Wow, I only just mentioned this topic and Jindal in the previous thread.

I'm getting delayed (but real) hat tip gratification.

he and his colleagues did not directly lobby Jindal.

Can anyone spot the weasel word?

I do like other things about Jindal. I wish he'd get his head straight on ID and DI.

Little obsessive compulsive on this creation thing Charles.

Carry on.

Helping to defend creationist school boards in federal courts is not the Discovery Institute's game. Their game is to (a) make money from those spurious "textbooks" they put out, and (b) keep creationism in the news so that they don't run out of lecture gigs and wealthy funders. So far as those legal bills are concerned, Discovery Institute policy is: Let the dumb rubes fund their own stupid lawsuits.

How very Christian of them.

As the saying goes, with friends like these....

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhh !

re: #8 looking closely

Heh.

stuck with spending their taxpayers’ dollars on the defense of hopeless lawsuits

There is that issue, too.

Getting paranoid there, are we Charles? Time is a "myth". The earth was not created 6000 years ago. Scripture assumes we are not capable of understanding revealed truths. Or, as John ford said, "When legend becomes truth, print the legend:.

At the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design

What fluid occupies a think tank ?

Where will the Discovery Institute be when these legal expenses come due? Just where they were in the Dover case — nowhere! What, you were thinking that those bold warriors for truth at the Discovery Institute will help to fund the defense in these no-hope lawsuits? Ha ha ha ha ha!

Helping to defend creationist school boards in federal courts is not the Discovery Institute's game. Their game is to (a) make money from those spurious "textbooks" they put out, and (b) keep creationism in the news so that they don't run out of lecture gigs and wealthy funders. So far as those legal bills are concerned, Discovery Institute policy is: Let the dumb rubes fund their own stupid lawsuits.

Read the whole thing.

re: #18 grumpy old codger

"When legend becomes truth, print the legend:.

CHANGE we can believe in!

I find it kind of odd that people are willing to ignore scientific orthodoxy when it comes to global warming, then in the next breath cite the consensus of the scientific community as evidence against intelligent design.

"me:" You're getting a time out, and every one of your spam comments has been deleted. I don't appreciate that crap.

re: #19 Shug

Cerebrospinal fluid? No?

Woof. That's a lot of deletions.

(Forgive me if this this getting old.)

Everybody who believes in evolution, raise their hands.

All they do is encourage state legislators to pass, and clueless governors to sign, laws that tempt local boards to unconstitutional behavior. The sucker school boards are then on their own, stuck with spending their taxpayers’ dollars on the defense of hopeless lawsuits.

The parents, who are just a small majority of the real estate taxpayers, sue the school district, to prevent their children from being exposed to something they consider religious instruction. Taxes go up to pay for lawsuits and defense from same. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

re: #14 Shug

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !

Hey, I told your joke about the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa to a beautiful bartender last week. She looked puzzled for about five seconds, then asked me what "Santa" was spelled backwards....

/funnier than the original joke, I tells ya!

/ducks

Holy crap. Delete storm

So long as religious citizens offer arguments in the public square based on evidence, logic, and appeals to the moral common ground, they have every right to demand that their ideas be judged on the merits, regardless of their religious views.

As has been offered countless times on previous threads, the religious view is more faith than science. That's a major, if not, the major line between religion and science. The ToE offers much evidence, regardless of a "moral common ground."

re: #19 Shug

What fluid occupies a think tank ?

Primordial booze?

re: #24 Charles

Hey Charles,

I'm a newbie here and before the bloodbath begins, I just wanted to say that you have a great blog here and I wish that my webdesign foo was as great as yours. I bow before your HTML skillz.

Thanks for having this webspace.

re: #32 christheprofessor

Primordial booze?

Nice

re: #27 HelloDare

(Forgive me if this this getting old.)

Everybody who believes in evolution, raise their hands.

It looks like he's about to do some kind of very advanced aikido move.

I'm not surprised by this, when ID originally made headlines Buckley himself was on their side in the debate with Ken Miller, that was of course before all of their lies were exposed and the subsequent court cases. Think it was back in '98

SEIU spending $85 mill on Obama but can't pay pensions......nuclear fallout would be easier

While the Creationist and Darwinistas slug it out in the Octagon, I'm checking out the new trend in "climate change delusion."

America is a deeply religious country, and no doubt many citizens interested in certain hot-button science issues are motivated in part by their religious beliefs. So what? Many opponents of slavery were motivated by their religious beliefs, and many leaders of the civil-rights movement were members of the clergy. Regardless of their motivations, religious citizens have just as much a right to raise their voices in public debates as their secular compatriots, including in debates about science. To suggest otherwise plainly offends the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

First- again with the "so what" dismissive bullsh*t argument. If all they can come up with for a defense is "so what?" then they really need some better debate strategies.

Second- the First Amendment seems lost on this one. Indeed, religious Americans have just as much of a right to speak up as a secular American. However- their rights to freely exercise their religion stop when they begin to encroach upon mine and others. They DO NOT have the right to push their religion onto the children of other people via a science classroom- period.

Is that a record for deletions of one nic's posts?

If it really is a “fact” that the evolution of life was an unplanned process of chance and necessity (as Neo-Darwinism asserts)...

Neo-Darwinism? What a maroon!

I am always amazed how people tolerate the fundamentalista view. The fundamentalista view of most religions is dinged if they cannot accept known facts or truths while insisting theirs is the only truth. Perhaps religion now is less about truth than it is about belief.

Thoughts anyone?

There's an interesting tension. On one hand, it's clear that the Left, even the religious Left, has been trying to tear down mainstream organized religion for decades. (Frankly, as an agnostic Jew, I really have no problem with exorcising major religious icons from public life; I don't salivate over it.) Then there's the (rightfully) expected push-back from religious people. The problem is, when the push-back was from Presbyterians and Catholics, well ok. However, legally and intellectually, that push-back can't exclude Muslims (esp. since there moron right wanted to make common cause with Islam < 9/11). So now Islam is making inroads into the laws of our country in a way that nice Christianity can't/won't. I think the only solution is to become a completely secular country because as we know, while Christianity may pray for souls, Islam prays for keeps - one town, one county, one country at a time.

re: #38 rcris5

While the Creationist and Darwinistas slug it out in the Octagon, I'm checking out the new trend in "climate change delusion."

Here's one :

Headline: 'Global Warming Causing California Glacier to Grow'

Global warming is evolving...

re: #32 christheprofessor

Primordial booze?

Is that like really, really, really old bourbon?

re: #23 Genosaurer

I spent eight years as a weather observer and forecaster. Global warming is BS. Everything runs in cycles. Even the Sun with its sun spots.

"me" comments 1,2,4,5,6, 9 were still visible to me (and I dinged down) until I refreshed the page. Only comments #11 and higher showed up as deleted.
I won't mention comment #264. Just saying if you were wondering if it's still happening.

re: #42 silversmith

I am always amazed how people tolerate the fundamentalista view. The fundamentalista view of most religions is dinged if they cannot accept known facts or truths while insisting theirs is the only truth. Perhaps religion now is less about truth than it is about belief.

Thoughts anyone?

