Sharmuta


one day whales are going to walk out of the ocean? is that why some beach themselves? or in the olden days did they walk?

215 Inquisitive  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:52:57pm

re: #182 the_vig

I can help you on this question. First refer to this link.
.Wondering how life got stated.

As the video here describes Evolution is the realm of biology.

Abiogenisis is how Chemistry leads to life. Abiogenisis is a very advanced topic. Should it be taught in School? Maybe in an advanced class, but I really wish schools would concentrate on basic science and math


You Did not answer my ?---I know what bio evolution is and--I WANT TO KNOW if the evolution that everyone is pushing to be taugh in schools is Biology Evolution which is genes/DNA being passed from one generation to other or are the speaking of evolution that teaches we evolved from animal/mamal/micro.
One I firmly believe should be taught in class but other I do not.

216 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:53:09pm

re: #158 sultan_knish

accordingly one could also believe in atheism and believe that God created atheism

but such a position tends to fragment badly from its own contradictions and has no real staying power

An atheist will not believe in God and therefore will not be thinking that God created atheism.

A person who believes in God knows that God created man with free will to believe or not believe in Him.

Both sets of people can believe evolution is the scientific process that brought us to where we are today.

217 BGOH  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:53:25pm

I don't think this debate about ID is constructive for anybody, and quite frankly, this site's insistence in bringing the topic up over again is the only possible negative that I see about it. Sorry Charles, I know you're interested in it, and I respect that. Just being honest.

Getting back to the Jindal for VP issue, though, I don't really think it would be beneficial for the party long-term if he were thrown to the national political wolves so early in his career. In terms of forwarding the cause of conservatism I think it would be much better if Jindal were given a full term or two as governor of LA, and to do so successfully as I've no doubt he will, and then enter the national political scene. Conservatism has a wonderful opportunity to turn around a traditionally Democrat state (and one that has been run into the ground by it) under Jindal. There is nothing insignificant about that.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, I think would be a much better choice simply because of where she comes from. Alaska, to my knowledge, is a traditionally Republican state, so it isn't like she would be abandoning a great opportunity like Jindal would be. Plus, she is a fantastic leader, a true conservative who is strong on domestic energy, and if we have to play the stupid identity politics front, she's got boobay.

Bottom line: between Jindal and Palin, I think Palin is the more realistic choice.

218 The Other Les  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:53:34pm

I'm going to go out for a walk.

219 songbird  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:54:15pm

re: #209 ted

True, BUT ,leeches can stlll be used.
[Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...]

They are, as are maggots for cleaning out wounds.

220 solomonpanting  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:54:16pm

re: #203 Artki

Ok, one strike against Jindal. And 100s of reasons for supporting him so I won't worry about his ID quirk.

I have a particular disdain for one-issue voters.

221 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:54:18pm

re: #197 paint-right

I'm thinking of the crazy guy that was ranting about all the little bugs and things crawling on his skin and washing his hands all the time.

All the scientists and wiseist men of the city, looked at him and laughed at his silly faith and belief as he was "mad". There is nothing on your hands they yelled at him. Look at your hands. There is nothign wet, or hard, or this or that....look there is nothing. the greatest tools of science at that time couldn't proove anything was on his hands.

Well now we know that that "crazy" guy was right, even though the science of the time couldn't yet proove it.

222 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:55:06pm

re: #209 ted

True, BUT ,leeches can stlll be used.
[Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...]

True - but they're used now because of their well-understood anti-coagulant properties. In medieval times, they were used to let out the "bad humours."

223 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:55:11pm

re: #210 Catttt

Oops. First paragraph was Wrath's - rest was mine.

224 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:55:17pm

re: #196 sultan_knish

Didn't know that. Thanks.

225 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:55:36pm

re: #139 CyanSnowHawk

That does sound cool. When I was growing up, we lived in a townhouse for awhile with a section of rock siding that had an impression fossil on it. Not sure if that's the right terminology, but it was cool to have a fossil on my house.

226 markx  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:55:42pm

Hey, Charles, I say time for a Tommy Emmanuel thread.

Pleeeeeeeez............

227 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:55:48pm
228 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:56:03pm

re: #159 Kulhwch

Dead-on.  Well, that's two potential running mates that will lead me not to vote for McCain.  Neither Bobby Jindal nor Huckabye <sp?> will get a vote from me in the veep seat.

}:)     [Ah, well ... so Thompson and Guiliani <sp?> are still out?]

Great! It's thinking like that that will give the office of POTUS to Obama.

Just what kind of effect will having Jindal in the WH have on education?

229 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:56:12pm

re: #198 Sharmuta

Why do whales have leg bones?

Sharm,
I am not saying that I think all species in there current form have not evolved over the years to adapt to their environment. I just don't think that everything in the world evolved for some "soup" and all species just went their own way in developing.

230 Lynn B.  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:56:27pm

re: #113 sultan_knish

so the point of teaching ID then is arguably to promote a Christian-centered worldview, while the teaching of Evolution is arguably meant to promote a God-less worldview

No, the point of teaching ID is to introduce religious doctrine into secular education, which our Constitution prohibits, at least in public government supported schools.

Whereas the point of teaching Evolution is meant to promote a scientific understanding of how we got here, irrespective of whether you accept it as part of your own religious understanding of the same question or not. IOW, it's a God-neutral worldview. And it's not exactly news that many teachers of evolution are themselves quite religious and find no inherent contradiction between what they teach and what they believe. More power to them.

231 Racer X  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:56:32pm

re: #213 rightymouse

Scientists were excited this week at having isolated a brief

sound which occurred immediately before the Big Bang.

Apparently, that sound was “uh oh.”

I thought the sound was "hey, I wonder what would happen if we push this button?"

232 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:56:53pm
re: #14 WrathofG-d
re: #8 CapeCoddah

Good Evening all, Just stopped by to say hi, but, I don't think I can take any more ID arguments. ID is just plain silly, and everyone over the age of six should realize that, IMO. (that is just about when I started questioning it.) Sorry if that offends anyone, don't mean to be insulting, but I am of the opinion that being asked to believe in ID insults MY intelligence.

Yes that IS offensive.

What is?  There was nothing offensive in what CapeCoddah wrote, above, which I've restored in case your short-term memory is giving you problems.

I am glad that you don't agree,

<Maurice Chevalier accent>Your lips, they say no, no, but your eyes, they say yes yes ...

*Ahem*  Your actions seem to indicate you feel no such thing.

but your smug,

Where?  <sotto voice>  Oh, yeah, he was just scathing when he said " ... I am of the opinion that being asked to believe in ID insults MY intelligence ... "

and insulting comments towards those that do are unecessary and rude.

Actually, it appears that you are the rude and insulting one.

And here's where we bring in things that weren't in the original exchange AND cement the fact that it IS indeed religion, not science, that is the problem here:

Its ok if you disagree with the idea of G-d, but you should do so politely, and without insulting those that disagree with you.

You mean do as you say, not as you do?

}:)     [Stunning example of turn the other cheek.  Wowsers ... ]

233 paint-right  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:57:05pm

re: #206 CapeCoddah

you're assuming that brothers and sisters then would produce genetic trouble as is possible now. But if ...if...the first people intermarried, then thier genetic material would have been..theoretically...quite pure and unmutated - unevolved ....and therefore no great harm. This could acccount for the long long life spans, too of the old patriarchs.

if I am not mostaken there are a lot of close relatives marrying in the middle east and in a lot of isolated primitive cultures and while there are occasional problems, they are not doomed in two generations, nor are they retarded.

234 Hhar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:57:16pm

Yarg.

ID isn't science worth mentioning. Its fringe, and its fringe because ID has not operationalised the notion of "design" in such a way that it can be verified by multiple means. The sole non-circular operationalisation it has come up with is "irreducible complexity" but we can demonstrate in silico and in vivo evolution of irreducibly complex structures.

ID is CRAP as science. Utter total BOSH. This cannot be emphasised enough. Creationists should shun it like the plague: its merely Darwin Lite.

Unbeleivable that a bi9ology major could favor this nonsense.

235 Alex_P_Keaton  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:57:16pm

So is Pluto a planet, dwarf planet, planetoid, plutoid, all or none?

236 Rock the Casbah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:57:25pm

wow - being both a long time Lizard and Jindal supporter from Louisiana, i'm in the unenviable position of picking sides.

Bobby does not in regular practice use the term ID. While certainly doing nothing to discourage portions of the right from thinking he is "pro-ID", if you actually listen to what he has said over the course of four years, his real beef is the political correctness in the school systems that do not allow any framing of evolution as theory.

Given how the global warming BS is seeping into school curriculum, this is a legitimate concern................

Charles - Why does the fact that ID is BS mean that it's religion? Why isn't global warming considered a religion?

just fyi - the local press long ago identified this "ID-supporter narrative" as something they could hang bobby with. It has gone no where except with the most left-wing fanatics - who aren't going to vote for him anyway.

237 sultan_knish  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:57:54pm

re: #216 reine.de.tout

An atheist will not believe in God and therefore will not be thinking that God created atheism.

A person who believes in God knows that God created man with free will to believe or not believe in Him.

Both sets of people can believe evolution is the scientific process that brought us to where we are today.

I really should let go of this, sigh, but...

My point is that believing in a worldview that takes God out of the equation only to compromise by having God be the mechanism behind that worldview is an inherent paradox and a theological compromise that is unsustainable in the long run.

And that really will be my very last post on this topic. Damn these things can be surprisingly addictive.

238 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:58:06pm

re: #214 phoenixgirl

Read the whole link.

239 justdanny  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:58:16pm

Oh Man....

240 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:58:20pm

re: #228 vapig

none.

241 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:58:23pm

re: #206 CapeCoddah

He answered your question. If you didn't like his response there was no reason to get snarky about it - just politely disagree.

242 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:58:48pm

re: #213 rightymouse

Scientists were excited this week at having isolated a brief

sound which occurred immediately before the Big Bang.

Apparently, that sound was “uh oh.”

Before ... or after?!?

243 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:59:00pm

What are they teaching kids in college these days? No one here seems to appreciate that logical positivism went out with the Charleston.

244 rightymouse  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:59:02pm

re: #228 vapig

Just what kind of effect will having Jindal in the WH have on education?

Exactly. Last time I looked, the Prez didn't have any say regarding what went into curriculum.

245 yochanan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:59:05pm

re: #189 Charles


we call it superstition now often they people that did it were trained docs. just that the beliefs changed. i just used it as a example how knowledge changed. Ben franklin was a scientist but if you mentioned space flight or radio and t.v waves i bet he would not have a clue. knowledge changes quite quickly now a days.

246 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:59:18pm

re: #206 CapeCoddah

You are using the science of today to proove what happened during the times of Adam and Eve?

This is your problem. Adam was not a human as we understand. I highly suggest you read the story again. The garden of eden did not work like New York City does. Just because things work a specifc way now does not mean that they were always this way.

I cannot look at the Grand Canyon and state it was always that way just because it is that way now, nor should I assume that Arizona was always a desert just because it is that way now. Things change, and I firmly believe that the way things "work" today is VERY differnt from the way they worked when Adam and Eve were communicating and interacting with G-d directly.

In fact your evolution theory would only bolster my opinion that "things change".

247 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 4:59:50pm

re: #225 Sharmuta

That does sound cool. When I was growing up, we lived in a townhouse for awhile with a section of rock siding that had an impression fossil on it. Not sure if that's the right terminology, but it was cool to have a fossil on my house.

I grew up in Wyoming with a fossil thigh bone of some kind in my yard. And some petrified trees. My dad liked to bring stuff home.

248 Wumpus Hunter  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:00:09pm

I'd go so far as allowing Evolution taught as a scientific theory rather than a fact, but I can not support Int. Design taught as that. A theory is testable, you can not test god. That is why to believe in ID takes faith. Faith should not be taught in schools as my and you're faith may differ significantly.

It's too bad. I liked Jindal as a VP candidate. I have no problem with faith in office. I have problems with faith in public policies (be teaching ID or instituting Sharia..)

249 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:00:23pm

re: #222 Charles

True - but they're used now because of their well-understood anti-coagulant properties. In medieval times, they were used to let out the "bad humours."

Yes: And this.

2. Bloodletting. Leeches or phlebotomy (removing blood by intravenous needle) have been and are presently used commonly to reduce iron levels in cases of polycythemia and other disorders involving excessive iron.
These methods work excellently for removing iron. The advantages of this method are it is very fast (too fast) and it is relatively easy for the patient.
On the subject of bloodletting, it is, perhaps, no coincidence that those who give blood often live longer than those who receive many blood transfusions, a very dangerous pattern of medicine that needs to change. The problem with receiving blood, however, is not so much the iron, which is often needed, as infections that are blood-borne and hard to detect at the blood bank.

[Link: drlwilson.com...]

250 Nemesis6  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:00:52pm

Excellent tip-toing in this video - As long as you dumb it down as much as you can, you can convince people that science is a democracy -- That EVERYONE has a right to hold an audience in a science class room.
Problem is, Cdesign proponentsists can can't get over this one question:
What would you TEACH? No, not what would you try to cast doubt on, what do you actually have teach kids? That's the problem with Creationism - Using fake science to try to cast doubt on something that has been proven is not science. And in way is the underlying motive for Creationism, either; God. You can't apply God as a lazy patchwork on things you don't understand, that's not science. And you certainly can't grab a 2000 year old book, and then try to find stuff to support it - That's not the scientific method. Conclusion can never come first, and that's why the cdesign proponentsists will never get anywhere near science, except of course trying to infiltrate it using their lovely wedge strategy.

251 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:01:25pm

re: #184 yochanan

True, But as SCIENCE EVOLVED, we found the right answers. It is called trial and error. Doctors believed that at a time when most things medical were just being learned. And, lets not forget, Leeches and Maggots are STILL used in several applications today, and very successfully.

252 the_vig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:01:28pm

re: #215 Inquisitive


Oh your talking about the Macro evolution vs. Micro evolution fallacy. There is no difference. The only reason people are saying there is a difference is that their arguments against micro evolution have been disproven.
Basically they are saying things evolve, but they do not become a different species. it is a false distinction that I will let Kilgore Trout explain.

253 BignJames  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:02:06pm

re: #235 Alex_P_Keaton

So is Pluto a planet, dwarf planet, planetoid, plutoid, all or none?

I'm going w/planet....it's been one since 1930 something? Not fair to take it away now.

254 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:02:11pm
re: #17 WrathofG-d
re: #12 Charles

One could argue that Science IS religion. (see the Global Warming "science" for example).

Both require a very large amount of faith.

<Laughing until I fall off my chair.>

}:)     [ <wiping tears from eyes> Too much irony going wasted there ... ]

255 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:02:12pm

re: #199 bellamags

Sorry Bella, I did not see your post before I posted the same answer.

256 justdanny  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:02:30pm

Sheesh....

257 rightymouse  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:02:37pm

re: #231 Racer X

I thought the sound was "hey, I wonder what would happen if we push this button?"

Hmmmmm...

258 godfrey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:02:42pm

Oh good, an industrial design thread! Here's my favorite intelligent designer.

259 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:02:49pm

re: #210 Catttt


Well I could point to the fact that thousand year old Jewish texts explained how the Jews would be kicked out of Israel then in about 2,000 years return...then show you that that in fact did happen. This would, in my opinion go very far to prooving G-d, as a human could not know that.

The proof is there...but it is called "faith" or "coincidence" discounted and shrugged off. I could make the same claim for scientific proofs. Like how the sun revolved around the Earth, etc.

260 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:02:59pm

re: #235 Alex_P_Keaton

So is Pluto a planet, dwarf planet, planetoid, plutoid, all or none?

A dog, idiot! Everyone knows that!

/sarc
(-:

261 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:03:30pm

re: #253 BignJames

I'm going w/planet....it's been one since 1930 something? Not fair to take it away now.

Wait a couple of thousand years and it will evolve into a dog. Disney knows what's going on!
/

262 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:03:41pm

re: #254 Kulhwch

Thank you for the respectful response.

/psych

263 paint-right  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:03:58pm

re: #235 Alex_P_Keaton

So is Pluto a planet, dwarf planet, planetoid, plutoid, all or none?

tuned in the local access station over the weekend and local kids were singing " Oh Pluto! You're still a planet to Meeeeeeee!"

Cute song!

264 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:04:03pm

Kulhwch:

As hard as you're laughing, Gödel is laughing harder at you. Forever.

265 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:04:10pm

re: #252 the_vig

it is a false distinction that I will let Kilgore Trout explain.


You're doing fine on your own.

266 Inquisitive  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:04:11pm

re: #252 the_vig

Oh your talking about the Macro evolution vs. Micro evolution fallacy. There is no difference. The only reason people are saying there is a difference is that their arguments against micro evolution have been disproven.
Basically they are saying things evolve, but they do not become a different species. it is a false distinction that I will let Kilgore Trout explain.

Thank you---that is the answer I needing.

267 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:04:37pm

re: #258 godfrey

LOL. You're such a smartass.

268 rightymouse  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:04:57pm

re: #242 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Before ... or after?!?

Before.

After the Bang, a voice was heard saying, "now what?"....

And then another voice said, "let time and the scientists sort it out"....

269 CDR Resser  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:05:05pm

The contention that one idea is science and another is not, is an opinion just like many others that are stated here. You are welcome to it. Frankly neither have been proved. Neither will be proved, ever. End of story.
To ignore one idea at the expense of the other is ignorant.
Some will never accept the possibility of intervention of the Divine, just as some will never accept that life descended from inanimate matter. Each require a requisite amount of faith. Either you believe that life was created, or resulted from random chance. There is evidence for each. I know which is more acceptable to me, because I was exposed to both sides of the debate. I made a choice for myself. That should be the criterion. Match the arguments up and the best one wins.
Lest you doubt my credentials, I have several post baccalaureate degrees and a terminal degree in medicine.

270 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:05:05pm

Between my comment #19 and now I just added another outlet in my family room for my wife. The mess is cleaned up, the tools put away and the lamp she just bought is on.

All that occurred in that brief amount of time because of 1 of 2 things -

a) I exploited techniques and technology developed by mankind through reason, or

b) divine intervention.

Which one do you think it was?

Oh, and the fact that the lamp is on does not diminish my belief in God.

271 mean Gene  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:05:31pm

re: #245 yochanan

we call it superstition now often they people that did it were trained docs. just that the beliefs changed. i just used it as a example how knowledge changed. Ben franklin was a scientist but if you mentioned space flight or radio and t.v waves i bet he would not have a clue. knowledge changes quite quickly now a days.

Very good point, yochanan.
The ''smartest'' men in medicine railed against washing their hands between autopsy and the maternity ward because the man who suggested it - nay! proved it in a test! - was a Jew!
So, for nearly 100 extra years women died in huge numbers.
Was it ''science?"
Was it ''truth?"
No, it was prejudice of the elite.
Those in a position to set the agenda in the top schools of medicine perpetrated bad practices because of their own hatred for Jews.
Sound familiar?

272 mclaw  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:05:36pm

First of all, I flunked or barely passed Biology...as the old song says I don't know much about it. However, I never believed in Evolution as it relates to man coming from apes or monkeys. If we truly evolved from monkeys or apes, why are there still monkeys and apes? As for ID, at my old age I am not going to vote against it...I am going to play on the safe side. As for the truly religious amongst us why not take the position that God created Evolution...slam dunk finished with the argument. Everyone wins.

As for Gov. Jindal, if he were a blue dog democrat he would be on the democratic ticket or he would have beaten out Obama and Hillary. The Gov. is the future of the Conservative Party. The Republican party closed down long ago when the Elephant was traded in for a Rhino....and a Rhino with no spine to boot. Do Rhino's even has spines? See first sentence.

273 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:05:38pm

re: #259 WrathofG-d

I could make the same claim for scientific proofs. Like how the sun revolved around the Earth, etc.

Except it was science that proved it didn't.

274 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:06:04pm
re: #20 WrathofG-d
re: #15 CapeCoddah

Did you just compare the Real G-d, to the make believe "santa"?

You think this is going to help you?

Oh, gawd, not again ...

}:D     < ... sliding out of chair, helpless ... >

275 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:06:04pm

re: #259 WrathofG-d

as well as the destruction of the several kingdoms as described in detail by Daniel. Well before they happened, as verified by the Dead Sea scrolls

276 Russkilitlover  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:06:22pm

re: #180 VegasRick

I have been to museums. Tell me which fossils I missed.

If you're going to a museum looking for a linear, A to B map of evolution, you will not find it. Evolution is not simple but simplicity is implied by the dismissal of evolution by ID'ers and Creationists.

Horse Evolution

277 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:06:24pm

re: #272 mclaw

If we truly evolved from monkeys or apes, why are there still monkeys and apes?


Ah, that old gag.

278 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:06:27pm

I wish I could have seen the big flying reptiles.

279 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:06:42pm

re: #268 rightymouse

Before.

After the Bang, a voice was heard saying, "now what?"....

And then another voice said, "let time and the scientists sort it out"....

*chuckle*

280 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:07:08pm

re: #12 Charles

Because one side is science and one side is religion. Only the science belongs in a science classroom.

Charles, this is sounding a bit arrogant - uncharacteristic of you.

I presume you have read and understood Michael Behe's latest book - "The Edge of Evolution". I have been struggling with it for quite a while. ( He is a professor of biochemistry, for those not aware.)

Would you care to explain to your readers just how Behe fails to show, in your opinion, that Darwinism has not adequately proved the evolution of complex biological structure.

There is a heck of a lot of tough science in this book, and I would hope you are not simply relying on authority.

281 mean Gene  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:07:22pm

re: #278 Ojoe

I wish I could have seen the big flying reptiles.

And they wished they could have seen you, you tasty thing!

282 Typicalwhitey  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:07:23pm

re: #270 karmic_inquisitor

Between my comment #19 and now I just added another outlet in my family room for my wife. The mess is cleaned up, the tools put away and the lamp she just bought is on.

All that occurred in that brief amount of time because of 1 of 2 things -

a) I exploited techniques and technology developed by mankind through reason, or

b) divine intervention.

Which one do you think it was?

Oh, and the fact that the lamp is on does not diminish my belief in God.

Well I can assure you that if my husband did that, it would definitely be devine intervention~

283 solomonpanting  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:07:36pm

re: #270 karmic_inquisitor

Between my comment #19 and now I just added another outlet in my family room for my wife. The mess is cleaned up, the tools put away and the lamp she just bought is on.

All that occurred in that brief amount of time because of 1 of 2 things -

a) I exploited techniques and technology developed by mankind through reason, or

b) divine intervention.

Which one do you think it was?

Oh, and the fact that the lamp is on does not diminish my belief in God.

You're hard-wired, by God.

284 HelloDare  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:08:33pm

re: #222 Charles

True - but they're used now because of their well-understood anti-coagulant properties. In medieval times, they were used to let out the "bad humours."

Leeches are a cure for Whoopi Goldberg?

285 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:08:33pm
286 justdanny  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:08:44pm

I am nothing but a big fancy monkey. Thank you all, goodnight.

3% battery remaining.

287 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:08:55pm

re: #280 funkyfantom

Would you care to explain to your readers just how Behe fails to show, in your opinion, that Darwinism has not adequately proved the evolution of complex biological structure.

Are you talking about irreducible complexity?

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

288 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:09:19pm

re: #26 njspeer

It's official. Science is the new religion, and NOONE is allowed to challenge the new religion.

Peggy Noone is allowed to challenge Science?

};)     [Her and everyone else, in case you weren't aware ... ]

289 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:09:35pm

re: #269 CDR Resser

OT -- what th' dickins is your avatar?

(my credentials are as a student of Japanese history in my younger days)

290 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:09:38pm

re: #276 Russkilitlover

If you're going to a museum looking for a linear, A to B map of evolution, you will not find it. Evolution is not simple but simplicity is implied by the dismissal of evolution by ID'ers and Creationists.

Horse Evolution

re: #229 VegasRick

Sharm,
I am not saying that I think all species in there current form have not evolved over the years to adapt to their environment. I just don't think that everything in the world evolved for some "soup" and all species just went their own way in developing.

Please read.

291 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:09:55pm

Speaking of leeches and such, anyone who believes that semantics can be reduced to syntax is living in the 19th century.

292 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:10:18pm

re: #273 Sharmuta

only after hundreds of years after it "prooved" it did.

This is my point. That Science is not much more than faith in our most recent understanding. Sort of like Religion.

