If you have nothing more to say than "I'm staying out of this," why are you posting in this thread?

Wow deleted in under 2 minutes....is that a record?

You've got my support. The issue is clearly very important, and those who champion reason must prevail over those who peddle faith and skepticism. Thanks, Charles.

We've evolved to believe in creationism-or were created to believe in evolution. Pick your poison. That's my philosophy and I'm stickin' to it.

Evolution OR faith is a false dichotomy.

I suggest reading Stuart Kaufmann's "At Home in the Universe" if one wants to see how God's hand shows itself in a universe which evolves life.

My sentiments exactly.

We cannot allow the left to monopolize the high ground of science and reason, a monopoly that already exists in public perception because of a hellish alliance between the media- industrial complex and a powerful cabal of corrupt grant-pandering scientists.

I wrote this on the overnight thread, but it's actually on topic here:

This is a blog defending rationalism. Islam is certainly the largest, most violent group of irrational actors out there, but it's not the only irrationality LGF has become concerned with. The 9/11 "troofers", the racists and anti-semites working their way into national politics (from the right or left), those who would invoke science for political ends (whether global warmers or ID advocates), multiculturalists who would excuse the irrational violence of jihad and surrender the West, these have all received attention at one time or another.

And for people to make rational decisions in our democracy, one has to ensure that the evidence and information underlying those decisions is as accurate and unbiased as possible. The other major LGF theme of challenging media bias and media fraud and fauxtography is connected with that.

The cult of personality surrounding the presumptive Democratic nominee is remarkable in its irrationality, and has been commented upon here, just as the cult of personality surrounding Ron Paul has been.

Those who have a rational contribution to make and can defend their arguments honestly and courteously are welcome at LGF.

For the rest, the ban stick awaits...

Why, I believe in evolution too!

Faith in science alone leaves us with only two things: those who hold the gun, and those with a bullet in their head.

Being on the right doesn't mean leaving your brain at the door. I've also appreciated your posts on evolution - more power to your arm!

This is crazy. What happened to the bicycling posts?

It's important to protect science education from manipulative pushes for 'fairness' to all ideas. Thanks for shining the light on those who would blur the distinction between faith, politics, and science.

Please note: before you post a comment telling me I shouldn't write about evolution, be aware that I'm going to be deleting any such comments.

Her parents gave her such a liberal-sounding name. All for naught. Tsk.

The bicycling posts have stopped, by the way, because I received threats.

Unfortunately, it's easy to smear an entire group by the more vocal of its members, and the ID crowd goes out of its way to "mark" every forum they visit. The thing is, no one is trying to deny them their beliefs; sane people just don't want it imposed on innocent school children. They, on the other hand, insist on imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else. It's the very definition of fanaticism.

I know there are some that are upset that Charles posts on this - God forbid he use his forums to talk about what he wants! - but it's too important to ignore.

This fight against Islam is about reason over fanatical insanity.

As I see it, Evolution is part of that reason.

As an Atheist, I really don't have too many quibbles with Christians who have faith in a God and accept Evolution as a scientific fact as well. It's the others I worry about.

It's good that you are gaining encouragement, but I wager that the hatemail outnumbers the support mail.

It's a factor you see if you deal with customer service surveys as well: people who are sour are much more likely to respond or reply than those who are pleased. I don't know why that is, but it's one of those factors in customer surveying you have to take into account or you get real depressed reading them. If you notice the commentors in news articles at most papers no matter what the subject the sourpusses tend to outnumber the positive commenters.

My way of saying don't let it get you down if that's the case Charles, on the other hand if the supportive mail is outnumbering the hate mail then that's really telling as to how small a base that particular worldview has.

re: #12 SemperHunden
they evolved

re: #7 DockScience

Evolution OR faith is a false dichotomy.

A huge THANK YOU.

I believe in God. I believe in intelligent design. I have no desire to take over the schools and cram the bible down your child’s throat.

I also believe in scientific principles and that science can teach us much. Both science and religion can be perverted. Two examples are Global Warming and much of Islam.

re: #20 Thanos

It's good that you are gaining encouragement, but I wager that the hatemail outnumbers the support mail.

I had the same thought.

I agree that the choice is not so simple.

Why cant both be taught?

Let the market place of ideas do its work, as some will support evolution and others will identify with creationism.

For me, studying science my whole life and entering it and medicine as a profession, I never gave 1 minute of thought to Creationism. It's pure nonsense.

:Boy Yogi, this whole creationist -v- evolutionist thing is really messing my mind up. Did we evolve or were we created, Yogi?

:We were created, but we're still evolving, Boo Boo.

re: #25 Dan Tanna

I agree that the choice is not so simple.

Why cant both be taught?

Let the market place of ideas do its work, as some will support evolution and others will identify with creationism.

Then why not let astrology be taught alongside astronomy? Let the marketplace of ideas sort it all out? Is that cool too?

re: #17 Charles

The bicycling posts have stopped, by the way, because I received threats.

Those doping guys in the Tour De France are pretty serious!

/

My entire family is horrified by my political shift after 9/11 (actually I just started really figuring out what I believe) and thinks any non-liberal is an irrational science-hating warmongering evangelical Christian who would mandate creationism in schools.

You must not deviate from the orthodoxy! To the re-education camps!

re: #23 jamihabs

I also believe in scientific principles and that science can teach us much. Both science and religion can be perverted. Two examples are Global Warming and much of Islam.

Yes Science can be misused, but it takes Politics to do it. That's why making science political and warping it to your politics is almost always wrong. Whether you are creating a false crisis in climate or a false social crisis to further your political aims on the left or right, both are basically wrong. Science is what it is.

I'll admit that I haven't paid much attention to the comments of the intelligent design posts, so this question has probably already been answered before. But could evolution be the "how" of creationism? I.e., an intelligent designer put evolution into motion in order to create.

re: #11 DocDale

Being on the right doesn't mean leaving your brain at the door.

Ditto.

Summer,

Let's not take things to the absurd.

Please dont read in to my comments something I did not mean.

I have learned alot from the Evolution threads here. Very fascinating even to someone who has taken grad level courses.

re: #17 Charles

The bicycling posts have stopped, by the way, because I received threats.

Then you'll want to avoid this topic.

Myths and Milestones in Bicycle Evolution

For those who want to read some hatemail PZ Meyers has you covered....
Mail dump

I do not have the background in cell biology, or historical geology, or any related field, to have empirical knowledge of the way that species originated, or the way the earth formed, or the way the universe came to be. If I accept the consensus of modern science, it's faith, because I have no way to independently verify it.

Does that mean I think that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that dinosaurs lived alongside man? No. I believe the majority opinion of modern science is correct, or close enough to correct that it doesn't matter. But "I believe" is the operative phrase there.

re: #34 Dan Tanna

Summer,

Let's not take things to the absurd.

Please dont read in to my comments something I did not mean.

Well, ID is pretty absurd. It's not science. So if you're going to teach it along with Evolution, I don't see why you shouldn't include other absurdities. =)

re: #32 SemperHunden

Yes, a lot of people can make that compromise. Others can't.

re: #39 Summer

Well, ID is pretty absurd. It's not science. So if you're going to teach it along with Evolution, I don't see why you shouldn't include other absurdities. =)

You mean like the superiority of capitalism?

re: #29 Dar ul Harb

Those doping guys in the Tour De France are pretty serious!

/

I was wondering the same thing. For bicycling? Actually, I found the bicycle topics inspiring.

re: #20 Thanos

It's good that you are gaining encouragement, but I wager that the hatemail outnumbers the support mail.

You'd win that bet. But I learned a long time ago that the angry ones are much more likely to send email than the supportive ones; so I give that exactly the amount of weight it deserves.

