LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Jindal's College Professor Says, 'Don't Hold Back the Next Generation'

Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:06:56 pm PDT

Judging from the loony leftists in his blogroll, Joshua Rosenau will be a bit surprised to see referrals from LGF. But this is an important update to yesterday’s post about Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal’s support for the “intelligent design” hoax, as Jindal’s college genetics professor asks him not to “hold back the next generation of Louisiana’s doctors.”

Professor Arthur Landy, University Professor at Brown University who teaches in the medical school, taught the then-premed. Landy says “Without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn’t make sense. In order for today’s students in Louisiana to succeed in college and beyond, in order for them to take the fullest advantages of all that the 21st century will offer, they need a solid grounding in genetics and evolution. Governor Jindal was a good student in my class when he was thinking about becoming a doctor, and I hope he doesn’t do anything that would hold back the next generation of Louisiana’s doctors.”

This comes in the context of a press release from the Louisiana Coalition for Science, calling on Jindal to veto the stealth creationist bill recently passed by the LA legislature. Here’s the first section of their letter to the governor:

LA Coalition for Science
June 16, 2008

Honorable Bobby Jindal
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Re: Veto of SB 733

Dear Governor Jindal:

SB 733, recently passed by both houses of the legislature, purports to enable teachers to help students “develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.” This is a seemingly noble-sounding but deceptive goal.

SB 733 is a thinly disguised attempt to advance the “Wedge Strategy” of the Discovery Institute (DI), a creationist think tank that is collaborating with the LA Family Forum to get intelligent design (ID) creationism into LA public school science classes. John West, associate director of DI’s Center for Science and Culture, has even presumed to interpret SB 733 on DI’s website so as to favor his group’s agenda. (See West’s “Questions and Answers About the Proposed Louisiana Science Education Act.”) Within minutes of the Senate’s passage of the bill on June 16, West posted the news of Louisiana’s passage of the “landmark” LA Science Education Act on DI’s website. According to one Louisiana news account, West indicated that DI hopes to see its own creationist textbook, the deceptively titled Explore Evolution, used in our science classes as one of the supplements that SB 733 will permit teachers to use (Opelousas Daily World, 6/16/08). DI apparently has a financial as well as a religious and political interest in this legislation.

Creationism, which includes both young-earth creationism and ID, is not science but a sectarian view based on the Bible. Young-earth creationism is based on Genesis, and ID is based on the Gospel of John, as was established in federal court in the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005). The Bible was never intended to be a science textbook. Evolution has long been accepted by the Catholic Church and most other mainstream churches. The late Pope John Paul II said in 1996 that “new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.” (Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, October 22, 1996) As the pope recognized and other mainstream religions also recognize, there is no conflict between teaching children the scientific fact of evolution in school and providing religious instruction at home and in church. Millions of Americans lead committed religious lives while fully accepting modern science.

Since you hold a biology degree from Brown University, one of the nation’s most prestigious schools, you certainly appreciate Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous insight, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” You also surely understand that there is no scientific controversy over the fact of evolution. The current controversy is a political one, manufactured nationally by the Discovery Institute and here in Louisiana by the LA Family Forum, which does not represent the majority of Louisiana’s citizens but would impose its agenda on our entire state, even our children.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is violated when the government endorses a sectarian doctrine, as SB 733 would do, despite denials by the bill’s supporters. The section of SB 733 stipulating that the bill “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion” actually comes from the DI’s own model academic freedom act. If SB 733 were truly about teaching science, no such disclaimer would be needed.

Advertisement

282 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 WrathofG-d  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:08:54pm

G-d intelligently created this thread.

2 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:09:47pm
3 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:12:46pm
4 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:12:57pm

So who is Kenneth Miller?

5 DeathtotheSwiss  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:12:57pm
6 pegcity  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:13:29pm

So according to these creationists is the Flinestones a true account of ye old days?

What about ancient chinese artifacts that date back to 5 or 6 thousand years ago?

I don't remember seeing them describe any dinasours

7 Salem  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:14:05pm

I don't think he'll be McCain's pick, anyway.

8 Dotcoman  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:14:52pm

Evolution is the hoax. Darwinism is the Left's faith based religion.

9 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:15:12pm

OK, What IS the Problem? -

I believe in "Ha-Shem" as Creator - AND - also believe that said creator has endowed us with critical thought - and - Free Will. Comments?

-S-

10 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:15:17pm

Charles, do you think Jindal is the wisest choice for McCain's VP?

11 pegcity  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:15:33pm

re: #8 Dotcoman

Evolution is the hoax. Darwinism is the Left's faith based religion.

yeah enjoy your time here, i don't think you have much left.

12 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:16:15pm
13 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:17:16pm

Here we go again.

Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God.

You can see evidence for both.

Ding me down.

'Bye.

14 Toasty  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:17:24pm

I hope he's not McCain's pick, because the left will run him to the ground for believing in creationism. I don't think any less of him for it even though I don't believe in creationism, I don't think it's wrong for him to believe that. But it would hurt the ticket.

15 pegcity  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:17:40pm

re: #12 buzzsawmonkey

yeah cause they haven't made a single scientific breakthrough since Mr Darwin went and spent his time with the turtles.

16 infidel Alan  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:17:43pm

Everybody knows "intelligent design" is a Trojan horse to insert creationism into science classes where it doesn't belong. How could both houses of the LA legislature fall for this?

17 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:17:55pm

re: #13 Ojoe

I landed on comment 13 for that.

Cosmic!

18 astronmr20  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:18:02pm

Oh shit. Here we go again.

19 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:18:03pm
20 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:18:12pm

Prof. Landy,

WHAT ABOUT THE TURTLES?

I'm outraged he failed to mention the turtles!

/

21 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:18:17pm

re: #17 Ojoe

And do not mention comment # 17 above.

22 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:18:34pm

re: #19 buzzsawmonkey

OK

23 calvin coolidge  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:18:37pm

Man-made Global warming is also a religion. They ask us to believe without solid scientific facts to back it up. So why is it being taught in every school from here to China?

24 Dianna  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:18:46pm

re: #14 Toasty

I see the problem.

25 pegcity  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:18:49pm

re: #16 infidel Alan

Everybody knows "intelligent design" is a Trojan horse to insert creationism into science classes where it doesn't belong. How could both houses of the LA legislature fall for this?

these are the same people who elected David Duke

26 brickthruplateglasswindow  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:18:53pm

re: #9 Dr. Shalit

OK, What IS the Problem? -

I believe in "Ha-Shem" as Creator - AND - also believe that said creator has endowed us with critical thought - and - Free Will. Comments?

-S-

+1 Ding (hopefully, Charles has worked out that javascript rum and coke thing for you.)

27 Carridine  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:18:57pm

Stay sane, Bobby! Real world people need you in real time, BIGtime!

28 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:19:09pm

An update on Obama's approach to national security:

[Link: bp0.blogger.com...]

29 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:19:21pm
30 Dianna  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:19:39pm

re: #16 infidel Alan

Because people got tired of fighting about it, and many of them are so badly educated in science that they don't see the problem.

31 Mars Needs Neocons  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:19:43pm

I don't think Jindal would be the pick anyway. This election is going to have a debate about experience, and it will be hard to nail O on that if we have an inexperienced veep candidate.

32 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:19:47pm

re: #28 Nevergiveup

An update on Obama's approach to national security:

[Link: bp0.blogger.com...]

He has a strategy?

33 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:20:05pm

Ah

Ken Miller's evolution page

Booga booga!

34 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:20:27pm

re: #25 pegcity

these are the same people who elected David Duke

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Jindal?

35 Dianna  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:21:02pm

re: #23 calvin coolidge

It isn't. It's being taught here, but I hope not as much as we find ourselves afraid.

The Chinese have better sense than to teach nonsense to their children; they simply use it for propaganda.

36 Toasty  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:21:06pm

re: #24 Dianna

I don't see a problem if it's a private belief. I only have a problem if it involves forcing it on others. Someone who believes in creationism but doesn't demand it be taught in schools does no harm.

37 brickthruplateglasswindow  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:21:21pm

re: #18 astronmr20

Oh shit. Here we go again.

The hamsters must need some exercise. :)

38 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:21:28pm

re: #31 Mars Needs Neocons

Ding up. No to Jindal this time. Build success in Louisiana (yikes), then go for it. Let this ID flap subside.

39 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:22:00pm
40 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:22:00pm

re: #32 JCM

He has a strategy?

Does the word " Appeasement" ring a bell?

41 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:22:08pm

re: #36 Toasty

It does harm to rationality. That is harm!

42 Dianna  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:22:44pm

re: #36 Toasty

Maybe. Though I hope my doctor isn't a creationist.

43 wolfie  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:22:59pm

re: #17 Ojoe

I landed on comment 13 for that.

Cosmic!

You should celebrate with a little snack!
Or.......if you dare.......a big one!

44 Gjergj Skënderbeu  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:23:04pm

Yes, intelligent design in Louisiana, that's something that is going to ruin the country, erode it from the core.

45 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:23:57pm

re: #40 Nevergiveup

Does the word " Appeasement" ring a bell?

The last time that was given a serious go, 60 million paid the price.
Let's keep Poobama out of the White House.

46 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:25:05pm

The only rational argument against evolution is a cursory glance at the present members of the US Senate and Congress. They have got to be DEvolving. But that's just my opinion.

47 Toasty  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:25:29pm

re: #41 godfrey

Some people think believing in G-d at all is irrational.

48 Spiny Norman  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:25:32pm

re: #38 godfrey

Ding up. No to Jindal this time. Build success in Louisiana (yikes), then go for it. Let this ID flap subside.

If Jindal can fix Louisiana, he WILL be President if and when he runs.

49 The Other Les  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:25:50pm

What I want to know is who are "The Designers" of the Cylons that Brother Cavil mentioned. With the Significant Seven in a shooting war with each other it looks like they may have to go back to the drawing board.

50 pegcity  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:26:13pm

re: #46 Nevergiveup

The only rational argument against evolution is a cursory glance at the present members of the US Senate and Congress. They have got to be DEvolving. But that's just my opinion.

it's amazing such dumb people can get into such high positions of power.

51 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:26:27pm

Frankly, if "intelligent design" proponents raise interesting problems for other people to solve, then they serve a useful (heuristic) purpose.

52 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:26:30pm

I hope Jindal pays a lot of attention to that letter, but I'm afraid he doesn't pay enough attention to things he ought to.


re: #48 Spiny Norman

If Jindal can fix Louisiana, he WILL be President if and when he runs.

Jindal may or may not "fix" Louisiana - but even if he doesn't, he'll talk like he did.

53 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:27:21pm

re: #10 godfrey

Charles, do you think Jindal is the wisest choice for McCain's VP?

Godfrey -

JINDAL is the best of the best of the up and coming Conservative "Movement" - I wish him well - VERY WELL INDEED! As to his position on the 2008 Republican Ticket:

1. I WOULD SUPPORT HIM.

2. I Hope He Does Not Have to Run on the National Ticket This Year, and is able to create a RECORD in Louisiana that will make him the unassailable front runner in 2012 if McCain loses.

3. This Fellow could be what all we all believed GEORGE ALLEN would have been before the VA, US SENATE LOSS - (which was VERRY close!)

-S-

54 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:27:25pm

re: #43 wolfie

Big Snack

55 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:27:30pm

re: #36 Toasty

I don't see a problem if it's a private belief. I only have a problem if it involves forcing it on others. Someone who believes in creationism but doesn't demand it be taught in schools does no harm.

I agree- people are free to think and believe what they want, but they do not, however, have a right to force this on other people's children in the public schools.

56 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:27:30pm

re: #48 Spiny Norman

If Jindal can fix Louisiana, he WILL be President if and when he runs.

He'll just have to make reasonable progress. LA is way broke.

57 The Other Les  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:27:41pm

re: #46 Nevergiveup

The only rational argument against evolution is a cursory glance at the present members of the US Senate and Congress. They have got to be DEvolving. But that's just my opinion.

While they are devolving they are not DEVO.

58 StinkHammer  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:27:43pm

Apparently Jindal's also had a run-in with a demon.

As Derbyshire put it, "I spend a lot of time defending the GOP against sneers about us being 'the snake-handling party.' Bobby Jindal sure isn't making it any easier."

59 MrSnuggles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:28:04pm

i dont get it, why do we need to be taught that man evolved from sludge? how does that enable us people to become doctors? they should stop teaching anything about creation period, whether it be the hoax that single celled organism evolved from nothing or that God created life at the snap of a finger.

60 pegcity  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:28:11pm

what's intelligent about the design of human beings?

If its so intelligent why are we so prone to diseases and illness, and why do we have useless organs and teeth.

The human body is anything but intelligent and points to nothing more than evolution, why do people think we don't use our gullbladders or apendix or wisdom teeth anymore.

61 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:28:35pm

re: #52 reine.de.tout

I hope Jindal pays a lot of attention to that letter, but I'm afraid he doesn't pay enough attention to things he ought to.