Its all faith until ultimately prooven (ie: we could find out that because of some super atmostpheric thing we can't even begin to conceptualize today our understanding today of the sun was wrong and it was actually moving around the Earth at such a speed that to our present eye it looked as if it was still and instead the earth moving, etc)

Religion and Science are both unproved, and always changing.

293 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:10:32pm

re: #213 rightymouse

Scientists were excited this week at having isolated a brief

sound which occurred immediately before the Big Bang.

Apparently, that sound was “uh oh.”

I'll lay even money that the sound right before that was "Hey, watch this."

294 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:12:04pm

re: #287 Sharmuta

Are you talking about irreducible complexity?

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

I guess you didn't read the book either. And if you want to argue- fine- but trading links is not arguing.

295 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:12:05pm
re: #28 Sharmuta
re: #22 winston06

I think the best policy s to let students choose what they want to learn.

Many would choose to learn nothing unrelated to video games.

Don't forget beer and women.  As a matter of policy, never forget beer and women.

}:)     [That's my advice, and I'm sticking to it.]

296 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:12:27pm
297 Nemesis6  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:12:32pm

re:

298 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:12:39pm
299 Lynn B.  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:13:15pm

re: #227 buzzsawmonkey

Yowza! Great post. Thanks for sharing.

300 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:13:15pm

re: #277 Killgore Trout

What was the gag? Missed it. Curiousity's aroused.

301 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:13:27pm

re: #259 WrathofG-d

Well I could point to the fact that thousand year old Jewish texts explained how the Jews would be kicked out of Israel then in about 2,000 years return...then show you that that in fact did happen. This would, in my opinion go very far to prooving G-d, as a human could not know that.

The proof is there...but it is called "faith" or "coincidence" discounted and shrugged off. I could make the same claim for scientific proofs. Like how the sun revolved around the Earth, etc.

Sigh.

Religion is not a science. Examples of prophecy are not science. Prophecy is supernatural. You cannot call prophecy science. You are stubborn. Science is not religion. Religion is not science.

302 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:13:33pm

re: #292 WrathofG-d

Religion and Science are both unproved, and always changing.

I think that's a bit of a stretch to say nothing in science has been proven.

303 rightymouse  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:13:34pm

re: #284 HelloDare

Leeches are a cure for Whoopi Goldberg?

lol!

304 CDR Resser  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:13:42pm

re: #289

OT -- The battle flag of the USS TANG SS 306. I'm a sub nut and adopted that as my avatar for almost all of the sites where I am allowed to use it. Looks pretty cool, huh.

305 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:13:58pm

re: #29 jemima

#22
Most students would choose Wiccan 101 and the History of Football over science or literature. But yes, let's let them keep choosing the courses, it's worked out so well thus far.

Actually, Wiccan 101, depending on who the Wiccan was, can be very entertaining.

}:P     [Now basic Wicca, that's got a bit more bite.]

306 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:14:17pm

re: #162 Charles

It is possible, certainly. But it cannot ever be proven in a scientific sense.

Hence, it is not science.

You should watch your metaphors. Evolution isn't falsifiable. Hence it is not provable. Therefore, according to your statement, it isn't science either. Evolution may be the most likely answer...but according to your definition it doesn't work.

Such is the problem when people are fanatical about their position. They can completely denounce someone else while their own position isn't, really, set in stone. And you, Charles, more than anyone else, should know where that leads.

307 rightymouse  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:14:37pm

re: #293 CyanSnowHawk

I'll lay even money that the sound right before that was "Hey, watch this."


I'll match that bet. lol!

308 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:14:54pm

re: #233 paint-right

Take a look at the GENETIC SCIENCE on brother/ sister procreation. To have a NORMAL child out of such a union is extremely rare. There is a VERY VALID SCIENTIFIC reason we do not allow brothers and sisters to marry.

309 Winslow  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:14:58pm

Are your dreams filled with visions of the naked lizardian form?
Are you a squamatan lecertophiliac?
You know you are.

The illustrated Who Knows?

310 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:15:12pm

re: #280 funkyfantom

I presume you have read and understood Michael Behe's latest book - "The Edge of Evolution". I have been struggling with it for quite a while.


Don't waste your time. Behe is another well known fraud....
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Behe gets his very own section. See #15

311 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:15:28pm

re: #302 Sharmuta

my point is that we must see ourselves as those who were so impressed with themselves when they "prooved" that the sun revolved around the Earth.

At all times, we are those people. Always at the cusp of our understanding, and always so sure that we are the smartest there have ever been.

312 Pdogg  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:15:51pm

Creation can't happen because of the "Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy." This law proves the universe was never created.

313 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:16:20pm

re: #237 sultan_knish

I really should let go of this, sigh, but...

My point is that believing in a worldview that takes God out of the equation only to compromise by having God be the mechanism behind that worldview is an inherent paradox and a theological compromise that is unsustainable in the long run.

And that really will be my very last post on this topic. Damn these things can be surprisingly addictive.

Learning about evolution in a science class does not take God out of the equation.

Believing that God created everything, including the scientific processes and mechanisms by which life exists and evolves is NOT an inherent paradox nor is it a theological compromise.

314 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:16:35pm

re: #202 krypto

High school and elementary school kids are doing well if they just learn the basic ideas of biology, physics, and chemistry at what is actually an extremely elementary and limited level - to gain the rudimentary level of knowledge required by curriculum standards of what science is all about and how it works.

[...]

If a biology class is being taught as it should be, the students are not asked to decide something like that and are not being indoctrinated in any way either - they only need to learn what evolution is to the extent required of them, and can personally believe whatever they choose about religion and disbelieve whatever they want about evolution, just so long as they show that they know what the theory of evolution is and how it works.

The point of high school biology is, as you say, to learn some basics about genetics, anatomy, physiology, etc. And I'd say the best way to teach it is with labs. Hard to do a lab on evolution. About all the students really need to know about evolution is that it's one of the frameworks of biology, much as quantum mechanics is one of the frameworks of physics. But to expect the students in high school to have any depth of understanding of either of these frameworks is asking too much. And besides, they can be educated citizens without going into so much detail on either framework in the limited time available.

315 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:16:43pm

re: #294 funkyfantom

Fine- I don't find Behe to be an unbiased observer in this fight. I think he's a willing accomplice in driving an agenda.

316 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:16:49pm

re: #214 phoenixgirl

one day whales are going to walk out of the ocean? is that why some beach themselves? or in the olden days did they walk?

Apparently, cetaceans evolved from a small (Medium Dog Size) land mammal that inhabited swamps. When the climate changed, more food was available in the water than on the land, the successful breeders were the ones that could hunt in the water. As a result, they adapted back into a water borne species and became what we know today.

317 freetoken  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:16:56pm

re: #312 Pdogg

That "law" was intentionally abandoned by physicists when looking at the really really big picture.

318 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:17:03pm

re: #297 Nemesis6

Frankly neither have been proved. Neither will be proved, ever.


Wrong.

319 rightymouse  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:18:17pm

re: #227 buzzsawmonkey


Humans need non-rationality; without it, the sick or unfit are not cared for, but are rendered into bars of soap. Humans need rationality, to be able to unlock the wonders of the universe. Both are necessary; they are complementary to each other. There is no conflict, except from those who insist on wrongly conflating the two.

Amen to that one.

320 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:18:32pm
re: #30 Charles
re: #27 WrathofG-d

You wrote:

Its ok if you disagree with the idea of G-d...

It's a non sequitur. He said nothing about belief in God. He expressed disbelief in "intelligent design" and that is NOT the same thing.

THANK YOU!

}:)     [And thanks, Charles, for opening another one of these discussions!]

321 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:18:38pm

re: #318 Killgore Trout

Wrong.

Is ID impossible?

322 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:18:55pm

re: #241 vapig

I did not mean to be snarky at all, his answer made no sense. I do apologize if I came across as such.

323 krypto  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:18:55pm

re: #280 funkyfantom

Would you care to explain to your readers just how Behe fails to show, in your opinion, that Darwinism has not adequately proved the evolution of complex biological structure.

(1) Failure to show, in science, means "keep working on it," NOT "therefore God made it that way."

(2) Ken Miller, for example, has lots and lots of detailed explanation of why Behe's stuff is bogus, answering all his claims. You'll can best get the explanations by reading one by one exactly what is wrong with Behe's claims rather than expecting a complete answer in a brief snippet.

You'll find that Behe has shown no such thing, he only claimed to have shown it.

[Link: www.millerandlevine.com...]

324 Pdogg  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:19:13pm

re: #317 freetoken

Then I will abandon all hope. Thanks a lot.

325 paint-right  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:19:16pm

re: #308 CapeCoddah

Take a look at the GENETIC SCIENCE on brother/ sister procreation. To have a NORMAL child out of such a union is extremely rare. There is a VERY VALID SCIENTIFIC reason we do not allow brothers and sisters to marry.

you know i was speaking very hypothetically

and you know that even if we did evolve from simian ancestors that the first generations were brothers and sisters and back then there would have been no taboo ....

i 'm just hypothesizing that it isn't necessarily a disaster and is theorectically possible especially as populations increased and groups moved farther and farther away from each other.

326 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:20:06pm

re: #318 Killgore Trout

Wrong.

Evolution is proven, unequivocably.

327 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:20:22pm

re: #304 CDR Resser

re: #289

OT -- The battle flag of the USS TANG SS 306. I'm a sub nut and adopted that as my avatar for almost all of the sites where I am allowed to use it. Looks pretty cool, huh.

Tang?! I'll be damned. Read about her (ages ago, don't remember much now ... btw, what's my name?)

What's the figure in the "center"? Your avatar's too small to make it out.

328 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:20:28pm

re: #310 Killgore Trout

I have a problem with labeling someone a fraud because he has a contrary view. There are contrary views in almost any field, science included. There is controversy even among veterinarians (imagine that) - it doesn't mean that the one holding a different view is a fraud.

329 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:20:51pm

re: #46 Yashmak

- Sharmuta

Now PC? It has nothing to do either with PC or the left, or dishonesty for that matter. The scientific method is the very foundation of the sciences. You want to teach as a science, it has to fit the definition. ID doesn't, and that's the long and short of it.

You missed my point.

330 Nemesis6  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:21:01pm

re: #318 Killgore Trout

Sorry, that was a quote from CDR, the formatting came out - As you said, wrong! :)

331 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:21:04pm

re: #321 VegasRick

Is ID impossible?

Yes, it's impossible w/o proof.

332 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:21:07pm

re: #321 VegasRick
No, it's not impossible but it's unprovable. It's an untestable hypothesis. Evolution is testable and it makes predictions. It can and so far has been proven.

333 Hhar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:21:12pm

Kilgour Trout

I don't think Behe is a "fraud". He seems sincere, if misguided and frankly wrong. If someone is being a fraud here, frankly its you, calling somebody who simply has wrong opinions a "fraud".

Here we go: anticreationists are often frauds. Sound good?

334 MellyMel  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:21:19pm

re: #181 angst

ID is an untestable hypothesis.

The theory of evolution is, too, because no one can live 10,000 years to conduct the experiment, nor would anyone give you the money to try.
However, the mechanisms of evolution are very testable, such as genetics, mutations and selective breeding.

Furthermore, no real scientist would ever say they've proven anything to be true. All we really can do is say we've ruled everything else out. Evolution has yet to be ruled out.

ID has not been ruled out, either, but it can't be. It is outside of the scientific method.

That's all I'm going to say.

Very well said.

335 Inquisitive  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:21:36pm

re: #252 the_vig

Oh your talking about the Macro evolution vs. Micro evolution fallacy. There is no difference. The only reason people are saying there is a difference is that their arguments against micro evolution have been disproven.
Basically they are saying things evolve, but they do not become a different species. it is a false distinction that I will let Kilgore Trout explain.

Sorry, that does not completely answer my ?--This is why I am asking--
Charles stated that you can believe in evolution and GOD--and that only evolution should be taught in school. If everyone is discussing and for Micro(Biology evolution--genes/DNA passing one generationto other) only being taught in school then yes go for it, and yes I think I could go along with idea that a person could believe in evolution and god but can't go along with Macro(one species to another)

336 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:22:11pm

re: #308 CapeCoddah

Take a look at the GENETIC SCIENCE on brother/ sister procreation. To have a NORMAL child out of such a union is extremely rare. There is a VERY VALID SCIENTIFIC reason we do not allow brothers and sisters to marry.

But I'm sure there's a very good handwaving intelligent design reason that excuses these early ancestors, on account of there being no deleterious mutations prior to the Flood, or something.

337 sparrowlake  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:22:21pm

re: #308 CapeCoddah

Take a look at the GENETIC SCIENCE on brother/ sister procreation. To have a NORMAL child out of such a union is extremely rare. There is a VERY VALID SCIENTIFIC reason we do not allow brothers and sisters to marry.

Is that why the whole human race is so effed up?

338 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:22:43pm

re: #328 mama winger

I have a problem with labeling someone a fraud because he has a contrary view.


He's not a fraud because I disagree with him. He's a fraud because he's been proven wrong and carries on anyways. He may someday vindicate himself but until them he's a quack.

339 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:22:44pm

re: #333 Hhar

Kilgour Trout

I don't think Behe is a "fraud". He seems sincere, if misguided and frankly wrong. If someone is being a fraud here, frankly its you, calling somebody who simply has wrong opinions a "fraud".

Here we go: anticreationists are often frauds. Sound good?

You missed KT's point.

340 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:22:51pm

re: #302 Sharmuta

Actually, nothing in science has been proven. It has to do with the terminology scientists use and the way we set up our tests. At the end of an experiment, we will say that only 5% of the time could we explain the result by chance- or only 1% of the time if the results are really good (this is biology, all you physicists and chemists jut stop your giggling now).

So, in essence, there is always "doubt." Is it substantial and material doubt? No. It isn't. I am perfectly happy risking my life on therapies based on it. But no, no theory is ever proven. Successful theories are simply never ruled out and they can be applied in real life to explain phenomena or change outcomes. Evolution passes those tests.

341 Racer X  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:22:52pm

42

342 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:23:08pm

re: #325 paint-right

noone argues that today brothers and sisters procreating causes problems.

I was stating that you cannot compare how things work today to how things worked when Adam and Eve were on Earth. The days of Miracles, and such are over. The world works differently now then it did then. People then lived to over 100 years old. Adam spoke and interacted directly with G-d Himself.

There is much proof that things did not work the way they do now, so it is worthless to shove the square peg into the round hole.

It is as if I were trying to proove that there was no ice age thousands of years ago, because the desert is all dirt and dry sand now.

343 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:23:20pm

re: #293 CyanSnowHawk

I'll lay even money that the sound right before that was "Hey, watch this."

I bet it was ... "I wonder what this button does?"

344 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:23:20pm

re: #306 Quilly Mammoth

You should watch your metaphors. Evolution isn't falsifiable. Hence it is not provable. Therefore, according to your statement, it isn't science either. Evolution may be the most likely answer...but according to your definition it doesn't work.

Such is the problem when people are fanatical about their position. They can completely denounce someone else while their own position isn't, really, set in stone. And you, Charles, more than anyone else, should know where that leads.

Intelligent design is not incompatible with evolution. An intelligent designer could very well have engineered the evolutionary process. ID is, OTOH, quite incompatible with Darwinism, which has claimed evolution of complex biological structure through random mutation.

In fact, Darwinism HAS been scientifically proved to occur-
malaria has changed its DNA in small ways to foil new drugs, for example. But it is a long way to go from this to demonstrating how intraflagellular transport, for example, could evolve from a simple structure by random mutation.

345 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:24:07pm

re: #338 Killgore Trout

Okay.

346 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:24:08pm

re: #310 Killgore Trout

Don't waste your time. Behe is another well known fraud....
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Behe gets his very own section. See #15

If you know the science- argue it. Otherwise, you are just following authority.

347 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:24:54pm

OT: So I have been hanging out at the hotel in Manila. I can't believe the garbage these poor filipinos are spoon fed.

1. CNN / National Geographic : Global warming is a 100% proven scientific fact. Every flipping program is GLOBAL WARMING this / Global Warming that...(yeah it is hot and sweaty here, but it is NOT a fact.)

2. Racism is everywhere in sports...blah, blah, blah...courtesy of the talking points courtesy of the Obama camp.

Poor unsuspecting people being victimized by the CNN / MSM agenda.

348 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:25:13pm

re: #301 Catttt

Sigh.

Religion is not a science. Examples of prophecy are not science. Prophecy is supernatural. You cannot call prophecy science. You are stubborn. Science is not religion. Religion is not science.

I could disagree by stating that I believe that God is the GREATEST: Scientist; Biologist; Physicist: Botanist: Chemist: and all the other IST'S out there.

349 zombie  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:25:15pm

In case anyone's wondering:

I will not comment on this thread.

Instead, I will spend the hour constructively working on my Obama Rumor/Obama Fact page!

/aim high

350 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:25:45pm

re: #41 Metal Man

ID is flawed as a topic to be taught in science class but so is the goracles Fahrenheit 9/11 religion tape.

The only good that will come from this debate is that Science will actually start being taught again. But that is not likely to happen before the monopoly in education is broken.

Uh, Gore's movie was An Inconvenient Truth (though a lot of us call it an incontinent lie), but Michael Moore was resposible for Fahrenheit 9/11 ... much to Ray Bradbury's lament ...

}:)     [But no matter, you're exactly right on both counts!]

351 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:25:57pm

re: #339 ted

Not really. It's a deflection technique to cry "bigotry" or "oppression" when criticized, it puts the accused in the place of apologizing. Islam didn't invent it but they have perfected it.

352 Richard Romano  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:26:01pm
Because one side is science and one side is religion. Only the science belongs in a science classroom.

I'm sorry Charles, this is hand waving at its best -- even Darwinists admit that their "theory" made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist -- evolutionists are proud of promoting the philosophical underpinnings of evolution. Why else would men like Dawkins try his best to make religious people out to be nuts?

The real scienitists, like Newton, Lister, Galileo, and Linnaeus were avowed creationists -- they wouldn't even get a hearing today!

353 paint-right  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:26:28pm

re: #316 CyanSnowHawk

Apparently, cetaceans evolved from a small (Medium Dog Size) land mammal that inhabited swamps. When the climate changed, more food was available in the water than on the land, the successful breeders were the ones that could hunt in the water. As a result, they adapted back into a water borne species and became what we know today.

i have always had trouble with the " adaptation in time for a climate change " theory ...i think that is a weak explanation of adaptation and physical changes because i think ( climate) changes happen too fast to allow for such tailor made adaptations, gills and feathers etc etc,

Once watched Carl Sagan try to explain why zippy successful dinosaurs began leaping up into trees and 'developing " feathers from their scales to become somewhat less efficient 'birds".

I am not saying changes didn;t occur, i am just saying that i find it hard to accept that changes occured in such a way.

354 Tigger2005  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:26:48pm

And again we see how I.D. causes people who otherwise appear to be honest, principled, and rational to abandon their integrity--as Jindal does here in avoiding the issue and engaging in political gamesmanship--ironically, out of a belief that teaching evolution causes people to be immoral (I wonder what excuse they had for being immoral before? I thought creationists already had that figured out--you know, apple, sinful nature, etc.).

Somehow, lying to schoolchildren about the nature of science and teaching them a fake science, pretending it's just as strongly supported by evidence as evolution, is supposed to make them better people. And somehow, graduating even more children who are ignorant about how science really works won't damage our ability to compete in the global economy or address our energy problems.

There is a simple, straightforward stand Jindal can take on this issue--no need to dance around, trying to avoid pissing anyone off. He can say, "I believe in God. I believe God created the universe and brought forth life and intelligence. I believe God is active in human history and guides me in my personal life. I believe this through FAITH. I don't care whether science proves it to be true or not. I don't care whether science demonstrates that the universe could have begun, and life, even intelligent life, could have evolved without God, I will continue to believe. But I want our children taught good, sound science and for them to learn their religious beliefs from their churches and their parents, not in school. Science was designed to discover natural explanations for natural phenomena. It cannot detect the existence or activity of a supernatural being. Again, that's a matter of faith.

"I think we should let science continue to be what it has been for the past several hundred years--an enormously effective tool for understanding our world and improving our standard of living--and recognize the wisdom of our Founding Fathers when they made religious faith a personal matter. That's why America is still the most deeply religious country among the secular democracies, when it doesn't even have an official state church."

355 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:27:04pm

re: #340 angst

I should add that in that lots of scientific theories are missing big parts, but are still very successful because they explain things and they work. Gravity is a really good example of that. No one really knows how it works. But no one seriously doubts that the theory is exceedingly practical, as any aeronautics engineer will tell you.

356 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:27:15pm

re: #351 Killgore Trout

Not really. It's a deflection technique to cry "bigotry" or "oppression" when criticized, it puts the accused in the place of apologizing. Islam didn't invent it but they have perfected it.

Yup. Smells fishy too me.

357 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:28:08pm
358 Nemesis6  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:28:09pm

re: #344 funkyfantom

It's a nice thought, but that's not what Creationism is - The core of the new version(ID) is irreducible complexity, and this contradicts evolution. And it has been disproven, too. God could have started Evolution, but certainly not by the "intelligent design" way - That would contradict evolution, and lead us right back to Creationism.

359 freetoken  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:28:19pm

re: #352 Richard Romano


The real scienitists, like Newton, Lister, Galileo, and Linnaeus were avowed creationists -- they wouldn't even get a hearing today!

Disagree. If Newton wrote F=ma on a board today people would listen to him, just like they did back then.

360 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:28:24pm

re: #352 Richard Romano

The real scienitists, like Newton, Lister, Galileo, and Linnaeus were avowed creationists -- they wouldn't even get a hearing today!


Sure they would. Each of their scientific contributions were based on good science. None of them included "god" in their equations.

361 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:28:30pm

re: #323 krypto

(1) Failure to show, in science, means "keep working on it," NOT "therefore God made it that way."

(2) Ken Miller, for example, has lots and lots of detailed explanation of why Behe's stuff is bogus, answering all his claims. You'll can best get the explanations by reading one by one exactly what is wrong with Behe's claims rather than expecting a complete answer in a brief snippet.

You'll find that Behe has shown no such thing, he only claimed to have shown it.

[Link: www.millerandlevine.com...]

If you believe Darwinism is correct in its claims, the burden is on you to prove it. Otherwise you are merely arguing from authority.

I could call your argument the "argument from links".

362 BignJames  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:28:39pm

re: #349 zombie

In case anyone's wondering:

I will not comment on this thread.

Instead, I will spend the hour constructively working on my Obama Rumor/Obama Fact page!

/aim high

You could call it "Obama....believe it...or not!"

363 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:29:11pm

What can one say about the breathtaking naivete of someone who doesn't realize that the practice of science is shot through with empirically unprovable assumptions? Such a primitive philosophy is not even wrong.

364 seekeroftruth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:29:26pm

re: #349 zombie

Zombie - if you are still here:
this link might be interesting to you with your Obama project:
[Link: www.suntimes.com...]

Thursday's $28,500-per-person fundraiser at an elegant private home in Lincoln Park, drew nearly 100 supporters. Obama thanked some of them for supporting him since his first run for state senate. He told them he was spending their money wisely.

“You’re going to continue to have to fund this machine for four more months,” he told them. “One way to think about it is: we’re three fourths of the way done.”

Among the big-name donors at the fund-raiser were Obama's national finance chair Penny Pritzker, his Illinois finance co-chairs Jim Crown and John Rogers; Crown’s parents Lester and Renee Crown, developer Neil Bluhm, and ComEd CEO Frank Clark.

365 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:29:59pm

re: #359 freetoken

Disagree. If Newton wrote F=ma on a board today people would listen to him, just like they did back then.


Exactly. If he had written F = ma/god it would have been a different story.

366 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:30:17pm

re: #325 paint-right

Taboo or not back then, the SCIENCE was unknown, but would have been no different than it is today, unknown or not. The sky would have been blue, even though the why of it would not have been misunderstood

367 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:30:21pm

re: #349 zombie

I will not comment on this thread.

Ha! You just "did".
(-:
But go for your higher purpose.

368 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:30:31pm

I am going to go back to my hotel and intelligently design my agenda for tomorrow on how to create profitable KPI's in order to achieve a sustainable profitability...instead of monkeying around with an ever evolving negative trend in sales...

heh.

/Later all.

369 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:30:37pm

re: #322 CapeCoddah

I did not mean to be snarky at all, his answer made no sense. I do apologize if I came across as such.