Cool.

Oddly enough, we lizardoids are a disparate bunch who, however, are all concerned about this post-9/11 world of ours.

For example, some of us like this song (lyrics alert), and I'm going to go out on a limb and say some of us don't like it.

re: #25 Dan Tanna

I agree that the choice is not so simple.

Why cant both be taught?

Let the market place of ideas do its work, as some will support evolution and others will identify with creationism.

The choice is simple.

Creationism is nonsense.

Science is not a market.

My problem with these threads is that there is an implied false dilemma involved here; either you believe in Creationism (even worse, the "Young Earth" version) as written in the Bible, or you believe that evolution is a matter of random chance, with an implication that no other beliefs are possible. And certainly, even Louisiana's new law forbids teaching religious doctrine as science, and philosophy should not be taught as science, either.

Given all this, there ARE other philosophical viewpoints; a common one in the West being that the Biblical story of creation was a form of shorthand, with Darwinian evolution being the mechanism of creation. And there are other philosophical and/or religious ideas other than random chance in terms of evolution, many of which fit in seamlessly within the Darwinian theoretical framework. And we certainly don't have anything better than Darwinism with which to replace the theory.

Most of the criticisms of Darwinism are due to the mistaken belief that it is a theory in and of itself, rather than a theoretical framework, with many different pieces, where theories can be placed in and out at will (for example, Mendelian genetics, when it became well-known, fit into the framework very nicely). But let's not confuse attempts to examine the individual pieces within the framework with a denial of the framework, itself.

I'm going to go before I get trapped in an argument for a few hours. =)

One should expect the imperfect (like me) to understand perfection imperfectly. Thus, I should certainly expect to be confused on this issue. Any perceived dichotomy is my problem, not that of theology or science.

Faith and reason are not, ....competing "alternatives." They are, as Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Fides et ratio, "like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." Without reason, faith would be just groping in the dark, and without faith (say, in the legitimacy of reason), reason itself would never get off the ground.

[Link: whollycatholic.blogspot.com...]

re: #35 ted

I have learned alot from the Evolution threads here. Very fascinating even to someone who has taken grad level courses.

I have learned a lot too, more to go, bookmarked quite a but, so much to still go through.

re: #25 Dan Tanna

Fine. Send your kids to private school. That is your privilege. This does not belong in any public school in our country. Period.

See Ted's post. My husband is a scientist and I am a retired RN.

I agree with him, as does my husband, and with Charles and what seems to be a significant majority of lizards.

re: #25 Dan Tanna

High school is not the "market place of ideas".

re: #32 SemperHunden

Instead of ignoring these threads, you should go back and read them, and you might just learn a lot.

Summer,

Im sorry you feel ID is absurd.

As a religious Jew, Im not threatened by teaching evolution, eventhough it is something I may personally disagree with.

A little advise for you Summer....
You sound like a KOS KID or DuMMy that has to slam people who dont share your view.

I think both extremes in this argument need to take a step back.

re: #42 Crimsonfisted

I was wondering the same thing. For bicycling? Actually, I found the bicycle topics inspiring.

Note the implied /sarc tag.

(We all know it's the --starts with M-- [no, not Mormons, Mennonites, or Methodists] Charles has to keep a watch out for.)

re: #25 Dan Tanna

I agree that the choice is not so simple.

Why cant both be taught?

Let the market place of ideas do its work, as some will support evolution and others will identify with creationism.

Both are taught, that's somewhat of a strawman put forth by DI. 12.5 percent of biology classes present ID in a positive light, fully a quarter of Bio teachers are ID'ers, and 12.5 percent of bio classes "teach the controversy" with Evolution in a postive light beside ID.

Science isn't a marketplace of ideas like politics however. It doesn't matter what consensus is -- what matters are the facts you can see, test, speculate upon, and base theories upon. If someone for instance finds a fossilized modern cow in the belly of a fossilized Allosaur, then the theory of evolution goes down in flames the day they do.

OT: I read in another thread that there was a book list being compiled. I have looked around and can't find one one the site. Is it somewhere I haven't looked or is there not one?

I worked for 26 years in the oil business, and we applied the principles of evolution (actually, invertebrate paleontology) on a daily basis as we drilled wells, because the information we got from this was absolutely necessary to our success.

I'm not aware of any oil companies that evaluate their wells based on scientific creationism. I suspect any that did, would go broke really quick.

The bicycling threads were revealing way too much about my whereabouts and habits. The threats were pretty specific -- enough to get my attention.

There's a lot of politics in Science too. It is a two-sided coin.

The creationist dingers are already at it.

I really dont know why everyone is getting so hot in the collar....

I may not be expressing myself clearly enough, but I probably agree and identify with your sentiments.

Go and kick someone else.

re: #58 Charles

Yikes. Seriously. Yikes.

re: #50 Crimsonfisted

I have learned a lot too, more to go, bookmarked quite a but, so much to still go through.

Yup. Me too.

re: #57 Fast Eddie

I worked for 26 years in the oil business, and we applied the principles of evolution (actually, invertebrate paleontology) on a daily basis as we drilled wells, because the information we got from this was absolutely necessary to our success.

I'm not aware of any oil companies that evaluate their wells based on scientific creationism. I suspect any that did, would go broke really quick.

"The U.S.-based Zion Oil & Gas Corporation, led by an Evangelical Christian is using biblical prophecy to search for oil in Israel. Zion's 165-foot oilrig is located in an inland field between the central and northern Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa. Israeli and Texas State flags flutter at the entrance to the fenced compound, where digging goes on 24-hours a day -- except on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays."

I'm a vegetarian conservative. Neighbor moved in (he's a huge lib) saw my vegetarian bumper-sticker, made an assumption. We're good friends, but really different politically.

So, I can see the author's point.

re: #40 Killgore Trout

Yes, a lot of people can make that compromise. Others can't.

Yep. The whole thing, to me, is that it is a matter of faith, which some people have and some people don't have. To me, God works in mysterious ways, not in ways you can figure out and teach in science class. You can't take faith into a lab and analyze God empirically.

re: #58 Charles

The bicycling threads were revealing way too much about my whereabouts and habits. The threats were pretty specific -- enough to get my attention.

I suspected that.

For those of you who've "just tuned in"- ID is not the warm and fuzzy, happy mix of both creation and evolution that you think it is.

ID is creationism with a new name.

ID is about proselytizing to your kids.

ID is not science and does not belong in a science classroom.

If you would like to believe in ID as a personally held belief, feel free. But please, keep it the hell away from other people's children- we're not interested.

re: #25 Dan Tanna

Because it is religion. If you open the door for one religious group's unsupportable beliefs, you have to let every cult, religion, crazy-tinfoil-hat-guy have their say as well.

It's simple. Evolution is a scientifically supportable position. It is based on facts. ID is a religious belief with no grounding in science at all. It is pure faith. There's nothing wrong with believing it if you must, but it's religion and has no place in a school, especially being paraded as science.

What I've never understood is the religious people insisting creationism MUST be taught side by side with evolution. Where is the basis for this?

Science is science, evolution is science, creationism is not.

Creationism is taught in churches, not schools.

Unlike Charles, I would have to bet the people attacking me have no respect for religious people....

I never expected this from an LGF forum.

Signs of political evolution; McCain-Obama tied. Rasmussen latest poll.

re: #69 mossley

Because it is religion. If you open the door for one religious group's unsupportable beliefs, you have to let every cult, religion, crazy-tinfoil-hat-guy have their say as well.

It's simple. Evolution is a scientifically supportable position. It is based on facts. ID is a religious belief with no grounding in science at all. It is pure faith. There's nothing wrong with believing it if you must, but it's religion and has no place in a school, especially being paraded as science.