Jindal may or may not "fix" Louisiana - but even if he doesn't, he'll talk like he did.

I don't know if anybody can fix Louisiana. Let's give it back to France in exchange for a couple of Nuclear Reactors for energy.

62 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:28:43pm

re: #56 JCM

He'll just have to make reasonable progress. LA is way broke.

So broke, the legislature just voted themselves enough of a raise it will double their pay.

63 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:28:53pm

re: #44 Gjergj Skënderbeu

That is a slur, and I resent it.

I know plenty of fine, smart, successful people in Louisiana. Every student in that state, whether they live in Tensas, Lafayette, or East Baton Rouge parish, deserves just as good an education as any student anywhere else in the world.

64 Mars Needs Neocons  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:29:28pm

re: #49 The Other Les

What I want to know is who are "The Designers" of the Cylons that Brother Cavil mentioned. With the Significant Seven in a shooting war with each other it looks like they may have to go back to the drawing board.

The Cylons were created by Count Iblis. Oh I forgot that was in the REAL BSG.

65 pegcity  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:29:44pm

re: #59 MrSnuggles

i dont get it, why do we need to be taught that man evolved from sludge? how does that enable us people to become doctors? they should stop teaching anything about creation period, whether it be the hoax that single celled organism evolved from nothing or that God created life at the snap of a finger.

um cause one is real and the other is a belief,

66 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:29:47pm

re: #61 Nevergiveup

I don't know if anybody can fix Louisiana. Let's give it back to France in exchange for a couple of Nuclear Reactors for energy.

Naw, I don't wanna belong to Fwance. Besides, then you'd lose the oil coming from Louisiana gulf oil drilling operations.

67 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:29:58pm

re: #23 calvin coolidge

Man-made Global warming is also a religion. They ask us to believe without solid scientific facts to back it up. So why is it being taught in every school from here to China?

"cal - cool" -

BECAUSE - it is the ONLY theory that allows "WATERMELONS" (Green Outside/Red Inside) to look legitimate. Take it from there.

-S-

68 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:30:08pm

re: #60 pegcity

what's intelligent about the design of human beings?

If its so intelligent why are we so prone to diseases and illness, and why do we have useless organs and teeth.

The human body is anything but intelligent and points to nothing more than evolution, why do people think we don't use our gullbladders or apendix or wisdom teeth anymore.

From a Biblical perspective disease and such is a result of the fall.

Gull bladders result from eating to many seagulls.
/

69 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:30:10pm

re: #63 godfrey

That is a slur, and I resent it.

I know plenty of fine, smart, successful people in Louisiana. Every student in that state, whether they live in Tensas, Lafayette, or East Baton Rouge parish, deserves just as good an education as any student anywhere else in the world.

THANK YOU.

70 Cato  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:31:11pm

OK, I'm about to get it as I always do when I bring up this subject.

ID should not be taught because it is not science, but NEITHER IS DARWINIAN THEORY.

Darwinism lacks the one thing that makes a scientific theory a scientific theory -- the ability to be disproven.

Newton will get you to the moon, but given a set of circumstances, Darwinism cannot predict what will dedevelop.

71 Toasty  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:31:35pm

I hope Jindal vetoes the bill.

72 metrolibertarian  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:31:36pm

I think no further evidence of the Young Earth, Genesis story being the case is stronger than this:

[Link: i27.tinypic.com...]

Obviously if Jesus was riding dinosaurs, the whole Earth being older than 6000 years is bs.

73 Spiny Norman  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:31:52pm

re: #45 JCM

re: #40 Nevergiveup
re: #32 JCM
He has a strategy?

Does the word " Appeasement" ring a bell? The last time that was given a serious go, 60 million paid the price.

Let's keep Poobama out of the White House.

The last time we had a "Hopey, Changey" presidential candidate, we ended up with James Earl Carter, and we are still dealing with the consequences.

:^þ

74 neocon hippie  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:32:10pm

re: #23 calvin coolidge

Man-made Global warming is also a religion. They ask us to believe without solid scientific facts to back it up. So why is it being taught in every school from here to China?

AGW is a pseudo-science and a political program but is not a religion.

75 David IV of Georgia  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:32:12pm

If HaShem was worried about this, He would have given us a detailed blueprint of what was done.
Instead He told through the writings of Moses (Moshe) what He did in a poetical fashion.
This does not mean the poetical version is false at all.
It just lacks the details that modern scientists would want to know.
Maybe He decided not to bore the people of the last 3 to 3.5 millennia with details they could have cared less about.

76 experiencedtraveller  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:32:16pm

re: #61 Nevergiveup

I don't know if anybody can fix Louisiana. Let's give it back to France in exchange for a couple of Nuclear Reactors for energy.

Trade the best gumbo in America for a couple of US licensed nuclear plants? They better throw a few tons of truffles into the deal...

77 pegcity  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:32:29pm

re: #70 Cato

why do people keep quoting darwin?

Darwin did nothing more than get the ball rolling,

Its called evolution, it didn't stop with Darwin, Darwinism is a shell game played to make evolution out to be some facist plot.

78 ContraJihadi  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:32:30pm

re: #46 Nevergiveup

I don't know. They seem rather well adapted. Just look at those fat sinecures--travel expenses, earmarks, favors from lobbyists, retirement packages. Seems they have found quite an environmental niche, at least until the Chinese call start dumping treasury bills.

79 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:32:57pm

re: #47 Toasty

Some people think believing in G-d at all is irrational.

And that is irrational and wrong. :-)

re: #61 Nevergiveup

Let's give it back to France in exchange for a couple of Nuclear Reactors for energy.

Louisiana is a proud member of the USA, and if you don't believe it, just spout off what you wrote there on the streets of Clinton.

Moreover, there's a nuclear reactor on the river near St. Francisville. Would you like to give that one back to France?

80 stuiec  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:33:21pm

You know what amazes me? That so many people who accept that species evolve through natural selection nevertheless seem not to believe in ecological succession. They tend to want to force humankind to behave as if the current mix of species in the current set of ecological niches in the biosphere ought to remain fixed and constant forevermore, as if some Higher Power (which they call "Nature" or "The Planet") has decreed this set of conditions as perfect.

I am confident that neither "Nature" nor "The Planet" have a plan for the biosphere. Whether God has a plan for it or whether it is subject to random physical forces, it is bound to change, and human policies meant to obstruct or impede that change are foolish, useless and self-destructive.

81 philosoteric  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:33:22pm

"Oh, Jesus - not this crap again!"

82 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:33:23pm

re: #66 reine.de.tout

Naw, I don't wanna belong to Fwance. Besides, then you'd lose the oil coming from Louisiana gulf oil drilling operations.

I stand corrected

83 czekmark  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:33:33pm
re: #8 Dotcoman

Evolution is the hoax. Darwinism is the Left's faith based religion.

Couldn't agree with you more. Darwinists has no answer to the creation question yet they spend much energy condemning those who think there is sound basis for a God creator. True science discovery impartially accepts all theories. Obviously Darwinism does not adhere to those principles.

84 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:34:27pm

re: #79 godfrey

Godfrey - you from around these parts?

85 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:34:39pm

re: #58 StinkHammer

Apparently Jindal's also had a run-in with a demon.

As Derbyshire put it, "I spend a lot of time defending the GOP against sneers about us being 'the snake-handling party.' Bobby Jindal sure isn't making it any easier."

"stinkster"

Re-Mem-Mem-Re-Mem-Me-Member - 1973 - MIKE OLDFIELD - TUBULAR BELLS - a/k/a - Theme From the Exorcist. Everything old becomes NEW agian - in the right circumstances. Take it from there.

-S-

86 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:35:05pm

re: #82 Nevergiveup

I stand corrected

C'est bon! Have some crawfish!

87 funky chicken  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:35:36pm

"intelligent design" : conservatives :: "global warming" " liberals

88 moonstone  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:35:57pm

Charles:

I'm probably not alone in fervently wishing that you'd put a stop to the evolution-ID-creation debates on LGF. I guarantee you that no one has ever persuaded anyone to change his or her views on the matter, and it's a huge waste of a thread.

In addition, it's not even any fun to follow the other threads when everyone's busy trading blows on that topic. That effectively closes LGF to me (and a lot of others) for the day/evening. No fun at all. :(

89 Spiny Norman  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:36:16pm

re: #74 neocon hippie

re: #23 calvin coolidge
Man-made Global warming is also a religion. They ask us to believe without solid scientific facts to back it up. So why is it being taught in every school from here to China?

AGW is a pseudo-science and a political program but is not a religion.

It's a world-wide wealth-redistribution scheme, true, but the absurd New-Agey, Mother Gaia-worship many of its proponents indulge in might qualify.

;^)

90 canerican  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:36:56pm

Are you kidding me? Another one of these? I expect Christian bashing from the lefty-blogs. Not from LGF. Trust me, I don't want this to become a religious forum, but belittling one of Christianity's fundamental beliefs is pathetic - yesterday we heard it from Charles, not yet today, but surely we will hear it from others.
Christians aren't idiots, most are at the very least smart. How many of you can honestly say that you fully understand evolution? Probably few. I can't say that I understand creation fully, but I have two years of college science under my belt, and there are holes in the evolution theory - and some things might best be explained by creation - but they say that its to simple and a cop out and it should be disproved at any cost.
I have no doubt that evolution does exist, but the Earth was created initially.

I find it ironic that a majority of scientists agree with the theory of global warming, and many non-scientists can disagree, yet when we hear that the majority of scientists believe in the theory of evolution - we MUST agree with them.

It just strikes me as utterly bizarre, the amount of intolerance for other beliefs that I am seeing here.

91 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:36:56pm

re: #86 godfrey

C'est bon! Have some crawfish!

Oh, yum!

92 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:37:01pm

re: #84 reine.de.tout

Was. Moved away last year. Just there last week, visiting friends. It was a fun, interesting, verycool friendly place, and I love it. I gave it seven years of hard work, and it was worth every minute.

93 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:38:05pm

Yes, it's another one of these. Sorry if some people don't like it, but if you want to promote anti-science viewpoints, there's nothing stopping you from starting your own blogs.

94 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:38:13pm

re: #88 moonstone

That's not true as I, and reine.de.tout will attest to.

95 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:38:38pm

re: #91 reine.de.tout

Oh, yum!

"Queenie" -

Can I have some "JAX" with that? Pray Tell.

-S-

96 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:38:56pm

re: #91 reine.de.tout

I don't see any corn and potatoes in it. Ah well, beer is a carb.

97 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:39:33pm

re: #90 canerican

Are you kidding me? Another one of these? I expect Christian bashing from the lefty-blogs. Not from LGF. Trust me, I don't want this to become a religious forum, but belittling one of Christianity's fundamental beliefs is pathetic - yesterday we heard it from Charles, not yet today, but surely we will hear it from others.
Christians aren't idiots, most are at the very least smart. How many of you can honestly say that you fully understand evolution? Probably few. I can't say that I understand creation fully, but I have two years of college science under my belt, and there are holes in the evolution theory - and some things might best be explained by creation - but they say that its to simple and a cop out and it should be disproved at any cost.
I have no doubt that evolution does exist, but the Earth was created initially.

I find it ironic that a majority of scientists agree with the theory of global warming, and many non-scientists can disagree, yet when we hear that the majority of scientists believe in the theory of evolution - we MUST agree with them.

It just strikes me as utterly bizarre, the amount of intolerance for other beliefs that I am seeing here.

This is insulting and false. The post above makes it very clear that there is NO Christian-bashing going on.

There are many Christians who refuse to buy into this hoax. It's simply dishonest to try to tie belief in God to belief in intelligent design.

98 freetoken  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:39:36pm

re: #13 Ojoe

Here we go again.

Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God.

How many times can people miss the point? Which is, namely, that the political baggage that comes from the ID movement arises out of the intellectual/moral baggage that movement owns.

Unfortunately for Jindal the ID lightning rod is now attached to his house. As such, it is probably in McCain's best interest not to go calling at that residence.

99 Ma Sands  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:39:44pm

Charles.....

My Dad the newspaperman taught me not to use labels. I've been, therefore, trying to get a handle on the definition of Intelligent Design, and of Creationism....

I thought last night, to contact the Discovery Institute and ask them for help. They responded this afternoon, offering to give suggestions to any comments I FWD-ed to them.

Took 'em up on it just now, and was surprised how quickly they responded! :) I used your last couple of comments from last night's Jindahl thread. Here's their response:

[next comment]

100 Ma Sands  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:40:24pm
Charles wrote: “But the "intelligent design" concept itself is a fraud -- it's repackaged creationism, very deliberately calculated to appear as science, when it is not.”

I reply: Darwinists love to employ in namecalling, labels, personal attacks, and insults rather than actual argumentation in this debate. Charles provides an excellent example of this. In fact intelligent design is different from creationism:

“Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.” ([Link: www.intelligentdesign.org...]