It's a kind of truth that is separate than that which can be proven by the senses. If you want to call it "belief" or "faith", then have at it. I won't stop you.

re: #43 SFGoth

Ooops, meant to say (*the* moron right) not *their*, implying Muslims'. I'm talking Christians' moron right.

re: #44 SasquatchOnSteroids

I'm still waiting for the headline Global Warming Causes Sunspots.

re: #41 Slumbering Behemoth

THey add neo to the name because neo-cons are in ill repute. Just the adding the phrase neo seem to be enough to create distain. Good advertising.

I for one derive great amusement from perusing these Discovery Institute threads because they always get the thin-skinned Flood-was-4400-years-ago crowd all hot and bothered.

re: #40 MandyManners

Not even close.

re: #50 HelloDare

I'm still waiting for the headline Global Warming Causes Sunspots.

It's coming......in, say, 11 years or so ?

re: #52 Edouard

I for one derive great amusement from perusing these Discovery Institute threads because they always get the thin-skinned Flood-was-4400-years-ago crowd all hot and bothered.

Time and time again I've angled for tomorrow mornings seminar down dings. I guess I'm not clever to properly agitate the New earth creationists.

re: #52 Edouard

That's 4,400 years last Thursday, dammit.

Question: I can't read the tone very well (because it's the internet, and I've only lurked for a year, now), but are we good-naturedly ribbing Bobby Jindal for a foible, or are we genuinely frightened that he's going to destroy the country with his benighted luddism?

If, as many conservatives hope, McCain selects Jindal for VP, will you change your vote? Just curious.

re: #48 MandyManners

Bad structure, you twit.

re: #30 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

/ducks

Holy crap. Delete storm

I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying the Evolution of Dance video!

re: #47 EC Marm

"me" comments 1,2,4,5,6, 9 were still visible to me (and I dinged down) until I refreshed the page. Only comments #11 and higher showed up as deleted.
I won't mention comment #264. Just saying if you were wondering if it's still happening.

Thanks, I'm still looking into that one. It's an elusive problem.

re: #53 Killgore Trout

Not even close.

Poor Mr. Beaumont.

It cannot be a known scientific fact that the evolution of life was unplanned. Science cannot discern such a plan, but neither can science, even in principle, say that there was no such plan. So the DI is giving a logically flawed argument for why Faith requires disbelief in evolution.

Science is a bit awe struck at how perfectly physics fits together. Change any of the fundamental constants out in the sixth digit, and the resulting universe would not have stars, planets, or life.

This doesn't prove intelligent design of the Universe, for again, science cannot prove or disprove such things. After all, how else could scientific observations of the universe turn out, but that it is a universe in which observers are possible?

What science can prove is that evolution offers a logically consistent account of the diversity of life and the similarities and differences in genetics and form of the species. This explanation has lead to correct predictions about how biological experiments and discoveries yet to be made would turn out. That's a track record that no other account of the Origin of Species can match. That makes Evolution good science, and it makes Creation Science non-science.

I've got a neighbor up the road who has a ostrich and llama farm. I'm looking at the ostrich's foot and commented that it looked like the foot of a dinosaur. The old guy declares that he doesn't believe in evolution. That doesn't bother me, I don't think he even understands the context of science, and why should I care what he believes? But when ignorant people get aggressive and start wanting to push their ideas on public policy, such as teaching Creationism in the schools to kids as science, then there's a problem. Then it's important to make a fuss, and no I don't think Charles is being compulsive.

Part of DI's new tack, gained from their PR firm since the Kitzmiller trial is to frame it as opening debate on "Global Warming, Cloning, and Stem Cell Research".
They recognize they will be defeated on ID alone, so they've broadened the agenda to include other popular science "controversies".

So it's always amusing to see GW brought up early in every DI thread.

Politics [whether from the left or right] doesn't belong in science class anymore than religion does.

Move on Charles...

re: #48 MandyManners

Call it the Neo-theory of God?

All "me" comments appear deleted: circa XX:50, Internet Exploder 7 here at work...

re: #19 Shug

What fluid occupies a think tank ?

Thinking fluid.

re: #57 BlueFalcon

The problem is that it shows poor judgment. Regardless of his own beliefs he's going to cost the state of Louisiana millions of dollars in legal fees (the Disco Institute pays nothing) for court cases he will most certainly lose. Louisiana is not a state with money to burn.

OK Everyone -

Let's go like this. If Jindal can turn Louisiana around, this kerfluffle will be conveniently forgotten. If he can't - It will be amplified. That is all.

-S-

re: #57 BlueFalcon

Question: I can't read the tone very well (because it's the internet, and I've only lurked for a year, now), but are we good-naturedly ribbing Bobby Jindal for a foible, or are we genuinely frightened that he's going to destroy the country with his benighted luddism?

If, as many conservatives hope, McCain selects Jindal for VP, will you change your vote? Just curious.

Good question Blue Falcon. From my great distance it seems Jindal is an earnest young man doing strong work in the swamps of Louisiana politics by utilizing conservative principles.

I don't think he should be the VP nomination. Let him mature.

re: #64 Thanos

Politics [whether from the left or right] doesn't belong in science class anymore than religion does.

I would say public education as a whole would be vastly improved with politics removed. There should be nothing political about the fundamentals of education- reading, writing, math, science. Every thing else our children learn are based on this basic elements, that if properly taught, will lead them to be able to grasp anything else in their educational careers.

re: #22 Shug
Cue Orwell's memory hole.

"obfuscator"

LOL!

Charles, you do have a wicked* sense of humour!

*And I mean that in a good way (as my cousins in Boston would say, wicked funny)!

/And I mean the LOL in a meaningless argument way.

Another interesting thing about the DI, they are very friendly with Russia, don't ask me why. Maybe it goes with the anti-materiialism.

All this goes back to what I said back when Jindal signed this into law. It was going to make a mess of Louisiana education and the individual boards would have to figure things out for themselves and incur the costs if they get them wrong (which is absolutely inevitable given the direction things are heading).

re: #74 Josephine

LMAO! I thought of that too. I'm surprised he hasn't complained about "disingenuous" as well.

Perhaps he'll come along and disingenuously obfuscate some more.

Ben Stein discovered a new fossil today that proves creationism....
Dawn of the Picasso Fish
Just kidding. It's another one of those pesky transitional fossils discovered by godless nazi scientists.

re: #69 Killgore Trout

NONE of us has time to waste! Life is precious, and time is our most precious marker OF that precious life-line!

As Jindahl's decision wastes Louisiana time and resources defending defenseless positions, we experience a similar wanton uselessness in defending against deliberate, obfuscative-but-seemingly courteous attacks by entrenched orthodoxies... ID, liberalism, Islamism, Democrats, Socialism, white superiority, black superiority, animal rights and animal wrongs...

/not to mention SERIOUS problems like Cost of GAS! Dang.

neo-militant-political-godworshippers NMPG?

neo-political-militant-godworshippers NPMG?

Is that what we are talking about?

re: #75 buzzsawmonkey

Freeeee Duuuuumb!
/Brave Heart

re: #39 Sharmuta

That's an interesting quote you have there. Is Mr. West trying to equate science with slavery, or just pointing out where religious folks (Christians) were on the right side of a battle, and by extension saying that the DI is right to do what they are doing now?

re: #44 SasquatchOnSteroids

Here's one :

Headline: 'Global Warming Causing California Glacier to Grow'

Global warming is evolving...