It did to me - but he may not have thought so. But thank you just the same. I do understand these discussions can get a little - INTENSE!

370 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:30:57pm

re: #363 Gagdad Bob

Name one.

371 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:31:00pm

Anybody here a high school science teacher?

Can you tell me how much practical application this debate has in your classroom? Who decides curriculum? Is it the President of the United States? Senators? Veeps?

Who writes the textbooks? Who decides which textbooks to use?

Do you have time to teach anything related to this subject or are you too involved in DARE assemblies?

372 rightymouse  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:31:16pm

re: #349 zombie

In case anyone's wondering:

I will not comment on this thread.

Instead, I will spend the hour constructively working on my Obama Rumor/Obama Fact page!

/aim high

Am off to the couch meself.

Love to see your Obama rumor/fact page. :)

373 USBeast  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:31:17pm

Tax payer funded "public education", no matter how well intentioned, is going to end up as government mandated pupil indoctrination. Given the size, scope and stupidity of government this has, and is going to continue, to result in undisciplined, semi-indoctrinated and largely ignorant citizens.

The ID versus Evolution dust up is just the tip of the iceberg.

374 the_vig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:31:31pm

re: #335 Inquisitive

Please ask better questions. If I have to guess what you are asking, you will probably dispute the answer. However, the argument that you think micro evolution can be taught, but not Macro evolution is a red herring. The only difference between macro and micro is the length of time. Say you have a strain of bacteria and it "evolves" over time. At what point is it a different species of Bacteria? That depends on us defining it as a different species. You see the same thing every time you have a transitional fossil. Researchers will argue for years as to what species it belongs to. It is defined by man.

375 unclassifiable  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:31:42pm

Well I guess God is having a pretty good laugh while we figure out how he put things together.

376 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:31:47pm

re: #333 Hhar

Kilgour Trout

I don't think Behe is a "fraud". He seems sincere, if misguided and frankly wrong. If someone is being a fraud here, frankly its you, calling somebody who simply has wrong opinions a "fraud".

Here we go: anticreationists are often frauds. Sound good?

Creationists are frauds because you can't counter a scientific hypothesis with a non-scientific hypothesis.

377 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:31:49pm

re: #280 funkyfantom

Charles, this is sounding a bit arrogant - uncharacteristic of you.

I presume you have read and understood Michael Behe's latest book - "The Edge of Evolution". I have been struggling with it for quite a while. ( He is a professor of biochemistry, for those not aware.)

Would you care to explain to your readers just how Behe fails to show, in your opinion, that Darwinism has not adequately proved the evolution of complex biological structure.

There is a heck of a lot of tough science in this book, and I would hope you are not simply relying on authority.

It always comes back to the Discovery Institute. If intelligent design had any scientific validity, there would be more sources for studies and research than one.

378 paint-right  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:31:54pm

re: #342 WrathofG-d

i was responding to cape coddah and i was trying to be rational about the possiblies of close relatives procreating way back then.

which i believe they did by the way

379 spypeach  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:31:55pm

Neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proven definitively, they both require a leap of faith. Why not teach both as theories. Give people enough credit to choose which one they believe in.

380 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:33:07pm

re: #258 godfrey

Oh good, an industrial design thread! Here's my favorite intelligent designer.

Yeah baby. Now we're talking. How about some process design on an industrial scale: dehydrogenation.

381 Nemesis6  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:33:13pm

re: #361 funkyfantom

re: #361 funkyfantom

That's a variant of the burden of proof; reversed burden of proof, and it's a logical fallacy. If you say something that contradicts something that is generally held to be true and has evidence supporting it, you have to provide proof it isn't, not the other way around.

382 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:33:56pm

re: #335 Inquisitive

Sorry, that does not completely answer my ?--This is why I am asking--
Charles stated that you can believe in evolution and GOD--and that only evolution should be taught in school. If everyone is discussing and for Micro(Biology evolution--genes/DNA passing one generationto other) only being taught in school then yes go for it, and yes I think I could go along with idea that a person could believe in evolution and god but can't go along with Macro(one species to another)

No, I said that only science should be taught in a science classroom. Religion should be taught either in church or at home.

There's a little thing we have in this country called the Establishment Clause, and the founding fathers put it in there for a very good reason.

383 markx  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:34:11pm

re: #349 zombie

In case anyone's wondering:

I will not comment on this thread.

Instead, I will spend the hour constructively working on my Obama Rumor/Obama Fact page!

/aim high

How about calling it "How Big is my Bus?"

384 Hhar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:34:12pm

335

many people say that there is no difference between micro and macroevolution: ie that evolution above the level of the species (e.g. phyletic radiation) is based in the same causal processes as evolution below the level of the species. This is wrong. Firstly, macroevolutio is a term used to describe the tempo and spatial distribution of large scale evolutionary changes. Biogeography and paleontology are components of macroevolution, and employ techniques that microevolutionary studies do not. So procedurally and operationally it is distinct from microevolutionary studies, and it is at best an overstatement, and at worst a frank bloody lie (am I being too subtle here, guys? I'm sick of this crap) to assert otherwise. Furthermore, there is an increasing body of theoretical and empirical studies that suggests that patterns of cladogenesis may be reliant on species selection, an idea favored by Gould, which DOES NOT REDUCE to microevolution.

It is bad enough that every pinhead politician has an idea about Darwin and ID. It is even worse that half educated anticreationist blowhard bigots perpetuate myths and falsehoods in the name of freaking science in halfwit rags like scientific american.

ID is CRAPPY SCIENCE. Creationism is NOT science. All that might change. But what has NOT changed is that anticreationists are so dang willing to spout utter nonsense that they make decent researchers look like ideological zealots.

385 HoosierHoops  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:34:15pm

re: #31 Ojoe

No it does not.

Better to perceive God, even in a thin way, than to believe in God, anyhow.

I know I said I wasn't going to pay attention to this thread.

Bye again.

We of such small creatures..
At the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross to the other end of galaxy..
yet we all put g_d in a little box our minds can understand.
We must think bigger, smarter and gentiler..
The mystery of G-D will never be understood. I held my grandfather, Ruele..as he breathed his last.. and i cried hot tears of sorrow..
Many people become so glib and shallow with thier views of life and death and G-D and so forth..
But there must be more..that is my faith..

/ok no more religious stuff from the hoopster
but it's not my fault..you started it with your postings...:)

386 HelloDare  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:34:18pm

The only way ID'ers will accept evolution is if god swears on a bible that he did not create anything. I don't see that happening.

387 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:34:52pm

Name one:

That the cosmos is one, and everywhere governed by the same laws.

There are dozens, most of which are rooted in Judeo-Christian metaphysics, as Alfred North Whitehead was so preceptive to point out in his classic, Science and the Modern World.

388 Pdogg  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:35:10pm

re: #352 Richard Romano

You don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution. Reincarnation fits very well with evolution. I might even go so far as to say that evolution is a type of reincarnation.

389 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:35:12pm

re: #381 Nemesis6

re: #361 funkyfantom

That's a variant of the burden of proof; reversed burden of proof, and it's a logical fallacy. If you say something that contradicts something that is generally held to be true and has evidence supporting it, you have to provide proof it isn't, not the other way around.

Right! That is how a theory becomes generally accepted. It survives repeated challenges.

390 The Shadow Do  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:35:15pm

re: #57 Catttt

Intelligent Design was created to remove a specific mention of God or a specific religion so as to avoid the legal problems with trying to teach creationism in public schools. However, it still evokes the supernatural, which cannot be subjected to the scientific method.


That is one of the most succinct explanations I have read yet. What I find insidious is that those advancing this do so to the detriment of real learning. Furthermore, those proponents don't appear to care in their zeal to spread the word.

391 Nemesis6  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:35:24pm

re: #379 spypeach

Evolution actually has been proven. Check out the links posted. Disregard the top paragraph in the post, that was supposed to be a quote of another reply.

392 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:35:30pm

re: #91 Sharmuta

And Wrath? I hope you pay close attention to this quote from the founding father of the ID movement:

"The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"

Is that what you really want kids exposed to in public schools?

I am a Christian, but I would not want my child taught someone else's version.

When these threads first appeared, I did not have a full understanding of "intelligent design" or "creationists".

Once I read a little bit and got just a smidgeon of understanding about it, I quickly came to the conclusion that I want control of what religion or religious elements are taught to my child, through church, Catholic school or in my home. I do not want a public school teacher teaching my child some Dept of Ed approved curriculum on God.

393 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:35:37pm

re: #361 funkyfantom

If you believe Darwinism is correct in its claims, the burden is on you to prove it. Otherwise you are merely arguing from authority.

I could call your argument the "argument from links".


"If you believe Darwinism is correct in its claims, the burden is on you to prove it. Otherwise you are merely arguing from authority."

Wrong. The burden is on you to disprove it.

394 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:36:14pm

re: #358 Nemesis6

It's a nice thought, but that's not what Creationism is - The core of the new version(ID) is irreducible complexity, and this contradicts evolution. And it has been disproven, too. God could have started Evolution, but certainly not by the "intelligent design" way - That would contradict evolution, and lead us right back to Creationism.

Unfortunately, you are confusing "evolution" with Darwinism. Darwinism is merely the most recent and popular theory of evolution. ID in NO WAY is contradictory to the idea that evolution has occurred or even that apes are our ancestors.

In point of fact, we share about 99% of DNA with chimpanzees- in the genomes of both species, scientists have observed many identical parallel errors in DNA replication which would be statistically absurd without accepting common descent.

395 Hhar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:36:15pm

No I didn't miss KT's boody point. I'm sick of people with that bloody point. I

He hasn't been "proven" wrong. He's been refuted soundly enough for most peopple to think he's wrong, but proof is for maths.

People are allowed to be wrong and not be frauds.

396 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:36:55pm
re: #50 freakagriep
re: #18 Charles

So on one hand you say it's religion, but then you say it has nothing to do with God? How can one believe in a God who did not create? Don't get that one.

Not sure if you really mean Charles here, or WrathofG-d, and the its don't seem to be tied together, topically, so let me skip to the easy question:

Also, why is the o in God censored?

That is WrathofG-d's doing.  Some religions believe that if they say or write the name of their Deity, in this case YHVH (which isn't really the complete name, as the vowels are missing and the subject of much controversy -- whew, safe again!), that said Deity (or God, Goddess, Gods, etc.) will take offense and get them, or something like that.  Charles isn't censoring WrathofG-d, WrathofG-d chose that spelling himself ...

}:)     [If anything, Charles' giving him plenty of rope ... ]

397 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:36:56pm

re: #379 spypeach

Neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proven definitively, they both require a leap of faith.


Old and debunked talking point. No cookie for you.

398 freetoken  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:37:08pm

re: #365 Killgore Trout

Yeah... but when will some people here finally accept that?

The whole "science" issue is really getting tiring... as Jim Manzi wrote

Conservatives would feel a lot less threatened by science if they were more engaged with it.

Personally, I don't see why the more religious creationists here don't see ID as apostasy. After all, both Judaism and Christianity have a pretty definite identity of the Creator, and ID strips them of that.

399 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:37:30pm

re: #386 HelloDare

Ha!

400 Tom Kratman  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:37:51pm

re: #162 Charles

It is possible, certainly. But it cannot ever be proven in a scientific sense.

Hence, it is not science.

That won't work, Charles. To say that evolution, from _first_step_to_today_, has been, ever will be, or even can be proved is equally false (until we come up with a time machine, anyway, so we can go back and look. And there are serious problems with that prospect). Even if we prove that it could have been done, that will not prove that it was done or how it was done.

Ahem...."hence, it is not science." Ahem.

Do I believe in evolution? Yeah, as a matter of fact, I do think it's more likely than not. Do I believe in God? Yeah, as a matter of fact, I do.

Here's the problem, I think. ID means or can mean anything along a spectrum. This ranges from a literal interpretation of Genesis (true creationism) all the way to "God set up the conditions, the laws of the universe, to bring forth evolving life in various forms, possibly fine tuning a bit thereafter, but possibly not." If someone believes in an approximately Abrahamic God, they don't have a lot of choice; they are going to believe in some version of ID on or between those two defining positions. Let me reiterate that both of those extremes, as well as points in between, _are_ ID. One extreme, however, is completely compatible with biological science as we understand it and the other is not. If creationism has hijacked the term, this does not mean that the second view is wrong. I'm not sure what the point would be of teaching it, but it remains compatible with science and remains a form of ID.

Moving right along, I feel compelled to add that there is no such phrase within the Constitution as "separation of church and state." Sorry. Doesn't exist. Never written. Not in there. What there is is a bar to having an established religion such as the Church of England was and is in the UK or Lutheranism in, say, Sweden or Prussia or Catholicism in Austria or Bavaria or Spain.

That said, the doctrine has grown and acquired the phrase. This is fine, as far as it goes. Note, however, that separation of church and state does not merely mean no official support for any religion, it means "Be separate; have nothing to do with religion." When, however, the instrumentalities of the state, to include public schools, attack religion they are _having_something_to_do_ with religion. They are breaking down the wall between the two. The attack is no more permissible than state support of religion, or adoption of a state religion, would be. Evolution, depending on how it is taught, can be an attack which is, again, no more permissible than support would be.

There have got to be better lawyers than I was out there. It strikes me as odd that none have taken this tack in combating certain methods and forms of the teaching of evolution.

401 winston06  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:37:59pm

re: #295 Kulhwch

LOL... sounds like Homer Simpson

402 kuchuklambat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:38:07pm

at the risk of muddying up the waters further i want to summarize how I see it:
One of the problems is fact-based, rather than inquiry-based education -- none of the scientific "facts" are such, they are but a likely story. So I would teach it so -- here's a game called "physical science", started up around Roger Bacon's time, and has been surprisingly effective. Here are the rules of the game(reproducible experiments, testable conjectures, Occam's razor etc). Then we can tell students about experiments that have been reproduced, other observations, and scientific theories we have so far to correlate these findings. Now, students, go and play this game called science, ask good questions and see what you can come up with.
Obviously, any talk about "intelligent design" or "irreducible complexity" does not belong to this class since it does not fit into the rules of science game. Doesn't mean that evolution or quantum mechanics or anything else in science is a done deal, by the very definition of the game it is not.
But anything thats not testable will have to be discussed in another class, not science.

403 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:38:21pm

re: #393 ted

"If you believe Darwinism is correct in its claims, the burden is on you to prove it. Otherwise you are merely arguing from authority."

Wrong. The burden is on you to disprove it.

You folks really should have a LOT more evidence to work with.

404 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:38:39pm

re: #377 Charles

It always comes back to the Discovery Institute. If intelligent design had any scientific validity, there would be more sources for studies and research than one.

And if Obama was not clearly the best candidate, surely we would not be having the entire mainstream media annointing him as the Messiah.

405 George guy  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:38:39pm

The ultimate problem in the debate over whether creationism has any place in a public school comes down to this: The origin of humankind IS a subject that legitimately involves discussion of religion, history, and science. IF, and it appears to be rightly so, it is constitutionally forbidden to impose any religious doctrine through a public institution, and that includes schools, then public schools then cannot really address the issue at all. Only a private school can be in any kind of appropriate position to teach on the topic one way or another. The best a public school would be able to do would be to concentrate on the sciences that actually involve reproducible experiments and present observable processes, and in that way a student would be more scientifically literate come the time when it is possible to investigate questions about evolution.

That it is somehow a political issue over what can be taught in schools is an unfortunate red herring that has snagged too many people from both sides.

406 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:38:45pm

re: #17 WrathofG-d

One could argue that Science IS religion. (see the Global Warming "science" for example).

Both require a very large amount of faith.

Global Warming is not "science", it's a blend of marxism and gaia worship... neither of which belong in schools either.

407 the_vig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:38:58pm

For the last time. Apes are not our ancestors. We share a common ancestor. Please make a note of it.

408 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:39:02pm

re: #398 freetoken
That's a very good article. I think a few generations of scientific neglect are taking their toll.

409 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:39:05pm

re: #387 Gagdad Bob

All science is empirically unprovable, but it's not wrong.

410 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:39:19pm

re: #392 reine.de.tout

When these threads first appeared, I did not have a full understanding of "intelligent design" or "creationists".

Once I read a little bit and got just a smidgeon of understanding about it, I quickly came to the conclusion that I want control of what religion or religious elements are taught to my child, through church, Catholic school or in my home. I do not want a public school teacher teaching my child some Dept of Ed approved curriculum on God.

Or worse yet, being taught that Allah created the whole thing.

(After all, if you diss Allah, his adherents kill you. Sure to get the school board's attention!)

411 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:39:20pm

re: #394 funkyfantom

Unfortunately, you are confusing "evolution" with Darwinism. Darwinism is merely the most recent and popular theory of evolution. ID in NO WAY is contradictory to the idea that evolution has occurred or even that apes are our ancestors.

In point of fact, we share about 99% of DNA with chimpanzees- in the genomes of both species, scientists have observed many identical parallel errors in DNA replication which would be statistically absurd without accepting common descent.

There is no such thing as "Darwinism." Thats a smear term invented by creationists.

412 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:39:27pm

re: #371 mama winger

Anybody here a high school science teacher?

Can you tell me how much practical application this debate has in your classroom? Who decides curriculum? Is it the President of the United States? Senators? Veeps?

Who writes the textbooks? Who decides which textbooks to use?

Do you have time to teach anything related to this subject or are you too involved in DARE assemblies?

THANK YOU! There have already been at least two people who have decided they can't support McCain with a vote for POTUS if he picks Jindal. Good Grief!

413 USBeast  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:39:40pm

The more posts I read here the more convinced I am that we're all missing the point.

The question is: Who should have main responsibility for educating our children?

414 Ojoe  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:39:43pm

re: #385 HoosierHoops

The mystery of it all is beautiful.

Julian of Norwich, English mystic of the 13 the century; God showed her the universe, and it was a little round thing, about the size of a hazlenut, and she held it in her hand.

She was amazed it did not vanish, it was so small.

God said that it existed and ever shall exist, because he loved it.

There are many ways to see things.


Off to dinner with me.

415 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:40:19pm

re: #24 abolitionist

Related: Newt Gingrich: Jindal for VP!

As soon as Newt became part of the Goracle's traveling snake-oil show, he lost any credibility or ability to advise.

416 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:40:26pm

re: #377 Charles

It always comes back to the Discovery Institute. If intelligent design had any scientific validity, there would be more sources for studies and research than one.


"Would you care to explain to your readers just how Behe fails to show, in your opinion, that Darwinism has not adequately proved the evolution of complex biological structure."

The burden of proof is not on Darwin[or Charles]. It's on the Creationists.
Quit using the Mapes Defense.

417 Inquisitive  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:40:37pm

re: #374 the_vig

Please ask better questions. If I have to guess what you are asking, you will probably dispute the answer. However, the argument that you think micro evolution can be taught, but not Macro evolution is a red herring. The only difference between macro and micro is the length of time. Say you have a strain of bacteria and it "evolves" over time. At what point is it a different species of Bacteria? That depends on us defining it as a different species. You see the same thing every time you have a transitional fossil. Researchers will argue for years as to what species it belongs to. It is defined by man.


So Sorry...will try harder to ask better questions. I thought you were trying to answer the question that I had asked twice before. You came up with the Micro and Macro but went no further. I do make a distinction between the two and was asking if one or other was being preferred to be taught. Was simply questioning is 1) We could teach one and leave out the other. And I distinguish by Biology evolution --just genes/DNA and the evolution of species. 2) If this difference is what Charles was speaking about as a person being able to believe in evolution and GOD.

418 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:40:54pm
re: #51 Sharmuta
re: #33 winston06

Well, I meant letting them choose what they want to learn with respect to ID or Evolution.

The problem with that is it's still not science and it will hurt the children's ability to further their education. If they want to learn about ID- then they should add a philosophy class to the school's curriculum, but it's not science.

You mean you wouldn't go to a brain surgeon that specialized in home trepanning, basket-weaving, and the magickal theory of contagion?

};)     [My, you are the fussy one, aren't you?]

419 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:41:15pm

re: #412 vapig

THANK YOU! There have already been at least two people who have decided they can't support McCain with a vote for POTUS if he picks Jindal. Good Grief!

Indeed. :)

420 Boogberg  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:41:30pm

Well I don't see how believing in ID is any more ridiculous than believing in "God". Is there less scientific evidence of one but not the other?

421 rightymouse  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:41:50pm

I can't see where a potential VP is a threat to the Establishment Clause as I don't see how a President or VP has any say into what is included in state school curriculum. Our original forefathers held deep beliefs in G-d and dare I say, creation? None of this stopped them from having sound judgement when it came to framing our Constitution.

422 spypeach  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:42:17pm

re: #391 Nemesis6

Evolution actually has been proven. Check out the links posted. Disregard the top paragraph in the post, that was supposed to be a quote of another reply.

Sorry, since when has evolution been proven? If anything time and science have debunked most theories, even Darwin himself question his own science at the end of his life. My point is, we don't know, and whether we believe in God or Evolution, we have to make a faith leap on what started it all; this can never be proven, and in my opinion since neither can be stated as fact, then neither should be taught, or both shoud be presented as theories.

423 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:42:40pm

re: #55 jim in virginia

Then no one would ever take algebra.

Sez you. That was one of my easy courses.

424 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:42:40pm

re: #403 VegasRick

You folks really should have a LOT more evidence to work with.

We do. The fossil record.

425 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:42:41pm

bbiab

426 Da_Beerfreak  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:42:55pm

re: #270 karmic_inquisitor

Between my comment #19 and now I just added another outlet in my family room for my wife. The mess is cleaned up, the tools put away and the lamp she just bought is on.

All that occurred in that brief amount of time because of 1 of 2 things -

a) I exploited techniques and technology developed by mankind through reason, or

b) divine intervention.

Which one do you think it was?

Oh, and the fact that the lamp is on does not diminish my belief in God.

It was "b" of course, and don't forget to light a candle for St Thomas of Edison.
// {;-)™

427 lummox  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:43:11pm

Let's use this site as an example.

No-one would deny that it rose out of ID, but when a problem in the original design arises, it sparks a completly unforseen reaction that results in a 'mutation' of the original design. A refinment , so to speak.

The site improves and there is a benifit. This is an ongoing process.
It was instigated by intelligent design AND contiually evolves into something new and improved.

428 experiencedtraveller  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:43:39pm

re: #397 Killgore Trout

Old and debunked talking point. No cookie for you.

The archaeological evidence should be ABUNDANT... we should have museums full of evidence. Not cryptic hints...

429 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:43:40pm

re: #413 USBeast

The more posts I read here the more convinced I am that we're all missing the point.

The question is: Who should have main responsibility for educating our children?

Yes.

I made my choice back in the 80's. I decided not to send my children to the Mandatory Marxist Indoctrination Camp every week day from 8 to 3.

430 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:43:46pm

I don't know about the Discovery Institute, but when I use the word "Darwinism," it is to distinguish it from natural selection, analogous to the practice of science vs. the misosophy of scientism. Clearly, there are people who elevate natural selection to a general philosophy, e.g., Dawkins. We have to call them something besides just "naive."

431 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:43:48pm

re: #403 VegasRick

You folks really should have a LOT more evidence to work with.

This guy simply doesn't understand the basics of scientific method.

Behe takes great pains to point out the complete lack of scientific studies in any of the evolutionary biology journals demonstrating evolution of complex biological structure through random mutation. Obviously, the burden is on the Darwinist to design ( intelligently one hopes) an experiment to do this. They just haven't yet.

432 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:43:59pm

re: #392 reine.de.tout

I am a Christian, but I would not want my child taught someone else's version.

When these threads first appeared, I did not have a full understanding of "intelligent design" or "creationists".

Once I read a little bit and got just a smidgeon of understanding about it, I quickly came to the conclusion that I want control of what religion or religious elements are taught to my child, through church, Catholic school or in my home. I do not want a public school teacher teaching my child some Dept of Ed approved curriculum on God.

You and I have walked a similar path on this debate. For me- this is not a discussion on God or no God- it's a discussion on an agenda that's trying to force it's way into our schools, and I'm not okay with it.

I've asked more than once if the ID proponents would be cool with the islamic concept of creation being taught in public schools too, since, imo, ID would open the door to other religious creationism. It's a slippery slope, and regardless- it's not science.

I'm linking this comment because if you can read this and have an issue with it, but not ID, then you are not being intellectually honest, imo.