[continued in next comment]
101 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:40:46pm

re: #88 moonstone

Moonstone, do like me and mutate the thread! Better LGF through random thread topic mutation! If everyone starts talking about crawfish, who knows what evolutionary marvels we can achieve!

102 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:40:57pm

re: #90 canerican

Are you kidding me? Another one of these? I expect Christian bashing from the lefty-blogs. Not from LGF. Trust me, I don't want this to become a religious forum, but belittling one of Christianity's fundamental beliefs is pathetic - yesterday we heard it from Charles, not yet today, but surely we will hear it from others.

I don't see any religion-bashing going on in the thread topic, at all.

It is absolutely possible to believe in evolution and believe in the need to teach science as science, leaving religious instruction for the home and church, without "bashing" religion. That is what these discussions are about. They are not discussions about whether or not God exists.

An individual on another recent thread went off on a tear, bashing a particular religion, and he ended up blocked. So I don't see how you can believe these threads are about religion "bashing". They are not.

103 Ma Sands  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:40:59pm
Moreover, intelligent design IS science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. According to [Link: www.ideacenter.org...] intelligent design uses the scientific method as follows:

“Intelligent design uses the scientific method to detect design. The following is a description of the scientific method: Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion. Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation: The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis: If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment: We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion: Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.”

Charles also wrote: “The arguments are fraudulent, the premise is fraudulent, and the methods that the Discovery Institute uses to promote it are dishonest and fraudulent. ... It's obvious from your posts in this thread that you are almost completely clueless about science, so that doesn't surprise me.”

I reply: These are just more character attacks and personal insults, not arguments. Sadly, these are very common tactics from Darwinists. I challenge Charles to actually show why ID is “fraudulent.” He has the right to disagree with it, but disagreeing with it does not mean that he has the right to call it fraudulent. If Charles must resort to such personal attacks rather than actual arguments, then it seems that his position is quite weak.

104 CIA Reject  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:41:16pm

BOHICA! ! !

That being said here is what I see as the "money quote" from the article:

"The Bible was never intended to be a science textbook."

Now my rant, *ahem*

The Bible IS NOT a science text book.
It IS NOT a history book.
It IS NOT an economics text book.
It IS NOT a sociology text book.
It IS NOT an engineering manual

At one time or another since it was written people have tried to force the Bible to be ALL these things- always with disasterous results.

Faith in G*d does not preclude belief that He may have chosen ANY means, including evolution, to accomplish his purpose in creating the universe- a purpose,by the way, which is unknown to us. His mind is not our mind, His thoughts are not our thoughts. We know not His reasons or His methods, only His Mercy and His Love.

*Dismounts soapbox*

Thank You...

105 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:41:45pm

re: #99 Ma Sands

Charles.....

My Dad the newspaperman taught me not to use labels. I've been, therefore, trying to get a handle on the definition of Intelligent Design, and of Creationism....

I thought last night, to contact the Discovery Institute and ask them for help. They responded this afternoon, offering to give suggestions to any comments I FWD-ed to them.

Took 'em up on it just now, and was surprised how quickly they responded! :) I used your last couple of comments from last night's Jindahl thread. Here's their response:

Oh, for Pete's sake.

I think I've made it clear enough that I do not trust the Discovery Institute one bit. They are the main promoters of the ID hoax, and I've heard all their obfuscations and falsehoods before.

Zero credibility. No, less than zero. Negative credibility.

106 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:41:47pm

re: #92 godfrey

{godfrey}. so glad you enjoyed it.

107 pegcity  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:42:32pm

re: #97 Charles

This is insulting and false. The post above makes it very clear that there is NO Christian-bashing going on.

There are many Christians who refuse to buy into this hoax. It's simply dishonest to try to tie belief in God to belief in intelligent design.

I don't understand how not believing that man existed at the same time as dinasours makes you anti christian

108 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:42:46pm

re: #95 Dr. Shalit

Jax. yech. Worst. Beer. Ever. Made.

109 the_vig  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:43:30pm

re: #90 canerican

If you believe that Evolutionary theory is an attack on Christianity, why does the Catholic Church accept it?

Or do you think that Catholics are anti-Christian?

110 Ma Sands  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:43:32pm

re: #105 Charles

'k. It was mostly for my clarification, for mine own self, anyway. :)

111 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:44:10pm

re: #106 reine.de.tout

"Queenie" -

SO - Where is my "JAX?"

-S-

112 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:45:34pm

re: #103 Ma Sands

Ma, here's the problem:

Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.”

This conclusion is hasty.

113 metrolibertarian  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:46:22pm

re: #109 the_vig

If you believe that Evolutionary theory is an attack on Christianity, why does the Catholic Church accept it?

Or do you think that Catholics are anti-Christian?

According to John Hagee, we Catholics are.

114 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:46:51pm

re: #111 Dr. Shalit

"Queenie" -

SO - Where is my "JAX?"

-S-

At #108

115 neocon hippie  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:47:25pm

Those who claim that evolutionary theory is not robust enough to meet their criteria of being scientific enough are going to have to come up with something a lot more convincing as an alternative than ID to make me take them much seriously.

116 Ma Sands  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:47:27pm

re: #112 godfrey

Ah. :)

117 Hardcore UFO  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:48:25pm

There is no Christian bashing going on but this site is constantly hamering Intelligent Design. Isn't there enough beating of this dead horse?

118 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:50:13pm

re: #117 Hardcore UFO

There is no Christian bashing going on but this site is constantly hamering Intelligent Design. Isn't there enough beating of this dead horse?

The Louisiana state legislature just passed a bill that is intended to push this hoax into public school science classrooms. It is not a dead horse, although it should have died a LONG time ago.

119 Mars Needs Neocons  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:50:34pm

re: #89 Spiny Norman

It's a world-wide wealth-redistribution scheme, true, but the absurd New-Agey, Mother Gaia-worship many of its proponents indulge in might qualify.

;^)

and ALGORe has taken on a decidedly High Priest look.

120 StinkHammer  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:51:53pm

re: #103 Ma Sands

I challenge Charles to actually show why ID is “fraudulent.”

It is not up to Charles (or any other ID dissenter) to show why ID is fraudulent -- it is up to ID supporters to show why ID is VALID. And it cannot be done scientifically, because it ultimately invokes the supposition of a Designer to fill the unexplained void (hence the appropos "God of the gaps" logical fallacy at work). And f you think ID supporters such as the Discovery Institute don't believe that designer to be the Christian God, you're either naive or willfull ignorant (they certainly aren't talking about aliens -- see the Wedge Document oft linked to on these threads).

The existence of a supernatural designer can only be inferred, not proven via the scientific method. Hence, ID is invalid as science.

ID has to incorporate testable hypotheses in order to qualify as science -- and it can't test for a supposed designer, it can only infer it. The tactic of trying to invalidate Darwinian evolution and natural selection doesn't validate intelligent design by default.

121 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:51:58pm

re: #117 Hardcore UFO

There is no Christian bashing going on but this site is constantly hamering Intelligent Design. Isn't there enough beating of this dead horse?

And couldn't cair say the same thing about this site and islam? Come on.

This is Charles' blog, and he can post on whatever topic he likes.

122 metrolibertarian  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:52:10pm

re: #117 Hardcore UFO

There is no Christian bashing going on but this site is constantly hamering Intelligent Design. Isn't there enough beating of this dead horse?

Louisiana is trying to teach non-science in a science class, it would appear the horse is still going. This kind of infusion of faux-science into the minds of students rings a lot like the nonsense bullshit Palestinian kids are taught about the "origins" of Jews.

123 stuiec  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:52:23pm

re: #97 Charles

It's simply dishonest to try to tie belief in God to belief in intelligent design.

I am missing something (and by the way, I am a Jew and not interested in defending Christian belief -- I let Christians do that).

If one believes in an omnipotent God who was the Prime Mover that set the universe we know into motion, is it impermissible to believe that God might from time to time have acted upon that universe?

Even humans have the power to shape the evolution of species. We've been doing it ever since the discovery of agriculture and animal husbandry, replacing natural selection with our judgment. More recently, we've delved directly into the genome and shaped species through direct engineering.

So how is a belief in science inconsistent with a belief that an omnipotent God might have conducted a bit of "genetic engineering" at various points in the history of the Universe?

124 the_vig  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:52:37pm

And really folks, Intelligent Design hinges on the concept that there are things that exist that are too complex to have occurred naturally. Taking that as a first step a "real" scientist needs to ask how was it designed? They will develop experiments that will support or disprove this hypothesis. You see Biology and Evolution have an amazing amount of experiments that have been done and are still in the works. If ID wants to be an actual scientific discipline it needs to get on the ball.

125 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:53:52pm

re: #117 Hardcore UFO

There is no Christian bashing going on but this site is constantly hamering Intelligent Design. Isn't there enough beating of this dead horse?

The "horse" is this: the dumbing down of US education, and also, the "horse" could include this: creeping sharia.

If this creationist/intelligent ID stuff, which is somebody's idea of "religious" instruction, not necessarily mine or my church's, gets into our public schools, then what is to keep all other "religious" instruction from creeping in, also? And who will make those decisions? The Department of Education? The local school boards?

Have you taken a hard look at textbooks lately, that are used in schools? Much of the information in those is wrong, or slanted in an anti-American way.

I looked at the "wedge" document. It is frightening in its well-thought out plan to insert a thought-control measure into science curricula.

126 freetoken  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:54:10pm

re: #117 Hardcore UFO

Doubt that all the ID postings (including comments) make up anything more than a trivially small % of material in the LGF database.

It is not a big issue to me, but there are enough people out there who care about this to cause some problems in this election. Namely, part of the Republican coalition is very adamant on this issue and McCain will be pressured (just like Jindal is being pressured.) However, the swing voters tend to not like or not care about these issues, and it is these very voters McCain must woo. In other words, the ID supporters are making life more difficult for the Republicans and specifically for McCain.

As for the larger social impacts of ID... I seriously doubt that it is anything more than a passing fad in the long cultural "war" (which has gone on for a while). Whether it is prayer in school, abortion, gay marriage, or ID taught in science class, these things wax and wane. I would have thought gay marriage and not ID would be the hot topic on this election (for the social warriors), but I could be wrong.

127 StinkHammer  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:54:32pm

I'd love to stay and participate in the ID hottenanny further, but NBA Finals are coming on . . .

128 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:56:22pm

re: #111 Dr. Shalit

Reply to Self - AND - La REINE -

When you roll into NO/LA - and are HOT, THIRSTY and HUNGRY, you know one thing - one way or another - you will be satisfied. The JAX wasn't really great in the long view - at the time, it worked. Same with my 1974 memory of a certain CAN of Rolling Rock here in NJ - HOT, and at least THIRSTY - tasted way better in memory than actuality.

-S-

129 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:56:29pm

re: #123 stuiec

So how is a belief in science inconsistent with a belief that an omnipotent God might have conducted a bit of "genetic engineering" at various points in the history of the Universe?

It isn't. This is all part of the Wedge Strategy, intended to drive a wedge between people of faith and people who value scientific achievement.

And frankly, it's disgusting to me. It's a dishonest, sneaky, fraudulent tactic. And that's why I keep hammering on this very much alive horse.

130 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:57:36pm

I'm a Christian. My interpretation of the Bible is about as fundamental as they come. For example, I do not celebrate Christmas or Easter because while the event celebrated is there, there is no instruction to celebrate them and the holidays are a mish-mash of Biblical and Paganism. This mixing is forbidden in the Old Testament as well as New.

However even with that fundamental of an interpretation I do not apply scripture, where it does not belong, in science. I read the Wedge Document. My main critic is they forget Eph. 6:10. Matt. 6:10 tells us God's will is done, in heaven, it takes the believers to execute his will through prayer. It is our failing as believers to pray and act in oneness of the Spirit that God's will is not executed.

No where can I find believers are to promote legislation. Our beliefs are to be offered to individuals as a free gift, to be accept or declined by that individual. It does more damage to our great commission in the long run to attempt to force our beliefs via earthly means.

/preach off.

I agree in most respects with our host Charles on this matter, maybe not for the same reasons, but the outcome is the same.

131 czekmark  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:57:54pm
#93

Yes, it's another one of these. Sorry if some people don't like it, but if you want to promote anti-science viewpoints, there's nothing stopping you from starting your own blogs.

Is it okay for me to expect LGF to be objective? The foremost subjective error in your statement is that those that believe in a God creator are anti-science. Must I remind you that virtually all the great scientists of yore were Christians who found no conflict with their research and their religion (Please, please don't throw that Galileo incident at me). Even today there are many scientists, myself included, that believe in a Godly creation not necessary from a religious point of view but from a scientific one. One only has to look at the structure of a single atom (we still don't have a full understand of its structure) to realize that it could not have just randomly happened but had to be 'designed' with real purpose and intent.