Exactly.

I believe that Charles has a blog. I believe that there is intelligent design behind what I see on my screen. I can not see the code that causes all manor of actions to occur invisibly to me when I click, but I am certain the code is there. It is probably in a computer language I do not understand.
Does that make me an I.D.er?

re: #58 Charles

The bicycling threads were revealing way too much about my whereabouts and habits. The threats were pretty specific -- enough to get my attention.

That really stinks, Charles. Sorry the world is like that - I enjoyed those threads, from the comfort of my cushy chair.

re: #58 Charles

The bicycling threads were revealing way too much about my whereabouts and habits. The threats were pretty specific -- enough to get my attention.

If you can't refute the message, kill the messenger?

re: #72 jcw46

Signs of political evolution; McCain-Obama tied. Rasmussen latest poll.

Change !

re: #71 Dan Tanna

No one is attacking you. People are trying to tell you what the problem with ID is.

Before this thread derails into an epic sh*t fight, two things:

1. Charles can't talk about where he rides his pushbike (I do hope you're still riding, even if we don't hear about it) thanks to violent idiots. Those violent idiots are making threats because Charles poked his head above the parapet and created this site.

2. I'm taking a fellow lizard around Oxford tomorrow (I'm a grad student here) after 'meeting' in the Lizard Lounge. This would not have happened were it not for LGF.

In other words, what unites us is far more important than what divides us. And we are here as Charles' guests.

re: #54 Dar ul Harb

Note the implied /sarc tag.

(We all know it's the --starts with M-- [no, not Mormons, Mennonites, or Methodists] Charles has to keep a watch out for.)

/hiding my face in embarrassment!

Oh well. Won;t be the first or last time I miss a nuance! Sheesh! I think it is time to step away from the keyboard and pour myself a nice cocktail.

re: #71 Dan Tanna

Have you read the Wedge Strategy? Do you know what these people's real goal is?

re: #58 Charles

The bicycling threads were revealing way too much about my whereabouts and habits. The threats were pretty specific -- enough to get my attention.

Can't Stinky provide security ?

re: #38 Genosaurer

I do not have the background in cell biology, or historical geology, or any related field, to have empirical knowledge of the way that species originated, or the way the earth formed, or the way the universe came to be. If I accept the consensus of modern science, it's faith, because I have no way to independently verify it.

Not quite. Barring a brain injury or birth defect, there is nothing stopping you from learning the material so that you can understand it.

re: #79 DocDale

Before this thread derails into an epic sh*t fight, two things:

1. Charles can't talk about where he rides his pushbike (I do hope you're still riding, even if we don't hear about it) thanks to violent idiots. Those violent idiots are making threats because Charles poked his head above the parapet and created this site.

2. I'm taking a fellow lizard around Oxford tomorrow (I'm a grad student here) after 'meeting' in the Lizard Lounge. This would not have happened were it not for LGF.

In other words, what unites us is far more important than what divides us. And we are here as Charles' guests.

I lived in Oxford for two years (Norham Gardens, across from the University Parks) in the early 90s and worked at the University Offices. What college are you with?

re: #71 Dan Tanna

Oh, please. No one is attacking you, their pointing out the very obvious flaw in your line of reasoning.

My entire family is horrified by my political shift after 9/11 (actually I just started really figuring out what I believe) and thinks any non-liberal is an irrational science-hating warmongering evangelical Christian who would mandate creationism in schools.

--------

Sign her up!

and Tamala - find your titanium spine - know your stuff, enjoy their deer-in-the headlights looks, and tell them to quit projecting - how narrow-minded of them.........

------
warmongering evangelical Christian who would mandate creationism in schools.

they haven't done any research on Islam, then, have they?

Mossley,
I can relate....
As a Jew who went to public school I was subjected to a lot of Jew bashing and proseltysing.

If ID cant be taught without its religious component, then I would agree that it belongs in a religious forum.

I'm not a teacher, but, maybe a compromise can be forged.

I do know that it seems, among some here, that this is more about bashing faith, than a promotion of ideas.

re: #65 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I'm a vegetarian conservative. Neighbor moved in (he's a huge lib) saw my vegetarian bumper-sticker, made an assumption. We're good friends, but really different politically.

So, I can see the author's point.

Rod Dreher at National Review calls folks like you "crunchy cons" (a play off "granola-eating conservatives").

re: #53 Dan Tanna

Summer,

A little advise for you Summer....
You sound like a KOS KID or DuMMy that has to slam people who dont share your view.

Summer sounds very sane to me.

re: #75 Catttt

Everytime I feel the need to post personal info--anything, like places I visit, people I know, things I've done and seen--I think about the internet's way back machine and wonder when that info will come back to me. I have often thought about that with the bike rides and the great pics they provided.

re: #87 Dan Tanna

I do know that it seems, among some here, that this is more about bashing faith, than a promotion of ideas.

Faith does not belong in science classes.

re: #37 Killgore Trout

For those who want to read some hatemail PZ Meyers has you covered....
Mail dump

From one of PZ's commenters:

Too often, I'm shocked at the relationship between unmitigated hatred and fundamentalism.

I wonder what sealed bomb-shelter this one was raised in? (Ala Brendan Fraser in Blast from the Past)

re: #68 Sharmuta

For those of you who've "just tuned in"- ID is not the warm and fuzzy, happy mix of both creation and evolution that you think it is.

ID is creationism with a new name.

ID is about proselytizing to your kids.

No, the Young Earth Creationists are trying to co-opt the philosophical point of view of Intelligent Design for themselves, hoping that people will be foolish enough to fall for it.

BTW- this was exactly the sort of thing zombie has been talking about the last few months- this mentality that right wingers are all evangelicals who want to force their religion onto others. I knew zombie was right, because I've spoken to a person like Tamala but with a twist. This person had right wing leanings but was turned off by the evangelicals, so they were hesitant to call themselves a Republican. I see this as a similar issue- I don't want religion in science class, and frankly- I don't want it in my politics either.

(OT) re: #56 spirochete

At top of any thread, click on Show Top Rate Links or LinkViewer, then select the category Books.

re: #79 DocDale

"In other words, what unites us is far more important than what divides us. And we are here as Charles' guests."

Some don't seem to grasp this.

re: #58 Charles

The bicycling threads were revealing way too much about my whereabouts and habits. The threats were pretty specific -- enough to get my attention.

That's somewhat awful. I know the feeling however, my hatemail comes from Pakistan.

One day I took out the trash and when I opened the big bin outside I saw a white bucket inside that I hadn't put there with an electric clock on top. I started to put the trash in, but then did a double take.... my thought was "maybe it's a bomb, maybe they've come for me". I rolled the bin out to the curb, and then quizzed everyone in the house. It was a great relief to find out that my daughter in law who's visiting had just put their kitty litter clean up in a bucket and tossed an old clock out with it.

re: #84 goddessoftheclassroom

I'm at Brasenose, next to the Rad Cam. Good spot!

For my part - I don't get all the hysteria about the impending intellectual suffocation by competing creationism and evolution. I'm a Catholic and a long time conservative, and a long time devotee of LGF, and I couldn't care any less about the issue. Some schools want to have the freedom to suggest an alternative theory to evolution? Fine - but just mention that one is a scientific theory and the other a religious theory. Why is it that those things considered liberal (or enlightened) must be forced on our students - like the devastation sure to come due to man-made global warming - but quaint notions like creationism that have harmlessly appealed to people for thousands of years be banned? I went to Catholic school most of my school years and learned evolutionary science on one day and was an altar boy on the next. I grew up with a healthy understanding of both - what up?