433 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:44:12pm

re: #413 USBeast


The question is: Who should have main responsibility for educating our children?


Well, I suspect that's why Charles has made this a regular topic on LGF lately. I asked a question about the legal issues earlier but the thread is still preoccupied with dead end creationist talking points and accusations of atheist agendas. The cultural and political issues regarding ID and science are important but we need to get to the point where we can discuss the larger issues. We're barely out of the starting gate on this one.

434 CapeCoddah  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:44:21pm

re: #366 CapeCoddah

Taboo or not back then, the SCIENCE was unknown, but would have been no different than it is today, unknown or not. The sky would have been blue, even though the why of it WOULD have been misunderstood


Sorry, fixed that...

435 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:44:27pm

re: #410 Dar ul Harb

Or worse yet, being taught that Allah created the whole thing.

(After all, if you diss Allah, his adherents kill you. Sure to get the school board's attention!)

gag! And the way things are going, that might very well just be what the Dept of Education would approve in the curriculum!

436 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:44:32pm

re: #409 angst

All science is empirically unprovable, but it's not wrong.

Excuse me, but is Ohm's Law unprovable?

437 Nat-X  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:44:37pm

U.S. Constitution for Shit for Brains:

"Congress will enact no law....."

The Santa Rosa Country School Boards' (hypothetical) decision to teach both evolution and I.D. DOES NOT EQUAL "congress enacting a law." Plain, simple English, people!

True, I.D. is a backdoor way of teaching creationism, but we could be the fricken' design of fricken' space aliens for all we know!

Here's one for the evolutionists: so a fricken' salamader sits around for a few billions years thinking to inself, "Goddamn, I wish I could fly." Then, POP! POP!, it sprouts a couple of wings. Just read the narratives of the scientists explaining how evolution works. Sound like the fricken' Torah.

438 the_vig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:44:55pm

re: #427 lummox

Let's use this site as an example.

No-one would deny that it rose out of ID, but when a problem in the original design arises, it sparks a completely unforeseen reaction that results in a 'mutation' of the original design. A refinement , so to speak.

The site improves and there is a benefit. This is an ongoing process.
It was instigated by intelligent design AND continually evolves into something new and improved.

Are you trying to say that Charles is God or an Alien?

439 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:45:26pm

re: #421 rightymouse

I can't see where a potential VP is a threat to the Establishment Clause as I don't see how a President or VP has any say into what is included in state school curriculum. Our original forefathers held deep beliefs in G-d and dare I say, creation? None of this stopped them from having sound judgement when it came to framing our Constitution.

Exactly.

440 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:46:02pm

re: #435 reine.de.tout

gag! And the way things are going, that might very well just be what the Dept of Education would approve in the curriculum!

That's why we should be careful what we wish for...

441 HelloDare  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:46:03pm

re: #420 Boogberg

Well I don't see how believing in ID is any more ridiculous than believing in "God". Is there less scientific evidence of one but not the other?

Believing in ID but not believing in god. Now that's ridiculous.

442 Tom Kratman  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:46:15pm

re: #393 ted

re: #393 ted

"If you believe Darwinism is correct in its claims, the burden is on you to prove it. Otherwise you are merely arguing from authority."

Wrong. The burden is on you to disprove it.

This argument about where the burden of proof lies pops up all the time. Just out of curiosity, why do you think the burden lies with those defending the traditional view rather than the new view (which evolution / Darwinism are)? In answering, please be wary of circular arguments.

443 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:46:22pm

re: #411 Charles

There is no such thing as "Darwinism." Thats a smear term invented by creationists.

Oh for crying out loud, Even Richard Dawkins is proud to be known as a Darwinist. Charles, you are WAY off base now.
( I've read all of Dawkins' books, BTW.) It is not at all a smear term.

444 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:46:30pm

re: #400 Tom Kratman

That won't work, Charles. To say that evolution, from _first_step_to_today_, has been, ever will be, or even can be proved is equally false (until we come up with a time machine, anyway, so we can go back and look.

But I didn't say that. The point is that evolution is a testable theory, and it CAN be proven wrong. It's just that no one has done that -- and in fact, there's a HUGE amount of evidence in favor of the theory, in a constantly changing field of study.

There is no evidence for intelligent design, and it can't be falsified because it's based on religious belief. No evidence, can't be falsified: not science.

Religious belief is a good thing. But when it gets confused with science, and used to justify a deceptive agenda (as is happening with the effort to subvert the establishment clause and push ID into science classes) it's a slippery slope to disaster.

445 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:46:53pm
446 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:47:24pm

re: #438 the_vig

Are you trying to say that Charles is God or an Alien?

What about both? The Lidless Eye that never sleeps!

447 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:47:53pm

re: #413 USBeast

The more posts I read here the more convinced I am that we're all missing the point.

The question is: Who should have main responsibility for educating our children?

Not to really answer your question; I'm very suspicious of the whole "states rights" thing. It seems to be a convenient refuge for ideas that have failed at the federal level. It's been a shelter for slavery, institutional racism, anti-abortion activists and now creationists. I'd let the Feds decide this one.

448 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:48:07pm

re: #428 experiencedtraveller

The archaeological evidence should be ABUNDANT... we should have museums full of evidence. Not cryptic hints...

Uh ... we do have museums full of evidence. I've been in them.

449 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:48:09pm

re: #422 spypeach

In that case, forget all science. None of it can be proven.
Now, if you want to go on what works, I think we'd better stick re: #436 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Yes. All you'll ever be able to say is 99.999999% of the time, it works. That, however, is good enough for me. In biology we commonly accept 95% as a good cutoff, but we try for 99%.

As I said before, it's how scientists talk and how it works. Experiments are set up to disprove a hypothesis, not prove it. This is how creationists get their foot in the door. Then they pry it open and say that evolution is riddled with doubt.

450 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:48:19pm

re: #344 funkyfantom


In fact, Darwinism HAS been scientifically proved to occur-
malaria has changed its DNA in small ways to foil new drugs, for example. But it is a long way to go from this to demonstrating how intraflagellular transport, for example, could evolve from a simple structure by random mutation.

I'm not really excited about pursuing this but that isn't exactly the endgame that followers of Darwinism project. There is no new species. It has adapted to circumstances. Finches beaks and black moths...none result in a new species. Which is the entire reason to use Darwin to disprove G-D.

451 Nemesis6  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:48:36pm

re: #390 The Shadow Do

There is a very good argument behind this. You see, the Creationists essentially proved this assertion when they replaced all mentions of "Creation" with "intelligent design" in their short-lived book "Of Pandas and People". What happened was this: Creationism was on trial for being unconstitutional, and it was deemed so. About a month later, the aforementioned book was reintroduced, and all mentions of "Creation" were replaced with "Intelligent Design", "Creationists" to "design proponents", etc. Problem was, when the judge subpoenad the publisher of the book for former versions of the book, they ran into this:

This was how one sentence looked in the first edition, the Creationist version - The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.


In the new version, this was how it looked:

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

Hope that sheds some light on it.

452 USBeast  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:48:46pm

re: #429 mama winger

Yes.

I made my choice back in the 80's. I decided not to send my children to the Mandatory Marxist Indoctrination Camp every week day from 8 to 3.

Good on ya, Lass.

Now, how do we come up with economically viable alternatives to "Public Education" that cut government out of the equation?

453 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:49:15pm

re: #445 buzzsawmonkey

Old joke: man says to G-d, "G-d, what are a thousand years to You?" G-d says, "A thousand years are just as a second." The man says, "G-d, what is a million dollars to You?" "A million dollars," replies G-d, "are to me just as a penny." "G-d," says the man, "can I have a million dollars?" "Sure," says G-d, "just a second."

Hahahaha! I'm passing that one on to Little Winger. ( He starts taking Hebrew in September. Do they teach jokes in Hebrew class? )

:)

454 paint-right  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:49:17pm

re: #432 Sharmuta

You and I have walked a similar path on this debate. For me- this is not a discussion on God or no God- it's a discussion on an agenda that's trying to force it's way into our schools, and I'm not okay with it.

I've asked more than once if the ID proponents would be cool with the islamic concept of creation being taught in public schools too, since, imo, ID would open the door to other religious creationism. It's a slippery slope, and regardless- it's not science.

I'm linking this comment because if you can read this and have an issue with it, but not ID, then you are not being intellectually honest, imo.

for the same reason i was not upset when they took prayer out of school.because i realized that every yahoo with a religious claim would be demanding five minutes in the morning .... and worse i would not like Miss so and so's explanation of any religion, especially mine, to my kids.

That is my job - not the school's.

besides it's global greenhouse 24/7 in school as it is.

455 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:49:20pm

re: #449 angst

In that case, forget all science. None of it can be proven.
Now, if you want to go on what works, I think we'd better stick re: #436 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Yes. All you'll ever be able to say is 99.999999% of the time, it works. That, however, is good enough for me. In biology we commonly accept 95% as a good cutoff, but we try for 99%.

As I said before, it's how scientists talk and how it works. Experiments are set up to disprove a hypothesis, not prove it. This is how creationists get their foot in the door. Then they pry it open and say that evolution is riddled with doubt.

Ugh. PIMF. Forget what I was trying to discuss with Pre-Boomer Marine brat.

456 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:49:23pm

re: #213 rightymouse

Scientists were excited this week at having isolated a brief

sound which occurred immediately before the Big Bang.

Apparently, that sound was “uh oh.”

In space, no one can hear you bang.

Seriously, it was a Big Flash (of light), not a Big Bang (of sound).

But since that would spoil Eccentrica Gallumbits' joke about Zaphod Beeblebrox, we're stuck with "Big Bang".

457 VegasRick  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:49:51pm

re: #424 ted

We do. The fossil record.

All the fossil evidence are belong to you.

458 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:50:03pm

re: #235 Alex_P_Keaton

So is Pluto a planet, dwarf planet, planetoid, plutoid, all or none?

That's just humanity applying labels. Pluto itself hasn't changed.

459 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:50:12pm

re: #445 buzzsawmonkey

Interesting.

460 the_vig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:50:17pm

re: #443 funkyfantom

Dawkins is an atheist crusader. He has an agenda. Scientists do not use the term Darwinist because the theory has grown so far since the time of Darwin. Physicists do not call themselves Newtonists or Einstienists.

461 finallyalizard  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:50:18pm

re: #63 Summer

So when was evolution, macroevolution(the kind that says we evolved from non-living matter) proven to be true? The fact that we can prove micro-evolution has nothing to do with macro-fantasy that is as unprovable as anything in the Bible... oh yeah let's call it science and we can silence the non-thinkers.

462 ContraJihadi  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:50:30pm

re: #313 reine.de.tout

Learning about evolution in a science class does not take God out of the equation.

Believing that God created everything, including the scientific processes and mechanisms by which life exists and evolves is NOT an inherent paradox nor is it a theological compromise.

This is correct. I really don't want to enter this debate, but before I close my browser, I'll just remark that there is no inherent conflict in believing the phenomenal universe was created by or preceded from God and adhering to the theory of evolution as it touches upon the natural history of species on earth. The conflict that is burning here is between a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis and the theory of evolution. But the literal interpretation of Genesis no where nearly exhausts every historical or philosophical theology.

Much of the animus surrounding this debate can be understood as a power play between certain political factions, and as long as this remains the case, hopes for peaceful resolution and mutual respect remain slim. If it weren't for the battle of factions, every state would have vouchers and or tax exemptions for parents who send their children to private or parochial schools. The public schools could maintain the current interpretation of the separation clause without so greatly burdening those parents who object to having their children exposed to Darwinism.

The lizards who have remarked that there are bigger fish to fry are quite correct. Neither Darwinists or fundamentalist Christians will fare well if the jihadis triumph and impose sharia on both of them.

463 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:50:32pm

re: #432 Sharmuta

You and I have walked a similar path on this debate. For me- this is not a discussion on God or no God- it's a discussion on an agenda that's trying to force it's way into our schools, and I'm not okay with it.

I've asked more than once if the ID proponents would be cool with the islamic concept of creation being taught in public schools too, since, imo, ID would open the door to other religious creationism. It's a slippery slope, and regardless- it's not science.

I'm linking this comment because if you can read this and have an issue with it, but not ID, then you are not being intellectually honest, imo.

Yes, elegantly put, thank you.

464 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:50:47pm
465 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:50:53pm

re: #438 the_vig

Are you trying to say that Charles is God or an Alien?

I signed on to be the Lizardoid Underling of an Alien Overlord. Vig, answer carefully. PLEASE don't go changing the deal on me!

466 freetoken  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:51:06pm

re: #413 USBeast

I fully support the idea that local school boards ought to be the primary governing body for the local schools.

Also, I fully believe that parents have the ultimate responsibility for how they raise and educate their children.

The fact that public tax money has been allocated to do both of the above muddies the water.

One can conjecture that if public schools are eliminated the problem (as asked of Jindal in the interview) will go away.

However, I seriously doubt that public schooling will be eliminated.

Thus we are left with a conundrum.

Regardless, I have concluded that the ID-insertion-into-science-class effort is a deceitful approach to education, and in particular science education.

467 cheeseweasel  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:51:13pm

A single negative point against the guy. This is the face of best new hope of the conservative movement in America today; best not to spit in it before all the facts are in.

468 Sorge  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:51:53pm

Once again, on the establishment clause...

The only thing the establishment clause prohibits is the establishment of a--you know--established Church. That's the plain meaning of the words, and that's how it was understood at the time. The whole "will this promote religion" test for public schools is a big load of nonsense. If anything, the problem lies in the system of public schools.

Atheistically yours;

469 CDR Resser  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:51:57pm

re: 327
OT -- it is a panther tearing through the flag.

Miller's presentation is familiar. Makes interesting points. I wonder what caused those chromosomes to fuse. The presence of similar mechanisms in all living creatures, both plant and animal, indicates a great deal of commonality in the biologic processes necessary for life to occur. Similar chemical processes occur in all higher life forms e.g. primates, mammals.
I'm interested in how you make the leap from plants that have no personality or spirit, to chimpanzees, who clearly have a personality, but may or may not be sentient, to a man who has a personality, is self aware and has a spirit.
Are all our hopes, dreams and aspirations just some sort of chemical imbalance. Could we reproduce them in other animals just by inducing the same chemical imbalance. How does some thing make the leap from primordial ooze to sentient human. We know from the earliest experiments in biology that "like begets like", and that spontaneous generation doesn't occur. How did consciousness occur, how did personality and self awareness arise. Until evolution comes up with a more satisfactory explanation, it fails to answer very important questions.
The second youtube link is an example of ambushing the uninformed and is unworthy of a response.

470 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:52:29pm

re: #444 Charles

But I didn't say that. The point is that evolution is a testable theory, and it CAN be proven wrong. It's just that no one has done that -- and in fact, there's a HUGE amount of evidence in favor of the theory, in a constantly changing field of study.

There is no evidence for intelligent design, and it can't be falsified because it's based on religious belief. No evidence, can't be falsified: not science.

Religious belief is a good thing. But when it gets confused with science, and used to justify a deceptive agenda (as is happening with the effort to subvert the establishment clause and push ID into science classes) it's a slippery slope to disaster.

ID has, of course, not been scientifically established. But neither has Darwinism IN ITS MOST EXTREME ( and typical) claims, and when you do the math, as Behe has done, quite rigorously - I think that reasonable people will conclude that given our current state of scientific knowledge, that ID is a more mathematically reasonable hypothesis.
For details, see the book.

471 HoosierHoops  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:52:32pm

re: #414 Ojoe

The mystery of it all is beautiful.

Julian of Norwich, English mystic of the 13 the century; God showed her the universe, and it was a little round thing, about the size of a hazlenut, and she held it in her hand.

She was amazed it did not vanish, it was so small.

God said that it existed and ever shall exist, because he loved it.

There are many ways to see things.

Ojoe....
Beautiful reply to my post..
Kind regards.
There are some amazing people here.


Off to dinner with me.

472 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:52:39pm

re: #452 USBeast

Good on ya, Lass.

Now, how do we come up with economically viable alternatives to "Public Education" that cut government out of the equation?

I'm not sure. What I do know is, in the state of Wisconsin it costs over $12,000 per pupil to educate them in the public schools. The Christian school I sent my daughter to did it for $2500 per year (back in the 90's) and the one I sent my son to did it for about $4000.

Both received educations such that they were awarded academic scholarships to college. My son got a full ride.

That's a big difference and worth exploring IMO.

473 kuchuklambat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:53:00pm

re: #436 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Ohm's law cannot be proven in the same way that Fermat's theorem has been proven. It is a likely story correlating rather crude observations, I am sure it has quantum-mechanical corrections, relativistic corrections, etc.

Doesn't mean we should replace it with some "irreducible complexity" of course.

474 Shug  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:53:02pm

Very late to the thread but not too late to call this The Jindal Swindle

475 Hhar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:53:06pm

Charles #411: the usual nitpick. Ddarwinism is not a smear term invented by people who criticise evolution. For example, I have a copy of Haeckel's The Evolution of Man (American authorised edition and translation) in which it is used to distinguish Lamarkian from Darwinian evolution.

What it is, is a seriously outmoded fashion of speech. Evolutionary biology accepts that the Darwinian processes of natural selection and descentr with modfication through deep time are powerful processes, but I agree (and I think its obvious) that reducing evolutionary biology to "Dawinism" is ridiculous, given the novel contributions of many many others since the 19th centrury.

476 jcm  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:53:13pm

re: #412 vapig

THANK YOU! There have already been at least two people who have decided they can't support McCain with a vote for POTUS if he picks Jindal. Good Grief!

Cripes people get a grip. Not support McCain / Jindal because Jindal supports ID?

Pardon Me...
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT ARE YOU THINKING!

Obama / fillintheblacksocialist makes any threat of ID INfuckingSIGNIFICANT!

1st Amend say hello to fairness doctrine, even to the blogosphere, hate speech codes federalized, it will make McCain / Finegold look pale.

2nd Amend, what damn 2nd Amend.

Right to fair trial, say hello to Human Rights Commissions.

GWoT, put your white flag out now, it's over.

Judges, move the 9th circus up to SCOTUS.

Taxes, if you can afford the computer you on LGF with, you're rich, cough it up, say hello to unbridled income redistribution.

Health Care, say goodbye to timely, obtainable care, hello to rationing and waiting lines.

You'd take all the above because a VP candidate supports ID?

No candidate is perfect, throwing the election out with the single issue bath water, is just plain stupid!

/RANT OFF

477 USBeast  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:53:16pm

re: #447 Killgore Trout

Not to really answer your question; I'm very suspicious of the whole "states rights" thing. It seems to be a convenient refuge for ideas that have failed at the federal level. It's been a shelter for slavery, institutional racism, anti-abortion activists and now creationists. I'd let the Feds decide this one.

I wouldn't let the Feds decide heads or tails and the states are nearly as bad.

This is an issue for parents and the market. Idea: Teachers as private contractors?

478 HelloDare  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:53:41pm

re: #467 cheeseweasel

A single negative point that could cost McCain the election.

479 Alex_P_Keaton  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:54:18pm

My point in being is that what every it's called or will be called. Scientist will always be at odds with each other. If anyone has read about Pluto being called a plutoid you would have heard about all the fighting that's going on about that. And I mean scientist are actually pissed at each other, but I know this is the first or last time this will ever happen.

480 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:54:34pm

Here's another talking point that desperately needs to be put to rest. Evolution is not an atheist agenda. There are plenty of religious people who believe in evolution.

481 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:54:54pm

re: #462 ContraJihadi

The lizards who have remarked that there are bigger fish to fry are quite correct. Neither Darwinists or fundamentalist Christians will fare well if the jihadis triumph and impose sharia on both of them.

But ironically, the jihadis are just as opposed to the theory of evolution as creationists. So they have that in common.

482 Yosemite Bill  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:55:01pm

#12 Charles
I don't see the problem.
Why can't they teach either BOTH sides or neither.

Because one side is science and one side is religion. Only the science belongs in a science classroom.
I know I am late to this discussion and I have not read all the posts but the dichotomy you posited here is incorrect. Science and the Judeo-Christian tradition are NOT mutually exclusive, nor enemies.
It is possible to believe the Bible and still accept that evolution is part of God's time line.
My background is agriculture. My training is in the natural and physical sciences . I read about 1.5 hours per day and have now for more than 2 decades. TV is not a part of my life much. The more I learn the more I know just how little I know.
In my earlier years I was convinced that science and "religion" as you put it were exclusive. As my grasp of science grew I understand now that there are far too many near misses in the universe for all of this to be an "accident."
Slight - very slight- changes in the Big Bang and NONE of what we now understand about our solar system - yes even this entire end of the cosmos would exist.
Slight- very slight changes in the distance form the Sun, angle of the earth's 'tilt', etc., etc., and this planet would not host life as we know it. A steaming gas ball or a frozen rock but not the dynamic biosphere with which we are blessed .
Yes there are many false religions - socialism, humanism, gaia worship, etc.
And there are just as many false sciences - global warming being the latest.
What qualifies as "science" and what qualifies as "religion" is open to debate because what is being sold as "science" in the many classrooms is just the latest secular religion => Eco-Socialism.

483 Nemesis6  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:55:12pm

re: #422 spypeach

Darwin expressed concern about his theory, mainly the missing transitional fossils, and we're finding them by the loads these days. That's the inherent difference between Darwin and Creationism - Darwin doubted himself, and rightfully so because at the infancy of his theory(even though he spent 20 years researching it without telling anyone about it), evidence was indeed lacking.

484 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:55:44pm

re: #480 Killgore Trout

Here's another talking point that desperately needs to be put to rest. Evolution is not an atheist agenda. There are plenty of religious people who believe in evolution.

Or like the Catholic Church. Go on- call them atheists.

485 Racer X  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:55:58pm

re: #480 Killgore Trout

I stink, therefore I am.

486 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:56:08pm

re: #450 Quilly Mammoth

I'm not really excited about pursuing this but that isn't exactly the endgame that followers of Darwinism project. There is no new species. It has adapted to circumstances. Finches beaks and black moths...none result in a new species. Which is the entire reason to use Darwin to disprove G-D.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry.

487 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:56:18pm

re: #476 jcm

I like your rant very much. Rant on! :)

488 gkriadis  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:56:22pm

Charles - I think you would do well to avoid the ID topic from your blog. It seems to me that the draw of LGF is the unity your bloggers have with one another. This is an incredibly divisive issue; one that offends people on both sides. You are risking the alienation of many of your loyal supporters with your dogged position on this issue. It is obviously your site and your domain to do with what you will, but I personally believe this is suicide for you to keep throwing this issue in the face of those of us who do believe God is the designer of this vast and miraculous universe. On the outside chance that it matters; I found the ID deniers positions and attitudes offensive enough to keep me off the site for weeks. I personally don't enjoy combative and hostile responses on an issue that NO MAN is capable of claiming full knowledge. Feel free to bar me for my candid input.

489 USBeast  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:56:37pm

re: #485 Racer X

I stink, therefore I am.

I drink, therefore I am.

490 Tom Kratman  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:56:44pm

re: #444 Charles

But I didn't say that. The point is that evolution is a testable theory, and it CAN be proven wrong. It's just that no one has done that -- and in fact, there's a HUGE amount of evidence in favor of the theory, in a constantly changing field of study.

There is no evidence for intelligent design, and it can't be falsified because it's based on religious belief. No evidence, can't be falsified: not science.

Religious belief is a good thing. But when it gets confused with science, and used to justify a deceptive agenda (as is happening with the effort to subvert the establishment clause and push ID into science classes) it's a slippery slope to disaster.

Sorry, but absent that time machine, it (evolution from the beginning) still can't be falsified. Or proven.

As for evidence of a Creator, which is also evidence of ID, there's lots of it. Buttloads. Some is more persuasive, some is less, and some is quite unpersuasive. What there is not is absolute proof. Note that evidence and proof are not the same things. This is the logical (and procedural) error that caused me to consign Hitchens and Dawkins to the dustbin.

491 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:56:54pm

re: #448 Charles

Uh ... we do have museums full of evidence. I've been in them.

What some folks don't understand about the fossil record is that it's amazing that any evidence has survived over millions of years of geologic time, rather than expecting that most of it would survive.

And I wonder why anyone should think this, considering that they should have plenty of experience that would suggest to them that things that you just leave out in the open or buried in the ground usually rot away to almost nothing. And not in millions of years, either, but just a few decades.