132 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:59:01pm

New ID thread- not so much different than the last ID thread. *Sigh*

133 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:59:03pm

re: #131 czekmark

The foremost subjective error in your statement is that those that believe in a God creator are anti-science.

Please cite one comment or article where I have made this assertion.

134 Ma Sands  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:59:30pm

re: #120 StinkHammer

Well, I did read in their response, that they don't take the Bible literally, speaking of about 6.000 years, and that Creationists do. That separated it, for me at least. :)

135 godfrey  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 5:59:32pm

Warning: Proposed Mutation

Shostakovich, String Quartet no. 3, III

136 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:00:44pm

re: #131 czekmark

I'm not sure why so many people feel the need to obfuscate the issue, but this is about what we teach in schools. Do you want your children given religious instruction in public schools?

137 Hardcore UFO  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:00:49pm

No one on the ID side is saying that you must exclusively teach ID but it sure seems that people are adamant on teaching exclusively an evolution perspective. Isn't that is just like people not being allowed to show research against anthropogenic global warming, which is happening now.

138 stuiec  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:01:34pm

re: #120 StinkHammer

The existence of a supernatural designer can only be inferred, not proven via the scientific method. Hence, ID is invalid as science.

ID has to incorporate testable hypotheses in order to qualify as science -- and it can't test for a supposed designer, it can only infer it. The tactic of trying to invalidate Darwinian evolution and natural selection doesn't validate intelligent design by default.

That doesn't, however, invalidate the reverse.

If evolution through random genetic mutation and natural selection is the sole mechanism for shaping the course of life from its origins to the present, then it must be possible to demonstrate how each step in the process occurred randomly. If there is any step that cannot be explained by random genetic mutation and natural selection, then some other process must have occurred at that step.

It seems that there are two perfectly valid areas for scientific inquiry related to this. First, can random genetic mutation and natural selection explain every step of evolution from life's origin to the present? (Thus we examine the fossil record and look for an understanding of the steps of the evolution of species.) Second, if there appear to be any points in the process where random genetic mutation and natural selection fail to explain the change from form A to form B (or the emergence of form B from the population of form A), what alternative hypotheses can be put forth as possible explanations, and how can these be tested?

139 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:01:45pm

re: #132 Sharmuta

New ID thread- not so much different than the last ID thread. *Sigh*

No, it isn't, is it? What is it about this:

Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God.

Belief that science classes should be science ONLY, does not mean that one opposes religious instruction in the home or church, where it belongs.

140 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:01:58pm

re: #137 Hardcore UFO

No one on the ID side is saying that you must exclusively teach ID but it sure seems that people are adamant on teaching exclusively an evolution perspective. Isn't that is just like people not being allowed to show research against anthropogenic global warming, which is happening now.

No, it isn't. "Intelligent design" is not science and it does not belong in a science classroom.

141 cookielady  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:02:18pm

re: #88 moonstone

Charles:

I'm probably not alone in fervently wishing that you'd put a stop to the evolution-ID-creation debates on LGF. I guarantee you that no one has ever persuaded anyone to change his or her views on the matter, and it's a huge waste of a thread.

In addition, it's not even any fun to follow the other threads when everyone's busy trading blows on that topic. That effectively closes LGF to me (and a lot of others) for the day/evening. No fun at all. :(

Thank you. And no, you are most certainly not alone. :-(

142 ploome hineni[deleted]  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:02:50pm
143 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:04:04pm

re: #142 ploome hineni

Hello Ploome! I hope you are having better days than you were a few days ago.

144 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:05:07pm

re: #141 cookielady

Thank you. And no, you are most certainly not alone. :-(

Sorry, folks. This subject is very important. And I'm not going to be guilt-tripped into avoiding it. I've never shied away from challenging people's assumptions, and I'm not about to start now.

145 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:05:32pm

re: #141 cookielady

But cookielady- it's not true. Charles got through to reine.de.tout and I, and last night I got through to vapig. Once you realize this is not about God vs. no God, then you can see that this is about hijacking our education system and Constitution.

146 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:05:35pm

re: #113 metrolibertarian

According to John Hagee, we Catholics are.

When he starts trying to burn them as heretics, LMK.

/I don't listen to dillweeds like him.

147 Ma Sands  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:08:07pm

re: #145 Shar

I hope the "getting through" isn't too successful......there really isn't any way to separate God out from anything..... :)

148 mobaby  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:09:18pm

Strange - I know a number of scientists and docs who are Christians, i.e. they believe an eternal God was involved in the creation of everything. I guess Bobby Jindal, and well, for that matter, their own beliefs are "holding them back." Hmmmm.... they seem to do okay without atheistic evolution. Oh well, I guess you just can't be a good doctor unless you subscribe to the belief that everything at it's root is meaningless and pointless, until you bring your own meaningless existential choice to bear on it (which by definition a pointless exercise). Until everyone realizes that what they realize is pointless, they just can't be good scientists and docs.

149 Hardcore UFO  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:11:06pm

re: #142 ploome hineni

Yeah but heaven forbid speak out in defense of the IDers!

150 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:11:09pm

re: #132 Sharmuta

New ID thread- not so much different than the last ID thread. *Sigh*

We could debate the species of turtle.

I believe given current conditions they are Snapping Turtles.

151 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:12:27pm
Judging from the loony leftists in his blogroll, Joshua Rosenau will be a bit surprised to see referrals from LGF.


As much I love my scienblogs they're pretty much all moonbats. I've often wondered how folks like PZ Meyers likes getting referrals from me in the spinoffs.

152 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:12:31pm

re: #145 Sharmuta

But cookielady- it's not true. Charles got through to reine.de.tout and I, and last night I got through to vapig. Once you realize this is not about God vs. no God, then you can see that this is about hijacking our education system and Constitution.

Exactly, exactly, exactly!

On some of the earlier threads, there were so many people getting into long convoluted discussions about definitions, and using scientific jargon that I just do not have an ear for - I was just lost on this.

Then, I read the wedge document, the wiki "wedge strategy" article, and started thinking about it, and it really does come down to - a hijacking of our education system, and through that, a hijacking of religious instruction to our children, which should be in the hands of parents and churches, not the public schools.

I know that public schools, many of them in my area and perhaps elsewhere, are in deep trouble through lack of discipline, lack of course rigor, etc., and many people believe that it is a lack of religion that has led to that.

It is a lack of common courtesy, old-fashioned manners and self-discipline that has led to many of the problems in our schools. Many folks learn courtesy and self-discipline through their faith - but other folks learn those things with no faith at all. It is not necessary, nor prudent, or desirable, to insert someone else's view of religious belief into science classes.

153 czekmark  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:12:32pm
#133 Charles
Please cite one comment or article where I have made this assertion.

#93 Charles
but if you want to promote anti-science viewpoints, there's nothing stopping you from starting your own blogs.


Did you not post that in comment #93? To me the implication is clear that you have associated creation with anti-science. If not, what were you trying to say?

154 Hardcore UFO  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:14:10pm

re: #148 mobaby

agree

155 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:15:03pm

cookielady- please read this: the wedge strategy.

The father of this movement, Phillip Johnson:

Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, 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."

This is not acceptable in a public school.

156 Ma Sands  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:15:22pm

re: #150 JCM

Speaking of turtles......years ago, when camping with my youngsters, we rounded a bend, came upon a lagoon.....and hundreds of those little ones were leaping away from us into the water.......seems apt to mention that..... :)

157 the_vig  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:16:00pm

Saying that a medical doctor can be successful without believing in evolution is an interesting concept. While it is true that a medical doctor can be very successful without believing or disbelieving evolution, I doubt that one would get very far without believing in or using the scientific method. This is the thing that many of us here are concerned with. If the Discovery institute would spend its funds on actual research and publish findings instead of political maneuvering I wouldn't be as concerned.

158 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:16:17pm

re: #153 czekmark

Did you not post that in comment #93? To me the implication is clear that you have associated creation with anti-science. If not, what were you trying to say?

Not creation with anti-science.
The Discovery Institute, ID and Creationism with anti-science. The creation is a religious belief, separate from science. The DI, ID and Creationism are being sold under label of science.

159 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:16:33pm

re: #155 Sharmuta

Sorry- meant to cite the article from which I pulled quote that since the discovery institute hacks yanked it from wiki-

[Link: findarticles.com...]

160 stuiec  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:16:37pm

re: #129 Charles

It isn't. This is all part of the Wedge Strategy, intended to drive a wedge between people of faith and people who value scientific achievement.

And frankly, it's disgusting to me. It's a dishonest, sneaky, fraudulent tactic. And that's why I keep hammering on this very much alive horse.

Well, now I am really confused, because I agree with you that the two things aren't inconsistent. But it seems that the debate here hinges on making them appear inconsistent.

I personally do not believe that God (as I conceive of Him) laid out the course of every sub-atomic particle in the Universe from the Big Bang to the Final Whatsit. The God of the Hebrews indeed seems pretty prone to being surprised and at times either delighted or infuriated with the creatures in His Universe.

I have never seen or spoken to the God of the Hebrew Bible, so don't ask for my proof that He exists. On the other hand, I am not willing to accept that the Universe got from the Big Bang until now through a totally random series of events. Maybe Richard Feynmann, if he were still alive, could convince me that this Universe is only one of the infinite number of Universes spawned by the Big Bang, and the only one that turned out this way -- but I am not really ready to go there, although I am a believer in quantum mechanics. (In fact, quantum mechanics tells us that humans may one day learn how to spawn new universes -- which could lead us to trying to convince our creations that we exist!)

So I don't have patience for people who insist that I have to believe that God has a plan down to the subatomic level, any more than I have patience for people who insist that believing in an entity capable of existing within and without this Universe is a children's fairy tale.

(One other note: "Darwinism" may not have motivated the Nazi scientific regime, but eugenics certainly did. Your recent post of an article citing the mixed genetic heritage of Nordic Europeans only showed that the Nazi belief in eugenics was misguided pseudo-science, but their belief was deeply-held enough to send a number of my relatives to oblivion.)

161 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:17:58pm

BTW- Charles? They've also been busy editing Phillip Johnson's page.

162 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:17:59pm

re: #156 Ma Sands

Speaking of turtles......years ago, when camping with my youngsters, we rounded a bend, came upon a lagoon.....and hundreds of those little ones were leaping away from us into the water.......seems apt to mention that..... :)

Fooling with the foundations of the earth.
Dangerous business!
/

That would have been cool!

163 metrolibertarian  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:18:57pm

The fundamental problem I've seen in this is that people seem to think science, history, etc. should all be available in the same market place and we should simply let the market decide what constitutes the most appropriate theory of man's origins.

It's not how these things work. Facts aren't democratic.

164 czekmark  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:19:56pm
#136 Sharmuta

I'm not sure why so many people feel the need to obfuscate the issue, but this is about what we teach in schools. Do you want your children given religious instruction in public schools?

Unless you have been leading a cloistured life you would know that our 'brave new schools' are teaching our children to be good Muslims, homosexuals and other diversified multi-culture values. If that is permissible as it apparently is, I see no problem with bringing Intelligent Design into the class room.

165 Inquisitive  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:20:03pm

re: #55 Sharmuta

I agree- people are free to think and believe what they want, but they do not, however, have a right to force this on other people's children in the public schools.


And the other shoe can fall--if a family is religious and believes that all was created by God and this is what the parents want there children to learn then why must they have evolution pushed on them in school. Children must have science in school and I think that all children are greatly benefited by it, but please someone tell me what a parent is suppose to tell the child. "Now from the time you were little you have learned that God created everything but now you are going to be taught at school that what we taught you, what you learned in Sunday School, and in Church is all false". Or do we tell the child that what the teacher is going to be teaching you is false. I don't think any parent should have to make a statement like that about the child's teacher like that. This is just thrown out there for people to think about ...and please read the next paragraph before everyone just starting to ding this down.
After doing a lot of reading the last few days on ID--I WILL AGREE WITH CHARLES AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT HAS BEEN OPPOSED TO ID BEING TAUGHT IN SCHOOL. ID IS NOT WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS. THANK YOU TO THOSE THAT HAVE OPENED MY EYES TO THIS AND THE TRUE MEANING OF ID. But I will still take claim to being a Creationist, and I want everyone to know that I am/will continue to do more reading on the Evolution in Religion and how a person could believe in both.

166 dcbatlle  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:20:28pm

Darwinism, Global Warming. Both theories, both hoaxes.

167 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:21:01pm

re: #160 stuiec

Well, now I am really confused, because I agree with you that the two things aren't inconsistent. But it seems that the debate here hinges on making them appear inconsistent.

I think if you look closely, it isn't that the "anti-ID in schools" cadre is inconsistent. It's the folks insisting that ID be taught who are trying to make it appear as if the "anti-ID in schools" folks are inconsistent.

168 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:21:45pm
169 Moody Leo  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:22:34pm

re: #25 pegcity

Mr Duke was only a State Rep of District 81 in the state of Louisiana from1989 to 1992, and he ran several unsuccessful campaigns for various offices. I remember when he ran for Governor against Edwards and it was one of the only times I voted Democrat.