Umm, there is nothing laughable or delusionary or wrong in the story about global warming causing the glaciers of Mount Shasta to grow.

Glaciers on temperate-zone mountains need two things: it should be cold enough that snow can survive the summer, and wet enough that plenty of snow falls in the winter. Within limits, an increase in snowfall due to increased warmth over, say, the Pacific, can offset an increase in summer melt due to less frigid temperatures up on the mountain. Warmer or not, the high slopes of Shasta are still chilly in summer and bone cold in winter.

Most glaciers are in retreat. A few, well placed to profit from extra snowfall, are advancing. Half-cocked attacks on the science of global warming are like half-cocked attacks on the authenticity of, say, Obama's birth certificate. They serve only to make the ridiculer ridiculous, and they serve to undermine the legitimacy of the very real reservations people have about issues such as whether the Kyoto accords are a rational response to a real problem, or very expensive window dressing.

WOW...mini me was quick out of the gate on this thread...5 of the first 6 posts. Looks like he won't finish the race though.

re: #51 silversmith

'Zactly, hence the "maroon" statement.

re: #79 Sharmuta

LMAO! I thought of that too. I'm surprised he hasn't complained about "disingenuous" as well.

Perhaps he'll come along and disingenuously obfuscate some more.

ROFLMAO! That's GREAT, Sharmy! :D

re: #72 Sharmuta

I would say public education as a whole would be vastly improved with politics removed.

I would say public education (like most other things) as a whole would be vastly improved with the federal government removed.

And I swear, this message was not brought to you by Ron Paul.

re: #66 silversmith

Call it the Neo-theory of God?

No. A theory can be proven or disproven. God can't.

Dude.

Totally OT but what gives?

I'm perusing the old page here and see an ad for Al Gore wanting me to "join the millions" in finding a solution to global warming.

The ads must random but I'd say they are missing their demographic with that one.

Anyone gonna join the "Litle Wooden Boy"? Let me know how it goes.

The time on deck is 2108 EST.

I have a feeling that by 0430 tomorrow, we'll be past comment #1000.

re: #79 Sharmuta

Shhhhhhhhhh!

; )

re: #84 Slumbering Behemoth

All I read in the quote is that it is wrong to assume that, if it originate from religious fundamentalism, it is automatically wrongbadstupid.

re: #88 buzzsawmonkey

"Be the first on your block."

LOL

re: #69 Killgore Trout

The problem is that it shows poor judgment. Regardless of his own beliefs he's going to cost the state of Louisiana millions of dollars in legal fees (the Disco Institute pays nothing) for court cases he will most certainly lose. Louisiana is not a state with money to burn.

That's what I was beginning to conjecture on above. If the taxpayers realize that bringing suit against their own school district is going to result in higher school taxes, they may abstain from bringing suit. It might be a strategy of some group to force the issue in the poorest states.

re: #72 Sharmuta

I would say public education as a whole would be vastly improved with politics removed. There should be nothing political about the fundamentals of education- reading, writing, math, science. Every thing else our children learn are based on this basic elements, that if properly taught, will lead them to be able to grasp anything else in their educational careers.

That should be the guiding principle of every school board across the nation.

re: #91 MandyManners

My point exactly

re: #93 NR Pax

The time in downtown Bangkok is 0809, Thursday morning... heavily overcast with some showers...

...and the government near to being overthrown, legally... watta mess!

re: #80 Killgore Trout

Ben Stein discovered a new fossil today that proves creationism....
Dawn of the Picasso Fish
Just kidding. It's another one of those pesky transitional fossils discovered by godless nazi scientists.

I wanna' see the Dali Fish.

re: #84 Slumbering Behemoth

That's an interesting quote you have there. Is Mr. West trying to equate science with slavery, or just pointing out where religious folks (Christians) were on the right side of a battle, and by extension saying that the DI is right to do what they are doing now?

So what?

Oh, sorry- that's their argument.

To seriously deal with your question, I would say he's trying to use Christianity to show that Christians have been on the right side of other various battles, but it's very (dare I say it?) disingenuous of him. There were certainly Christians in the Civil War who fought against the Union, and there were Christians who fought both for and against the nazis, and there were Christians opposed to desegregation. To try to link the actions of Christians to the side of the good fight only is to ignore the Christians who were wrong and fighting the opposition. It's just another instance where they think they can define who is or is not a good Christian, just like they are doing with any Christian who dares accept evolution.

re: #100 Carridine

The time in downtown Bangkok is 0809, Thursday morning... heavily overcast with some showers...

...and the government near to being overthrown, legally... watta mess!

*humming a Rush song, Passage to Bangkok*

re: #98 MandyManners

That should be the guiding principle of every school board across the nation.

There should be nothing political about the fundamentals of education- reading, writing, math, science AND CIVICS AND HISTORY. Every thing else our children learn are based on this basic elements, that if properly taught, will lead them to be able to grasp anything else in their educational careers...

Apologies, Mandy, Sharmy, but teaching those is a real necessity, without which reading and writing are baseless, unprincipled, foundering...

Unless we continue to grapple with genetic science we will destroy our hope for the future. Genetics is the key to new breakthroughs in medicine for longevity and good healthy living. Genetics is at the foundation of every new understanding. I really don't care whether someone sees the origin of life on earth as a spiritual phenomena. But if that is taught in the schools it could create a powerful political bloc that could put scientific inquiry off limits if it involves genetics. We would all live shorter and more painful lives.

re: #97 EC Marm

That's what I was beginning to conjecture on above. If the taxpayers realize that bringing suit against their own school district is going to result in higher school taxes, they may abstain from bringing suit. It might be a strategy of some group to force the issue in the poorest states.

I'd like to see a mass exodus from public schools over just this issue.

Out of dull curiosity, what does neo-political-militant-Islam or neo-political-militant-Judaism say about Darwin? Do they have similar religious views to the neo-political-militant-Christians?

re: #97 EC Marm

It might be a strategy of some group to force the issue in the poorest states.

Very interesting theory. Unfortunately the poorer states are also states that have a less educated voting block that is more likely to pass these ridiculous bills and they are also less likely to be able to effectively defend against them. It's a very convenient convergence.

re: #101 MandyManners

Well, if there was evolution of fish, we'd go from the Monet and Manet to the Van Gogh fish to the Picasso and then Dali (Lama) fish. Lesser fish, including the Toulouse Lautrec would be further evidence of speciation. /

re: #102 Sharmuta

It's just another instance where they think they can define who is or is not a good Christian, just like they are doing with any Christian who dares accept evolution.

I'm only taking exception to the first part of this sentence. I can call myself a Darwinian evolutionist, if I like, but if I then publish books about how Xenu put chimps on the earth, the label is obviously wrong. There's no reason why the scientific community should accept the label I've placed on myself.

That's how modern Christians look at "Christians" who fought for the Nazi's. Or, for instance, reject any doctrine of divinity and claim God is nothing more than the "universe" (a la John Shelby Spong). When something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tells me it's a putty-tat, I reserve the right to be a little skeptical.

re: #109 lawhawk

and yet the modernistic cave paintings in France and the impressionistic petroglyphs of America and Australia might contradict your Theory Miss Manners.

I think we should teach religion in school. Not in the science class but in an open style that allows kids to see the diverse beliefs in the world. After all they have to live in this world at some point. They can't be protected their whole life.

