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