170 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:22:48pm

re: #165 Inquisitive

but please someone tell me what a parent is suppose to tell the child. "Now from the time you were little you have learned that God created everything but now you are going to be taught at school that what we taught you, what you learned in Sunday School, and in Church is all false".

Because parents are the ones who should teach their children about faith, not the public schools.

171 Mars Needs Neocons  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:23:19pm

re: #155 Sharmuta

cookielady- please read this: the wedge strategy.

The father of this movement, Phillip Johnson:

This is not acceptable in a public school.

I actually went through something similar. However, it was a private school so the rules were different. The school that I helped teach at is a disciplinary school for children with emotional and social problems. All in all, it was a good place (except for the people in charge that is.) But, I saw something that bothered me. All the students that came to the school Jewish, left as either Christians or Jews for Jesus. I was never there on the weekends so I didn't get to see how they did church, but that bother me a lot.

172 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:23:59pm

re: #169 Moody Leo

Mr Duke was only a State Rep of District 81 in the state of Louisiana from1989 to 1992, and he ran several unsuccessful campaigns for various offices. I remember when he ran for Governor against Edwards and it was one of the only times I voted Democrat.

Me too. Gah! What a choice.

173 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:24:31pm

re: #165 Inquisitive

how a person could believe in both.

Here's what helped me, years and years ago:

Who am I to tell God HOW to do something?

/However, #164 makes a point I attempted in a prior thread. There is already a TON of junk science in our schools, taught under the guise of diversity. Some of our anti-ID crusaders would do well to expand their efforts.

174 Moody Leo  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:25:38pm

re: #172 reine.de.tout

I know, I held my nose when I got in the voting booth. I did think it was funny that both were in prison at the same time, a little dark humor never hurts.

175 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:26:09pm

re: #168 Killgore Trout

Teach the Controversy!

That's what I'm talking about!

But how they sneak elephants into my Turtletheology? Are they apostates?

176 the_vig  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:27:08pm

re: #166 dcbatlle

Darwinism-or more accurately evolutionary theory- a framework of how creatures change over time.

Global Warming-A group of computer models that are based off of observations. However, these models predictions are turning out to not be accurate.

This is not the same issues. I disbelieve in global warming, but I am pretty sure that the scientific method will lead us to the truth. If Intelligent design embraces the scientific method, it might lead to the truth.

177 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:27:11pm

re: #174 Moody Leo

I know, I held my nose when I got in the voting booth. I did think it was funny that both were in prison at the same time, a little dark humor never hurts.

Nope, doesn't hurt at all here, that's for sure!

178 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:28:00pm

re: #173 OldLineTexan

Here's what helped me, years and years ago:

Who am I to tell God HOW to do something?

/However, #164 makes a point I attempted in a prior thread. There is already a TON of junk science in our schools, taught under the guise of diversity. Some of our anti-ID crusaders would do well to expand their efforts.

Excellent point!
Gorebul Warming.
Peak oil.
Zero sum economics.

179 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:28:44pm

re: #175 JCM

That's what I'm talking about!

But how they sneak elephants into my Turtletheology? Are they apostates?

EVOLUTION!

or

ELEPHLUTION!

180 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:29:52pm

re: #173 OldLineTexan

Here's what helped me, years and years ago:

Who am I to tell God HOW to do something?

/However, #164 makes a point I attempted in a prior thread. There is already a TON of junk science in our schools, taught under the guise of diversity. Some of our anti-ID crusaders would do well to expand their efforts.

Charles has done that, imo, when he put up the BBC film The Great Global Warming Swindle. I believe that real science will, in time, debunk this myth.

181 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:29:56pm

re: #176 the_vig

Darwinism-or more accurately evolutionary theory- a framework of how creatures change over time.

Global Warming-A group of computer models that are based off of observations. However, these models predictions are turning out to not be accurate.

This is not the same issues. I disbelieve in global warming, but I am pretty sure that the scientific method will lead us to the truth. If Intelligent design embraces the scientific method, it might lead to the truth.

The problem with GW it's been politically hijacked. It's easy enough to shoot holes in it, but as a recent conversation I had they dismiss the facts as irrelevant, it is THE RIGHT THING. Ergo a religious belief.

182 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:31:14pm

re: #176 the_vig

Darwinism-or more accurately evolutionary theory- a framework of how creatures change over time.

Global Warming-A group of computer models that are based off of observations. However, these models predictions are turning out to not be accurate.

This is not the same issues. I disbelieve in global warming, but I am pretty sure that the scientific method will lead us to the truth. If Intelligent design embraces the scientific method, it might lead to the truth.

The intelligent design advocates will never embrace the scientific method. It's anathema to them.

183 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:31:28pm

re: #175 JCM

But how they sneak elephants into my Turtletheology? Are they apostates?


Why do you want to oppress dissenting opinions? What are you afraid of?
///

184 Inquisitive  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:32:26pm

re: #170 Sharmuta

Because parents are the ones who should teach their children about faith, not the public schools.


AGREE! AGREE ! AGREE!---said that---but what do the parents do when it is time for the child to learn about evolution in the science class, tell the child that what the teacher is going to teach them is false, or that the teachers is going to teach them that what they have e learned through there religious teachings is false. That is the dilemma and the point I was trying to get at--Sorry it did not come out that way.

185 kickstar1  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:32:29pm

Charles,

You are just plain wrong in calling ID a 'hoax'. It shows you do not or do not want to understand what it is. It is so weak to just dismiss any arguments they present as 'religion'. I love this site and the work you do but it's just ridiculous and illogical to be so dismissive to ANYTHING ID proponents have to SCIENTIFICALLY offer as a valid argument. To just hold Miller's arguments up as conclusive is weak as well. He has straw man argument all over the freakin' place.

186 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:33:11pm

re: #180 Sharmuta

Just as an aside, I did not suggest that Charles in particular do anything.

I am not so rude, or stupid.

187 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:33:30pm

re: #183 Killgore Trout

Why do you want to oppress dissenting opinions? What are you afraid of?
///

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT THE TURTLES!

188 LotharBot  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:34:26pm

#75 David IV of Georgia

If HaShem was worried about this, He would have given us a detailed blueprint of what was done.
Instead He told through the writings of Moses (Moshe) what He did in a poetical fashion.

Better stated, He told through the writings of Moses how He is different from the stories the Israelites had heard about the Egyptian gods... He creates intentionally rather than accidentally*, He loves what He creates, He is sovereign over all things rather than over only parts (sun, moon, etc.), and He creates completely from scratch rather than partially from already-existing materials.

It's too bad people try to read the early bits of Genesis like a science textbook, rather than like an introduction to THEOLOGY given to a people who'd grown up under Egyptian rule.


* note that "intentional creation" does not preclude evolution, even "random" evolution. It only means that the initial state was carefully chosen to produce the end result via evolution and other processes.

189 fooburger  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:34:44pm

What I can't quite understand, is why christians aren't insulted by the claims of the creationists/ID folks?
I think it's a massive degradation of christianity to attempt to forcibly reconcile it with something as mundane and predictable as science.

Some people perceive evolution to be pointing out some sort of flaw in the Bible. The Bible is flawless by definition. The logic and reason we have used to build and understand evolution are explicitly "God Given" and have no innate flaws as well. The only major, time tested source of flaws in this equation seems to be the reader. This seems so obvious to me.

190 kickstar1  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:35:27pm

re:182

If Intelligent design embraces the scientific method

What is the scientific method? That's whole point of ID -it IS scientific in it's approach unlike creationism which STARTS with the bible while Id does not.

191 metrolibertarian  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:35:36pm

re: #185 kickstar1

Charles,

You are just plain wrong in calling ID a 'hoax'. It shows you do not or do not want to understand what it is. It is so weak to just dismiss any arguments they present as 'religion'. I love this site and the work you do but it's just ridiculous and illogical to be so dismissive to ANYTHING ID proponents have to SCIENTIFICALLY offer as a valid argument. To just hold Miller's arguments up as conclusive is weak as well. He has straw man argument all over the freakin' place.

What do the Intelligent Designers offer that is scientific?

192 cookielady  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:37:33pm

re: #145 Sharmuta

Sharmuta, I am absolutely not going to disagree with you about just about anything. I have great respect for Charles (it IS his blog, period, and he posts what he wants posted and that is his right, just as it is mine to agree or disagree or go elsewhere or never come here again... that's the web); I have great respect for you and for many other lizards. It's just that in my view, the government-controlled system of the 'public schools' was hijacked long, long ago. I have nothing to do with it except for the forced monetary support of taxation. I have very firm Christian beliefs and have learned long ago that the web is not the place to either promote or defend them. They may not be the same as yours (I'm pretty sure they're not), and I will not convince you to change your mind on a blog, nor will you change mine. A blog is not the place for that, and it is not my place to attempt such a thing.

I come to LGF for one reason: it is a community of people who see and understand the one great, overarching danger of our times, a danger so vast that it may well topple civilization itself and send us all back to a barbaric existence. Once people start comparing any part of my admittedly fundamental Christian belief to that of murderous barbarians because their beliefs are also 'fundamental' in nature, I am reminded of how precarious my freedom even in this country can be. I don't try to force my views on anyone here, and I won't get into arguments about it. Strife in the camp is an evil that the real enemy can take swift advantage of, and I refuse to be part of it.

So, my only reasonable course of action is to quietly fade away. If this is a new focus for LGF, then I will be deeply disappointed. It won't affect anyone here; nor should it. It will, however, thin the ranks of lizards to those who absolutely agree with the premise that is being presented by the Gorn of Gorns. So be it, if that is the way he wishes it to be. Meanwhile, those who have been gently shown the door will no longer be a welcome part of the groundswell against the Great Danger... and we all need each other, to stick together and continue the fight.

I'll just avoid these threads and the ones where this stuff spills over. That's all I can do, if I want to be here at all. That's all I'm saying.

Lizard love,
cookielady

193 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:37:35pm

re: #184 Inquisitive

I guess yes- that's what they'll have to do. Parents who want to tell their children that evolution is false have that right, but they do not have the right to force the teacher to educate other people's children in the faith of other children's parents.

194 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:37:57pm

Having a "religion bad, science good" argument, or a "science bad, religion good" argument, is pointless and worse.

Without good science and technology, our economy dries up, and our health care disintegrates. Our standard of living depends on good science and technology.

Using religion to destroy good science divides our nation pointlessly, and cripples our childrens' minds. If you're a Christian, you believe that Jesus came to free humanity from the shackles of their own religious ignorance. If you're a Jew, you believe that G-d sent Moses to free the Hebrew slaves in Egypt. True religion is about freedom, not enslavement.

195 OldLineTexan  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:39:00pm

re: #193 Sharmuta

I guess yes- that's what they'll have to do. Parents who want to tell their children that evolution is false have that right, but they do not have the right to force the teacher to educate other people's children in the faith of other children's parents.

Unless it's Islam week at the junior high. Then all bets are off.

196 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:39:34pm

re: #192 cookielady

No one is being "shown the door." If you choose to leave because I sincerely believe in the scientific method and refuse to be fooled by religious special interest groups, that's a choice you'll have to make on your own.

197 jaunte  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:40:43pm

re: #190 kickstar1

The scientific approach would require the ID scientist to propose a hypothesis about intelligent design, which could be tested with an experiment.
So far the work is a critique of other theory, without an alternate proposal put forth.

198 mobaby  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:41:34pm

Evolution has held the day in public schools for generations. We have watched as our schools have blossomed into such a wonderful institutions of rigorous inquiry and excellence! All those theistic schools that outscore the public schools on standardized tests are CHEATERS! This is an obvious truth as their education is being "held back" by their beliefs.

199 metrolibertarian  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:43:58pm

re: #198 mobaby

Evolution has held the day in public schools for generations. We have watched as our schools have blossomed into such a wonderful institutions of rigorous inquiry and excellence! All those theistic schools that outscore the public schools on standardized tests are CHEATERS! This is an obvious truth as their education is being "held back" by their beliefs.

Because belief in Darwinian evolution negatively affects one's abilities in math and grammar...

200 KICKSTAR1  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:45:41pm

re: #191 metrolibertarian

Read Darwin's black box and YOU tell me why it is not scientific (at least as a layman's starting point).

Let me guess -because Miller said so?

201 ploome hineni[deleted]  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:45:49pm
202 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:45:56pm

re: #192 cookielady

And I can respect that cookielady. And I sure hope you don't think I'm asking you to change your beliefs, for that was not my intent. I agree there is a serious problem with our education system, but I don't believe that the solution is to further weaken it.

I think one of the reasons so many Lizards come to LGF is because we don't want someone pushing their religious beliefs onto us- mainly islam. Well- I hope you understand that for me and others, we also don't want someone else's idea of Christianity forced on our kids. Not because it's comparable to islam, but it's the forcing in general. I cherish my freedom of religion. I don't push anyone to believe as I believe, and all I ask is they grant me the same respect. It's not up to the public schools recruit kids into any religion.