The other thing that the science class should do is separate out the topics that are based on experimental data and those based on theory. This would go a long way to properly distinguish between the two and allow the kids to see the theoretical edge of science.

re: #109 lawhawk

You forgot the arafish.

re: #77 Thanos

Another interesting thing about the DI, they are very friendly with Russia, don't ask me why. Maybe it goes with the anti-materiialism.

Actually that isn't that strange. I'm reading A Conservative History of the American Left, and there has been a relationship between the communists/socialists/anarchists/religious left since the late 1800's.

(and to all you lizards that remember me mentioning this book before, I know it's taking a while to read, but I have LGF, so I only have time for a page or two each night. LOL)

Highly recommend this book. There are a lot of relationships the left has had through the years that would really surprise many.

re: #108 Killgore Trout

Very interesting theory. Unfortunately the poorer states are also states that have a less educated voting block that is more likely to pass these ridiculous bills and they are also less likely to be able to effectively defend against them. It's a very convenient convergence.

Wow that was arrogant, and a very lame ad hominem attack as well. California is wealthy and has a poor education system ranking, AND doesn't allow ID in schools. Know what that proves? Absolutely nothing.

Oh, and Charles, your evaluation was just a hit piece, ripped out of context, and nothing more. He was talking about how one can not simply say science does one thing, and the application of its conclusions can be done by another party completely. Rather he was arguing that science and the interpretation of data (including its application) are not purely isolated.

In other words, by simply stating that there are no brute facts, even in science, he is NOT making an argument for any kind of worldview one way or the other.

re: #100 Carridine

I remember being tossed out of the bungalo at o-dark-thirty one morning by my tilak being told of a coup in Bangkok and "All GI go camp". Nobody on the streets and all was quiet. Gate guards were bored and did not mention anything about curfew. Only people that got excited about the coup were in the Bangkok area and the affected Thai military camps. This was early/mid 70's.

re: #104 Carridine

You are correct about civics and history. However, there is a huge disconnect between reality and what some schools are teaching.

re: #112 Franktalk

Many high schools do have classes on World Religions.

re: #112 Franktalk

I think we should teach religion in school. Not in the science class but in an open style that allows kids to see the diverse beliefs in the world. After all they have to live in this world at some point. They can't be protected their whole life.

The other thing that the science class should do is separate out the topics that are based on experimental data and those based on theory. This would go a long way to properly distinguish between the two and allow the kids to see the theoretical edge of science.

Well they do teach religion. Most high schools have courses like "Comparative World Religions" and such. They also teach philosophy and cosmology. Usually these types of courses come as electives.

If science "took out everything that was based on theory" they would have nothing to teach.

re: #119 Thanos

Exactly

During the first decades of the 20th century, the nation’s leading biologists at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and Stanford, as well by members of America’s leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Museum of Natural History, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science were all devoted eugenicists. By the time the crusade had run its course, some 60,000 Americans had been sterilized against their will in an effort to keep us from sinning against Darwin’s law of natural selection, which Princeton biologist Edwin Conklin dubbed “the great law of evolution and progress.”

O.k., I take back my "maroon" statement. Mr. West is a flat-out D.I. shill.

re: #121 Slumbering Behemoth

O.k., I take back my "maroon" statement. Mr. West is a flat-out D.I. shill.

But of course he is:

John G. West is a Senior Fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, and Associate Director and Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs of its Center for Science and Culture, which serves as the main hub of the Intelligent design movement.

The law was so carefully framed that even the head of the Louisiana ACLU has had to concede that it is constitutional as written.

Congratulations LGF. You are now LEFT of the ACLU.

Ah, the deceptive shill is here, as expected.

re: #124 ArcherB

Congratulations LGF. You are now LEFT of the ACLU.

Now that is funny. Did you show up with new talking points tonight?

re: #120 Franktalk

Perhaps you should emulate your nic better instead of being coy.

re: #115 Infinity8Ball

Wow that was arrogant

Thank you.

BTW: Does anyone have a link to the "alternate lesson plan" the DI is now pimping to school districts?

re: #129 Thanos

It will be very interesting to see what they push in Louisiana. They don't have too many chances and I can't imagine they are going to just repeat their mistakes in the past. We'll have to wait and see what the float out there.

re: #113 BlueFalcon

You forgot the arafish.

Not at all. That's a dead end devolution.

Any comments telling me what I should and should not post at LGF will now be deleted.

re: #122 Thanos

John G. West is a Senior Fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, and Associate Director and Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs of its Center for Science and Culture, which serves as the main hub of the Intelligent design movement.

:headslap: I must have missed that somewhere. Thanks for pointing that out.

re: #85 lostlakehiker

Umm, there is nothing laughable or delusionary or wrong in the story about global warming causing the glaciers of Mount Shasta to grow.

Glaciers on temperate-zone mountains need two things: it should be cold enough that snow can survive the summer, and wet enough that plenty of snow falls in the winter. Within limits, an increase in snowfall due to increased warmth over, say, the Pacific, can offset an increase in summer melt due to less frigid temperatures up on the mountain. Warmer or not, the high slopes of Shasta are still chilly in summer and bone cold in winter.

Most glaciers are in retreat. A few, well placed to profit from extra snowfall, are advancing. Half-cocked attacks on the science of global warming are like half-cocked attacks on the authenticity of, say, Obama's birth certificate. They serve only to make the ridiculer ridiculous, and they serve to undermine the legitimacy of the very real reservations people have about issues such as whether the Kyoto accords are a rational response to a real problem, or very expensive window dressing.

The glaciers on Mount Shasta in California are growing because of global warming, experts say.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers.

But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, "seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean," he said.

As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century.

Hmmm. That's not what NASA said in March, as reported by Green Daily (emphasis added):

Original link here

Researchers with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory studying temperature changes in the world's oceans are finding no evidence of heating up in the last 5 years or so.

Scientists have been working with a program called Argo, which looks at ocean temperatures using robotic buoys which dive down to three thousand feet to collect data. Since the study began in 2003, measurements have not only failed to find evidence of warming, but in fact have picked up a slight cooling trend.

To repeat :

Claim :

But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, "seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean," he said.

As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century.

Nasa Finding :

Researchers with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory studying temperature changes in the world's oceans are finding no evidence of heating up in the last 5 years or so.

Scientists have been working with a program called Argo, which looks at ocean temperatures using robotic buoys which dive down to three thousand feet to collect data. Since the study began in 2003, measurements have not only failed to find evidence of warming, but in fact have picked up a slight cooling trend.

Ok, you're right, I'M ridiculous.

re: #124 ArcherB
The law was so carefully framed that even the head of the Louisiana ACLU has had to concede that it is constitutional as written.

Congratulations LGF. You are now LEFT of the ACLU.

Apparently you've never looked into the study of Constitutional Law. There are laws that are facially unconstitutional - as you would say "unconstitutional as written", and laws that are unconstitutional as applied. Now, this law itself probably won't be challenged for quite some time, if ever, because as you say, it was carefully crafted to avoid this. It would likely require that a substantially large number of districts in LA start teaching ID before a constitutional challenge to the law itself would have a chance to succeed.