In tugs of war such as these I catch the acrid odor of arrogance wafting through the debate, and it makes for bitter conversation. The trend as of the last ten years has been an intellectual movement to champion atheism - the book stores are lined with their condescending arguments. That's great - God Bless America. But whether we believe in a creator or not, whether we believe he waved a finger for days or winked an eye to start the chain of life that resulted in this petty, pompous race of ungrateful bi-peds matters little to me. My God is a spirit deeply wise, ever patient and infinitely more forgiving than the concoction created by man and his fears. I say more humility and less fear - more respect for the wonders around us and certainly less arrogance - we may think we are the kings of this world, but we have yet to conquer our nature...

I think I may have a malware problem on my pc.

can't get into Alta Vista or Yahoo or Blogspot sites and Google and Dogpile won't work for me.

If anyone has a suggested solution please include an URL.

Thanks.

re: #91 Killgore Trout

Faith does not belong in science classes.

Right.

LOL, as much chagrin as there is for the ID/evolution threads ("oh gout, not another one!") some of the the very first comments go right there, LOL. There's a local yahoo group called 9/11 Conservatives (or somesuch, I believe started by 9/11 conservative Cinnamon Stillwell) and it's about people who are finally getting their heads screwed on straight while not necessarily being converted supply siders, neocons, etc. Showing good, old-fashioned, small-c conservative/libertarian sensibilities* in public is not a bad thing.

*Think of it as a political mullet - business in public, party in private.

I can handle someone pointing a flaw in my reasoning....

However, I can read an attack, and I understand an attack when I see one.

Im far from a over-sensitive person.....
Unlike some here that have become apopletic at the mere mention of faith.

I agree with Doc Dale....
I respect I am here as Charles' guest...and my participation was not meant to incite a sh#t war....

Unfortunately, others didnt see it that way.

re: #53 Dan Tanna

A little advise for you Summer....
You sound like a KOS KID or DuMMy that has to slam people who dont share your view.

Pot, meet kettle.

If you think ID is a valid topic for a science class, then state what scientific principles support it. You can't; it's not science.

Believing in evolution is not a denial of religion, but believing in ID is a denial of science.

And #85 their=they're . Sigh. Posting too fast...

re: #93 synergist

You didn't click my links, did you? It's the same thing, as this graph clearly shows.

And let us not forget the "cdesign proponentists".

re: #71 Dan Tanna

Unlike Charles, I would have to bet the people attacking me have no respect for religious people....

I never expected this from an LGF forum.

Dan, I think you are off base there. It's also noteworthy that whenever Charles posts one of these threads that someone shows up and tries to make it out as an attack on all Christianity when it's a particular lance at the Discovery institute.

The creationism threads seem to be popular, the discussions are lively, and as someone pointed out early in this particular thread, liberals don't have a monopoly on rationalism. In my mind, it's not necessarily a bad thing for a blog like LGF to delve into science every now and again and perhaps shake the conventional wisdom on what conservatives believe.

re: #58 Charles

The bicycling threads were revealing way too much about my whereabouts and habits. The threats were pretty specific -- enough to get my attention.

Really? I started to LOL out #17 because I thought you were joking. Plus, exactly what bike threads are you talking about? I have been reading everyday for at least a year and do not remember a bike thread that would give clues to your whereabouts, unless you mean the random pics you sometimes post that I assume are near you. Just curious.

re: #99 ShaneBorgess

Except that opens the door to other religions (like islam) wanting their theory told to the class as well.

re: #95 abolitionist

Thank you very much!

re: #99 ShaneBorgess

The legal strategy of the Discovery Institute will cause school districts to waste taxpayers money on useless lawsuits. That money could have been better spent on education. Derbyshire at National Review wrote a good analysis of the problem.

ShaneBorgess,

Your post echos what I have been trying to say.

Thank you for posting an eloquent reply.

re: #99 ShaneBorgess

In tugs of war such as these I catch the acrid odor of arrogance wafting through the debate, and it makes for bitter conversation.

Well said.

It seems quite a bit off base that some (maybe many) of you seem to suggest that any response is either supportive of Charles' "approach" (shall we call it?) or is otherwise hate mail. There is room for intelligent discourse in which one might simply challenge the poor science of Darwin (my opinion) without those who disagree getting in a defensive crouch waiting to have some religious dogma forced down their throat. And some of us have invested more energy than 15 second responses on a message board, and have credentials to support opposing views with at least a touch of legitimacy.

If I might recommend:

[Link: www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com...]

But you'd have to do quite a lot of reading to understand the perspectives presented. So if that's not your MO, just avoid it. And to beat you to the punch, yes -- there is such a thing as a Thinking Catholic.

what a great heartfelt note to charles.
she sounds so happy to be reading lgf.
(it's difficult out there when you don't have anyone to relate to.)

re: #105 Sharmuta

You didn't click my links, did you? It's the same thing, as this graph clearly shows.

And let us not forget the "cdesign proponentists".

Actually, I DID click your links; that's why I responded. The "Young Earth" creationists have tried to make people think that the two ideas are the same when THEY ARE NOT.

Vatican astronomer rips Intelligent Design theory

The director of the Vatican Observatory has lashed out at proponents of the theory of Intelligent Design, the Italian news service ANSA reports.

"Intelligent design isn't science, even if it pretends to be," said Father George Coyne. He said that if the theory is introduced in schools, it should be taught in religion classes, not science classes.

re: #43 Charles

You'd win that bet. But I learned a long time ago that the angry ones are much more likely to send email than the supportive ones; so I give that exactly the amount of weight it deserves.

The Bible says that one way to tell a false prophet is that everyone speaks well of them.

re: #34 Dan Tanna

Summer,

Let's not take things to the absurd.

Please dont read in to my comments something I did not mean.

Actually Summer stated it quite well.

Your idea leaves out important facts, like whose version of creation should be taught?

A generic version? No such thing, you will alienate too many. All of them, no time, it would distract from teaching....oh, I don't know...Science?

re: #109 Sharmuta

You're right Sharmuta - but if it were about treating all ideas equally, then the day would be spent talking non-sense in order to appease every theory or religious perspective. We ought to have the right to expound on majority opinions held by Americans - or is that a door kicked just wide enough to let in the Wiccans?

My entire family is horrified by my political shift after 9/11 (actually I just started really figuring out what I believe) and thinks any non-liberal is an irrational science-hating warmongering evangelical Christian who would mandate creationism in schools. I am so glad to see that there are others with a similar view of the world that I have.

So what would they say, Tamala, your family members about the Postmodern anti-science on the Left?

See also: Alan Sokal, Higher Superstition.

"What do I have to say about Louisiana Governor Jindal signing the Louisiana Science Education Act? Very little more than I said here back on June 20.

Whether or not the law as signed is unconstitutional per se, I do not know. I do know, though — as the creationist Discovery Institute that helped promote the Act also surely knows — that the Act will encourage Louisiana local school boards to unconstitutional behavior. That's what it's meant to do.

Some local school board will take the Act as a permit to bring religious instruction into their science classes. That will irk some parents. Those parents will sue. There will be a noisy and expensive federal lawsuit, possibly followed by further noisy and expensive appeals. The school board will inevitably lose. The property owners of that school district will take the financial hit.

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!

[Link: corner.nationalreview.com...]

re: #114 MrSimplistic

Reading about Evolution on a Catholic Strategy board is a waste of time.

re: #109 Sharmuta

Except that opens the door to other religions (like islam) wanting their theory told to the class as well.

And BINGO was his name-o, except Muslims don't want it "told", they want it codified and enforced. Neck, meet blade.

re: #94 Sharmuta

BTW- this was exactly the sort of thing zombie has been talking about the last few months- this mentality that right wingers are all evangelicals who want to force their religion onto others. I knew zombie was right, because I've spoken to a person like Tamala but with a twist. This person had right wing leanings but was turned off by the evangelicals, so they were hesitant to call themselves a Republican. I see this as a similar issue- I don't want religion in science class, and frankly- I don't want it in my politics either.