I hope you have a nice night, and I hope to see you on some other threads.

203 wolfie  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:45:59pm

re: #164 czekmark

Unless you have been leading a cloistured life you would know that our 'brave new schools' are teaching our children to be good Muslims, homosexuals and other diversified multi-culture values. If that is permissible as it apparently is, I see no problem with bringing Intelligent Design into the class room.

Let me say first that I DO see a problem with bringing ID into the classroom of a public school. I am definitely opposed to it for many reasons, some of them being the same as those of Charles and some being a bit different.

I nevertheless sympathize greatly with the first part of your statement.
The number of generously funded wedge strategies, as it were, assaulting public education everyday in the name of secular or pseudo-secular ideologies makes the Discovery Institute's game look like tiddly winks.

I realize, too, that the courts, the media, and elite opinion stand against the ID promoters........for which I am glad, I must say....... while they positively endorse and promote ideological agenda in conformity with their own beliefs. It is frustrating to see the double standard at play here, as if anything "non-religious" can be shoved down our children's throats while the only thing that can be censored is the mere whisper of God.

I don't know what the answer is to this problem, but I do know that trying to force ID into science classes...or typing classes....or PE classes... is NOT it.

I guess I'm just saying I disagree strongly w/ your conclusions, but I sincerely understand if you're angry and frustrated about public education. I am, too.

204 JCM  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:46:02pm

re: #198 mobaby

Evolution has held the day in public schools for generations. We have watched as our schools have blossomed into such a wonderful institutions of rigorous inquiry and excellence! All those theistic schools that outscore the public schools on standardized tests are CHEATERS! This is an obvious truth as their education is being "held back" by their beliefs.

You can't blame evolution per se. Schools have been taken over by secular humanism, moral relativism, false self esteem, "me"ism, and socialism. Evolution if taught correctly as science is the least of the worries.

205 mobaby  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:47:00pm

re: #198 mobaby

Evolution has held the day in public schools for generations. We have watched as our schools have blossomed into such a wonderful institutions of rigorous inquiry and excellence! All those theistic schools that outscore the public schools on standardized tests are CHEATERS! This is an obvious truth as their education is being "held back" by their beliefs.

Because belief in Darwinian evolution negatively affects one's abilities in math and grammar...

NO - because belief in God holds you back! They are obviously cheating.

206 wolfie  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:47:53pm

re: #169 Moody Leo

Mr Duke was only a State Rep of District 81 in the state of Louisiana from1989 to 1992, and he ran several unsuccessful campaigns for various offices. I remember when he ran for Governor against Edwards and it was one of the only times I voted Democrat.

Thanks for that info! I thought some folks were trashing Louisiana unfairly there, but didn't remember the facts........except that he lost the govr's race.

207 doubleplusundead  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:48:28pm

Great, I see that LGF is gonna get sucked into the Creation/ID/Evolution slapfight too. The sad part about all this is it is simply a distraction from the larger problem of the public school system monopoly.

If at the very least vouchers were permitted, you'd not only make every side of this argument happy (except those that want to decide what your kid learns), but allowing for some privatization and and competition in our education system would improve it vastly, for Creation/ID/Evolution supporters alike.

Social/religious conservatives seem to have a tendency to try and treat symptoms of problems, not root causes. Mike Huckabee is a walking example of this, with his brainless slamming of small government conservatives, libertarians, his demagoguing corporations and the free market, and his chronic Nanny Statism.

Religious/social conservatives, instead of seeking to change the system to allow them the freedom to choose how their children are educated, continue this futile effort to bulldoze ID through the courts. I don't care if you think ID is bogus, I don't buy it either, but with privatization you'd be free to find a better, private secular/evolution only school as well.

208 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:50:11pm

re: #198 mobaby

Evolution has held the day in public schools for generations. We have watched as our schools have blossomed into such a wonderful institutions of rigorous inquiry and excellence! All those theistic schools that outscore the public schools on standardized tests are CHEATERS! This is an obvious truth as their education is being "held back" by their beliefs.

What a crock. I just spoke with a 6 year old over the weekend who attends Catholic school. He's not even in first grade and he's reading and writing, and because it's a Catholic school, he'll be taught *gasp* evolution!

Private schools are out preforming public schools because that's what the parents are paying for.

209 cookielady  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:50:30pm

re: #196 Charles

No one is being "shown the door." If you choose to leave because I sincerely believe in the scientific method and refuse to be fooled by religious special interest groups, that's a choice you'll have to make on your own.

No, no! I don't mean that you are kicking people out. There's just some serious pressure being applied to those who disagree to shut up or get out. That's human nature. I did say, Charles, that if people left, if I chose to not come here as often, or whatever, it would not affect anyone here. I just feel that it weakens us all when we squabble about things like this.

I guess I should have followed my first instincts and just moved on instead of reading the thread and then having the temerity to comment on a comment. No offense meant, sir.

210 metrolibertarian  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:51:24pm

re: #200 KICKSTAR1

re: #191 metrolibertarian

Read Darwin's black box and YOU tell me why it is not scientific (at least as a layman's starting point).

Let me guess -because Miller said so?

As a starting point, because they offer absolutely no disprovable hypothesis for the origins of the universe. Whereas people who believe in the evolutionary process as the basis of our formation believe the Big Bang created the universe, planets, heavens, etc, the IDers offer nothing beyond "irreduceable complexity" which just goes back to the non-disprovable hypothesis some greater being just made this all.

211 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:53:31pm

re: #207 doubleplusundead

The problem with teaching kids in a private school about ID is the colleges are still rejecting that as applicable science credits that count towards admissions. Here's an article on that subject. IIRC, the UC system won.

Do a little research and you'll see that ID has lost in court over and over again.

212 mobaby  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:56:30pm

re: #208 Sharmuta

What a crock. I just spoke with a 6 year old over the weekend who attends Catholic school. He's not even in first grade and he's reading and writing, and because it's a Catholic school, he'll be taught *gasp* evolution!

Private schools are out preforming public schools because that's what the parents are paying for.

And I hope this 6 year old in a Catholic School is being taught that G-d had nothing to do with it - otherwise she is being held back.

What are those in public school paying for?

213 wolfie  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:56:42pm

re: #204 JCM

You can't blame evolution per se. Schools have been taken over by secular humanism, moral relativism, false self esteem, "me"ism, and socialism. Evolution if taught correctly as science is the least of the worries.

AMEN !

214 Mars Needs Neocons  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:57:57pm

re: #208 Sharmuta

What a crock. I just spoke with a 6 year old over the weekend who attends Catholic school. He's not even in first grade and he's reading and writing, and because it's a Catholic school, he'll be taught *gasp* evolution!

Private schools are out preforming public schools because that's what the parents are paying for.

In don't think there is really any point in talking to that. His comments and his nic have me thinking he really is a "mobaby" without a couple letters.

215 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:58:05pm

re: #212 mobaby

And I hope this 6 year old in a Catholic School is being taught that G-d had nothing to do with it - otherwise she is being held back.

Don't be a sexist- it was a boy.

What are those in public school paying for?

Glorified babysitting.

216 Inquisitive  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 6:59:48pm

re: #173 OldLineTexan

Here's what helped me, years and years ago:

Who am I to tell God HOW to do something?/However, #164 makes a point I attempted in a prior thread. There is already a TON of junk science in our schools, taught under the guise of diversity. Some of our anti-ID crusaders would do well to expand their efforts.

Thank you I will keep this in mind as I do more reading on this subject. It does really have my interest peaked, because I know I am on that fine line---I do BELIEVE in "Biology Evolution--hereditary ,genes/DNA passing from one generation to other BUT not ready to give up on what My religious BELIEVE is; that GOD created all. And that brings me to the problem of what I believe should or should not be taught in science class in our public schools. I will ask some of the posters here to bare with me as I question this. I DO NOT want to push my believes on others children in school, but at this time I don't see why others should be able to push thier believes(and that would be evolution) on others that do not believe that way.

217 doubleplusundead  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:00:20pm

re: #211 Sharmuta

The problem with teaching kids in a private school about ID is the colleges are still rejecting that as applicable science credits that count towards admissions. Here's an article on that subject. IIRC, the UC system won.

Do a little research and you'll see that ID has lost in court over and over again.

Their choice, parents and students would have to do their homework and make the cost/benefit decision on their own. Parents would be on their own to recognize their student may not be accepted to certain schools because of it, but the good news is that there are lots of private colleges too, and they might open themselves up, or new colleges would develop. Allowing the liberty to choose your child's education, and a more free market in education is vastly preferable to the current situation.

218 metrolibertarian  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:02:55pm

re: #216 Inquisitive

Thank you I will keep this in mind as I do more reading on this subject. It does really have my interest peaked, because I know I am on that fine line---I do BELIEVE in "Biology Evolution--hereditary ,genes/DNA passing from one generation to other BUT not ready to give up on what My religious BELIEVE is; that GOD created all. And that brings me to the problem of what I believe should or should not be taught in science class in our public schools. I will ask some of the posters here to bare with me as I question this. I DO NOT want to push my believes on others children in school, but at this time I don't see why others should be able to push thier believes(and that would be evolution) on others that do not believe that way.

Science classes aren't supposed to teach anything related to theocratic belief. If a science teacher is forcing students to deny the existence of God, he or she is just as awful as any teacher in a science class trying to teach that God definitely exists. The problem with the IDers they believe not mentioning God is akin to denying His existence, whereas 99% of the time they are simply teaching how life came into being.

219 wolfie  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:05:08pm

re: #211 Sharmuta

The problem with teaching kids in a private school about ID is the colleges are still rejecting that as applicable science credits that count towards admissions. Here's an article on that subject. IIRC, the UC system won.

Do a little research and you'll see that ID has lost in court over and over again.


Public colleges or accreditation associations have no business telling any private school that they can't teach ID, literal Creationism, or Turtles. They can and SHOULD require students to know accepted mainstream material in the various disciplines before awarding credit in them.

There is a big difference between those two things.

220 doubleplusundead  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:05:42pm

re: #211 Sharmuta
Do a little research and you'll see that ID has lost in court over and over again.

As for this, that was exactly my point, IDers and creationists should pursue privatization or vouchers for exactly that reason, they're wasting their time with this court nonsense. All these efforts to bulldoze ID and Creation through the courts are futile. With privatization and vouchers, they bypass the courts, which they will never beat, and their efforts would ultimately benefit everyone if they succeeded, because it would ultimately break up the government run monopoly that our public schools have become.

221 mobaby  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:10:45pm

re: #215 Sharmuta

Well - he's being held back too ;) As long as he knows the risks of such teachings. He may have already lost the opportunity to become a doctor if his mind has become polluted with the idea that G-d could possibly be involved in some way with the existence of the universe.

222 Dr. Stu  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:12:58pm

Would one ID scientist please give just one example of a specific molecular biology experiment that would test ID?

I have to say that this pro-ID push is and will continue having real consequences on Christian scientists such as myself because we are automatically held with suspicion of being an ID/young-earth creationist, and being labeled as not real scientists and not taken seriously even if we do not hold these views.

223 Cato  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:14:46pm

re: #77 pegcity

I have no idea what you are saying

224 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:16:52pm

re: #214 Mars Needs Neocons

I think you might be right. This one's being intentionally obfuscatory.

225 J.S.  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:18:30pm

Sooo, according to the Discover Institute -- a hypothesis is defined as "Hypothesis: If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects." Actually, that simply does not meet the requirements for a "hypothesis." The most important requirement of a hypothesis is that its consequent be testable through observation or experiment. The consequent must be specific and exactly stated so that the hypothesis can be verified or refuted by reference to the facts.

As others have noted, suppose you walk into a desert and you see an arch (if you visit southern Alberta or Saskatchewan's "bad lands" you'll find limestone formations -- arches, for example, created from wind and water erosion. So, you think that's a product of "intelligent design?" or the product of natural forces (wind/water erosion)? Next, how then would you differentiate in your "hypothesis" an archway created by man?

226 jaunte  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:20:30pm

re: #223 Cato
"Darwin did nothing more than get the ball rolling."

I think the poster means this:
Evoutionary thought has changed since Darwin:

1883-1886 Weismann's neo-Darwinism
End of soft inheritance; diploidy and genetic recombination recognized

1900 Mendelism
Genetic constancy accepted and blending inheritance rejected

1918-1933 Fisherism
Evolution considered to be a matter of gene frequencies and the force of even small selection pressures

1936-1947 Evolutionary synthesis
Population thinking emphasized; interest in the evolution of diversity, geographic speciation, variable evolutionary rates

1947-1972 Post-Synthesis
Individual increasingly seen as target of selection; a more holistic approach; increased recognition of chance and constraints

1954-1972 Punctuated equilibria
Importance of speciational evolution

1969-1980 Rediscovery of importance of sexual selection
Importance of reproductive success for selection

227 mobaby  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:34:03pm

re: #224 Sharmuta

My point is that belief or disbelief in evolution and/or G-d has absolutely ZERO to do with one's ability or inability to excel in education - be a scientist or a doctor. The entire idea that people will be "held back" because they don't believe in evolution is illustrated as absurd by looking at those that inhabit the world around us. Can one be a theist AND a good doctor - absolutely, how could anyone believe otherwise!