And that doesn't even begin to take account of geological processes that are reworking the surface of the Earth over much longer timescales.

492 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:57:23pm

re: #481 Charles

But ironically, the jihadis are just as opposed to the theory of evolution as creationists. So they have that in common.

It does not make them allies.

493 rockdad  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:57:35pm

School vouchers for all! That'll fix it!

494 Northpaw  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:57:36pm

I haven't read the comments but let me guess...

Some LGFers are attempting to conflate global warming alarmism, and all of its shutting down of debate over the particulars, with this subject.

Sigh.

They are wrong. Sorry. It's not the same sort of thing. Not even close. I really do worry about the level of scientific knowledge in this country. It borders on pathetic and often nudges into pure lunatic territory.

495 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:57:51pm

re: #400 Tom Kratman

Hi Tom. Hope all is getting well. See ya in Chattanooga?

496 krypto  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:58:07pm

re: #361 funkyfantom

re: #361 funkyfantom

If you believe Darwinism is correct in its claims, the burden is on you to prove it. Otherwise you are merely arguing from authority.

I could call your argument the "argument from links".

Checking what has already been written time and time again in response to the same bogus claims rather than demanding that someone repeat it all in the space of a short snippet is generally called "first checking the literature for prior work" rather than "arguing from the links."

But to comment on a few other points, it is "the theory of evolution" not "Darwinism," not the personal ideology of someone based on his authority.

Moreover, there's a misunderstanding of "theory" involved in your post. Theories are never "proved." They are testable explanations constructed based on extensive comparison with experiment and observation and logical interconnections between data and explanations, in the best and most complete way possible, and are always being continually refined and improved. Every time some other test is put to the theory and the theory works or can increase the body of knowledge it explains, it is generally regarded as a better theory. But it is always subject to test and refinement and is never "proved" - and can only be disproved.

That's as true for the theory of relativity, for quantum mechanics, and for any other scientific theory as it is for the theory of evolution.

Evolution has passed the tests of being a sound theory time and time again.The evidence confirming, not "proving," the theory of evolution is extraordinarily extensive, as extensive and convincing as the evidence confirming Newton's law of universal gravitation (which after all is about an attraction between every mass in the universe - and therefore like evolution is tested by its predictions).

It is for creationists to present honest evidence to DISPROVE evolution at this point, which they obviously cannot do.

497 paint-right  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:58:30pm

re: #481 Charles

But ironically, the jihadis are just as opposed to the theory of evolution as creationists. So they have that in common.

But they don't forbid it to be taught. Most creationists i know believe it, wished you might be persuaded to believe it, but would never impose it by fiat.

498 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:58:39pm

re: #475 Hhar

Charles #411: the usual nitpick. Ddarwinism is not a smear term invented by people who criticise evolution. For example, I have a copy of Haeckel's The Evolution of Man (American authorised edition and translation) in which it is used to distinguish Lamarkian from Darwinian evolution.

What it is, is a seriously outmoded fashion of speech. Evolutionary biology accepts that the Darwinian processes of natural selection and descentr with modfication through deep time are powerful processes, but I agree (and I think its obvious) that reducing evolutionary biology to "Dawinism" is ridiculous, given the novel contributions of many many others since the 19th centrury.

Yet, you must concede that Darwinism is the orthodox view of evolution, and has been, for a century- Soviet Lamarkianism notwithstanding.

499 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:58:42pm

re: #488 gkriadis

Charles - I think you would do well to avoid the ID topic from your blog. It seems to me that the draw of LGF is the unity your bloggers have with one another. This is an incredibly divisive issue; one that offends people on both sides. You are risking the alienation of many of your loyal supporters with your dogged position on this issue. It is obviously your site and your domain to do with what you will, but I personally believe this is suicide for you to keep throwing this issue in the face of those of us who do believe God is the designer of this vast and miraculous universe. On the outside chance that it matters; I found the ID deniers positions and attitudes offensive enough to keep me off the site for weeks. I personally don't enjoy combative and hostile responses on an issue that NO MAN is capable of claiming full knowledge. Feel free to bar me for my candid input.

No, I'm not going to avoid the issue, sorry. And the victimhood thing is getting really old. I have not banned a single person just for expressing an opinion in this debate; if people have lost accounts, it's because they lost their tempers.

500 HelloDare  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:59:10pm

Charles, how about a music thread?
Music of the Spheres would be appropriate.

501 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:59:19pm

re: #488 gkriadis

Charles - I think you would do well to avoid the ID topic from your blog. It seems to me that the draw of LGF is the unity your bloggers have with one another.

I don't think any of us want this place to become an echo chamber. This is one of many issues that provokes lively debate.

502 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:59:31pm

re: #492 mama winger

It does not make them allies.

And I didn't say it did.

503 curdie  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:59:32pm

"until it’s settled whether ID violates the Establishment Clause or not"

This is a red herring. The real question is whether having our schools run by a government monopoly violates the Establishment Clause.

Education and religion are inseparable. The idea that schools are or could be "religiously neutral" is a fraud.

504 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:59:32pm

re: #484 Sharmuta

Or like the Catholic Church. Go on- call them atheists.

better not!

505 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:59:44pm

re: #455 angst

Ugh. PIMF. Forget what I was trying to discuss with Pre-Boomer Marine brat.

*grin*
Looks like you're caught up in the science of website comment software usage ... uh ... whatever.

506 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 5:59:58pm
507 uptight  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:00:00pm

I'd have no objection to that being taught in religious studies lessons, but it has no place in science lessons.

Scientists don't force their way into church pulpits. Churches should keep their doctrines out of science lessons.

508 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:00:09pm

re: #492 mama winger

It does not make them allies.


You can bet CAIR and the Islamists would love to see these "academic freedom bills" pass. Get ready for Islamic science and Islamic social studies in public schools.

509 Metal Man  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:00:15pm

re: #494 Northpaw

Why is conflating bad science being taught with bad science people want to teach wrong?

510 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:00:42pm

In the interest of lightening the mood (and a friend just sent this to me, coincidentally)...

A little girl asked her father: 'How did the human race appear?'

The father answered, 'God made Adam and Eve; they had children; and so was all mankind made.'

Two days later the girl asked her mother the same question.

The mother answered, 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.'

The confused girl returned to her father and said, 'Dad, how is it possible that you told me the human Race was created by God, and Mom said they developed from monkeys?'


The father answered, 'Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family, and your mother told you about hers.'

511 finallyalizard  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:00:43pm

good one charles, compare the creationists with the jihadists... how about the fact that the evolutionists and the jihadists have the comfortable marriage of superior and inferior races? most commie thug leaders love the theory of evolution to proves the "apes and pigs" fantasies that the muslims use. charles, you are kook sometimes.

512 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:01:09pm

re: #502 Charles

And I didn't say it did.

I know. I just wanted to make it clear that I was not in anyway sympathetic to those who would viciously and violently impose their will or their religion upon others.

513 Boogberg  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:01:23pm

re: #441 HelloDare

Believing in ID but not believing in god. Now that's ridiculous.

Is it? With our technology, we would probably seem like gods to ancient Mayans.

I'm talking about the other way around though. Why the hell would a scientifically-minded person believe in "God" these days? It doesn't add up.

514 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:01:40pm

re: #508 Killgore Trout

You can bet CAIR and the Islamists would love to see these "academic freedom bills" pass. Get ready for Islamic science and Islamic social studies in public schools.

Good point- as if they don't attempt to use our laws against us enough as it is- let's give them more!

515 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:02:24pm

re: #496 krypto

re: #361 funkyfantom

Checking what has already been written time and time again in response to the same bogus claims rather than demanding that someone repeat it all in the space of a short snippet is generally called "first checking the literature for prior work" rather than "arguing from the links."

But to comment on a few other points, it is "the theory of evolution" not "Darwinism," not the personal ideology of someone based on his authority.

Moreover, there's a misunderstanding of "theory" involved in your post. Theories are never "proved." They are testable explanations constructed based on extensive comparison with experiment and observation and logical interconnections between data and explanations, in the best and most complete way possible, and are always being continually refined and improved. Every time some other test is put to the theory and the theory works or can increase the body of knowledge it explains, it is generally regarded as a better theory. But it is always subject to test and refinement and is never "proved" - and can only be disproved.

That's as true for the theory of relativity, for quantum mechanics, and for any other scientific theory as it is for the theory of evolution.

Evolution has passed the tests of being a sound theory time and time again.The evidence confirming, not "proving," the theory of evolution is extraordinarily extensive, as extensive and convincing as the evidence confirming Newton's law of universal gravitation (which after all is about an attraction between every mass in the universe - and therefore like evolution is tested by its predictions).

It is for creationists to present honest evidence to DISPROVE evolution at this point, which they obviously cannot do.

Fellow, you don't even understand the difference between Darwinism and other theories of evolution. I can't argue with you.

516 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:02:33pm

re: #442 Tom Kratman

re: #393 ted

This argument about where the burden of proof lies pops up all the time. Just out of curiosity, why do you think the burden lies with those defending the traditional view rather than the new view (which evolution / Darwinism are)? In answering, please be wary of circular arguments.

Because until you can offer a viable scientic hypothesis with proof that supercedes the evolutionary hypothesis, evolution stands.

517 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:02:41pm

re: #511 finallyalizard

Great googily moogily!

518 Tom Kratman  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:02:42pm

re: #495 Quilly Mammoth

Hi Tom. Hope all is getting well. See ya in Chattanooga?

Nah, Jody. Better is not the same as "well" and I am still needed at home.

519 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:03:08pm

re: #473 kuchuklambat

Ohm's law cannot be proven in the same way that Fermat's theorem has been proven. It is a likely story correlating rather crude observations, I am sure it has quantum-mechanical corrections, relativistic corrections, etc.

Doesn't mean we should replace it with some "irreducible complexity" of course.

uh ... what th' H are you talking about?!

520 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:03:49pm

re: #506 buzzsawmonkey

You are confusing Lamarck with Lysenko. Lysenko was Soviet; Lamarck was not.

Both were wrong.

No confusion there- it is the same thing. Yes, we all know both were wrong.

521 DistantThunder  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:03:51pm

re: #49 Charles

We've had a lot of intelligent discussion and we'll have a lot more. But if you expect that to mean agreement with the intelligent design hoax -- well, you're going to be disappointed.

Leeches are making a comeback

522 krypto  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:04:27pm

Speaking of confirming stuff about evolution experimentally:

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
# 22:00 09 June 2008
# NewScientist.com news service

[Link: www.newscientist.com...]

523 finallyalizard  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:04:52pm

re: #517 Killgore Trout

yeah i have a couple of little ones too... are you the ferocious beast?

524 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:04:54pm

re: #505 pre-Boomer Marine brat

*grin*
Looks like you're caught up in the science of website comment software usage ... uh ... whatever.

OT (I've been DYING to send you these):

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

525 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:05:10pm

re: #521 DistantThunder

So are maggots. Gross, eh?

Ever have to shave a .........

nevermind :)

526 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:05:37pm

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I am sending the Gagboy to a religious school because, among other reasons, I am quite sure he will receive a superior science education there. Many of the readers of this blog do not seem to have any awareness of the role of imagination in science, which is again the height of naivete -- as if science is a purely mechanical endeavor. There is a reason why science arose in the Christian West and nowhere else, and much of this has to do with the metaphysics embedded in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Also, in my own profession of psychology, I cannot imagine teaching the subject within the narrow constraints of Darwinism. There is infinitely more human wisdom in an esoteric reading of Genesis than in all the behavioristic psychology books put together. It seems that the same people who adhere to a crimped and mechanical view of science have the most childishly literalistic view of scripture, e.g., "who did the children of Adam and Eve marry." Please.

527 abolitionist  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:05:51pm

re: #415 JamesTKirk

As soon as Newt became part of the Goracle's traveling snake-oil show, he lost any credibility or ability to advise.

Thanks, I was not aware of such. I'd been impressed by his speeches about the global jihad, but if he's seriously on the Gore/Gaia bandwagon I must re-evaluate.

528 MarkX  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:05:58pm

re: #500 HelloDare

Charles, how about a music thread?
Music of the Spheres would be appropriate.

See my post #226

I like this

529 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:06:07pm

re: #524 goddessoftheclassroom

OT (I've been DYING to send you these):

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !

Priceless! I am sending those to everyone I know!

530 blair21088  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:06:13pm

I'm very sad to hear this, as what I've heard about Jindal before now was very promising.

531 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:06:27pm

re: #511 finallyalizard

good one charles, compare the creationists with the jihadists... how about the fact that the evolutionists and the jihadists have the comfortable marriage of superior and inferior races? most commie thug leaders love the theory of evolution to proves the "apes and pigs" fantasies that the muslims use. charles, you are kook sometimes.

You know, I'm used to leftists deliberately misconstruing what I write. But it's disappointing to see it from someone with the username "finallyalizard."

532 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:06:37pm

re: #510 goddessoftheclassroom

Can I assume that the father died soon after?
(-:

533 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:07:01pm

re: #526 Gagdad Bob

Gagboy. I love it. :)

534 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:07:36pm

re: #530 blair21088

I'm very sad to hear this, as what I've heard about Jindal before now was very promising.

So look at things in balance.

535 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:07:38pm

re: #526 Gagdad Bob

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I am sending the Gagboy to a religious school because, among other reasons, I am quite sure he will receive a superior science education there. Many of the readers of this blog do not seem to have any awareness of the role of imagination in science, which is again the height of naivete -- as if science is a purely mechanical endeavor. There is a reason why science arose in the Christian West and nowhere else, and much of this has to do with the metaphysics embedded in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Also, in my own profession of psychology, I cannot imagine teaching the subject within the narrow constraints of Darwinism. There is infinitely more human wisdom in an esoteric reading of Genesis than in all the behavioristic psychology books put together. It seems that the same people who adhere to a crimped and mechanical view of science have the most childishly literalistic view of scripture, e.g., "who did the children of Adam and Eve marry." Please.

And as I've mentioned several times, my love for science and respect for the theory of evolution came from my own education in Catholic schools.

536 NomadOfNorad  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:07:42pm

Anyone watching "How Life Began" right now on History Channel? (Or will be when it reaches the time for it in the next time zones?) It just came on 7 minutes ago. They're also talking about the religious views on the matter, and the history of people's perceptions of how life began...

Two hours long.

537 Tom Kratman  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:07:48pm

re: #513 Boogberg

Is it? With our technology, we would probably seem like gods to ancient Mayans.

I'm talking about the other way around though. Why the hell would a scientifically-minded person believe in "God" these days? It doesn't add up.

For several reasons, actually. The near universality of the religious impulse in human beings suggests it was put there. Then there's beer, the sick feeling most people get in their guts when contemplating the infinite (also suggesting if not proving deliberate preprogramming), being the recipient (as I have recently been) of something hard to classify as anything but a miracle, and tits.

That list is not exhaustive.

538 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:07:50pm

re: #382 Charles

No, I said that only science should be taught in a science classroom. Religion should be taught either in church or at home.

There's a little thing we have in this country called the Establishment Clause, and the founding fathers put it in there for a very good reason.

This is a misunderstanding about the various flavors of ID. Charles, you are quite right that religious ID should not be taught in public schools.

But the flavor of ID that Behe advocates, for example, does NOT depend on religion, despite the fact that Behe is a practicing Catholic.

539 wolfie  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:07:51pm

re: #217 BGOH

I think your belief theory opinion that Palin might evolve into be a good VP candidate is spot on. ENERGY POLICY should be a major issue in this campaign, and she's got experience and conservative credibility in that field.
And as you say, it doesn't hurt that she is a woman and could pull in a few Hildebeast fans. I think a lot of moderate women would like her because she is not only a bright, successful politician, but a very family-centered mother.

540 DistantThunder  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:08:39pm

This is not my favorite topic, and I'm a little disappointed that Jindal is so outspoken about it. If we didn't have forced public schooling without choice, I think this would be less of a problem. People could pick and choose what their child learned.

541 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:08:47pm

re: #532 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Can I assume that the father died soon after?
(-:

I'm sorry--I'm not getting this. I'm sure it's brilliantly witty...

542 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:08:58pm

re: #524 goddessoftheclassroom

OT (I've been DYING to send you these):

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

You owe for a new laptop computer! This one is RUINED!

543 ggt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:09:01pm

Good Evening Lizards!

Is it safe to come it?

How are you-all?

544 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:09:22pm

re: #538 funkyfantom

This is a misunderstanding about the various flavors of ID. Charles, you are quite right that religious ID should not be taught in public schools.

But the flavor of ID that Behe advocates, for example, does NOT depend on religion, despite the fact that Behe is a practicing Catholic.

I have no respect for Michael Behe, sorry. None. He is a shill for the Discovery Institute, his "theories" are laughable, and everything he's written has been completely debunked.

545 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:09:26pm

re: #537 Tom Kratman

That list is not exhaustive.

Hey - you sound like a Lutheran ! haha :)

546 krypto  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:09:41pm

re: #496 re: #515 funkyfantom

Fellow, you don't even understand the difference between Darwinism and other theories of evolution. I can't argue with you.

Well, I'll agree with the last part of your last statement.

547 jcm  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:10:20pm

A the risk of being boring, I going to restate a point I've made before.

I agree with re: #444 Charles.

There is science...
There is faith...

And not that twain will never meet, science is based on evidence, testable and reproduce results, with continually improving iterations and the constant prospect of something new upsetting the apple cart.

Faith is none of those things, the only evidence is in ones spirit and soul, each individuals experience is unique, and while it involves growth it is eternal and in many ways unchanging.

The two operate on completely different set of principles. Faith is useless in science, and vis-a-versa.

Trying to force one to fit the other is an exercise in futility.

In the beginning God..... I believe that in the core of my being.
Try to prove it scientifically? HAHAHAHAHA!

Let me and my church instruct my children in matters of faith. Forcing ID into public schools is ripe for unintended consequences I don't want to imagine.

548 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:10:34pm

re: #511 finallyalizard

most commie thug leaders love the theory of evolution to proves the "apes and pigs" fantasies that the muslims use.

On the contrary, for the Soviets at least, evolution was doctrinally problematic because it seemed to imply that too much was due to heredity, and that the "new socialist man" that they wanted to create by controlling people from the outside wouldn't work. See the story of T.D. Lysenko, one of Stalin's favored geneticists.

549 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:10:46pm

re: #486 funkyfantom

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry.

The basis for evolution as espoused by Darwin is that new species appeared because of pressure on other species. In their adaptation they became something else

This is why ID protagonists can beat Evolutionists like a red headed step child. NO ONE, can prove evolution works if for no other reason than we don't have the breadth of time investigation to show it. It simply can not be falsifiable; only observable. And as Tom Kratman has said, unless you have a time machine you can't show it. You can only guess it.

Again, I think evolution is most likely why things are the way they are, but it is not now, nor has it ever been, more than a theory. Despite what Charles says it _isn't_ provable.

So I get more than a kick out of people that slam ID advocates with the "It ain't science" argument when their own ignorance shows that they don't what "science" is. It's just screamingly funny when someone gets all vein throbbing about ID, shout "it isn't science" when Darwin's theories are no more provable today then they were when he wrote them.

Darwin quite possibly may be right, but you can't prove it today. And that's why most people who support Evolution won't debate ID advocates. Because an ID advocate will make it clear that the Evolutionist is working on just about the same faith level as the ID advocate.

550 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:10:48pm

re: #526 Gagdad Bob

There is a reason why science arose in the Christian West and nowhere else

I have to disagree with this- there was quite a bit of science in the Far East.

551 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:11:02pm

re: #541 goddessoftheclassroom

I'm sorry--I'm not getting this. I'm sure it's brilliantly witty...

re: saying the mother was telling about HER side of the family.

552 jcm  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:11:09pm

re: #524 goddessoftheclassroom

ROFLMAO!
*can't breathe* the pain the pain....

553 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:11:19pm


What is the ``scientific method''?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.


The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied.

When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws.

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?).

A frequent criticism made of the scientific method is that it cannot accommodate anything that has not been proved. The argument then points out that many things thought to be impossible in the past are now everyday realities. This criticism is based on a misinterpretation of the scientific method. When a hypothesis passes the test it is adopted as a theory it correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time, be falsified by new experimental evidence. When exploring a new set or phenomena scientists do use existing theories but, since this is a new area of investigation, it is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new experiments and observations. In this case new hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges.

[Link: phyun5.ucr.edu...]

554 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:11:37pm

re: #505 pre-Boomer Marine brat



Stand back! I'm going to try HTML!

555 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:11:59pm

re: #499 Charles

No, I'm not going to avoid the issue, sorry. And the victimhood thing is getting really old. I have not banned a single person just for expressing an opinion in this debate; if people have lost accounts, it's because they lost their tempers.

The real debate as put forward in the introduction of these threads is

not about whether or not God exists.

The real debate revolves around whether or not a particular agenda will be taught in our schools as a genuine educational subject.

So I think you are absolutely right on target to not avoid this issue.

These threads "evolve" into discussions about this or that or the other scientific theory, the definition of "theory", what is provable and why, what is not provable and why, what is or what is not "darwinism", etc etc, and all of that just continues to confuse the issue. For me, I am a simple person and the issue is a pretty simple one - how should we want science taught, and how should we want to teach our children about faith and religion?

556 Tom Kratman  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:11:59pm

re: #516 ted

Because until you can offer a viable scientic hypothesis with proof that supercedes the evolutionary hypothesis, evolution stands.

Sorry, that's a circular argument.

557 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:12:01pm

re: #551 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I just realize which comment you were replying to! :)

558 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:13:21pm
559 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:13:42pm

re: #547 jcm

upding and HI there!

560 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:13:52pm
re: #115 Russkilitlover
re: #84 thinkingmom

Lack of a fossil record? What about eohippis? You can go from there to mesohippis and all the rest of the gang and wind up with thue modern horse. It's a nice fossilized record of evolution.

I understand the Cetacean <gawd, hope I spelt that right> fossil record is also pretty complete.

}:)     [You're just clouding the issue with facts, now.]

561 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:13:59pm

re: #544 Charles

I have no respect for Michael Behe, sorry. None. He is a shill for the Discovery Institute, his "theories" are laughable, and everything he's written has been completely debunked.

Disappointing. If you had any science in your arguments, there would be something to argue about. I respect your political thinking, but you ought to read and understand the science before passing judgement on stuff you don't have knowledge of.

562 lawhawk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:14:26pm

Well, I've made my thoughts known on this subject in the past, so there's no need for me to continue restating it, but if you ever wondered if there's a God, and whether he's got a sense of humor, this might actually be the time. Then again, if you want to test the theory of pigs flying, this too might be the time: Richard Falk has asked the UN to expand his mandate to investigate Palestinian wrongdoing instead of just focusing on the Israelis.

A UN expert charged with investigating Israeli rights abuses against Palestinians says his role is biased and should be widened to include violations carried out by Palestinians as well.

Richard Falk, a professor emeritus at Princeton University, asked the UN Human Rights Council on Monday to address persistent criticism of his post by changing the job description.

"I think the idea of investigating violations of international humanitarian law only make sense if all the relevant parties are included," Falk told The Associated Press after the meeting.

563 jcm  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:15:27pm

re: #559 pre-Boomer Marine brat

upding and HI there!

Hi there! How was fathers day. I spent a day working in the yard in fine weather, with the kids enjoying the the first nice day in awhile. 18 month old munchette tasted everything in the yard!

564 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:15:51pm

re: #556 Tom Kratman

Sorry, that's a circular argument.

Currently, evolution (despite, admittedly, some holes - it is not 100% proven but in the real world expecting 100% is unrealistic) is the best fit for the evidence we have; and as more evidence comes to light, the case for evolution gets stronger and stronger.

It is theoretically possible that some new evidence may come forth and throw a monkey wrench in the theory, or that a better theory will come along... But until it does, this is the best theory we've got. It's consistent with what we know and what we have so far.

ID is wishful thinking.

565 uptight  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:16:32pm

re: #526 Gagdad Bob

It seems that the same people who adhere to a crimped and mechanical view of science have the most childishly literalistic view of scripture, e.g., "who did the children of Adam and Eve marry." Please.

So the scriptures aren't meant to be taken literally. The universe wasn't literally built in 6 days. Eve wasn't built out of Adam's rib. God didn't unleash a surreal, sadistic holocaust on the Egyptians, Noah didn't really build an ark for every species, God didn't turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, Mary wasn't a virgin, God didn't speak via burning bush or part the Red Sea and the Book of Revelation is a bad acid trip.