I remember zombies comments at the time. From a purely practical viewpoint, this is hardly the time to show those that take a literal interpretation of the Bible out the side door of the Republican 'big tent'. After November, talk all you want. Now?

re: #100 The Other Les

I think I may have a malware problem on my pc.

can't get into Alta Vista or Yahoo or Blogspot sites and Google and Dogpile won't work for me.

If anyone has a suggested solution please include an URL.

Thanks.

Try F-secure's online scanner if you can get to it.
[Link: support.f-secure.com...]

re: #120 ShaneBorgess

You're right Sharmuta - but if it were about treating all ideas equally, then the day would be spent talking non-sense in order to appease every theory or religious perspective. We ought to have the right to expound on majority opinions held by Americans - or is that a door kicked just wide enough to let in the Wiccans?

Well, you know whose religion is most likely to get into the schools first.

(And if you oppose them, you're just being racist.)

Religious Jews generally don't push there religious view points upon gentiles. I am more of a traditional Jew not frum by any means but do accept and believe in the Jewish religion although my practice is weak. With religious Jews it isn't a either or thing i know of scientists who happen to be orthodox Jews and their belief is that science helps them understand G-D'S creation.

To me I.D./CREATIONISM is theologically based viewpoint and not science, science is looking at provable facts. to me creationism is just as much a political thing as global warming is a political thing.

I try not to give my opinion on this subject because I don't believe in debating religion. In Europe Jews were forced to debate religion against there will and of fen punished when the temporal authority decided that the Jews have lost the debate In Italy the losers were forced to run thought the streets in the nude. To me religion is a personal question and i will keep it that way.

My entire family is horrified by my political shift after 9/11 (actually I just started really figuring out what I believe) and thinks any non-liberal is an irrational science-hating warmongering evangelical Christian who would mandate creationism in schools. I am so glad to see that there are others with a similar view of the world that I have.

Heh, well we think any non-conservative is an irrational science-hating appeasing liberal commie socialist pinko pansie demoRAT traitor!

re: #120 ShaneBorgess

You're right Sharmuta - but if it were about treating all ideas equally, then the day would be spent talking non-sense in order to appease every theory or religious perspective. We ought to have the right to expound on majority opinions held by Americans - or is that a door kicked just wide enough to let in the Wiccans?

I disagree. I don't want any kids of mine exposed to "the majority's faith", I want them exposed to mine. The Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and this issues is a prime example of why the Founders granted us these protections. I also don't need the schools help in teaching faith, as it's not their place to do so- it is MY place to teach my children about God. I refuse to grant the state that permission. It is my right, and I'm going to bitterly cling to it.

re: #99 ShaneBorgess

For my part - I don't get all the hysteria about the impending intellectual suffocation by competing creationism and evolution. I'm a Catholic and a long time conservative, and a long time devotee of LGF, and I couldn't care any less about the issue. Some schools want to have the freedom to suggest an alternative theory to evolution? Fine - but just mention that one is a scientific theory and the other a religious theory. Why is it that those things considered liberal (or enlightened) must be forced on our students - like the devastation sure to come due to man-made global warming - but quaint notions like creationism that have harmlessly appealed to people for thousands of years be banned? I went to Catholic school most of my school years and learned evolutionary science on one day and was an altar boy on the next. I grew up with a healthy understanding of both - what up?

In tugs of war such as these I catch the acrid odor of arrogance wafting through the debate, and it makes for bitter conversation. The trend as of the last ten years has been an intellectual movement to champion atheism - the book stores are lined with their condescending arguments. That's great - God Bless America. But whether we believe in a creator or not, whether we believe he waved a finger for days or winked an eye to start the chain of life that resulted in this petty, pompous race of ungrateful bi-peds matters little to me. My God is a spirit deeply wise, ever patient and infinitely more forgiving than the concoction created by man and his fears. I say more humility and less fear - more respect for the wonders around us and certainly less arrogance - we may think we are the kings of this world, but we have yet to conquer our nature...

Hey Mars,

Sorry, next time I will post a thesis.

Then maybe some of the faith and religion bashers on here will be satisfied.

I think, as stated above, that there appears an air of arrogance that surrounds this subject......and it must be there way or no way at all.

it hard to have a discussion under those circumstances.

re: #109 Sharmuta

Except that opens the door to other religions (like islam) wanting their theory told to the class as well.

OK, if I haven't made it sufficiently clear in #46, I am absolutely against the teaching of religious doctrine in schools, and against the representation of philosophy as science. However, I am very much in favor of teaching philosophical ideas AS PHILOSOPHY in schools.

Given all that, yes, there ARE groups who are trying to get their religious points of view taught as science in the schools, and they SHOULD be stopped. But if we fall for a slippery slope logical fallacy, and try to stop anything that MIGHT be used to introduce religious ideas in schools, then we had better stop teaching students of the Declaration of Independence; after all, it prominently refers to "our Creator".

Do posters have any idea whether students are debating this issue at/near school?
We had only evolution taught at school in the late 1950's early 1960's when I was in school.
But between classes and at lunch, on the way to school and on the way to the malt shop after school it was one of the most active topics of conversation.
What with busing and all those product development things school children are put through nowadays do they have time to think and debate for themselves?
Without '''adult supervision?"
We had loads of time to ourselves.
We played and thought and debated, simply making sure we were home by dinner.

#123 Ted

Summarily executed. The easy way out. I understand.

As I said, you'd actually have to read to know you're wrong. Pretty dangerous.

Nice to see there is still hope for the human race. We aren't all as nuts as some that get most of the attention in the media and certain blogs might suggest.
Not that there aren't some that deserve keeping an eye on, just in case...

re: #60 Charles

The creationist dingers are already at it.

And they'll never stop. They're True Believers, and you can't reason with them. They think they're being reasonable, by allowing you to teach evolution (in school) alongside creationism (in church and temple, and in more schools than I ever would have believed possible, 20 years ago). It's a cognitive disorder, that appears to be very deeply engrained in human nature.

[Phillip] 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."

These people don't want a debate- they want to proselytize to your kids.

So many posts often suggest that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I don't know any religious person that rejects scientific fact and yet I rarely see a post on evolution that doesn't have the obligatory attack on religious believers. Let me propose that there are some who have found a home among the scientific community that have more in mind than simply seeking scientific evidence.

Their seems to be a compulsive need to denigrate those who adhere to religious doctrines. These attacks seem come from zealots shrieking "All religious people are opposed to logic!" You don't have to read very far in any posting about evolution to see that there is a certain group who want to reject God for the alternative religion of science and follow a very similar pattern.

Many who have embraced their new faith develop an almost immediate animosity for people that they once claimed kinship. The newly recruited denizens of scientific supremacy even have their own version of proselytizing their new faith and work tirelessly to establishing the enlightened nature of their new faith's morality. Since the morality of those who embrace God seems threatens the new faith the argument is promoted that further conflates adherence to principles of faith with abandonment of the ability to reason. The missionaries of evolution join of a digital mob quickly taking their binary torches and pitchforks to the religious strongholds. Unwilling to even tolerate the existence of the old faith they work to BURN THEM DOWN.

Interestingly there are many atheists that have embraced moral tenets and are completely accepting of those who continue down a religious path. These proponents of equating men to animals appear to no longer fear the beliefs of others and see that such members of society can be appreciated and accepted. In many cases they also acknowledge the incomplete nature of the science they support.