As pointed out by many others here, however, the point is that the law essentially encourages all the school districts to engage in unconstitutional behavior, leaving these individual districts open to pricey court challenges that they are sure to lose. And this is the side you defend. Bravo.

Man- some people just really have to push their luck.

re: #27 HelloDare

Everybody who believes in evolution, raise their hands. opposable thumbs.

re: #124 ArcherB

Congratulations LGF. You are now LEFT of the ACLU.

Yes, because speaking out against constitutional violations is a totally leftist thing to do.

You forgot to make a comparison to DKos. Your next DI check will reflect a deduction because of that.

re: #51 silversmith

THey add neo to the name because neo-cons are in ill repute. Just the adding the phrase neo seem to be enough to create distain. Good advertising.

Actually "Neo" makes me think of Keanu Reeves and those Matrix movies, which is what causes disdain on my part.

re: #133 Charles

Any comments telling me what I should and should not post at LGF will now be deleted.

Don't post that.
/pushing my luck

well I didn't expect that comment to be deleted at all, let alone that quick... I thought it a bit of a funny comment. oh well... S.F.W.

Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin

"...For me, the ethics of evolution are not only consistent with the teachings of religion, they advance it. An evolutionary understanding urges me to grow in morality and to expand my circles of care and compassion—even to include those who see the world in very different ways. My worship of God now includes doing everything I can to ensure a just and thriving future for planet Earth, for our children's children, and for as many species as possible. As an ordained Christian minister, I cannot imagine a higher calling for myself..."

"Rev. Michael Dowd is the author of Thank God for Evolution (Viking), which has been endorsed by five Nobel Prize-winners and dozens of other scientific and religious leaders."

re: #56 HelloDare

That's 4,400 years last Thursday, dammit.

Just after tea time.

re: #137 JamesWI

Apparently you've never looked into the study of Constitutional Law.

I gave you a ding just for that. Well- and for the rest of your comment too, but that part cracked me up. His lack of Constitutional knowledge was apparent on the last couple ID threads.

I'm still on Saturn ....*sigh*

re: #126 Thanos

Now that is funny. Did you show up with new talking points tonight?

Yup! Gots buches of 'em!

Seriously though. I thought the main bitch about DI was that they wanted to subvert the Constitution and teach religion in schools. Well, the ACLU, (LGF's latest ally against the those evil EVIL men that want to cut our heads off and impose sharia law... I mean drive Israel into the sea... I mean teach ID in school) has cleared the law as being Constitutional.

So, what's all the bitching about. It's not like there has been a shortage of threads to bash DI. So what's the problem? Is a law that is Constitutional really worth another 1500 post thread bashing DI?

re: #148 ArcherB

Your forehead is already beginning to sweat.

ArcherB: I think you need a break from shilling. You're starting to sound a little hysterical.

re: #133 Charles

Any comments telling me what I should and should not post at LGF will now be deleted.

On an previous thread, I was going to recommend that all posts consisting of nothing but "Yawn" or their derivatives be treated like "First" posts. Not that I'm trying to tell you what to do, or anything.

//

re: #148 ArcherB

I think you need to read #137. And then read it again. Possibly a third time, or however many times it takes for it to sink in to you.

re: #151 Slumbering Behemoth

On an previous thread, I was going to recommend that all posts consisting of nothing but "Yawn" or their derivatives be treated like "First" posts.

Good idea, and those posts will also be deleted.

re: #148 ArcherB

Well, the ACLU [garbage deleted] has cleared the law as being Constitutional.

Since when are they a reliable authority? They refused to accept the Supreme Courts recent ruling on the Second Amendment, and I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS outranks the ACLU on the "Constitutional Authority" scale.

re: #154 buzzsawmonkey

LOL Evolution

too bad LGF doesn't understand the constitution.
To quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

it's not a guarantee for atheists that schools shall never mention God. I know many of you are trying to fool the rest of us into thinking religion has no place, but it does. Sorry. Constitutionally guaranteed by the Christians and, yes, creationists, that founded this country.

Keep hammering away, though, Charles! But stop pretending you're more astute than the rest of us by constantly attacking ID.

re: #150 Charles

Notice how he completely ignores my point in order to keep on talking about the facial constitutionality of the law and bash this site for being on the same side as the ALCU (ignoring the fact that, although they are often on the "left" side of disputes, they also often defend the supposed "right" side in many cases). Not like reason and logic ever persuaded him on any of the other threads though.

West is the DI guy positing that Evoloossshun caused YooGenix! It was the subject of his book.

It's willful ignorance on his part to not point out that Evolutionary Biology disproved the basic tenets of Eugenics

how about some SP humor on evolution?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ2o0FP3ESY
crude, but funny...

Sorry, but I just cannot accept evolution as a fact. Does that make me a lesser citizen of LGF?

re: #153 Charles

Good idea

Thanks! It's been quite a while, I was about do for one, even if accidental.

re: #47 EC Marm

"me" comments 1,2,4,5,6, 9 were still visible to me (and I dinged down) until I refreshed the page. Only comments #11 and higher showed up as deleted.
I won't mention comment #264. Just saying if you were wondering if it's still happening.

Stinky's finger's must hurt. Ouch!

re: #160 misterspork

I'm not sure if you're aware that the clip you posted is mocking creationists and not evolutionists. Others have made the same mistake in the past but I assume you're not that dumb.

re: #148 ArcherB

Certainly! So, if you have something new to debunk, please bring it.

See you Lizards later, I am of to see if my local store carries any of that primordial booze I keep hearing about.

h/t CtP

re: #160 misterspork

I gave you a plus anyways, even though you don't understand what you linked to.

re: #157 centralvalleyguy

too bad LGF doesn't understand the constitution.
To quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

it's not a guarantee for atheists that schools shall never mention God. I know many of you are trying to fool the rest of us into thinking religion has no place, but it does. Sorry. Constitutionally guaranteed by the Christians and, yes, creationists, that founded this country.

Keep hammering away, though, Charles! But stop pretending you're more astute than the rest of us by constantly attacking ID.

Schools mention G-d all the time, try history class, english lit, comparative world religions, cosmology, philosophy. Nice strawman you have there, but it's in flames.

re: #161 tunnelrat

Sorry, but I just cannot accept evolution as a fact. Does that make me a lesser citizen of LGF?

I think that's fine if you personally want to reject evolution- just don't push creationism in the science classroom on my kids because of your personal beliefs.

re: #159 Thanos

Just the word 'eugenics' gives me the chills....I don't have to say what it reminds me of, as a Jew.

*itler and the nazis would be so proud.

re: #165 buzzsawmonkey

Why should I? You have the nic with "monkey" in it.

re: #161 tunnelrat

Sorry, but I just cannot accept evolution as a fact. Does that make me a lesser citizen of LGF?

Why would it? You are entitled to your beliefs.

Evolution has always made perfect sense to me, but I don't think it precludes the existence of God. Who's to say He didn't chose evolution as the mechanism to bring about the natural world as we know it today? Wouldn't that better fit with the belief that God doesn't interfere in our daily lives? If you are going to make something as complicated as the cosmos you are going to need to automate some processes. To believe the universe is unchanging is just willful ignorance.

re: #172 tunnelrat

Why should I? You have the nic with "monkey" in it.

Technically speaking, a monkey is still more advanced than a rat.