Did I miss anything out? Loads probably.

So, stripping away the embarrassingly primitive and sadistic stuff by writing it off as "non literal", what are we left with? A omnipotent superbeing created us at a date that correlates with archaeological discoveries. Why he did remains a mystery as does the riddle of who created him.

Fine - I could live with that being taught as an alternative theory to evolution.

566 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:16:52pm
567 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:17:42pm

re: #432 Sharmuta

I'm with you on that - especially in this day and age. However, we're already well into phase III. With the DoJ refusing to close a virulent madrassa here in Virginia to schools across this country actively teaching children the koran (it's cultual, you know) this whole conversation is moot. The islamification of our youth is well under way.

568 ggt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:17:44pm

re: #562 lawhawk

Thanks for posting!

and I thought G-d was proven to exist when Sanjaya got booted off last year's American Idol?

569 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:17:51pm

re: #561 funkyfantom

Disappointing. If you had any science in your arguments, there would be something to argue about. I respect your political thinking, but you ought to read and understand the science before passing judgement on stuff you don't have knowledge of.

See, there's the problem. I have read the science, and I do understand it. And what Behe and the Discovery Institute are pushing is not science.

Believe me or don't, it's your choice. I'll just have to find a way to live with your disappointment.

570 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:18:04pm

re: #555 reine.de.tout

For me, I am a simple person and the issue is a pretty simple one - how should we want science taught, and how should we want to teach our children about faith and religion?

Exactly. I'm glad to learn more about science from the more scientific Lizards, but for me this comes down to this agenda. Do we really want to further weaken our education system by blurring the lines between science and theology? I don't.

571 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:18:10pm

re: #554 angst

Stand back! I'm going to try HTML!


I forgot to say that was from one of my favorite funny websites, XKCD. I don't understand the half of it, but it's entertaining. There's another T-shirt logo I wanted to post but I thought Charles might ban me for rudeness.

572 jcm  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:18:22pm

re: #566 buzzsawmonkey

Some people, alas, have an ID fixe.

My ID is pretty fixed, I had to get it out of my wallet and it's stuck real good....
;-P

573 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:18:22pm

re: #556 Tom Kratman

Sorry, that's a circular argument.


"There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable."

This is a crucial point.

Evolution is falsifiable, ID is not.

Tom..As a scientist, we don't have to keep re-proving theories, only defend them.

574 A Kiwi Infidel  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:18:28pm

re: #40 Catttt

Miracle

/runs away

Catttt, are you still there?

I dont believe it! As soon as I saw the 'toon, I recognised the handy work.

As a fill in for subjects while completing an accounting and finance degree, I took psych 101 and we used the text "Introduction to Psychology" by Atkinson, Atkinson and Hilgard. All the 'toons are done by the same hand. That was 25 years ago!

575 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:18:30pm

Yes, it is correct that science arose elsewhere, but it simply could not be sustained, in virtually all cases because of faulty metaphysics, e.g. cyclical time. In Judeo-Christian metaphysics, time is progressive and "leading somewhere," whereas in pagan metaphysics it is cyclical and regressive, so that "progress" consists in imitating the archetypes of the past. This causes all sorts of problems.

576 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:18:44pm

re: #554 angst

Stand back! I'm going to try HTML!

I'm under the desk. Go ahead.

577 DistantThunder  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:18:57pm

One of our LDS church Apostles, there are 12, who performed our marriage ceremony is a former nuclear engineer. Worked in the Navy directly reporting to Admiral Rickover. Another Apostle is a former heart surgeon. Another Apostle was to start as the Dean of the Business school at Stanford. His father, Henry Eyring, was an eminent chemist of great faith.

HENRY EYRING was fortunate in entering the arena of chemical physics at the time that quantum mechanics began impinging on the fundamental problems of chemistry. He was also fortunate in possessing to an unusual degree a fertile imagination, unbounded curiosity, a warm and outgoing personality, a high degree of intellectual talent, the ability to work hard, and a determination to succeed. The result was that, beginning in the early years of the 1930s, he exerted an important influence on the large numbers of students and colleagues lucky enough to come into contact with him. This influence continued to spread throughout the chemical community for the rest of his life.

People can have both great faith and great scientific understanding.

In Eyring's Utah years approximately 485 papers appeared bearing his name. The range of topics covered is astonishing. Areas that concerned him at Princeton continued to maintain his interest, but many other areas attracted his attention, involving pure, basic science, and highly applied matters. Eyring also did a great deal of consulting and traveled widely, giving many talks. He was a master at communicating his ideas, and a great many honors came to him.

In view of current controversies over the teaching of creationism and Darwinism, Eyring's intellectual interactions with the Mormon church, and particularly his opinions on the relationship of science to the scriptures, deserve special mention. It was his position that the interpretation of the scriptures was up to the individual members of the church, and it was not appropriate for the leadership to declare what positions on scientific matters were "correct" or "incorrect." The Mormon church had assumed a relatively liberal view of the relationship of science to the church, but in 1953 Joseph Fielding Smith, president of the Council of Twelve Apostles, began to express his opinion that the scriptures must be interpreted as literally true on scientific matters. In a number of meetings and writings Eyring tactfully yet forcefully engaged President Smith in the matter. His point is summarized in the following:

The church is committed to the truth whatever its source and each man is asked to seek it out honestly and prayerfully. It is, of course, another matter to teach as a doctrine of the church something which is manifestly contradictory and to urge it in and out of season. The author has never felt the least constraints in investigating any matter strictly on its merits.

The consequence of this interchange seems to have been that Eyring's position received official support.

578 lawhawk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:19:00pm

re: #568 ggt

No, that was just the devil getting his due. /

579 BignJames  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:19:08pm

re: #561 funkyfantom

Ok perfesser...lessee yer creds.

580 Intrepid  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:19:09pm

re: #477 USBeast

I wouldn't let the Feds decide heads or tails and the states are nearly as bad.

This is an issue for parents and the market. Idea: Teachers as private contractors?

I'd betcha a million smackeroos this idea, if implemented, would do away with a significant percentage of teachers in classrooms I studied in. A couple of them were barely literate themselves, to be honest. (this was back in the 70's)

And I'd also bet that our own Goddessoftheclassroom would probably be able to name her own salary and would eventually be able to retire in fine style.

581 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:19:25pm

uptight:

I'm guessing you're not a theologian.

582 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:19:27pm

re: #567 vapig

Are you talking about the comment I linked?

583 Hhar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:19:30pm

506, 498

We don't call orbital mechanics "Newtonism". We don't call evolutionary biology "Darwinism". Similar reasons: Evolutionary biology employs disciplines (e.g genetics: molecular, quantitative, whatever) and processes (e.g. Genetic drift) that Darwin never dreamed of. These are non-Darwinian. Ergo, evolutionary biology is not "Darwinism".

584 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:19:40pm

OT:

I think I found out why the MSM is so blasé about dead Israelis and Terrorism.

CNN "Head Honcho" Steve caught in a private moment (ie: not for infront of the camera) wearing a non-mistakable PLO Kiffeyeh.
-It begins at 9:07. (if we can get a full name, its stated but I couldn't make it out, and look him up this really might be something)

585 Boogberg  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:19:49pm

re: #537 Tom Kratman

You may have a point concerning tits & beer. Infinity and so-called miracles? No big deal. :D

586 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:19:54pm

re: #577 DistantThunder

Sorry, that was a little too much LDS.

587 ploome hineni[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:20:09pm
588 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:20:12pm

re: #563 jcm

FD was good. Very quiet.

589 ggt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:20:53pm

re: #578 lawhawk

ah!

590 Inquisitive  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:21:11pm

re: #382 Charles

No, I said that only science should be taught in a science classroom. Religion should be taught either in church or at home.

There's a little thing we have in this country called the Establishment Clause, and the founding fathers put it in there for a very good reason.


I will glady apologize;
I am sorry that I miss quoted you and did not use the same words you did--yes you said teach SCIENCE. I thought(inquistive must remember --old saying --You are not being paid to think) that since others here kept talking about evolution that when I used it the way I did they would know what I was talking about. I should have known better because it did look like I was using your words, which I did not. So I will apologize again and hope you will accept it as truly an honest mistake and I won't feel bad at all if you want to delete that post so as no one will think that is what you had said.

591 uptight  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:21:14pm

I don't know why Darwin gets the credit, anyway.

For many centuries, Muslims have been saying that we Infidels are descended from apes.

Okay, they got the pigs part wrong, but yea Mohammed!

592 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:21:36pm

re: #558 buzzsawmonkey

The difference between evolution and ID is that the first is scientific method, and the second is scientific Method Acting.

Good analogy.

593 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:21:47pm
re: #477 USBeast

I wouldn't let the Feds decide heads or tails and the states are nearly as bad.

This is an issue for parents and the market. Idea: Teachers as private contractors?

I missed this first time around. What an intriguing idea !

Of course the NEA would have a contract out on us all before it could ever be implemented.

/ Only ever so slightly kidding.

594 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:22:02pm

re: #562 lawhawk

I mentioned this earlier, and if you read the Ha'aretz article they quote him further where he explains that this way when he comes down on Israel, the Israel supporters cannot say that it was too one sided. In addition, he states that he doesn't intend to actually look inside the Phakestinian territories.

He has no intention of actually finding Phakestinian Human Rights violations.

595 George guy  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:22:22pm

The last time I checked, there were problems in the line from Eohippus to the modern horse, with respect to the number of ribs seeming to jump all over the place from species to species. I haven't read anything about that recently, so I'm wondering if that bit's been adequately explained, or if it would make more sense to say that the modern horse in its variants are simply the only surviving line from one of several variant branches coming off of the original Eohippus population.

596 jim in virginia  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:22:39pm

re: #524 goddessoftheclassroom

OT (I've been DYING to send you these):

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

There you go picking on canine Americans again. Species-ist!

597 HelloDare  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:22:47pm

re: #592 ted

Good analogy.

BOOYAH!

598 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:22:54pm

re: #549 Quilly Mammoth

re: #569 Charles

See, there's the problem. I have read the science, and I do understand it. And what Behe and the Discovery Institute are pushing is not science.

Believe me or don't, it's your choice. I'll just have to find a way to live with your disappointment.

Well since you are unable or unwilling to explain what is wrong with Behe's arguments, I suppose one is given no other choice besides believing you or not believing you.

599 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:23:00pm

re: #576 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I'm under the desk. Go ahead.

Wait. Let me get my HAZMAT suit and Kevlar Vest. !

600 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:23:09pm

Goddess, the cat photos were great! Just emailed the links out to others.

(I'm working from my laptop tonight, which is slower than the desktop PC. Also, the laptop has smoke coming from it because of the spittle ejected as I laughed.)

601 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:23:26pm

re: #573 ted

snip


Evolution is falsifiable, ID is not.

Tom..As a scientist, we don't have to keep re-proving theories, only defend them.

Please provide a cite which says that Evolution is falsifiable. You cant.

602 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:23:27pm

re: #586 JamesTKirk

Sorry, that was a little too much LDS.

And the funny thing is, you were just quoting yourself!

603 Tigger2005  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:23:29pm

re: #179 Gagdad Bob

Re the gaps -- the point is, there is a conflict between the theory and the empirical data, in that the former allows for no sudden "leaps" of evolution. Thus the theory of punctuated equilibrium -- which many biologists do not accept, since it clashes with orthodoxy.

You are very simply wrong on this matter, in numerous ways. It seems ridiculous that I should have to explain how, when it's a simple matter to educate yourself through the Internet. But here goes:

Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution has been expanded on, revised, and refined over the decades. There is no "holy evolutionary orthodoxy" that doesn't "allow" for "sudden" evolutionary leaps. that's not how science works--nothing is really "sacred," everything is subject to change if the evidence merits it. If there is strong evidence for "sudden" evolutionary leaps, these will be incorporated into the theory.

Actually, Darwin himself suggested that evolution did not proceed smoothly. Punctuated equilibrium was indeed proposed to explain the gaps in the fossil record, and it has since been accepted by the vast majority of biologists and incorporated into the larger theoretical framework. I'd like to know how exactly how many biologists you're actually aware of that don't accept punk eek because it "clashes with the orthodoxy."

While punk eek suggests that evolution sometimes proceeds "rapidly" or "suddenly," in fits and starts, it doesn't propose that one species can change into an almost completely different species overnight. Very long periods of time are still involved. However, as we saw with the example of the evolving lizard that Charles posted a while back, there is evidence that species can sometimes make some pretty spectacular adaptations in a fairly short time. Clearly there's still a lot to learn, but it sure seems lazy to say "Goddidit" to explain the lizards' ra[od adaptation. If God did that, why doesn't God fix cancer, our eye problems, and back pain? Why does God care more about a bunch of lizards?

In any event, punk eek--which is actually part of so-called "orthodox" evolutionary theory now, remember--explains the gaps in the fossil record thusly:

Fossils are "snapshots"--mere moments in vast spans of time. Fossilization itself is a relatively rare event. During times of environmental upheaval, climate change, etc., established species that cannot adapt quickly enough may die out. This opens up new "niches" for other species--or their evolutionary offshoots--to fill. During this period populations of "new" species are likely to be relatively small until "equilibrium" is again reached. When populations are small, there's less chance of representatives of a given population becoming fossilized. But when a new species finally becomes established--possibly after branching out several more times--and grows in numbers and survives for a while, then the odds of representative members of the population becoming fossilized increase. So, during the period when evolution was proceeding "rapidly," you might not find many, if any, transitional fossils. It can seem like a new species "suddenly" appeared. But this is as ridiculous as saying that a person went from five to 50 instantly because you only have pictures of him at those ages.

We have enough relatively complete examples of transitions--such as the development of the bones of the inner ear, the evolution of the horse, and the transition from land mammal to early whale--to demonstrate that transitions do take place. Are we going to find fossils to document every single evolutionary transition? Of course not. But isn't it reasonable to conclude that if we can document SOME transitions from one species to another, then it's probable that ALL species evolved from other species through a series of changes? Just as it's reasonable to include that, if a woman becomes pregnant and there's no artificial insemination clinic nearby, it's probably because she had sex?

604 Tom Kratman  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:23:52pm

re: #545 mama winger

Hey - you sound like a Lutheran ! haha :)

More a lapsed Catholic trying to find his way back.

605 Intrepid  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:24:14pm

re: #500 HelloDare

Did you say music of Britney Spears? :-0

/hee

606 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:24:23pm

re: #598 funkyfantom

re: #569 Charles

Well since you are unable or unwilling to explain what is wrong with Behe's arguments, I suppose one is given no other choice besides believing you or not believing you.

You know- I tried, but you seem to think think linking to the work of others who can explain it better than I isn't an argument.

607 angst  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:24:25pm

re: #599 ted

Hey! I just posted links, and pictures and EVERYTHING!

608 jcm  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:24:42pm

OT but too good to pass up.....

Nude Global Warming Bike Ride
*WARNING* bare buns ahead....

Ran into....

NAKED cyclists braved chilly conditions to demonstrate against climate change and campaign for rights.
609 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:24:48pm

re: #602 Dar ul Harb

And the funny thing is, you were just quoting yourself!

Well spotted.

610 Racer X  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:24:50pm
611 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:25:02pm

re: #604 Tom Kratman

More a lapsed Catholic trying to find his way back.

I've been on that journey. (not Catholic, but you know what I mean). It's worth the walk.

612 The Shadow Do  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:25:03pm

re: #451 Nemesis6

There is a very good argument behind this. You see, the Creationists essentially proved this assertion when they replaced all mentions of "Creation" with "intelligent design" in their short-lived book "Of Pandas and People". What happened was this: Creationism was on trial for being unconstitutional, and it was deemed so. About a month later, the aforementioned book was reintroduced, and all mentions of "Creation" were replaced with "Intelligent Design", "Creationists" to "design proponents", etc. Problem was, when the judge subpoenad the publisher of the book for former versions of the book, they ran into this:

This was how one sentence looked in the first edition, the Creationist version - The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.


In the new version, this was how it looked:


Hope that sheds some light on it.

Yes, it does. I did not know this. Rather revealing to be sure.

613 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:25:08pm

re: #587 ploome hineni

you are very smart

I just learned this amazing thing from you

:D

Blush...Thx...I remain humble.

614 Annar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:25:12pm

It's too bad that for the foreseeable future that there will be a religious litmus test for anyone wanting to run for an office higher than dog catcher. This eliminates many good candidates and leads others to hypocritically adopt religious fervor and/or take the most ludicrous positions on important issues.

ID is not science, this has even been so stated in that famous court decision Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 735 (2005). If this nonsence is to be discussed in an educational format it should be in a course of comparative religion or, perhaps, philosophy but most of the professors of philosophy I know would find that insulting to their discipline.

Let's hope that Bobby Jindal gets enough information so that he may come to a more rational point of view before he gets totally lumped in with the Hovindist fundamentalists like Huckabee.

615 uptight  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:25:23pm

The real crunch question here is "Who wrote Genesis and on what evidence did he or she write it?"

Anyone?

616 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:25:48pm

re: #583 Hhar

506, 498

We don't call orbital mechanics "Newtonism". We don't call evolutionary biology "Darwinism". Similar reasons: Evolutionary biology employs disciplines (e.g genetics: molecular, quantitative, whatever) and processes (e.g. Genetic drift) that Darwin never dreamed of. These are non-Darwinian. Ergo, evolutionary biology is not "Darwinism".

Nit meet pick. Redefining verbiage doesn't prove your point. I think everyone knows what is being discussed.

617 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:26:04pm

re: #591 uptight

I don't know why Darwin gets the credit, anyway.

For many centuries, Muslims have been saying that we Infidels are descended from apes.

Okay, they got the pigs part wrong, but yea Mohammed!

The pig part is NOT wrong.

The pig and the ape, according to science, share a common ancestor.

The small detail being how long ago the family tree "branched".

I brought this up earlier today, as a mostly joking reference, but apparently it was a moment of prescience.

Please leave donations in my hat turban by the door as you leave.

/

618 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:26:09pm

re: #608 jcm

OT but too good to pass up.....

Nude Global Warming Bike Ride
*WARNING* bare buns ahead....

Ran into....

Like I need to see cellulite on wheels. haha !

619 Tom Kratman  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:27:01pm

re: #564 JamesTKirk

Currently, evolution (despite, admittedly, some holes - it is not 100% proven but in the real world expecting 100% is unrealistic) is the best fit for the evidence we have; and as more evidence comes to light, the case for evolution gets stronger and stronger.

It is theoretically possible that some new evidence may come forth and throw a monkey wrench in the theory, or that a better theory will come along... But until it does, this is the best theory we've got. It's consistent with what we know and what we have so far.

ID is wishful thinking.

You're doing a version of what he did, answering a question that wasn't asked. I asked why the burden of proof should lie with one party rather than the other and without using any circular arguments. I didn't ask about the proof, about who's right or wrong, etc.

620 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:27:07pm

re: #615 uptight

The real crunch question here is "Who wrote Genesis and on what evidence did he or she write it?"

Anyone?

You want a science answer or a religious one? :)

621 ggt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:27:35pm

Just be sure we are discussing apples and oranges, can we have a definition of Evolution, Darwinism, Creationism and ID?

I'm getting very confused with all the terms being discussed and am beginning to think I don't know exactly what they mean. This is what I think I know, please revise if incorrect.

Evolution --Theory proposed by Charles Darwin after travelling to the Gallapagos Islands on the HMS Beagle and observing the species there that had been isolated from interbreeding with other's of their kind and had adapted for life on the Island.

Darwinisn -- a non-term used by those who hate evolution or those that hate religion --mean to imply a quasi-religion of athiests.

Creationism --a Bible only based belief that life began exactly as described in the King James Version (English) of the Bible.

Intelligent Design -- an to make money by subverting atheism in science fields an science education.

622 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:27:35pm

re: #601 Quilly Mammoth

Please provide a cite which says that Evolution is falsifiable. You cant.


"There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?)."

C'mon, read any ID stuff.

623 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:27:43pm

Whew. I'm tired.

624 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:27:43pm

re: #616 Quilly Mammoth

Nit meet pick. Redefining verbiage doesn't prove your point.

And pot meet kettle.

625 ronpaulblimpie  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:27:53pm

Jindal just dropped way down in my book. He wants to stay governor of Louisiana so let him stay. He just got elected anyway...

I think Tommy Thompson (Wisconsin) would have made a great VP and maybe even could help pull Wisconsin because ole' Tommy is hugely popular there...and a little Iowa/Minnesota overflow. But I don't think that is going to happen.

I think McCain is going to go down to 2-3 candidates and choose based on the decision Obama makes. If Obama chooses Clinton, expect a battleground state governor or popular politician. If Obama chooses someone who isn't a woman, McCain can win major votes by choosing Palin. I think that would be the best case scenario for Republicans. Ex-Clinton supporters could be lured over a lot easier with a woman on the ticket.

626 DistantThunder  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:28:02pm

re: #586 JamesTKirk

Sorry, that was a little too much LDS.

Directly pertained to the topic. As you know, Brigham Young University (30,000 students) is subsidized by the church and has a huge science program.


Evolution

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2

by William E. Evenson

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. . . . Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church ... .

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

627 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:28:11pm

re: #582 Sharmuta

Are you talking about the comment I linked?

Yes - absolutely! I also concur!

628 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:28:34pm

So the food fight is underway?

[brandishing tire iron... because who fights with food, really?]

629 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:29:12pm

re: #625 ronpaulblimpie

I think Tommy Thompson (Wisconsin) would have made a great VP and maybe even could help pull Wisconsin because ole' Tommy is hugely popular there...and a little Iowa/Minnesota overflow. But I don't think that is going to happen.

Uh, no.

630 DistantThunder  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:29:29pm

re: #580 Intrepid

I'd betcha a million smackeroos this idea, if implemented, would do away with a significant percentage of teachers in classrooms I studied in. A couple of them were barely literate themselves, to be honest. (this was back in the 70's)

And I'd also bet that our own Goddessoftheclassroom would probably be able to name her own salary and would eventually be able to retire in fine style.

There is a charter school in New York that is paying it's teachers $125,000/yr and it's principals $80,000. There are attracting a phenomenal quality of teacher - and they have try-outs.

631 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:29:32pm

re: #603 Tigger2005

So snapshots, taken over millions of years, prove the theory? Or do they simply _support_ the theory? That's why Evolutionary Biology (or wtf any other nitpicker wants to call it) isn't falsifiable. It is strictly based on observations that cannot be reproduced in the lab.

632 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:29:36pm

re: #628 Occasional Reader

So the food fight is underway?

[brandishing tire iron... because who fights with food, really?]

I have a coconut that could really pack a wallop.

633 StinkHammer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:29:49pm

Republicans (and Conservatives in general) are (understandably) searching for a an up-and-coming political star to help them "restore" the party (and reinvigorate conservative ideology), and right now Jindal seems to be the go-to guy for many; for others it's Sarah Palin.

I happen to like what I know of Jindal -- young, fresh, energetic -- just what a political party needs to bump up its confidence. But yes, some of his supernatural notions I find somewhat disappointing (i.e., his stance on ID and his claim of encountering a demon). However, my support for him as a viable future party big-wig will hedge on just how much he forwards legislative agenda issues with which I'm sympathetic, as opposed to how much religiosity to introduces into those issues.

In other words, a practical "political ideology / supernatural mumbo-jumbo" ratio. If too much of the latter and not enough of the former, I'll write him off.

634 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:29:52pm

OT - Something is wrong with my LGF spy. Every now and then it just stops spying. I close it, open a new spy and then I'm OK - for awhile. I'm using latest version of Firefox. What gives, anybody know?

635 Carridine  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:29:56pm

re: #414 Ojoe

"Veiled in the immemorial essence of My Being, I knew My love for thee, hence I created thee..."

/yeah, I can dig it, Ojoe

636 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:30:13pm

re: #630 DistantThunder

There is a charter school in New York that is paying it's teachers $125,000/yr and it's principals $80,000. There are attracting a phenomenal quality of teacher - and they have try-outs.

That sounds exciting !

637 jcm  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:30:16pm

re: #628 Occasional Reader

So the food fight is underway?

[brandishing tire iron... because who fights with food, really?]

Never bring a lemon meringue pie to a tire iron fight?

638 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:30:46pm

re: #627 vapig

You realize that wasn't the original document.