228 zmdavid  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:36:52pm

Is everyone certain that the Louisiana Coalition for Science and Jindal's old professor are correct in their interpretation of this legislation?

229 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:37:39pm

re: #227 mobaby

Can one be a theist AND a good doctor - absolutely, how could anyone believe otherwise!

And I don't think anyone is saying scientists cannot believe in God, but I would say that not having a full understanding of the scientific method might hold you back from pursuing a job in the science fields. How could anyone believe otherwise?

230 Josephine  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:37:50pm

re: #184 Inquisitive

AGREE! AGREE ! AGREE!---said that---but what do the parents do when it is time for the child to learn about evolution in the science class, tell the child that what the teacher is going to teach them is false, or that the teachers is going to teach them that what they have e learned through there religious teachings is false. That is the dilemma and the point I was trying to get at--Sorry it did not come out that way.

This is one of the many places where religious doctrine comes face to face with the real world.

You can tell them that scientists have proven such-and-such but have not been able to disprove (or prove) the existence of God. That scientists have not explained to our faith's satisfaction how the universe was created, how life came to be and, more importantly, about our souls and their final disposition. That answering the question about our spirits -- that spark within us -- is more important to us than the question about exactly how our physical lives first came to be. That our family believes this-and-that about God and His role in the universe and that science may or may not align with these beliefs but, either way, this is what we believe.

Our kids will have to sort it out for themselves at some point in their lives. Will they continue with our faith, change faiths or have no faith at all? If their religious conviction can't withstand, or coexist with, the teaching of known, proven science, they're most likely going to have a problem with it at some point down the road.

(Just my two cents.)

231 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:38:04pm

re: #228 zmdavid

yes

232 mobaby  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 7:57:25pm

re: #229 Sharmuta

I understand the scientific method. I worked in research labs for a number of years. I did not believe in evolution. I knew many researchers who did not believe in atheistic evolution. Our research results were not invalidated because we did not hold to the orthodox belief system. Evolution had absolutely nothing to do with the DNA sequencing, western blots, patch clamping, etc. that I did - and my disbelief in it in no way inhibited my research. Belief that G-d exists can actually bring meaning to scientific inquiry as we seek to understand creation. We look for similarities, patterns, how things work - meaning in the world around us. We're not looking for randomness.

233 Bosk  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:04:01pm

re: #140 Charles

As a Christian Charles, on ID I totally agree with you. As a Christian I have to say ID is a hoax as it denies the relevance of the book known as Genesis. Without Genesis there is no basis for the rest of the Bible and no need for God's gift of grace. However I do have questions in understanding the "theory" of evolution. One of which is, is the reason it is still a theory is because it has to violate scientific law to actually work?

234 mobaby  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:09:45pm

re: #220 doubleplusundead

I agree - we should pull out of the public school system. My kids are attending an academically rigorous private religious school. Those who have graduated from school don't seem to realize how much they have been "held back" by what they have been taught as they have excelled in many different fields. As for the public schools where we live - I wouldn't dream of sending our kids there. In the past 3 years there have been 2 rapes in the high school. Students living up to the high standard of meaninglessness set before them.

235 fooburger  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:23:29pm

re: #233 Bosk

Everything in science is a theory. Even the 'law' of gravity and the 'laws' of thermodynamics. It may not hold true tomorrow, or tomorrow we may discover that it is 'off' by a very small correction (which it is, in the newtonian sense). You can probably accurately use 'law' to something that is excessively tested and predictable, but it doesn't really mean anything significantly different....

"Sorry cap'n, you canna break the laws of physics.."
"Sorry cap'n, you canna break the well tested theories of physics.."

same thing...

236 Mekan  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:25:37pm

Well thanks for the fun reading Charles et al. After struggling to have a conversation about ID for a few months on this site, I see there is really no point. There is a inability for many to see past the dogma and faith they have been brought up with. It is sad. They don't even realize that what they complain about ID is true of evolution as well.

Not that it matters to any, but it feels good to say, I take my leave.

237 Inquisitive  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:34:07pm

re: #230 Josephine

This is one of the many places where religious doctrine comes face to face with the real world.

You can tell them that scientists have proven such-and-such but have not been able to disprove (or prove) the existence of God. That scientists have not explained to our faith's satisfaction how the universe was created, how life came to be and, more importantly, about our souls and their final disposition. That answering the question about our spirits -- that spark within us -- is more important to us than the question about exactly how our physical lives first came to be. That our family believes this-and-that about God and His role in the universe and that science may or may not align with these beliefs but, either way, this is what we believe.

Our kids will have to sort it out for themselves at some point in their lives. Will they continue with our faith, change faiths or have no faith at all? If their religious conviction can't withstand, or coexist with, the teaching of known, proven science, they're most likely going to have a problem with it at some point down the road.

(Just my two cents.)


I am glad that some are starting to see the position that some parents are being put in, and you gave a very eloquent explanation that a parent can give to their child regarding what they have been taught by there parents and church, as it should be, but are now being made to learn they came in existence a totally different way in their science class at school--is that not undermining what others have said to be the parents responsibly? BUT......... No, I will quit here --I am just going to do more reading--I think that is the best thing for me to do at this point. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ID ANY LONGER TO ME---I DO NOT BELIEVE IT BELONGS IN THE SCIENCE CLASS EITHER. Now I will gladly slink off and read, read, read!

238 jaunte  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:35:25pm

re: #236 Mekan

Ave atque vale.

239 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:43:51pm

re: #196 Charles

No one is being "shown the door." If you choose to leave because I sincerely believe in the scientific method and refuse to be fooled by religious special interest groups, that's a choice you'll have to make on your own.

There has been a lot of speculation since the 'Ben Stein--Expelled' thread about Charles enacting a 'purge'. However, it is now clear that Charles believes in natural selection, and will let it do the job. ;)

240 jaunte  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:44:23pm

re: #239 medaura18586

Hi medaura, how's life?

241 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:47:41pm

re: #240 jaunte

Hey jaunte,

Life is good, lazy hazy summer days are rolling by in NYC. My husband is going nuts as I type (a life-long Celtics fan).

How are you and your family?

242 jaunte  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:48:53pm

re: #241 medaura18586

All is well, everyone good; if only the humidity wasn't 84%.

243 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:51:23pm

It's that bad, huh? I'm going on a weekend trip to New Orleans this weekend, hope it's not that oppressive.

Are you having fun in those threads?

244 adilo  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:52:36pm

ID's mistake is that it misidentifies the 'designer' ...placing it on the wrong scale.
Impossibly complex systems arise based simply on the rules.
It is the rules that do the designing.
And the rules are not in question.
Looking for the 'designer'? Start looking for the rule maker.

245 jaunte  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:54:47pm

re: #243 medaura18586

It's slightly better in New Orleans; 68% tonight, but it's the steamy south, so get ready. Sounds like fun.
Mostly lurking in the ID threads. It's surprising how few read the actual points that Charles is making.

246 Josephine  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:55:05pm

re: #237 Inquisitive

...is that not undermining what others have said to be the parents responsibly?

Thank you. ; )

We can look at the above quote another way, too:

This is the same thing that some Muslim parents are saying about having the Holocaust taught to their children in school.

It is not the public school's responsibility to reinforce a child's religious teachings.

And with that, I'm off to bed. Good night, all.

247 funkyfantom  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 8:56:50pm

re: #97 Charles

This is insulting and false. The post above makes it very clear that there is NO Christian-bashing going on.

There are many Christians who refuse to buy into this hoax. It's simply dishonest to try to tie belief in God to belief in intelligent design.

Don't bother to try to argue with Charles- he has exhibited just about the same level of open-mindedness on ID as you might find with the people on Kos who rant on Bush and Cheney.

He'll never read Behe's books or struggle with the difficult science in them - all he cares about is that many scientists have called Behe a fraud, so for him- the case is closed in his mind.

Much easier than have to wrestle with the science. But also a lot less fun- I'm going to read and post to LGF for another few minutes and then have some enjoyment reading Behe right now!

248 funkyfantom  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 9:02:38pm

re: #220 doubleplusundead

Do a little research and you'll see that ID has lost in court over and over again.

As for this, that was exactly my point, IDers and creationists should pursue privatization or vouchers for exactly that reason, they're wasting their time with this court nonsense. All these efforts to bulldoze ID and Creation through the courts are futile. With privatization and vouchers, they bypass the courts, which they will never beat, and their efforts would ultimately benefit everyone if they succeeded, because it would ultimately break up the government run monopoly that our public schools have become.

I have read critical reviews of Behe's books by actual scientists
- it is quite amusing to see the main criticisms couched in terms of the court victories - they actually trumpet the opinions of legal scholars as being more significant than scientists.

It is mind-blowing.

249 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 9:05:37pm

Michael Behe is a fraud, and every one of his pseudo-theories has been completely debunked. Sorry if you don't want to hear this, but it's true, no matter how may times you bring it up.

And by the way, it's possible to be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

250 Charles  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 9:13:01pm

Just for the record, so far tonight I've gotten 4 hate mails from creationists; one said I would burn in hell, the others just told me they hated me now and would never come back because I "bash Christians."

251 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 9:14:06pm

re: #245 jaunte

I am on the lurking side myself.

When I was little, and even as a teenager, I loved discussing these issues (creationism vs evolution). Now I could care less, and at the end of the day, no one is likely to get converted, nor is it important that anyone gets convinced, so long as we live in a free country where no one can push their religious agenda down someone else's throat.

That's the real issue though. This is not just about subverting the teaching of science in school and the inherent dangers to this, but religionists in general insinuating themselves in the cultural life of the nation through its public institutions.

Today they want to tell you what to teach your kids, tomorrow they will try to tell you what to do, how to live your life.

I know better now than to personally debate with people so willingly blind and deaf, but Charles' blog has a powerful voice, and kudos to him for speaking out.

252 Richard Romano  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 9:14:46pm
“Without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn’t make sense. In order for today’s students in Louisiana to succeed in college and beyond, in order for them to take the fullest advantages of all that the 21st century will offer

This is such an absurd statement -- what did someone like Joseph Lister do when it came to his pioneering work in antiseptic surgery? Did he need evolution to bring about this development? No, because this has to do with operational science, not origins science.

To use the epithet "hoax" next to ID is pure projectionism -- what about Nebraska man? The Haeckel embryonic sequencing fraud? Java man? Darwinism has plenty of skeletons in its closet, but sadly good people like Charles don't mention these much.

253 Richard Romano  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 9:17:15pm

re: #250 Charles

They are not the norm, only crazies muddying the waters. Most creationists will respectfully disagree. As I do.

254 jaunte  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 9:22:38pm

re: #251 medaura18586

I do have a concern with the unintended consequences of the ID movement.
Once they get that door open, there's no control over who comes through it.

255 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 9:23:34pm

re: #250 Charles

What do you expect? You are destroying their self-esteem by confronting them with the devastating truth. I think deep down a lot of these young-earthers et al know that their positions are moon-bat-shit crazy, and they need others to play along with them to construct a mass-scale collective hallucinatory reality.

When anyone is as rude as to counter them with facts, they feel condescended upon, threatened, and offended. No one here bashed Christians, but the creationists feel bashed nevertheless. Facts prick their bubble, and they won't forgive you for it.

Do you think (or know whether) any of those telling you to go to hell have accounts at LGF?

256 adilo  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 9:25:36pm

Evolution!
[Link: www.newscientist.com...]

257 mobaby  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 9:45:26pm

re: #250 Charles

Hate mail proves your right! Just ask Jerry Falwell. That's good science.

258 Idaho  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 10:23:04pm

The difficulty for the believing Christian in denouncing "intelligent design" is that we all, by definition, to a limited agree, believe in it. Jindal is a sincere Catholic. Nothing in his religious tradition requires him to believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament; thus, there is no inconsistency between evolution and his religious beliefs. At the same time, as one who believes in an all-powerful creator, he must necessarily believe that the world was created and that science, the study of what has been created, reveals something about the creator and how he creates. It shows that He has, as J.B.S. Haldane supposedly said, an inordinate fondness for beetles. It also shows that He has created the creatures that exist today by means of the evolution of the creatures that existed yesterday. Evolution, in this view, is merely the means by which God carries out his designs. This is not a scientific conclusion, but it is a logical one if one assumes that evolution is true and that there is a God. However, science cannot, consistent with its purpose, solve a problem by presuming the existence of God, which is what Intelligent Design tries to do. Thus, I conclude that ID is bad theology and worse science, even while agreeing with the fundamental assertion of its proponents, which is that God created the universe. I simply don't believe that science is capable of proving it -- or disproving it.