/Just sayin'.

re: #171 NY Nana

Just the word 'eugenics' gives me the chills....I don't have to say what it reminds me of, as a Jew.

*itler and the nazis would be so proud.

I hear you there, but I will point out that it's a long stream of evil philosophy that started with Plato's Republic that created the movement.

re: #174 nc_nightowl

To believe the universe is unchanging is just willful ignorance.

But it was completely unchanging until the evil neo-cons and their SUVs polluted it!@!11! That's why we have gorbal warming on Mars!

re: #167 Slumbering Behemoth

L'chaim!

Has everyone seen this collection of "reducibly complex mousetraps?"

"Here I show how one could start with a single piece of spring wire, make an inefficient mousetrap, then through a series of modifications and additions of parts make better and better mousetraps, until the end result is the modern snap mousetrap. In addition to demonstrating that a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex, I also illustrate the most important objection to "irreducible complexity" as evidence for "intelligent design": a part which may be optional at one stage of complexity may later become necessary due to modifications of some of the other parts."

[Link: udel.edu...]

re: #177 JamesTKirk

But it was completely unchanging until the evil neo-cons and their SUVs polluted it!@!11! That's why we have gorbal warming on Mars!

and we're suing.

re: #23 Genosaurer

I find it kind of odd that people are willing to ignore scientific orthodoxy when it comes to global warming, then in the next breath cite the consensus of the scientific community as evidence against intelligent design.

Sal: There is a significant difference. GoreBull warming is bad science, but science nonetheless, by which I mean that it is empirical, evidentiary, testable, and falsifiable - which explains why scientists in the field, following the evidence, are fleeing it in droves. ID, on the other hand, is not empirical, not evidentiary, untestable, and unfalsifiable, which means it sin't bad science; it's pseudoscience. ID is religious dogma trying to dress up as science in rhetorical and jargonist camouflage, and blatantly, abjectly and utterly failing to do so.

re: #170 Sharmuta

I think that's fine if you personally want to reject evolution- just don't push creationism in the science classroom on my kids because of your personal beliefs.

And don't call creationism science and expect us to accept it as such.

re: #164 Killgore Trout
well, it is funny, no matter. I'd be more apt to believe the part about the monkey butt sex explaining evolution than current theory. :-)

[deleted] 7/09/08 5:32:55 pm -1 (Me #1)
[deleted] 7/09/08 5:33:20 pm -1 (Me #2)
[deleted] 7/09/08 5:33:49 pm -1 (Me #4)
[deleted] 7/09/08 5:34:43 pm -1 (Me #5)
[deleted] 7/09/08 5:35:20 pm -1 (Me #6)

We, a concentrated shotgun attack by Me ... somebody is spoiling for a fight.

}:)     [Or should I have said, WAS spoiling for a fight.]

re: #185 misterspork

I suspected that, and that's why you're funny.

re: #181 Mars Needs Neocons

and we're suing.

I'd sue over gorbal warming too.

re: #124 ArcherB

Congratulations LGF. You are now LEFT of the ACLU.

I would be willing to bet there are plenty of bad laws that are constitutional. Being against this law does not mean one is to the left of the ACLU. It simply means one would prefer that the schools focus on genuine education, and that parents and churches remain in charge of faith.

The other day I happened to catch a portion of a "history" program on PBS. The "thesis" was that the Allies during WWII were no better than the nazis. I was curious as to the author of this revisionist history, and I discovered it was Niall Ferguson. (Also according to a review of one of Ferguson's texts, Ferguson is also a champion of the fraudulent pseudoscience of eugenics -- that is, according to the book reviewer, Ferguson spouts eugenics views, reminiscent of the nineteenth century...so, there's another one who's sorely in need of an introductory course in Biology.)

re: #190 buzzsawmonkey

There's a "Plato Republican" joke somewhere in there waiting to be found.

Wouldn't that be Luap Nor?

re: #176 Thanos

I hear you there, but I will point out that it's a long stream of evil philosophy that started with Plato's Republic that created the movement.

You are right, Thanos, but a lot of this subject, on the part of the present-day 'creationists' is so reprehensible...and the followers? Stark raving mad...and dangerous to the gullible.

I usually do not speak out, but I am so glad that Charles has the strength of mind and character to continue. I have a feeling that some lizards may have actually learned something. We already know what crap spewed from the keyboards of those who refused to learn. Should I call them a form of Luddites?

We see alleged scientists and some in the academic world actually promoting this agenda with a straight face.

re: #188 illegal upchuck

I'd sue over gorbal warming too.

That's right, on Mars we know it's really "Gorebull" warming. (And it's assisted from BarryO's Bilious Sphincter. Which everyone knows is a unusual hole-like formation in the West of Mars.)

re: #177 JamesTKirk

Exactly! I thought up a bumper sticker a while back - "Climate change is real! Just ask a woolly mammoth". Originally I was going to go with "ask any of the late Pleistocene mega-fauna", but it just didn't have to same ring to it.

re: #180 illegal upchuck

Linky no worky.

"Of course, the reduced-complexity mousetraps shown below are intended to point out one of the logical flaws in the intelligent design argument; they're not intended as an analogy of how evolution works"

This pretty much says it all.

"I find his objections muddled and confusing, but he seems to be saying that showing how something would work after removing some parts is not enough to reject irreducible complexity; it is necessary to show how something could be built up, step by step, with each addition or modification of a part improving the function."

Maybe it's because you don't understand his argument.

re: #193 NY Nana

Bravo!

re: #16 Occasional Reader

OR, if you see this-good news for you...Ezra is going to be speaking in DC and there are some seats available to the public. If you can't get in-let me know-and I can probably help.

re: #195 buzzsawmonkey

his brains are Play-Doh--so maybe.

/Great. Now I will have to let my little grandkids use it, and I will never look at it quite the same way! Feh.

re: #187 Killgore Trout
glad I could help bring a little humor to what has turned nasty. I bow at your superior intellect. :-)

re: #197 NY Nana

Try the next one.

/Cleverly trying to poke a stick at Charles is still poking a stick at Charles.

re: #202 misterspork

Sarcasm aside you should at least bow to my superior knowledge of South Park.

re: #198 jc59

Or maybe it's because irreducible complexity is a BS argument against evolution.

re: #199 Killgore Trout

Thanks, Killgore. It is also worrisome for what my 3 grandkids will be taught...they are only 8,6, and 22 months old.

/This just was not in the curriculum when I was a kid, in the pre-Stone age.

re: #203 Sharmuta

I thought the guy in the carteoon was Al Bore, so help me.

re: #42 silversmith

I am always amazed how people tolerate the fundamentalista view. The fundamentalista view of most religions is dinged if they cannot accept known facts or truths while insisting theirs is the only truth. Perhaps religion now is less about truth than it is about belief.

Thoughts anyone?

Okay, my thoughts ... it should be more a lot more about personal discovery and a lot less about controlling the world.  IMNSHO, you hit the nail on the head, fundamentalists have an ego that tells them that what they consider to be truth (and which is entirely subjective, though they would argue with that) is/should be the objective truth of the world.  And we get guys killing their kids because they might look foolish in front of some other asshat.  And we get get craven cowards talking stupid youngsters into being human bombs.  And we get crimes against women, children, against peaceful cultures.