639 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:30:51pm

re: #628 Occasional Reader

So the food fight is underway?

[brandishing tire iron... because who fights with food, really?]

Good idea. I've got a machete around here somewhere.

640 Intrepid  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:30:56pm

re: #511 finallyalizard

I just love seeing folks who have been here a year (or more) and yet have fewer than 10 comments. Then they choose a particularly heated thread to come out and crap on the coffee table (pardon my indelicateness.)

641 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:31:17pm

re: #107 Sharmuta

re: #124 njspeer

re: #107 Sharmuta
re: #80 njspeer

"Why isn't ID science? Can someone explain this?

Read up on the scientific method and tell us how one can apply ID to it."

Sorry, but this isn't much of an answer.

I thought it an excellent answer.  All the answer necessary, even.

}:P     [ ... for those willing to do the work.  Otherwise, Matt. 7:6 ... ]

642 Inquisitive  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:31:19pm

Have fun all, bbl

643 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:31:28pm

re: #634 reine.de.tout

OT - Something is wrong with my LGF spy. Every now and then it just stops spying. I close it, open a new spy and then I'm OK - for awhile. I'm using latest version of Firefox. What gives, anybody know?

I've noticed that in my firefox too- I usually just refresh.

644 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:31:33pm

re: #558 buzzsawmonkey

The difference between evolution and ID is that the first is scientific method, and the second is scientific Method Acting.

I want you to FEEL being a trilobite.

645 DistantThunder  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:31:48pm

re: #640 Intrepid

I just love seeing folks who have been here a year (or more) and yet have fewer than 10 comments. Then they choose a particularly heated thread to come out and crap on the coffee table (pardon my indelicateness.)

I had a nun who danced on her desk - then she ran off with a new parish priest. She was young and fun.

646 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:31:48pm

re: #643 Sharmuta

Thanks.

647 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:32:00pm

re: #641 Kulhwch

I thought it an excellent answer.  All the answer necessary, even.

}:P     [ ... for those willing to do the work.  Otherwise, Matt. 7:6 ... ]

Thanks. :)

648 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:32:01pm

re: #580 Intrepid

I'd betcha a million smackeroos this idea, if implemented, would do away with a significant percentage of teachers in classrooms I studied in. A couple of them were barely literate themselves, to be honest. (this was back in the 70's)

And I'd also bet that our own Goddessoftheclassroom would probably be able to name her own salary and would eventually be able to retire in fine style.

How sweet!

The real conflict is between parents who want schools to educate their kids and parents who want schools to raise their kids for them.

649 NomadOfNorad  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:32:08pm

re: #615 uptight

The real crunch question here is "Who wrote Genesis and on what evidence did he or she write it?"

Anyone?

And this question has what to do with ID?

650 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:32:30pm

re: #628 Occasional Reader

brandishing tire iron... because who fights with food, really?]

Subsaharan African dictators? Stalin?

651 ggt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:32:39pm

Ahghhh! Have to share the family PC, RIGHT NOW. I should have a new laptop up and running by the weekend tho.

Have a great evening Lizards and I'll try to check-back later.

652 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:32:46pm

re: #606 Sharmuta

You know- I tried, but you seem to think think linking to the work of others who can explain it better than I isn't an argument.

If you understood some science, you could argue it. But you most likely do not. Even one million chimps typing on one million typewriters for one million years could use Google to assemble some links.

653 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:32:52pm

re: #598 funkyfantom

re: #569 Charles

Well since you are unable or unwilling to explain what is wrong with Behe's arguments, I suppose one is given no other choice besides believing you or not believing you.

The lengthy video I posted a few days ago with Ken Miller provides a very thorough debunking of Behe's ludicrous misdirections. He explains the issues much better than I could. If you're really interested in learning about these issues, you should watch it:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

654 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:33:11pm
655 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:33:21pm

re: #574 A Kiwi Infidel

Catttt, are you still there?

I dont believe it! As soon as I saw the 'toon, I recognised the handy work.

As a fill in for subjects while completing an accounting and finance degree, I took psych 101 and we used the text "Introduction to Psychology" by Atkinson, Atkinson and Hilgard. All the 'toons are done by the same hand. That was 25 years ago!

Wow - cool. I saw it years ago somewhere - could have been a textbook, but it might have been in a mag or a cartoon collection.

It's a Sidney Harris cartoon. He's still around - you can get that cartoon on a t-shirt - imagine that.

Science Cartoons Plus

656 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:33:35pm

re: #637 jcm

Never bring a lemon meringue pie to a tire iron fight?

You have a lemon meringue pie? I've got a gallon of milk, plates and glasses. Let's go over in the corner, put on weight and watch the lizards beat up on each other.

657 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:33:46pm
658 Kulhwch  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:33:50pm

re: #129 buzzsawmonkey

To quote myself from an earlier thread:

G-d invented evolution, and he sent the platypus the bill.

Only after the mallard tried to duck it.

}:)     ["Affleck!"]

659 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:34:06pm

re: #580 Intrepid

I'd betcha a million smackeroos this idea, if implemented...

How much is that in quatloos?

660 opnion  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:34:15pm

I got here late and I have avoided the ID vs Evolution arguement, mainly because I am conflicted to a point.
But with all respect, if any Lizards believe the Genisis story of creation, take a step back.
It is a pure absurdity. The Devil offered knowledge. Eve bit the apple, and then did Adam. Knowledge displeased the Lord.
Please.
Really who did Adam & eve's kids mate with?
A loving God wouild not have started this all out that way.
If there is indeed a God, I am sure he really likes us more than thaty.
Ok , I am on a roll. The Hymn, Amazing Grace? Save a Wretch like me?
If we are in the image of God, how then are we wretches? I will now shut up

661 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:34:33pm

re: #650 Dar ul Harb

Subsaharan African dictators? Stalin?

Tooshay!

662 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:34:44pm

re: #601 Quilly Mammoth

Please provide a cite which says that Evolution is falsifiable. You cant.

Evolution

Objections to Evolution is Unfalsifiable

Many creationists have claimed that evolution is unfalsifiable. Numerous examples of potential ways to falsify common descent have been proposed. Richard Dawkins said that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."[10][11][12] Similarly, J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".[13] In contrast, many religious beliefs are not falsifiable, because no testable prediction has been made about the supernatural. [14]
Similarly, the evolution of the great apes and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor of apes and humans. This assertion could have been disproven with the invention of DNA analysis. Molecular biology identifies DNA as the mechanism for inherited traits. Therefore if common descent is true, human DNA should be more more similar to great apes than other mammals. If this is not the case, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis has shown that humans and the great apes share a large percentage of their DNA, and hence human evolution has passed a falsifiable test.
Popper himself drew a distinction between common descent and the process of natural selection. While he agreed common descent was falsifiable (he used the even more drastic example of the remains of a car in cambrian sediments),[15] Popper said that natural selection "is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme".[16] However, Popper later said "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."[17] He went on to formulate natural selection in a falsifiable way and offered a more nuanced view of its status. He still felt that "Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test." However, "[t]here are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

663 DistantThunder  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:34:52pm

HIgh TEacher Pay at New Charter School

The school’s creator and first principal, Zeke M. Vanderhoek, contends that high salaries will lure the best teachers. He says he wants to put into practice the conclusion reached by a growing body of research: that teacher quality — not star principals, laptop computers or abundant electives — is the crucial ingredient for success.

“I would much rather put a phenomenal, great teacher in a field with 30 kids and nothing else than take the mediocre teacher and give them half the number of students and give them all the technology in the world,” said Mr. Vanderhoek, 31, a Yale graduate and former middle school teacher who built a test preparation company that pays its tutors far more than the competition.

In exchange for their high salaries, teachers at the new school, the Equity Project, will work a longer day and year and assume responsibilities that usually fall to other staff members, like attendance coordinators and discipline deans. To make ends meet, the school, which will use only public money and charter school grants for all but its building, will scrimp elsewhere.

Pointing this out to the teachers' union does NOT make them happy campers.

664 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:35:02pm

re: #652 funkyfantom

If you understood some science, you could argue it. But you most likely do not. Even one million chimps typing on one million typewriters for one million years could use Google to assemble some links.

Well that's pretty unfriendly.

665 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:35:39pm

re: #660 opnion

It is a pure absurdity. The Devil offered knowledge. Eve bit the apple, and then did Adam. Knowledge displeased the Lord.
Please.

Your interpretation of this passage is severely and dangerously flawed. But this is not the forum. My nic is blue if you'd like to discuss :)

666 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:35:44pm

re: #537 Tom Kratman

and tits.

Yes, John speaks about the hunter/predator reaction to the sight of a well rounded jiggle. I prefer to think that a Supreme Being knew we'd like them. Fun to look at and play with.

667 ronpaulblimpie  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:35:51pm

re: #586 JamesTKirk

Sorry, that was a little too much LDS.

Ugh. They're some of the worst. Urim and Thummim. Laughable faith at best. If people believe that junk, they'll believe anything. It isn't surprising that radicals can believe they get virgins in heaven if other faiths teach you that you'll be a god of your own planet in heaven.

The Book of Mormon is riddled with plagiarism, historical inaccuracies, and a story oddly enough similar to another book made prior to it being made. (I'm talking about when it was made by Joseph Smith, not the mythical belief that it was found in the woods after being buried for 1500 years or whatever.)

668 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:35:56pm

re: #638 Sharmuta

You realize that wasn't the original document.

No I didn't - thanks. I'll open it later. I'm having "issues" tonight and when I opened your last link it totally froze my computer. Had to do a hard reboot. Very frustrating. But I've "hearted" it.

Again, my thanks!

669 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:36:14pm

re: #653 Charles

The lengthy video I posted a few days ago with Ken Miller provides a very thorough debunking of Behe's ludicrous misdirections. He explains the issues much better than I could. If you're really interested in learning about these issues, you should watch it:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

So you admit you don't understand the science, and Ken Miller is your authority. How is that different from a creationist relying on the word of his clergyman?

670 Tom Kratman  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:37:04pm

re: #622 ted

"There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?)."

C'mon, read any ID stuff.

And he's still waiting for that cite. Not sleight of hand to something else but the very cite.

671 jim in virginia  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:37:05pm

re: #628 Occasional Reader

So the food fight is underway?

[brandishing tire iron... because who fights with food, really?]


I'm throwing gorgonzola at you.

672 Tigger2005  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:37:07pm

re: #601 Quilly Mammoth

Please provide a cite which says that Evolution is falsifiable. You cant.

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

673 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:37:20pm

re: #664 reine.de.tout

I was going to say "arrogant". See- I can't link to another scientist to back up my point, but ff can use Behe to back up his. Kind of hypocritical.

674 DistantThunder  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:37:28pm

re: #653 Charles

The lengthy video I posted a few days ago with Ken Miller provides a very thorough debunking of Behe's ludicrous misdirections. He explains the issues much better than I could. If you're really interested in learning about these issues, you should watch it:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

re: #660 opnion

I got here late and I have avoided the ID vs Evolution arguement, mainly because I am conflicted to a point.
But with all respect, if any Lizards believe the Genisis story of creation, take a step back.
It is a pure absurdity. The Devil offered knowledge. Eve bit the apple, and then did Adam. Knowledge displeased the Lord.
Please.
Really who did Adam & eve's kids mate with?
A loving God wouild not have started this all out that way.
If there is indeed a God, I am sure he really likes us more than thaty.
Ok , I am on a roll. The Hymn, Amazing Grace? Save a Wretch like me?
If we are in the image of God, how then are we wretches? I will now shut up

It's a metaphor for all of us growing and developing a conscience which happens about the age of 8. Children can tell right from wrong before then, but it's mostly based on what makes mom or dad happy.

675 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:37:30pm

re: #667 ronpaulblimpie

They're some of the worst. Urim and Thummim. Laughable faith at best. If people believe that junk, they'll believe anything.

There are many fine Lizards here who are also Mormons. Please be respectful. We are not in the habit here of ridiculing the faith of our friends.

676 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:37:44pm

re: #664 reine.de.tout

Well that's pretty unfriendly.

Oh no it isn't. Lighten up. I'm not calling anyone a chimp. This is what I assumed to be a well-known metaphor for random mutation.

677 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:37:56pm

re: #669 funkyfantom

How is it different than you relying on Behe?!

678 jaunte  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:37:57pm

re: #669 funkyfantom

What is the "Theory of Intelligent Design?" Is it stated anywhere?

679 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:37:58pm

re: #615 uptight

The real crunch question here is "Who wrote Genesis and on what evidence did he or she write it?"

Anyone?

Genesis is the first book of Moses; he is credited as its author. According to H.C. Leupold, "No evidence to the contrary has been able to invalidate this tradition"

680 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:38:07pm
681 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:38:17pm

re: #656 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Food fight, eh?

"Now, it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him. You have now rendered him 'elpless."

682 Gordon Marock  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:38:35pm

re: #666 Quilly Mammoth

Congrats on being post #666 and exposing yourself as the anti-christ.

683 WriterMom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:38:44pm

Hmmm...how about a nice, fresh juicy open thread?

684 kuchuklambat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:07pm

re: #519 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I am talking about your response to the standard ID line of "nothing in science is proven for a fact". You respond with a well-accepted scientific law as an example of a proven fact. I point out that it is not a good defense -- a better, and more accurate, defense is that all science is only the best way we know to explain (always approximately) the facts that we observe, and application of the scientific method has produced amazing results in that regard. ID is outside the scientific method, and so cannot be scientifically true or false.

Peace, lizard.

685 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:15pm

re: #673 Sharmuta

I was going to say "arrogant". See- I can't link to another scientist to back up my point, but ff can use Behe to back up his. Kind of hypocritical.

Not at all. I just volunteered the source of my information, but my arguments, as well as yours must, finally, stand or fall on their own.

686 Gagdad Bob  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:19pm

Tigger:

Your points are well taken, but my real argument is that the important discontinuities are ontological, not paleontological. To cite just one example, the gap between Truth and falsehood is literally infinite, which is why man -- who may know Truth, and know it absolutely -- is infinitely separated from the lower animals. No paradigm of pure change can account for a being capable of knowing absolute truth.

687 Hhar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:19pm

616 Quilly Mammoth

No, I don't think its a nit pick at all.

"Darwinism" is a way of personalizing evolutionary biology: turning it into a sort of cultic ideology. If you have any doubt of this, examine the large and pathetic internet creationist and anti-evolutionist literature on how miserable a person Darwin was, and how this reflects on his ideas. Or you can look at the leftist fashion of categorizing every idea by its originator. Stalin found that useful: all you had to do was demonise the originator and the ideology suffered.

I note that NOT everybody "knows" what is being discussed. Most people do not understand that intelligent design theory is more or less a version of theistic evolution, a mode of explanation that uses many of Darwin's notions. Is ID Darwinism? Well, in a way it certainly is: Darwin himself favored a sort of ID of the first living organism. Most people do NOT even understand what evolutionary biology is, largely because it really isn't that important at all in day to day life.

688 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:22pm

re: #675 mama winger

There are many fine Lizards here who are also Mormons. Please be respectful. We are not in the habit here of ridiculing the faith of our friends.

Hear Hear!

689 ronpaulblimpie  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:23pm

re: #675 mama winger

There are many fine Lizards here who are also Mormons. Please be respectful. We are not in the habit here of ridiculing the faith of our friends.

Funny that lizards can ridicule Islam but not other faiths that are equally bizarre. At least the mormons don't kill people, I guess. Except for that mountain meadows massacre thing.

What about the earth being 5,000-10,000 years old? I can't ridicule that belief either?

690 carbon footprint  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:29pm

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God.
Godless people more likely to believe in intelligence.

691 vapig  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:39pm

re: #652 funkyfantom

If you understood some science, you could argue it. But you most likely do not. Even one million chimps typing on one million typewriters for one million years could use Google to assemble some links.

I think she's been very reasonable - and it could be me - but your remark to her sounds a bit disdainful to me. I'm sure there are other ways of expressing an opinion or sharing facts can be brought forth in a more respectful manner.

692 Annar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:45pm

The final solution to the creation problem.

"In the beginning, God said the four-dimensional divergence of an
antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was Light,
and it was good."

(Originated at MIT. This is a formulation of Maxwell's equations.)

693 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:45pm

re: #669 funkyfantom

So you admit you don't understand the science, and Ken Miller is your authority. How is that different from a creationist relying on the word of his clergyman?

Um, no, that's not what he said (first of all).

694 jcm  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:39:45pm

re: #675 mama winger

There are many fine Lizards here who are also Mormons. Please be respectful. We are not in the habit here of ridiculing the faith of our friends.

Agreed, thank you.

695 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:40:15pm

re: #662 ted

I see, Popper changed his mind. All still without actually showing what we're speaking of to be falsifiable. That is: an observation that can be proven, without a doubt, to repeatable.

696 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:40:16pm

re: #669 funkyfantom

So you admit you don't understand the science, and Ken Miller is your authority. How is that different from a creationist relying on the word of his clergyman?

Do you actually look at any of the information provided to you that might enlighten you? Or is it that you just like to point out what it is that people "admit" to "not understanding"? Do you understand everything so very clearly that you can't look at information provided by other people?

697 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:40:16pm

re: #685 funkyfantom

And my link was volunteering the source of mine- which I'm sure you didn't bother to read.

698 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:40:41pm

re: #689 ronpaulblimpie

Funny that lizards can ridicule Islam but not other faiths that are equally bizarre. At least the mormons don't kill people, I guess. Except for that mountain meadows massacre thing.

What about the earth being 5,000-10,000 years old? I can't ridicule that belief either?

You can ridicule anything you like. Please understand that this in turn might make you look ridiculous to others.

699 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:40:41pm

re: #670 Tom Kratman

And he's still waiting for that cite. Not sleight of hand to something else but the very cite.

Read # 662.

700 stevieray  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:40:51pm
701 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:41:04pm

re: #673 Sharmuta

I was going to say "arrogant". See- I can't link to another scientist to back up my point, but ff can use Behe to back up his. Kind of hypocritical.

"arrogant" works a lot better, actually.

702 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:41:07pm

re: #675 mama winger

There are many fine Lizards here who are also Mormons. Please be respectful. We are not in the habit here of ridiculing the faith of our friends.

My LDS line was a quote from Star Trek IV and not meant as an invitation for Mormon-bashing. (Some people got the joke.)

703 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:41:13pm

re: #671 jim in virginia

I'm throwing gorgonzola at you.

Oh, no! There goes Tokyo! Go go Gorgonzola!

704 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:41:19pm

re: #683 WriterMom

Hmmm...how about a nice, fresh juicy open thread?

Oh, what a lovely idea! SECOND!

705 loflyer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:41:22pm

Evening guys! Man what a long thread, I have never seen a more "hot button" topic than Intelligent Design(TM), except for sleazy election politics. None of us are going to change our minds on the issue of ID so why not just declare the subject closed as LGF did with the abortion issue. We are beating a dead horse, and there are lots of other interesting but less divisive issues concerning LGF.

706 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:41:34pm

re: #669 funkyfantom

Uh, no. I don't "admit I don't understand the science."

That kind of silly ad hominem tells me that discussing this any further with you is pointless.

707 Salem  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:41:39pm

re: #574 A Kiwi Infidel

Catttt, are you still there?

I dont believe it! As soon as I saw the 'toon, I recognised the handy work.

As a fill in for subjects while completing an accounting and finance degree, I took psych 101 and we used the text "Introduction to Psychology" by Atkinson, Atkinson and Hilgard. All the 'toons are done by the same hand. That was 25 years ago!

I still have mine around somewhere...

708 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:41:43pm

re: #690 carbon footprint

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God.
Godless people more likely to believe in intelligence.

do you mean intelligient, or educated?

709 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:42:04pm

Not only that, funkyfantom- Charles' link is quite lengthy. You obviously didn't bother to watch it before you so unceremoniously dismissed it.

710 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:42:15pm

re: #678 jaunte

What is the "Theory of Intelligent Design?" Is it stated anywhere?

There are many flavors of ID. I prefer the ones that are the most scientifically rigorous. Behe's ID does not scientifically prove that there was an intelligent designer- but this is rather implied.

711 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:42:20pm

re: #690 carbon footprint

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God.
Godless people more likely to believe in intelligence.

I saw that. What do you think it proves? That I'm somehow less intelligent than you? Do you have some evidence besides the "study" results?

712 krypto  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:42:31pm

Well, this seems relevant enough, and brand new enough, to be worth posting a partial quote. Apparently there's a reported claim of a significant evolutionary change by mutation being observed in the lab, for bacteria at least. I'm only quoting part of it.

[Link: www.newscientist.com...]

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

# 22:00 09 June 2008
# NewScientist.com news service
# Bob Holmes

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

713 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:42:32pm

re: #702 JamesTKirk

My LDS line was a quote from Star Trek IV and not meant as an invitation for Mormon-bashing. (Some people got the joke.)

Oh - I wasn't meaning you at all, Kirk. I saw your joke. :)

I was talking to the other joke.

714 solomonpanting  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:42:34pm

re: #644 Occasional Reader

I want you to FEEL being a trilobite.

Megabytes, gigabytes, terabytes...trilobites?

715 Charles  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:42:54pm

re: #705 loflyer

Evening guys! Man what a long thread, I have never seen a more "hot button" topic than Intelligent Design(TM), except for sleazy election politics. None of us are going to change our minds on the issue of ID so why not just declare the subject closed as LGF did with the abortion issue. We are beating a dead horse, and there are lots of other interesting but less divisive issues concerning LGF.

Nope, sorry. It's obviously very much a LIVE issue. I've never shied away from uncomfortable topics, or challenging people's assumptions, and I'm not going to start now.

716 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:43:11pm

re: #695 Quilly Mammoth

I see, Popper changed his mind. All still without actually showing what we're speaking of to be falsifiable. That is: an observation that can be proven, without a doubt, to repeatable.

You got what you wanted and were proven wrong.

717 Josephine  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:43:18pm

re: #124 njspeer

You wrote:
"Why isn't ID science? Can someone explain this?"

Sharmuta replied:
"Read up on the scientific method and tell us how one can apply ID to it."

You replied:
"Sorry, but this isn't much of an answer."

My response:
Actually, that is the entire answer.

But here's my addendum (a cheat sheet, if you will) to make it really clear:

Q: How can you apply the scientific method to ID?
A: You can't.

Or:

Q: If you try to apply the scientific method to ID, what happens?
A: It fails.

I wish I could remember the magazine in which I read an excellent article about this topic. It did a great job of explaining the whole thing. Basically, ID is just creationism based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, but dressed up with a fancy name and pseudo-scientific stuff added. A group of people did this as a way of getting around the rule against teaching creationism in school.

By the way, I'm a Christian, predisposed to disagree with evolution. But I can't argue with scientific proof, so I choose to believe that somehow the process of evolution was a part of God's creation.

In saying this, of course, it becomes obvious that I do not believe that the Bible is the literal, unaltered, divinely inspired Word of God.

718 jaunte  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:43:24pm

re: #710 funkyfantom

There are many flavors of ID. I prefer the ones that are the most scientifically rigorous. Behe's ID does not scientifically prove that there was an intelligent designer- but this is rather implied.

So, it's not science, then?

719 ronpaulblimpie  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:43:27pm

re: #698 mama winger

You can ridicule anything you like. Please understand that this in turn might make you look ridiculous to others.

I can deal with looking ridiculous to a group of people who believe a guy who found a gold tablet in the woods and "translated" it via 2 magical seer stones with his head stuffed in a hat. And I can also deal with looking ridiculous to people who want to make excuses for a religion that once taught that black people were born black because it was a curse from the pre-life existence in heaven for failing to fight, or fight well, against Satan.

720 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:43:27pm

re: #692 Annar

The final solution to the creation problem.

"In the beginning, God said the four-dimensional divergence of an
antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was Light,
and it was good."

(Originated at MIT. This is a formulation of Maxwell's equations.)

You lie!

EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
TIME CUBE
IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION.
4 Corner Times CUBES EARTH.
If a God existed, he would be EVIL
to DENY 4 Opposite Corner Days
Simultaneously within a 4 Quadrant
Earth Rotation. It's Simple Math,
IF NOT FOR Academic Lobotomy.
AS ONE, YOU DO NOT EXIST,
neither does the Earth or any God.
All exist as unified mirror Opposites
with a Zero value Existence. As ONE,
Created Opposites cancel to nothing.