Perhaps the difference between those members of the atheist community and the members of the frenzied mob is FEAR. True secularists don't fear the judgment of God because they don't believe in it. Those who waiver between the groups work diligently to kill God lest they be subject to His infinite justice. Sadly they also reject the wonderful blessings of His infinite mercy.

re: #100 The Other Les

I think I may have a malware problem on my pc.

can't get into Alta Vista or Yahoo or Blogspot sites and Google and Dogpile won't work for me.

If anyone has a suggested solution please include an URL.

Thanks.

Google's been out on me all day. Didn't really care.

re: #31 Thanos

Yes Science can be misused, but it takes Politics to do it... Science is what it is.

Saw this up thread -wow. All I can say is Wow!

In other words - Science is perfect unless politics corrupts it?

I believe otherwise: All scientists have an agenda; may be personal, may be ideological.

re: #99 ShaneBorgess

As mentioned above, whose religion do you want taught? ID is a religious theory, and as soon as you open the door to one group you have to let others have their say as well. Even within Christianity there are vast differences of opinion on just about any topic. Some branches of Islam are incredibly closed-minded to science at all. The Taliban pretty much banned teaching it altogether. Would you care if Scientology was taught as fact? What about the Nation of Islam's ideas that whites are devils?

Religion belongs at home and in church. Since ID is purely religious in nature, it has no place in a science class.

frankly I think the education system mostly teaches SECULARISM AS A RELIGION. I think there needs to be balance which at this point isn't happening.

moral values are not taught in public schools. just look at the behavior of students and you can see it.

re: #25 Dan Tanna

I agree that the choice is not so simple.

Why cant both be taught?

Let the market place of ideas do its work, as some will support evolution and others will identify with creationism.

Sal: Because one is science, and belongs in public high school science class, and the other is not, and doesn't.

What is and is not science is not subject to the whims and vagaries of public opinion polls, focus groups, or popularity beauty contests. If it's falsifiable and empirical-evidence-supported, it's science; if it's not, it isn't.

Some commenters have pointed out, correctly, that science vs. religion, as mutually exclusive, is a false dichotomy. I'm not religious anymore, but I know that, for example, the Catholic Church sees no threat in evolution.

John Derbyshire (I encourage you to follow him on The Corner) nailed it: "The opposite of science is not religion. The opposite of science is wishful thinking."

The difference between Evolution and ID is that evolution is science (and an obviously demonstrable fact) while ID is religion (and a narrow set of beliefs at that). Religion should not be taught as science any more than science should be taught as religion. What chaps my hide about the ID crowd is their blatant dishonesty. It's quite ironic in view of their professed beliefs.

Charles, I applaud your coverage of this and say (as one who has been blogging about it for a little while now) welcome aboard!

Anti-evolution 'Academic Freedom' Bills: What is Academic Freedom Anyway?

All of these bills claim to promote academic freedom for public school teachers to teach the Intelligent Design movement's so-called evidence against evolution. But the concept of academic freedom in a high school curriculum makes no sense.

Read the whole thing.

Actually, someone used logic similar to Summer's to neatly gut the whole ID theory as pushed by the Kansas Board of Education.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

And as I have stated many times before: ID belongs in a philosophy discussion, NOT in science. It fails numerous requirements to be considered as a scientific concept, not the least of which is that it must be a testable hypothesis. Evolution, by contrast, can be tested and observed at least on a small scale (larger scale evolution is harder to do, to be honest; that's why the whole thing's still a theory).

But sweet shiverin' Shiva (borrowing another blogger's epithet here), if you think evolution is bad, you should read up on the theory of relativity. Or quantum mechanics and physics.

Charles:
I welcome the debates. I have learned so much about both sides of the issue here. Knowledge is a good thing, learning both sides of an issue is enlightening. Because of the debates here, I have researched more information. In the past I formed my opinion that creationism should be taught in schools as another theory but am reforming that based on the thought provoking postings here. I should think that whether you can argue your belief and cement it further or learn enough to change that belief based on knowledge gained, it is all good.

To Tamala

There are millions and millions of us 911 Republicans out here. And among us are millions who are not 'religious' per se. (No ill will toward any of my religious friends and neighbors)

The error in my wishy washy swirly headed liberal thought became painfully aware to me on 911. I watched liberals and democrats and liberal democrats almost apologize to the ghoulish criminals who perpetrated 911. I watched people who I knew with all of my heart (at that time) were great Americans blame America for the nearly impossible to believe crimes that were commited against us that day. And they were liberals, democrats. I couldnt look myself in the mirror because I knew for so long I had been so wrong. I knew the delirious water headed ignorance I had shared with liberals as a liberal were what lead to such a heinous crime. I became a republican before the day was over. And I knew I had been wrong all along.

Republicans are the ones who charge toward the sound of enemy fire, not away. Republicans are the ones who force justice down the throat of those who would behead and burn us all and hang us from a bridge, if they could. Republicans are the ones who stand in their way. There is where my loyalties are. I am with the Republicans, many who now are not religious and don't believe in creationism.

I am a southern redneck atheist zionist conservative Republican. I support Israels right to exist not because it is the home of Christianity, but because Jews, Jewish culture, is a culture of excellence and ability. Becase Israel is a democracy and all democracies must stand together and stand against any sort of monotheistic religious dictatorial governance.

You arent alone. We are a new breed of Republicans. LGF drew us out and brought us together. And while many here are of strong faith, many of us here are not and we are no less Republican because of it.

re: #140 Mormon Doc

1) The people pushing ID most certainly have a problem with science- it's why they are trying to up-end the very definitions OF science.

2) "secular" does NOT mean anti-God or atheist.

re: #38 Genosaurer

I do not have the background in cell biology, or historical geology, or any related field, to have empirical knowledge of the way that species originated, or the way the earth formed, or the way the universe came to be. If I accept the consensus of modern science, it's faith, because I have no way to independently verify it.

Does that mean I think that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that dinosaurs lived alongside man? No. I believe the majority opinion of modern science is correct, or close enough to correct that it doesn't matter. But "I believe" is the operative phrase there.

This is an important point. For those who do not actually perform the field work or the laboratory work, there is an element of accepting the theories because they seem reasonable or because one accepts the expertise of those who have done the work. Although this kind of acceptance is not quite the same as taking religious opinions on faith, an honest layman will admit that he does not truly "know" that the theories are adequate.

Since the question is rather complex and not so readily observable, the certainty is not even as great as Galileo's regarding the moons of Jupiter. Very few of us can actually "look through the telescope" at events that have been hypothesized as having occurred millions of years ago. This is not to say that religious opinions should be allowed to be taught as "truths" or "alternative scientific theories" in the public schools, just that it is wise to remember that the claims of empirical scientists do not achieve mathematical certainty, and that those relating to more remote times and places include rather large doses of inference, which is an activity of thought, not of immediate perception.

re: #38 Genosaurer

I do not have the background in cell biology, or historical geology, or any related field, to have empirical knowledge of the way that species originated, or the way the earth formed, or the way the universe came to be. If I accept the consensus of modern science, it's faith, because I have no way to independently verify it.

Does that mean I think that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that dinosaurs lived alongside man? No. I believe the majority opinion of modern science is correct, or close enough to correct that it doesn't matter. But "I believe" is the operative phrase there.

Sal: But you can investigate these things, and ascertain for yourself. Understanding these matters is only keystrokes away. And then you will know about the science and the empirical evidence for the conclusions, and will not have to believe in them.

Bravo, Tamala!

re: #72 jcw46

Signs of political evolution; McCain-Obama tied. Rasmussen latest poll.

"jcw" -

Did you happen to catch the Fareed Zakaria interview with Sen. Obama this morning on CNN? If it were radio, the Senator would have come off fairly well. As TV, it was more than obvious that he was not comfortable with the format and/or host. Advice to Senator Obama - stick with teleprompter in front of crowds. Advice to Sen. McCain - DO the Intimate Interviews - get more/better exposure that way - It would help.