Fundamentalism would seem to be the poison of faith.  Fred Phelps has an especially noxious brew, as do others of his ilk.  One has to wonder if it's not a mental illness at times.  Ah well ...

}:)     [Sorry, still unwinding from work ... I'll try to reign it in ... ]

re: #207 buzzsawmonkey

Dr Seuss was an ornament to San Diego and a national treasure, an honest liberal and beyond replacing.

"Quick, the Flit!"

They are religious and want it taught in school? So what?

And yet you wonder why some of us think you sound just like them.

Public schools are on the way out. They just haven't built up such momentum in their slide downhill that we see it clearly (think of the newspaper industry twenty years ago). Some form of government-supplied schooling will always be available, but for anyone paying attention, public school will become the school of last-resort. About the only other area where we spend so much money and receive so little in return is in elections.

So many kids are saddled with revisionist history, dumbed-down math, and social-awareness pap in public schools that it's hard to get excited about Creationism versus Evolution.

Bottom line: teach your kids how to tell when they are being conned. Then teach them that the idea is to extract as much useful stuff out of every experience that they can. For example, Jimi Hendrix was willing to watch some pretty bad shows by mediocre bands, just so he could see the occasional innovative lick. Let them know that school is there to be used, not endured. They should extract what they need and ignore the rest.

{ Assume the usual emoticons. I'm harmless. }

re: #43 SFGoth

Christianity may pray for souls, Islam preys prays for keeps - one town, one county, one country at a time.

One small change, and now there's a slogan I can see on a bumper sticker ...

}:)     [Apologies if this offends you.]

re: #209 NY Nana

I think it is al gore, and I think the point of linking that cartoon was to say that Charles is beating a dead horse.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
"As a result of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, the Dover Area School District was forced to pay $1,000,011 in legal fees and damages for pursuing a policy of teaching the controversy - presenting intelligent design as an allegedly scientific alternative to evolution."
Dembski took home $20,000 in expert witness fees.

re: #206 ArcherB

O stop being so sensitive. (Btw, Evolution is not a "fact" -- Evolution is a theory based on facts...)

That's enough from the dishonest shill.

re: #204 Killgore Trout
yeah, I must confess that don't watch SP and haven't seen that particular episode with that clip. I just saw the clip on Hot Air awhile back. so I must have missed the context. but it's still funny.
:note to self:
always be aware of context on the interwebs so as not to make fool of self while others are watching! :-)

re: #212 buzzsawmonkey

"Quick, Henry! The Flit!"

One of my favorites...

Why do the people who want to "explore the controversy" want so desperately to not discuss the "controversy'?

re: #223 Killgore Trout

They first want to "define the controversy." Don't explore anything else!

re: #220 Charles

I'm frankly surprised that that didn't happen at least 2 days earlier.

re: #216 Sharmuta

I think it is al gore, and I think the point of linking that cartoon was to say that Charles is beating a dead horse.

Now I get it...can a kind lizard please ding it down? Thanks!

/Seeing Albore does that to me.

re: #205 Sharmuta

Or maybe it's because irreducible complexity is a BS argument against evolution.

Behes response-- which the link describes as muddled and confusing -- is in fact crystal-clear. By making this claim, Behe's critic can avoid actually describing Behe's argument -- the one presumably being debunked.

re: #212 buzzsawmonkey

Not to cavil, but it's "Quick, Henry! The Flit!"

Help help I'm being caviled! Oh the humanity.

re: #133 Charles

Any comments telling me what I should and should not post at LGF will now be deleted.

that is your prerogative.

re: #225 JamesWI

I'm frankly surprised that that didn't happen at least 2 days earlier.

I believe in giving people with dishonest agendas all the rope they need to hang themselves with.

re: #64 Thanos

Part of DI's new tack, gained from their PR firm since the Kitzmiller trial is to frame it as opening debate on "Global Warming, Cloning, and Stem Cell Research".
They recognize they will be defeated on ID alone, so they've broadened the agenda to include other popular science "controversies".

So it's always amusing to see GW brought up early in every DI thread.

Politics [whether from the left or right] doesn't belong in science class anymore than religion does.

Appeals to 'critical thinking' and 'open debate' about "Global Warming, Cloning, and Stem Cell Research" constitute the designed-to-be-appealing Trojan Horse they want to get admitted into public high school science classrooms, in order to smuggle the science-killing, sectarian religious dogma ID (ID being PR propaganda lipstick on the creationism pig) into young impressionable minds.

re: #227 jc59

The design claim makes no predictions, so it is unscientific and useless. It has generated no research at all.

re: #227 jc59

Why did you ditch Bozo? It seemed.....fitting.

re: #65 milford421

Move on Charles...

Yeeeeahhh, riiiight, shuuuure...move right along...nothing to see here; just peoples' kids getting religiously brainwashed in public high school science classes...

re: #61 MandyManners

Poor Mr. Beaumont.

When I picture Stinky in my head, it's always a combination of (20%) the janitor at Hoggwarts and (80%) the janitor in The Simpsons.

Big brute with huge arms, stick over one shoulder, looking down to see if you're tracking mud or worse into the lizard lounge ...

}:)     [I make damned sure I wipe my feet, I tell you ... ]

re: #206 ArcherB

The Discovery Institute, following the policies outlined by Phillip E. Johnson, obfuscates its agenda. Opposed to the public statements to the contrary made by the Discovery Institute, Johnson has admitted that the goal of intelligent design movement is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.[80]
This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.[81]
If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the 'wedge.'[82]
So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.[83]
– Phillip E. Johnson

And the lesson plan or one similar that will cost the Taxpayers of LA once it gets slipped in:

Critical Analysis of Evolution continues the themes of the teach the controversy strategy, emphasizing what they say are the "criticisms" of evolutionary theory and "arguments against evolution," which continues to be portrayed as "a theory in crisis." Early drafts of the critical analysis of evolution lesson plan referred to the lesson as the "great evolution debate"; one of the early drafts of the lesson plan had one section titled "Conducting the Macroevolution Debate". In a subsequent draft, it was changed to "Conducting the Critical Analysis Activity". The wording for the two sections is nearly identical, with just "debate" changed to "critical analysis activity" wherever it appeared, in the manner of how intelligent design proponents simply replaced "creation" with "intelligent design" in Of Pandas and People to repackage a creation science textbook into an intelligent design textbook.

re: #235 Sharmuta

Why did you ditch Bozo? It seemed.....fitting.

The psychotic clown thing was just too self revelatory.

re: #239 jc59

Well- at least you have a sense of humor.

re: #101 MandyManners

I wanna' see the Dali Fish.

I think that seeing really good homemade gefilte fish in a kosher deli is now a rare sighting. ;)

[Link: science2.marion.ohio-state.edu...]

Here's a discussion of the Lesson plan from Ohio.

re: #218 buzzsawmonkey

As long as public houses stick around.

Ahh, there's that old divide between British terminology and American. I think I'll spend a little time at the public house this weekend and mull it over.

{ Assume a pint or three. I live in a town where you can actually order pints. }

re: #101 MandyManners

I wanna' see the Dali Fish.

I wanna see the Joan Miro fish.

Oh; here it is...

[Link: www.allposters.com...]

re: #154 buzzsawmonkey

I haz deoxyribonucleic acid.