721 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:43:37pm

re: #686 Gagdad Bob

which is why man -- who may know Truth, and know it absolutely -- is infinitely separated from the lower animals.

That, and we're not afraid of vacuum cleaners.

722 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:43:52pm

re: #672 Tigger2005

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

Your cite says:

There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example

Good job! You've cited a definite "if"!

Sorry, the operative "could" precludes falsifiable. As, by the way, does Creationism.

723 NomadOfNorad  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:44:15pm

re: #682 Gordon Marock

Congrats on being post #666 and exposing yourself as the anti-christ.

Does that mean that the one that posts #777 will be the returning Christ?

724 Gordon Marock  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:44:40pm

I can solve the debate easily. Each School's Science class will have ID day, where the Science Teacher says: "Ya know, kids, there is a lot of stuff that Science can't explain. For example, if infinity is infinite, what about infinity plus one? I think you get the picture, now I want each of you to go home before your heads explode and ask your Mommy and Daddy to explain what happens after you die. Class dismissed."

725 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:44:41pm

re: #703 Occasional Reader

Oh, no! There goes Tokyo! Go go Gorgonzola!

+upding, because that was gouda nough for me...

726 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:44:55pm

Anyone want to talk about shoes? Cats? Books?

727 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:44:58pm

re: #684 kuchuklambat

I am talking about your response to the standard ID line of "nothing in science is proven for a fact". You respond with a well-accepted scientific law as an example of a proven fact. I point out that it is not a good defense -- a better, and more accurate, defense is that all science is only the best way we know to explain (always approximately) the facts that we observe, and application of the scientific method has produced amazing results in that regard. ID is outside the scientific method, and so cannot be scientifically true or false.

Peace, lizard.

Peace.

Not being familiar with ID jargon (and caring even less), I didn't recognize it as an ID catch-phrase. I was taking it literally, and stepped into a cow-pie.

I back off. I'm outta the discussion. Thanks for clueing me in!

728 kuchuklambat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:45:02pm

re: #692 Annar

surely God included quantum fields and gravity.

729 Racer X  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:45:14pm
730 opnion  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:45:15pm

re: #665 mama winger

Your interpretation of this passage is severely and dangerously flawed. But this is not the forum. My nic is blue if you'd like to discuss :)

Mama Winger, I have no intention of being insulting.
Twelve years of Catholic education & I am sure that the apple represented knowledge albiet more than the Lord.
I do not believe that a loving God would deny humanity knowledge.
I say again the Garden of Eden story is absurd. That does not defeat religion.

731 Archimedes  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:45:25pm

re: #17 WrathofG-d

One could argue that Science IS religion. (see the Global Warming "science" for example).

Both require a very large amount of faith.

Science requires no faith, because the essence of it is to go by the evidence and only the evidence. To adumbrate the approach, you do the following:

1> Start with an area of reality to study (say the nesting habits of the yellow bellied sap sucker, the structure of the uranium atom, etc.)

2> Read up on what has already been said about the matter.

3> Hypothesize based on your preliminary observations and reading.

4> Check your hypothesis against the evidence of your senses, using logic to bang out any contradictions between the hypothesis and the evidence, the evidence always being what you side with.

5> Re-hypothesize.

Steps 4 and 5 are continued indefinitely, usually in search of a principle of operation. Some tools used along the way are rigorous measurement and the experimental method. Specific tools would depend on the area of study (biology - microscope, physics - particle accelerator, etc.). Both Galileo and Newton are brilliant at its application, so their work should be studied.

With science the real thing to note is that reality is king. It's really an Aristotelian perspective, where you focus on the real world and the buck always stops there.

Regarding global warming, this has been taken over by environmentalists, who are using the prestige of science to scare people. They want it’s prestige because there is power in it. However, the actual science being done is shoddy at best. You'll note that top notch scientists like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer do not agree with the idea there is catastrophic AGW. In fact, there are a very large number of scientists who don’t agree.

732 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:45:31pm

re: #721 Occasional Reader

That, and we're not afraid of vacuum cleaners.

My new pup is amazingly not afraid of the vacuum cleaner. I think he may be evolving into a dolphin.

733 DistantThunder  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:45:46pm

re: #667 ronpaulblimpie

Ugh. They're some of the worst. Urim and Thummim. Laughable faith at best. If people believe that junk, they'll believe anything. It isn't surprising that radicals can believe they get virgins in heaven if other faiths teach you that you'll be a god of your own planet in heaven.

The Book of Mormon is riddled with plagiarism, historical inaccuracies, and a story oddly enough similar to another book made prior to it being made. (I'm talking about when it was made by Joseph Smith, not the mythical belief that it was found in the woods after being buried for 1500 years or whatever.)

To each his own, but I'm LDS and I believe in at least demonstrating respect for other faiths, and you assertions are gross distortions. The ultimate test: By their fruits, ye shall know them.

I posted those quotes because I thought it was interesting that the leadership of the church agreed to keep religion and science separate. They make no demands that ID be taught in the schools, and encourage each person to study the issues for themselves and make up their own minds.

We teach our children to have open minds and a healthy skepticism about what they learn at school - and at church. We have lots of lively discussions at home.

734 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:45:52pm

re: #713 mama winger

Oh - I wasn't meaning you at all, Kirk. I saw your joke. :)

I was talking to the other joke.

I was also referring to him, since he was replying to my joke when he posted his rant.

735 DistantThunder  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:46:03pm

re: #675 mama winger

There are many fine Lizards here who are also Mormons. Please be respectful. We are not in the habit here of ridiculing the faith of our friends.

Thank you.

736 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:46:09pm

re: #717 Josephine

Thank you!

737 WriterMom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:46:23pm

re: #703 Occasional Reader

Cheese thread!

738 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:46:29pm

re: #680 buzzsawmonkey

Well, aside from Bensonhurst...

That's an experiment in progress. We're still waiting for the results. Personally I'm hoping one of our inner city tinder boxes creates a "Sauron" but we'll just have to wait.

739 StinkHammer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:46:42pm

re: #678 jaunte

What is the "Theory of Intelligent Design?" Is it stated anywhere?

Intelligent Design is, in essence, the notion that because some biological formations are considered too "complex" to have evolved due to the processes behind Natural Selection, that therefore some "intelligent designer" must have been involved in order to "design" those formations in question.

It is basically a reliance on the logical fallacy known as "the argument from ignorance" or "God of the gaps" argument, which goes like this: "Because I don't know (or can't figure out) how X came into being (based on my knowledge of natural sciences), then I presume that Y (a supernatural process/being) is involved."

That's pretty much it. In the case of ID, the designer (factor Y) is usually considered God (even though the smarter advocates have learned to avoid admitting that, for fear of being labeled as the Creationists they are).

740 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:47:05pm

re: #731 Archimedes

steps 2 and 3 require faith. Faith that what has come before you is true, faith that you are seeing it right, faith that you are getting it right, and faith that you know all that there is to know about the thing.

You just presume the scientific method is flawless by its own design. I'd say the same about G-d, and there we have more faith.

741 ronpaulblimpie  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:47:10pm

re: #733 DistantThunder

"Gross distortions" read straight out of mormon history books. I don't turn to religious elders for direction, thank you. That's like getting advice from an imam about Islam.

742 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:47:24pm

re: #709 Sharmuta

Not only that, funkyfantom- Charles' link is quite lengthy. You obviously didn't bother to watch it before you so unceremoniously dismissed it.

Again, there seems to be this idea that quoting links is somehow a substitute for rigorous argument. That is the lazy way out.

You believe ID is bullshit? Fine. Argue it out like a man ( or woman, not to be sexist.) Googling links is OK, but it is not a substitute for an argument. Sorry.

743 Carridine  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:47:34pm

re: #553 ted
Excellent clarification, TED.

Instruction = 'create/build within'

Educate = 'to draw out'

Humans 'build within' themselves, in our minds, a model of 'What We Guess Is Happening' ...

That's our 'Theory'

Then we draw out of ourselves and others the models they have of 'What We Guess Is Happening'... and we compare those models to what we, and others observe, and we 'instruct' again (modifying previous internal models) and 'educate' again (draw out those internal models, in a sharable manner, often through dia-logos dialogue, and record our observations (if we're formal about it)

We, as humans, CAN do this selflessly and with minimal distortion, and such efforts redound to the benefit of the whole of humanity.

We can also, as today's leftist ideologues show, usurp and abuse this process, INSTRUCTING pre-determined structures AS IF they were part of an educational process, AS IF they were based on observable reality...

744 loflyer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:47:37pm

re: #689 ronpaulblimpie

Funny that lizards can ridicule Islam but not other faiths that are equally bizarre. At least the mormons don't kill people, I guess. Except for that mountain meadows massacre thing.

What about the earth being 5,000-10,000 years old? I can't ridicule that belief either?

RPB, All I can say is take a tour of Salt Lake City. You will not find a cleaner city or finer citizens.

/PS. When was the last time a Mormon detonated a suicide vest or drove an airliner into an office tower?

745 WrathofG-d  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:47:38pm
746 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:47:47pm

re: #689 ronpaulblimpie

Speaking personally, I do not ridicule Islam ... though I hate Salafiist/Qutbist/Jihadist Islamism. (Did I qualify the last enough?)

747 WriterMom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:47:59pm

re: #726 goddessoftheclassroom

Weather....there's ALWAYS weather.

748 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:48:52pm

re: #732 mama winger

My new pup is amazingly not afraid of the vacuum cleaner. I think he may be evolving into a dolphin.

All my pets hate the vacuum cleaner. When I want to get the cat outside, and I know she won't like it and will bite me if I try, I just take out the vacuum cleaner. I don't even have to turn it on anymore - just getting it out of the closet does the trick.

749 Tigger2005  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:48:53pm

re: #653 Charles

The lengthy video I posted a few days ago with Ken Miller provides a very thorough debunking of Behe's ludicrous misdirections. He explains the issues much better than I could. If you're really interested in learning about these issues, you should watch it:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Isn't it frustrating, Charles? It's like, someone's engine throws a rod, and they say, "I guess the purple gremlins in the engine did it," and you say "Maybe it overheated because there wasn't enough water or oil in it" and they say "Oh yeah Mr. Know-it-all, explain to me EXACTLY why it wasn't caused by the purple gremlins!" and if you show the slightest hesitation in responding, it's "Ah HAH! You CAN'T!"

Of course, it's not a perfect analogy, since I don't know of any experts I can refer someone to to debunk the existence of purple engine-destroying gremlins.

750 gymnast  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:49:06pm

Bobbie should leave science to scientists and religion to the clergy. Some free advice that all politicians can benefit from.

751 NY Nana  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:49:06pm

Gevalt! We have McCain also flogging ID...and Jindal, who seemed to be a bright man..all I can say is 'Hello, I must be going'

If my grandkids end up in a school system that flogs it? My kids would move. Since the toddler grandson is almost 2, and in a Chabad Gan? No problem, and the 2 granddaughters, one going into Grade 3, and the other, into Grade 1, both in excellent districts, 1 in LI, and the other in NJ, no problem...yet.

752 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:49:16pm

re: #720 JamesTKirk

For the world is hollow... and I have touched the sky.

753 funkyfantom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:49:28pm

re: #718 jaunte

So, it's not science, then?

Sorry, but not all human knowledge has yet been established by laboratory experiment. Any scientist will tell you that!

754 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:49:29pm

re: #730 opnion

I do not believe that a loving God would deny humanity knowledge.

Of course he wouldn't. The problem is that you are shortening the citation. You are saying that God wanted man to stay away from Knowledge. What the reference clearly says is that God wanted man to stay away from the knowledge of good and evil.

In other words, God wanted man to stay pure, to not be corrupted by evil, to not experience evil, to not taste of evil or become involved with it in any way. God wanted man to be spared the consequences of choosing to 'know' evil.

755 Hhar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:49:38pm

errrr... 172?

The significant change is that the bacterium is apparently able to metabolise citrate in an environmet with high oxygen tension. That's it. It isn't like they found this huge structural or genetic difference.

The paper is interesting from the point of view of ideas about contingency in evolution, but it really isn't a whacking huge evolutionary novely except perhaps to a microbiologist. Not sure why Coyne is so excited about it.

Distrust the significance of science reporting that uses overheated or antagonistic metaphors when appled to creationists. Its usually crappy reporting.

756 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:49:44pm

re: #721 Occasional Reader

That, and we're not afraid of vacuum cleaners.

Speak for yourself, John.

/

757 right_on_target  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:49:57pm

re: #472 mama winger

re: #476 jcm

Jindal wants LOCAL control of education. Nothing wrong with that.
School boards in each parish [county] should be responsible for the education of their children.

758 nyc redneck  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:50:06pm

i don't want i.d. taught in school as science.
but i do think we need more religion in this country to galvanize us against the virulent islamic barbarians who would convert us to their screed.
we should be looking to the churches to bring people into the fold and not hoping to gain converts by proving faith thru science.

759 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:50:16pm

re: #722 Quilly Mammoth

Sorry, the operative "could" precludes falsifiable.

Um... no, it's the difference between "falsifiable" and "falsified".

760 Intrepid  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:50:16pm

re: #630 DistantThunder

There is a charter school in New York that is paying it's teachers $125,000/yr and it's principals $80,000. There are attracting a phenomenal quality of teacher - and they have try-outs.

Wow - that's a very good idea there!

One of the sad trends I saw in my high school was that the best teachers - the ones who connected with the students and actually imparted knowledge - were the ones who were given administrative posts. Maybe there should be some sort of teacher mentoring system....

761 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:50:18pm

re: #652 funkyfantom

If you understood some science, you could argue it. But you most likely do not. Even one million chimps typing on one million typewriters for one million years could use Google to assemble some links.

Woah, dude. Rude R-U.

762 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:50:44pm

re: #742 funkyfantom

And dismissing evidence without even looking at it that contradicts your viewpoint is closeminded.

Behe has been debunked, but you don't want to look at what the scientists who debunked him have to say. There isn't much point in arguing with you.

763 WriterMom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:50:55pm

re: #758 nyc redneck

Most excellent post.

764 Annar  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:51:39pm

re: #720 JamesTKirk

You lie!

EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
TIME CUBE
IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION.
4 Corner Times CUBES EARTH.
If a God existed, he would be EVIL
to DENY 4 Opposite Corner Days
Simultaneously within a 4 Quadrant
Earth Rotation. It's Simple Math,
IF NOT FOR Academic Lobotomy.
AS ONE, YOU DO NOT EXIST,
neither does the Earth or any God.
All exist as unified mirror Opposites
with a Zero value Existence. As ONE,
Created Opposites cancel to nothing.

That could work with a pseudo-Minkowskian metric. I'm sure that is what Xenu had in mind.

765 loflyer  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:51:39pm

re: #715 Charles

Nope, sorry. It's obviously very much a LIVE issue. I've never shied away from uncomfortable topics, or challenging people's assumptions, and I'm not going to start now.

You go Charles! I will admit on the current thread I have read some well written rebuttals that has increased my awareness of the issue, but no one seems to be changing position.

766 George guy  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:51:49pm

Assuming that all divine explanations are based on a god of the gaps fallacy is itself an atheistic fallacy. This line of 'reasoning' trying to impugn the use of supernatural explanations as some kind of inherently illogical process is not going to get to any kind of meaningful of conclusion.

767 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:51:52pm

re: #671 jim in virginia

I'm throwing gorgonzola at you.

Throw some Stilton at me!

768 Josephine  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:51:59pm

re: #145 songbird

I don't think belief or non belief in Evolution, ID or Creationism has anything to do with a person's skills in leading a government.

Hopefully, this won't be the new "litmus test" for elected officials.

Although I'm in Canada, I would hope that any politician would promote the separation of church and state. To me, that includes the separation of church and public schools.

ID = creationism based on a literal interpretation of the Bible = religion

Evolution = a theory based on physical discovery and a body of knowledge that is constantly being added to and updated = science

769 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:52:33pm

re: #767 Catttt

Throw some Stilton at me!

Oooo, I LOVE Stilton.

/mouth watering...anyone have a cracker?

770 beachkatie  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:52:38pm

re: #199 bellamags
It speeds up the healing process....

771 jaunte  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:52:39pm

re: #739 StinkHammer

Thanks for replying. that's the gist of what I understand it to be also, I just wanted to give the ID proponents an opportunity to link to any general laws, models, or explanations of how intelligent design happens, to give some comparison to evolutionary theory.

772 Gordon Marock  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:52:43pm

Wait, why are people still posting on this thread?
OK, ONE MORE TIME:

I can solve the debate easily. Each School's Science class will have ID day, where the Science Teacher says: "Ya know, kids, there is a lot of stuff that Science can't explain. For example, if infinity is infinite, what about infinity plus one? I think you get the picture, now I want each of you to go home before your heads explode and ask your Mommy and Daddy to explain what happens after you die. Class dismissed."

773 Intrepid  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:52:58pm

re: #634 reine.de.tout

OT - Something is wrong with my LGF spy. Every now and then it just stops spying. I close it, open a new spy and then I'm OK - for awhile. I'm using latest version of Firefox. What gives, anybody know?

Maybe it has decided to come in from the cold....

774 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:53:30pm

re: #720 JamesTKirk

Timecube rules!

775 mama winger  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:53:44pm

re: #769 goddessoftheclassroom

Oooo, I LOVE Stilton.

/mouth watering...anyone have a cracker?

racist !

776 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:53:48pm

re: #749 Tigger2005

The purple gremlins were easy to spot and were eaten by motor dragons. Only the stealthy greay gremlins survived and prospered. The loss of the purple gremlin food source caused the motor dragons to start availing themselves of other food sources. They now suck leaves and paper into your air conditioning system.

777 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:54:06pm

re: #726 goddessoftheclassroom

Anyone want to talk about shoes? Cats? Books?

I'm going to stop fighting this #*$&@% slow laptop and plug a movie into the player. Which should I watch? "Teacher's Pet" or "Bell, Book and Candle"?

778 opnion  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:54:15pm

re: #754 mama winger

Of course he wouldn't. The problem is that you are shortening the citation. You are saying that God wanted man to stay away from Knowledge. What the reference clearly says is that God wanted man to stay away from the knowledge of good and evil.

In other words, God wanted man to stay pure, to not be corrupted by evil, to not experience evil, to not taste of evil or become involved with it in any way. God wanted man to be spared the consequences of choosing to 'know' evil.

That is an interpretatin . The Knowledge was offered by the snake (Satan) This was an attempt by desert , rather unsophisticated people to teach a lesson, "Don't get too full of yourself & we need social order.' No snake was actually talking to people named Adam & Eve.

779 Tigger2005  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:54:20pm

re: #758 nyc redneck

i don't want i.d. taught in school as science.
but i do think we need more religion in this country to galvanize us against the virulent islamic barbarians who would convert us to their screed.
we should be looking to the churches to bring people into the fold and not hoping to gain converts by proving faith thru science.

The threat of my freedom being taken away is more than galvanizing to me. The mere thought of no longer being free to think, to inquire, to doubt, to speak or write my mind, sends me into blind, suffocating panic. I cannot live in a state of oppression and fear. I will not. I will fight it to my last breath.

780 Catttt  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:54:34pm

re: #748 reine.de.tout

All my pets hate the vacuum cleaner. When I want to get the cat outside, and I know she won't like it and will bite me if I try, I just take out the vacuum cleaner. I don't even have to turn it on anymore - just getting it out of the closet does the trick.

My cats aren't afraid of the vacuum - it's rather quiet - but they are not nuts about it either. They give me dirty looks when I vacuum.

781 NomadOfNorad  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:54:35pm

re: #754 mama winger

Of course he wouldn't. The problem is that you are shortening the citation. You are saying that God wanted man to stay away from Knowledge. What the reference clearly says is that God wanted man to stay away from the knowledge of good and evil.

In other words, God wanted man to stay pure, to not be corrupted by evil, to not experience evil, to not taste of evil or become involved with it in any way. God wanted man to be spared the consequences of choosing to 'know' evil.

Do you mean, to 'know' evil in the... uh... Biblical sense? Are you saying, then, that God did not want Adam and Eve to, so to speak... er... copulate with evil? To merge (as in urge-to-merge) with evil and contaminate ourselves with it?

Yeah, I guess that makes for an interesting analogy.

782 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:55:25pm

re: #777 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I'm going to stop fighting this #*$&@% slow laptop and plug a movie into the player. Which should I watch? "Teacher's Pet" or "Bell, Book and Candle"?

Do you have the remake of The Incredible Journey? Otherwise, how could you hesitate over Jimmy Stewart?

783 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:55:31pm

re: #769 goddessoftheclassroom

Oooo, I LOVE Stilton.

/mouth watering...anyone have a cracker?

Beckel knows where they are.

784 Quilly Mammoth  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:55:32pm

re: #749 Tigger2005


Of course, it's not a perfect analogy, since I don't know of any experts I can refer someone to to debunk the existence of purple engine-destroying gremlins.

Tigger, everyone knows the gremlins are red.

Now, if Evolutionary Biology was falsifiable then we'd _really_ know what color the gremlins are. But right now no one _really_ knows what color they are. See the point?

785 JamesTKirk  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:55:33pm

re: #724 Gordon Marock

I can solve the debate easily. Each School's Science class will have ID day, where the Science Teacher says: "Ya know, kids, there is a lot of stuff that Science can't explain. For example, if infinity is infinite, what about infinity plus one? I think you get the picture, now I want each of you to go home before your heads explode and ask your Mommy and Daddy to explain what happens after you die. Class dismissed."

Infinity plus one is still infinity. However, there are actually "levels" of infinity. For instance, your "basic" infinity, the number of integers (which is equivalent to the number of rational numbers, or the number of primes, or the number of negative even numbers), is א null. However, the number of real numbers (rational and irrational) is infinitely greater than the number of rational numbers; that greater infinity is א one, which is sometimes written as ∞ IIRC. And then the number of curves in three-dimensional space is infinitely greater even than that; it's aleph-two.

786 ronpaulblimpie  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:55:34pm

re: #744 loflyer

RPB, All I can say is take a tour of Salt Lake City. You will not find a cleaner city or finer citizens.

/PS. When was the last time a Mormon detonated a suicide vest or drove an airliner into an office tower?


Well, there was Mark Hoffman.
Either way, I will never fall for the argument about "if X is really bad, then that means Y is OK." But in reality, "X is really bad, and Y is just only bad."
Also, I've been to SLC. State owned liquor stores, 3.2% beer, etc. They cover up child abuse and have the highest rates in the nation. Just because something appears bright and shiny doesn't mean it is clean.

There is a town on Nevada/Utah border where the state laws drove the Utah side into the ground and the Nevada side did very well. It is Wendover. You'd think the casinos and dens of prostitution would make it the other way around, eh?

787 Occasional Reader  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:55:39pm

re: #776 OldLineTexan

The purple gremlins were easy to spot and were eaten by motor dragons. Only the stealthy greay gremlins survived and prospered. The loss of the purple gremlin food source caused the motor dragons to start availing themselves of other food sources. They now suck leaves and paper into your air conditioning system.

I'll have what OldLineTexan is having.

788 WindHorse  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:55:39pm

science is good.... religion is important.... but, if you ask me, engineering is where it's at.....

:)

(go ahead.... try and argue me)

789 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:55:39pm

I mentioned my deep reservations about Jindal's stance as an unflagging supporter of intelligent design some time ago on a topic thread here, but I don't remember if anyone even bothered to comment on that statement.

Somebody needs to take Jindal to school, because as smart as he is, he obviously has some gaps in his education.

790 ted  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:56:00pm

re: #743 Carridine

Excellent clarification, TED.

Instruction = 'create/build within'

Educate = 'to draw out'

Humans 'build within' themselves, in our minds, a model of 'What We Guess Is Happening' ...

That's our 'Theory'

Then we draw out of ourselves and others the models they have of 'What We Guess Is Happening'... and we compare those models to what we, and others observe, and we 'instruct' again (modifying previous internal models) and 'educate' again (draw out those internal models, in a sharable manner, often through dia-logos dialogue, and record our observations (if we're formal about it)

We, as humans, CAN do this selflessly and with minimal distortion, and such efforts redound to the benefit of the whole of humanity.

We can also, as today's leftist ideologues show, usurp and abuse this process, INSTRUCTING pre-determined structures AS IF they were part of an educational process, AS IF they were based on observable reality...

Good point.

Arrogance is self-defeating.

791 Attaboid  Mon, Jun 16, 2008 6:56:01pm