-S-

re: #152 ContraJihadi

One need not be an expert to know that evolution is a fact, mostly because it forms the basis for all modern biology. Nothing being taught or done anywhere in biology makes sense without it.

It's pretty overwhelming, once you open your eyes to it.

re: #134 synergist

OK, if I haven't made it sufficiently clear in #46, I am absolutely against the teaching of religious doctrine in schools, and against the representation of philosophy as science. However, I am very much in favor of teaching philosophical ideas AS PHILOSOPHY in schools.

Science is just a very successful philosophy. Until this century, Scientists were called Natural Philosophers. And a PhD means Doctor of Philosophy. Why do so many people cling to science as though it were a religion?

For the ID proponents-

What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory?

/hat tip: Slumbering Behemoth

re: #127 Thanos

Try F-secure's online scanner if you can get to it.
[Link: support.f-secure.com...]

Thanks. Got there.

re: #140 Mormon Doc

Actually there are many who post here about this debate that ARE rejecting scientific fact, and yet continue to push along as if they're points had not already been disproven. Look to the people talking about the laws of thermodynamics, irreducable complexity, and transitional fossils. Many people on the ID side continue to repeat their assertions in these areas without ever addressing the fact that they've been covered quite well.

Other than that, nicely written opinion.

re: #144 yochanan

frankly I think the education system mostly teaches SECULARISM AS A RELIGION. I think there needs to be balance which at this point isn't happening.

moral values are not taught in public schools. just look at the behavior of students and you can see it.

I'd say that the problem is the fact that the schools are government-owned and operated. Changing that fact removes the First Amendment establishment clause issue as a problem.

I don't want the public schools teaching a set of morals designed by politicians, for self-evident reasons.

re: #150 justdanny

nice post.

re: #140 Mormon Doc

So many posts often suggest that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I don't know any religious person that rejects scientific fact and yet I rarely see a post on evolution that doesn't have the obligatory attack on religious believers.

Post a link to a single comment saying this.

Their seems to be a compulsive need to denigrate those who adhere to religious doctrines. These attacks seem come from zealots shrieking "All religious people are opposed to logic!"

Post a link to a single comment saying this.

Perhaps the difference between those members of the atheist community and the members of the frenzied mob is FEAR.

Post a link showing where the majority of people on this thread claim to be atheists.

re: #141 Mars Needs Neocons

Google's been out on me all day. Didn't really care.

Yes. But my e-mail address is on Yahoo.

Charles:
You never responded to my #74. As the 'intelligent designer' of this blog are you going to release the source code of this blogs engine as proof of your creation to non-believers? Without unequivical evidence I can not believe this blog is your creation.
:~)

re: #25 Dan Tanna

Why cant both be taught?

For the same reason that you wouldn't want your heart surgeon being taught that disease is a result of the "imbalance of humours".

re: #150 justdanny

Thankyou for putting it so succinctly.

re: #153 Salamantis

Sal: But you can investigate these things, and ascertain for yourself. Understanding these matters is only keystrokes away. And then you will know about the science and the empirical evidence for the conclusions, and will not have to believe in them.

Not quite, a few keystrokes can allow us to read the work of others, but not enable us to perform it for ourselves. We still have to judge just how reasonably the others' used their faculties of inference to "connect the dots," as it were, of the evidence they present.

re: #150 justdanny

agreed just Danny I am here not because I am Jewish but because being Jewish I am made to feel at home. Because the majority of democrats became defeatist for short term political benefit I stopped being an independent. The closest group within the GOP that i feel comfortable with is what would be called NATIONAL SECURITY REPUBLICANS.

re: #100 The Other Les

Sounds like page hijacking...(One of the best programs against root-kits, malware, etc., which I've found, is Spyware Doctor...)

re: #134 synergist

OK, if I haven't made it sufficiently clear in #46, I am absolutely against the teaching of religious doctrine in schools, and against the representation of philosophy as science. However, I am very much in favor of teaching philosophical ideas AS PHILOSOPHY in schools.

Given all that, yes, there ARE groups who are trying to get their religious points of view taught as science in the schools, and they SHOULD be stopped. But if we fall for a slippery slope logical fallacy, and try to stop anything that MIGHT be used to introduce religious ideas in schools, then we had better stop teaching students of the Declaration of Independence; after all, it prominently refers to "our Creator".

Theology and philosophy classes are quite a good idea, the problem here is that many wish to have philosophy and theology taught in science class. But, no matter how many times that distinction is made, the same people continue to ignore it.

re: #32 SemperHunden

I'll admit that I haven't paid much attention to the comments of the intelligent design posts, so this question has probably already been answered before. But could evolution be the "how" of creationism? I.e., an intelligent designer put evolution into motion in order to create.

Really, go back and read through some of the threads, particularly the earlier ones.

re: #71 Dan Tanna

Unlike Charles, I would have to bet the people attacking me have no respect for religious people....

I never expected this from an LGF forum.

See Sharmuta's #68...that post succinctly sums up the problem of teaching ID (a religious construct) in a science class. If you want to teach ID alongside evolution as science to your own kids, it's your right. However, when ID supporters want to teach it to all kids in science class (not just their own), it ceases to be their right because it infringes on the Constitutional rights of others (the parents of those other kids) to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. Dan, no one's attacking you for supporting ID, but we are attacking the idea of ID masquerading as hard science and being taught as it were and not as a religious construct, not to mention the duplicity and skulduggery that the likes of the Discovery Institute go through to push ID into classrooms.

re: #165 EC Marm

Thats just weird ?.....

re: #172 reine.de.tout

Really, go back and read through some of the threads, particularly the earlier ones.

I'm learning a lot just from this one thread, and a lot of what I'm learning about is people's intense passion in their beliefs. I wish I had more time than just the weekends to follow these discussions.

The Other Les- there's also AdWare.

re: #140 Mormon Doc

. I don't know any religious person that rejects scientific fact and yet I rarely see a post on evolution that doesn't have the obligatory attack on religious believers.

The previous posts on ID have plenty of examples... for example look up "unixrab" (I think that is the handle) for his rejection of scientific observations.

Your coloring of the previous discussions is erroneous.

Most (but not all) of us who reject teaching ID as valid science have not been attacking religious believers in general for the mere holding of beliefs of various kinds.

Furthermore, it is likely you have misunderstood the whole idea of "science". To pursue knowledge in a "scientific" manner is to outright (planned) reject "it is a mystery of God" as a valid approach. Faith is built upon revelation; scientific knowledge is based upon observation.

The American Physical Society lays it out thusly:

Scientific inquiry and religious beliefs are two distinct elements of the human experience.

re: #100 The Other Les

Try This...[Link: www.malwarebytes.org...]

re: #142 slokat

Saw this up thread -wow. All I can say is Wow!

In other words - Science is perfect unless politics corrupts it?

I believe otherwise: All scientists have an agenda; may be personal, may be ideological.

No, "science" *is*. People who work in science might use it for their own gain, but science cannot be fabricated (in the sense that it works). Think about it -- while new processes can be invented to process existing materials, and new materials can be fabricated, all of this stuff relies on pre-existing matter and processes/functions that either already do exist or simply need a creator (i.e., man) to push them along. It may look like magic, but it's not.

re: #164 The Other Les

Yes. But my e-mail address is on Yahoo.

that's weird. My email is on google (three of them) and they're still working even with my not being able to access google's main page.

re: #53 Dan Tanna

Summer,

Im sorry you feel ID is absurd.