/Oh, no! We're going to Brooklyn Friday. No Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) also?

re: #247 islamofauxware

Speak to the thread subject, and exchange views.

re: #250 ploome hineni

Thanks! I just saved the post. I used to make my own for eons, but no more.

re: #115 Infinity8Ball

In other words, by simply stating that there are no brute facts, even in science, he is NOT making an argument for any kind of worldview one way or the other.

Sorry, but that is the ultimate teach-the-controversy tactic.

Basically, it is attacking the ability of humans to build understanding of the world around us by connecting various observations, which is in general what science does.

re: #233 jaunte

The design claim makes no predictions, so it is unscientific and useless. It has generated no research at all.

I suppose much the same could be said for string theory. Should we ban its teaching and blacklist its proponents?

My position on ID is that it is admittedly fringe science--but science nonetheless.

I think that ID in its more elegant formulations (e.g. Behe's) raises some valid questions that should be seriously answered. I've reviewed a lot of "answers" to ID and frankly found them lacking. I have to call it the way I think I see it.

re: #105 Luigi

Unless we continue to grapple with genetic science we will destroy our hope for the future. Genetics is the key to new breakthroughs in medicine for longevity and good healthy living. Genetics is at the foundation of every new understanding. I really don't care whether someone sees the origin of life on earth as a spiritual phenomena. But if that is taught in the schools it could create a powerful political bloc that could put scientific inquiry off limits if it involves genetics. We would all live shorter and more painful lives.

Sal: One of the things that is being worked on is to engineer viruses that specifically attack the genetic bases found in our DNA for various inheritable defects. Infection by such phages would specifically change that genetic code basis for the inheritable defect in each DNA molecule to a sequence that doesn't code for the defect, that is, the kind of sequence found in human who don't have the defect, therefore 'infecting' us, and all of our future descendants, with better health.

There are also some few people who, due to their particular makeup, simply cannot contract the AIDS virus. What a boon to humankind it would be if a virus could be engineered that would insert that genetic defence in us all, and in all of our descendants to come. And the same for other viral infections.

We cannot, for our sakes and for the sakes of all who will follow, allow sectarian Luddites to stand in the way of such innovations.

The deleted comments above are from people whining that I should stop posting about this subject.

Not from people "dissenting."

re: #257 jc59

I suppose much the same could be said for string theory. Should we ban its teaching and blacklist its proponents?

My position on ID is that it is admittedly fringe science--but science nonetheless.

I think that ID in its more elegant formulations (e.g. Behe's) raises some valid questions that should be seriously answered. I've reviewed a lot of "answers" to ID and frankly found them lacking. I have to call it the way I think I see it.

Behe's silly attempts to obscure the issue HAVE been answered, definitively:

[Link: www.talkdesign.org...]

Michael Behe is a fraud, and a shill for a very dishonest agenda.

re: #257 jc59

The DIers should publish some papers and speak about his ideas to scientists, instead of trying to end-around into high schools via gullible politicians.
This is the first 'science' established without a single technical paper published for peer-review.

re: #157 centralvalleyguy

too bad LGF doesn't understand the constitution.
To quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

it's not a guarantee for atheists that schools shall never mention God. I know many of you are trying to fool the rest of us into thinking religion has no place, but it does. Sorry. Constitutionally guaranteed by the Christians and, yes, creationists, that founded this country.

Keep hammering away, though, Charles! But stop pretending you're more astute than the rest of us by constantly attacking ID.

No, I'm sorry, religion has no place in the classroom and I resent you having said that it does. The reason is, that you are speaking about the "Christian God". Which Christian version of that God should be taught? Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, Jehovah Witness, 7th Day Adventist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal?

Many believe in a higher power that is not necessarily the "Christian God", or they believe in no God at all. There are many Christians that feel religion should not be left up to the public schools. They will handle it in their own way, thank you very much.

I would go postal if my daughter starting getting "religion speak" from school disguised as science. I would not be a happy camper. I want her to get all that science has discovered about our beginnings....... nothing more.

re: #148 ArcherB

Is a law that is Constitutional really worth another 1500 post thread bashing DI?

Bet your ass it is.  Worth every comment.

}:)     [Do you get buches of money to be a shill?]

re: #260 buzzsawmonkey

re: #256 islamofauxware

Cute hall of mirrors you have had going there.

Fixed.

re: #110 BlueFalcon

I'm only taking exception to the first part of this sentence. I can call myself a Darwinian evolutionist, if I like, but if I then publish books about how Xenu put chimps on the earth, the label is obviously wrong. There's no reason why the scientific community should accept the label I've placed on myself.

That's how modern Christians look at "Christians" who fought for the Nazi's. Or, for instance, reject any doctrine of divinity and claim God is nothing more than the "universe" (a la John Shelby Spong). When something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tells me it's a putty-tat, I reserve the right to be a little skeptical.

Sal: This is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. We must accept that people belong to the religion that they practice and profess to embrace, even if other words or actions of theirs offend the sensibilities of their co-religionists.

I find it more redeeming for people to accept and acknowledge that such transgressions were indeed committed by fellow walkers of their faith path, to apologize in the name of such mark-missers to those who were wronged, and to do what they can to make amends, and ensure, through education, that it never happens again. Like these Christians do:

[Link: chi.gospelcom.net...]

re: #152 Sharmuta

re: #148 ArcherB

I think you need to read #137. And then read it again. Possibly a third time, or however many times it takes for it to sink in to you.

We're talking epochs here, right?

}:)     [Well then, darnit, I need a refill of caffiene ... ]

re: #261 ploome hineni

No. When I made it, my cousins and I got together on phone calls, etc., and reconstructed my Bubbe's recipe. She made the very best in the world..but never used a recipe for anything. She would use her hands and 'feel' the right amount of anything..no scale, no measuring cups or spoons. 3 of my cousins and my aunt and her husband lived in her home, so they saw what she used, etc.

None of us can ever truly make the things exactly like hers. I have her blintz recipe pretty close to the original. But her gefilte fish? Amazing. Chicken soup? Nectar...my 41 year old son is named in her memory. And we still talk about her to this day.

re: #268 islamofauxware

Ummm... see your last two comments?

I didn't think so.

Are we at or near the record for number of deletions on one thread? Hey, y'all get a clue. This topic causes an uproar, so what? It is important.

I repeat: Any comments telling me what I should or should not post at LGF will now be deleted.

re: #274 Charles
Are they getting that snippy? Asshats.

re: #276 islamofauxware

Damn, that's insulting.

re: #276 islamofauxware

Lying about motivations and cheating to get your way with other people's children is not an example of the "light."

re: #112 Franktalk

I think we should teach religion in school. Not in the science class but in an open style that allows kids to see the diverse beliefs in the world. After all they have to live in this world at some point. They can't be protected their whole life.

The other thing that the science class should do is separate out the topics that are based on experimental data and those based on theory. This would go a long way to properly distinguish between the two and allow the kids to see the theoretical edge of science.

Sal: Religion should be taught in the home, in the church, or in the private religious school. Comparative religion is not a high-school-level course; I know, because I've taught it. But none of this should be taught in a public high school science class.

Those who truly wish to improve the education of our children would lobby for mandatory logic classes, beginning in middle school, and continuing throughout high school, so that kids are taught the tools with which they may evaluate assertions and rationally discriminate between competing evidence and truth claims.