259 mobaby  Tue, Jun 17, 2008 10:47:05pm

Neither is science capable of proving orgins came without a G-d. Materialism has had a bad effect upon rational and logical discussion. Logic is reserved wrongly for those things which can be proven materially. And completely divorced from other spheres. This is from whence relativism sprang.

Logic can be applied in public discourse, decision making, ethics and morals, theology, governmental philosophy, aesthetics, and a host of other non material, or non provable disciplines, which are essential for a culture to thrive.

Our overvaluing of what is absolutely provable (materialism) is actually what began the end of the Great Conversation of Western Civilization.

Charles we don't need to fight Islamofascism as much as we need to renew again the GREAT CONVERSATION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Western CIV is dying because it is killing itself on the altar of materialism, relativisim and a host of other isms, which are nothing more than conceptual idolatries which end the conversation.

Your blog is one of many reopening the conversations, thanks.

260 Salem  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 12:47:40am

BIG MATERIAL IS RIPPING US OFF!

261 Jimmy The Clam  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 1:47:52am

re: #250 Charles

Just for the record, so far tonight I've gotten 4 hate mails from creationists; one said I would burn in hell, the others just told me they hated me now and would never come back because I "bash Christians."

Subtly, that HAS been the very same feeling I have been getting from you for a couple of months.
You can think ill of Christians all you want Charles, but never overtly say, yet it still comes through.
Sometimes I feel like I need to check the post to see if it is from you or Killgore Trout.

Personally, I don't have a dog in the ID fight and most outright creationists are pretty nutters and could be considered anti-science in many respects.
But you are little different and at times (on this issue) it seem just the other side of the coin, but not any more rational about your beliefs.
You believe what you believe and that's that.
I do find your disparaging of those that don't share your beliefs, yet are willing to honestly discuss the issue. You instead create straw men and then proceed to take the week whacker to them, even though it was not the argument to begin-with.

Frequently you post your hate mail, why not post some of that same "hate mail" you received tonight?
I would love to see it.

I think you should take this Winston Churchill quote to heart Charles.

“A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.”
262 hurricane567  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 2:01:26am

I shot the man i voted for an e-mail stating that i was against ID. Plain and simple.

263 Mats  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 5:45:19am

Medicine needs evolutionary nonsense?! Since when?! Goodness.


Is that why 60% of american doctors reject the full bown darwinian myth?

264 Land Shark  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 7:12:00am

As a Christian and a firm believer in Intelligent Design, I wish my fellow believers would cease and desist in their misguided efforts to force science classes to teach ID. I've said it before and I'll say it again, ID is a matter of faith. It's not a proveable or disproveable scientific concept. Science works best when it's allowed to be just science. The spirit of free scientific inquiry in the West is what's allowed science to make the great advances and discoveries.

How would people of faith like it if churches were forced to teach evolution along with their sermons? I know I wouldn't like it. Let's give unto science what is due to science, let's give unto God what is due to God. Darwin is not a threat to my faith in God. Is he a threat to yours?

265 trendsurfer  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 7:28:38am

re: #16 infidel Alan

Everybody knows "intelligent design" is a Trojan horse to insert creationism into science classes where it doesn't belong. How could both houses of the LA legislature fall for this?

I can't think of a better reason to vote for Democrats in state and local election than this kind of nonsense. Is this what conservatives want when they promote the virtues of Federalism?

266 Charles  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 8:38:30am

re: #263 Mats

Medicine needs evolutionary nonsense?! Since when?! Goodness.


Is that why 60% of american doctors reject the full bown darwinian myth?

Got a link for that ridiculous assertion?

And yes, medicine has benefited enormously from evolutionary science.

267 TexasPatriot  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 10:28:09am

re: #266 Charles

I think he is talking about this study by the Louis Finkelstein Institute. Question 7 supports his claim.

268 Charles  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 10:52:05am

HCD Research Inc.

NEW YORK, NY, May 23, 2005 – Results of a national survey of 1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design.

The study was conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research at The Jewish Theological Seminary and HCD Research in Flemington, New Jersey, from May 13-15. The study was conducted as part of a continuing investigation of the social, political, and economic issues confronting the U.S. health care system. The margin of error for the study was plus or minus 3% at a 95% level of confidence.

The responses were analyzed based on the religious affiliation. Among the findings:

When asked whether they agree more with intelligent design or evolution, an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (88%) and more than half of Catholic doctors (60%) said they agree more with evolution, while slightly more than half of Protestants (54%) agree more with intelligent design.

A majority of Catholic doctors (67%) agree with the statement that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings, while 11% believe that "God created humans exactly as they appear now." By contrast, less than half of Protestant doctors (46%) believe that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process, while 35% believe that God created humans as they appear now. The majority of Jewish doctors (65%) agree more with the statement that %u201Chumans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.%u201D

The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution rather than reject it and, of those, Jews are most positive (94%), Catholics are next (86%) followed by Protestants (59%).

Half of the doctors (50%) believe that schools should be allowed (but not required) to teach intelligent design.

More than half of Catholic doctors (62%) feel that schools should be allowed (not required) to teach intelligent design, conversely, more than half of Jewish doctors (59%) believe that schools should be prohibited from teaching intelligent design.

When asked whether intelligent design has legitimacy as science, an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply %u201Ca religiously inspired pseudo- science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation,%u201D while more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a %u201Clegitimate scientific speculation.%u201D

269 nikis-knight  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 10:58:53am

re: #2 buzzsawmonkey

Fie upon those who would vote the human brain out of existence.

Wow, that's worse hyperbole than "Vote or Die!"

270 Sharmuta  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 11:01:48am

re: #254 jaunte

I do have a concern with the unintended consequences of the ID movement.
Once they get that door open, there's no control over who comes through it.

This cannot be stressed enough, jaunte!

271 rismee  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 12:03:17pm

The aim of such materials, the bill says, is to promote “critical thinking skills, logical analysis and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied,” including evolution.

hmmm... logical analysis and open and objective discussion of scientific theories. how dare they.

272 Charles  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 2:47:03pm

re: #271 rismee

The aim of such materials, the bill says, is to promote “critical thinking skills, logical analysis and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied,” including evolution.

hmmm... logical analysis and open and objective discussion of scientific theories. how dare they.

This is completely missing the point -- this language is in the bill because it's a dishonest attempt to promote the creationist agenda.

273 The Albatross  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 3:37:02pm

re: #264 Land Shark

I can agree with that whole heartedly. But I am also intrigued by the effort to legislate politically what heretofore was the professional or academic realm. What is the problem that they DI and any other organization that backs these bills that they feel legislation would accomplish?

I don't think it's just an horrible plan to get a foot back in to public education... though it appears they have been successful in at least Louisiana for a time (I think the decision will ultimately be overturned).

I don't think secularism in public schools is bad education. I'd like to discover the deeper motivation for why this issue became political.

274 parkbenn  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 7:48:13pm

if you ask me, and frankly, you need to, it doth seem to me that the pro-darwin peeps are bordering on the edge of the hysteria they claim the creationists to exhibit.....you pro-darwin types doth protest a bit too much

plus if you all think we are evolving, as someone else pointed out in the thread, take a look around...just WHO is evolving? people in europe? bush? congress? hillary? Americans? O-BAM-uh? congress? just who in THEE HECK do you evolutionists think are evolving?

275 Zoomie  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 9:26:42pm

Charles...you've got a great site. Way past a blog. great technology. Great Design.

You got a lot of leverage here to say the least. So if you are going to pound on ID, would it be OK to ask you to fill in the blanks sometimes?

Are you a creationist and just want it kept out of the classroom?

Or do you like the materialist model? Do you think we descended from a common ancestor by genetic accident and the mechanism of survival of the fittest? Kind of the classic neo Darwinism?

276 Charles  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 9:28:01pm

re: #275 Zoomie

Charles...you've got a great site. Way past a blog. great technology. Great Design.

You got a lot of leverage here to say the least. So if you are going to pound on ID, would it be OK to ask you to fill in the blanks sometimes?

Are you a creationist and just want it kept out of the classroom?

Or do you like the materialist model? Do you think we descended from a common ancestor by genetic accident and the mechanism of survival of the fittest? Kind of the classic neo Darwinism?

Did you follow any of the links in the article above?

277 Zoomie  Wed, Jun 18, 2008 9:45:25pm

Charles #268

You are a man of integrity to pull that in.

Here is the spin. Half the 'protestant' docs and (it implies) 49% of the 'catholic' docs think that ID is legitimate scientific speculation. It does not make them right. But it does not make them deceivers or hoax masters either. I don't think they are part of a grand conspiracy to perpetuate a hoax or to drive a wedge. Its more like the air they breath. "Yeah I can see the creation. Yes I sense God in my spirit. Yes I think it is plausible that this was created..." and it goes from there.

And sense evolution is so massively documented and proven, it will not be destroyed by a comparison with ID. Unless it happens in the classroom and then apparently ID becomes the ring that controls them all and utterly destroys the big E. ... I don't think so. (pssst, It is OK to talk about it)

278 Zoomie  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 5:08:59am

mobaby #259

You nailed it!

279 Land Shark  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 6:51:02am

re: #273 The Albatross

I can agree with that whole heartedly. But I am also intrigued by the effort to legislate politically what heretofore was the professional or academic realm. What is the problem that they DI and any other organization that backs these bills that they feel legislation would accomplish?

I don't think it's just an horrible plan to get a foot back in to public education... though it appears they have been successful in at least Louisiana for a time (I think the decision will ultimately be overturned).

I don't think secularism in public schools is bad education. I'd like to discover the deeper motivation for why this issue became political.

I'm not sure what they hope to accomplish. Some people think it's a Trojan horse to get Creationism into schools, which is not an unreasonable suspicion. Maybe they are trying to expand belief in ID, I don't know.

Whatever they are trying to do I don't agree with it. Like I said, it's a matter of faith that in my opinion doesn't belong in the science classroom, even though I believe in ID. Matters of faith like this belong in the believer's home or place of worship, it shouldn't be rammed down people's throats through legislation.

280 rismee  Thu, Jun 19, 2008 11:23:18am

re: #276 Charles
Logical analysis and open and objective discussion of scientific theories in classrooms seems to be the *entire* point because it is not happening much when it comes to this topic. BTW, what is the “creationist agenda”? Who are the promoters? I would like to read their diabolical master plan, lol.

While I thoroughly enjoy most of the articles and comments posted on this site (I’ve been lurking here for many years, thanks Charles!), I find it strange that there is such an effort to criticize individuals who question Darwinism. It seems like there is quite an effort to stifle open and honest discussion about this topic. Despite many well crafted comments, there’s an abundance of ad-hominem-like attacks. This appears to be like the type of activity occurring predominantly within “progressive” circles; disagreement is met flippant & derogatory remarks. For example...
If you question:
Illegal immigration... you are a racist.
Redefining marriage.... you are a homophobe
Islam’s role in terrorism... you are a racist bigot
Man-made Global warming... you are a holocaust-denier
Negotiations with dictators/terrorist... You are a war-monger
Macro-evolution/Darwinism... you are a Neanderthal. (oh, that’s here :P)

For what it is worth, I’ve heard many folks discuss the topic of ID in schools and they definitely don’t want to promote “religion” in the classroom. I’ve never heard about any “Trojan-Horse” plans from any main-stream Christian groups (I have visited many different churches & groups over the past 8 years in somewhat of a comparative religion study). Since many top scientists* throughout history believed there was a “creator”, it doesn’t seem so unreasonable to tread in this realm with somewhat of an open mind. Why is discussion of ID such a threat to Darwinism? This philosophy reminds me of Islamists... “Kill the infidels if they try to proselytize” & “kill the apostates”. If Islam was so great they wouldn’t have to threaten apostates & missionaries with death. If Darwinism/macro-evolution is so great then ID discussions should be welcomed.

*FYI - Here’s a site (seems fairly unbiased toward any specific religion) that lists some top scientists & their religious beliefs:
[Link: www.adherents.com...]
[Link: www.adherents.com...]

281 DavidM01  Sun, Jun 22, 2008 7:46:29am

So far with all our technology, no one has been able to demonstrate abiogenesis(life from lifeless matter) even once in the lab. Its been described as a 1000 lane highway and we can't even reach lane 7.

However it is held up as 'science' even though no proof of it exists anywhere. Cause and effect IS science however, and God is a potential cause. In the case of ID just an 'intelligent cause' not necessarily God.

To say that ID doesn't belong in the classroom is to disallow all theories which aren't proven because random creation definitely hasn't.

282 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Sun, Jun 22, 2008 7:53:17am

This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

A metaphorical 747.


Tikatok Gift Cards - Capture your child's imagination . . . in a book!