As a religious Jew, Im not threatened by teaching evolution, eventhough it is something I may personally disagree with.

A little advise for you Summer....
You sound like a KOS KID or DuMMy that has to slam people who dont share your view.

I think both extremes in this argument need to take a step back.

Sal: There are not too scientific sides arguing. ID is not science. The attempt to claim that ID and evolutionary theory possess equal standing in some contention is the application of a Disco Institute wedge strategy: illegitimately trash the opposition, then, when they point out how illiegitimate your pseudocriticisms are, do not reply directly to that, but claim a controversy that must be taught, when there is no controversy at all - only rationality vs. bullshit.

re: #142 slokat

Saw this up thread -wow. All I can say is Wow!

In other words - Science is perfect unless politics corrupts it?

I believe otherwise: All scientists have an agenda; may be personal, may be ideological.

In the aggregate over time the truth always wins in science. It's self correcting. Please don't stuff words in my mouth. I said science is what it is, and that's certainly not perfect.

re: #175 SemperHunden

I'm learning a lot just from this one thread, and a lot of what I'm learning about is people's intense passion in their beliefs. I wish I had more time than just the weekends to follow these discussions.

It's true, many of us are quite passionate about not allowing others to teach our children about faith- we prefer to do that ourselves. It is my right as an American parent- I will passionately defend it.

Charles, I have the exact same issues regarding my political shift since 9/11.

People keep on calling me a conservative. I'm not. I'm a centrist, and a mostly social lib.

But I went out yesterday and bought my first guns. It's a lot easier to do that in Virginia than it was in New Jersey.

Yeah, I've changed--but I'm still in favor of gay rights, pro-choice, and a certain amound of social safety nets.

And creationism? It's religion, plain and simple, no matter how they relabel and repackage it.

Behe testified repeatedly in the Dover trial to the definition of Intelligent Design: "a scientific theory which relies exclusively on the observable, physical, empirical evidence of nature plus logical inferences." The logical inference in this case, is to ascribe the work of a designer to every process that has not been explained.

Does anyone really trust that a high school class can scrupulously avoid touching on who the designer might be?

re: #59 cargocultist

There's a lot of politics in Science too. It is a two-sided coin.

And there shouldn't be. Any more than there should be religion in science.

re: #142 slokat

Which is why everything in science is scrutinized. Nothing is taken at face value. If someone claims to have done X, it's not considered true. Present the details of it, and when other people can recreate the experiments, scientists'll give the person the time of day.

Science is not a static system, but one that continually grows and adapts. When new facts come to light, scientists don't pretend they don't exist to protect their beliefs. They evolve (heh) their theories to account for the new information.

re: #156 clgood

One need not be an expert to know that evolution is a fact, mostly because it forms the basis for all modern biology. Nothing being taught or done anywhere in biology makes sense without it.

It's pretty overwhelming, once you open your eyes to it.

Quantum mechanics underlies much of modern physics, as well, but it's sufficient for high schoolers to know that the theory exists and essentially what it states. The limited time in science classes is better spent, in my opinion, on laboratory exercises that give students some experience in collecting and evaluating data. Most students won't become scientists, but they will be future voters who need some understanding of science to help them make decisions about policy issues related to science.

re: #169 yochanan
I am and have been enlightened and made a better man in so many ways thansk to the influence of Jewish and Christian friends in my life. I am not an 'activist atheist'. I do not seek to bring anyone to believe as I do. I do not disrespect people of faith for their faith and I do not respect those without faith for their lack of it.

Lizards need to stay focused on what we share and agree to disagree on that we don't. We are a much wider broader group than any out there. We are all colors and all beliefs and we stand together for the justice and wellness of one another as individuals.

Theistic realism

Wedge strategy

These two links are why many Lizards from all over the religious spectrum oppose ID.

re: #174 justdanny

Thats just weird ?.....

Inside joke. You've probably never written software. A lot, if not all, of the computer code that a programmer writes is never visible to the public. It is compiled and linked with libraries and stuff and ends up as a file that people can neither read or understand.
So it may be with Intelligent Design. The code for everything we see around us may have been written by a supreme creator but our limited knowledge makes it impossible, for now, for us to decipher that code.
Until the I.D. folks get a lot more evidence, no science class for them, imho.

re: #140 Mormon Doc

So many posts often suggest that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I don't know any religious person that rejects scientific fact and yet I rarely see a post on evolution that doesn't have the obligatory attack on religious believers.
. . .
Their seems to be a compulsive need to denigrate those who adhere to religious doctrines.
. . .

Neither is true here. There are many comments in support of the fact that science and religion are perfectly compatible.

There is no denigration here of those who adhere to religious doctrine; my experience here is that the non-religious here are perfectly comfortable with those of us of faith.

If you believe this is the case here, please find and link to those comments.

re: #74 EC Marm

I believe that Charles has a blog. I believe that there is intelligent design behind what I see on my screen. I can not see the code that causes all manor of actions to occur invisibly to me when I click, but I am certain the code is there. It is probably in a computer language I do not understand.
Does that make me an I.D.er?

Sal: Only if you consider people to be intelligent designers.

Public schools should teach children the Riddle of Steel instead of this ID nonsense.

I remember when my boys went to jewish school the gov't required classes on some subjects vs secular subjects as these are required I feel the school system should pay the teachers for these subjects but not any of the religous classes that the school would teach.

not religious but at the same time I'm not big fan of all the evolution posts...

evolution is a given but why can't intelligent design have a place as well.

I'm mean, who/what created the big bang that set all this in motion?

I have a spiritual philosophy - an unproven set of metaphysical beliefs; those regarding the unseen laws supporting the observable universe. Yet though I believe in a higher intelligence expressing/structuring the universe, I do not have a belief in a personal God, that is a conditioned mind with emotions and desires.

IOW, as far as I know, the closest thing we can come to in expressing the concept of an idea in the mind of God would be 'E=MC2'. And I accept Darwinian evolution as science, though I believe evolution has been pulled by the map of the higher intelligence, not pushed by a happy random pileup of biological accidents. So if a person can believe in a philosophy of intelligent design, and the science of Darwinism recapitulating the laws of a Higher Intelligence on the physical level, I guess that would be me.

re: #87 Dan Tanna

Mossley,
I can relate....
As a Jew who went to public school I was subjected to a lot of Jew bashing and proseltysing.

If ID cant be taught without its religious component, then I would agree that it belongs in a religious forum.

I'm not a teacher, but, maybe a compromise can be forged.

I do know that it seems, among some here, that this is more about bashing faith, than a promotion of ideas.

Sal: No, it's about keeping sectarian religious dogmas out of public high school science class.

global warming is political science not pure science.

re: #179 SFGoth

No, "science" *is*. People who work in science might use it for their own gain, but science cannot be fabricated (in the sense that it works).

That is a logical fallacy unless you have "perfect" observers.

/ at best science, is still interpretation by humans

I'm worried about these "Active SETI" assholes.

David Brin

re: #196 Bryantay

I'm mean, who/what created the big bang that set all this in motion?

You might recall that some cosmologists were initially unsettled by the evidence for a Big Bang because it invited those sorts of questions. The Steady State universe was a lot more comfortable to them...

The beautiful thing abut modern Christianity is Christians don't want to kill you when you disagree with them on a fundamental issue.

re: #74 EC Marm

No. That would make Charles the Intelligent Designer. (Isaac Asimov wrote, btw, that, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” )

re: #202 Attaboid

I'm worried about these "Active SETI" assholes.

David Brin

Fortunately, the universe is very large, and we won't likely be conquered for many thousands of years.

*

If broadcasting is such a good idea, why aren't other civilizations doing it?
*

If we attract hostile attention, what could "they" do to us, worst-case?
*

If broadcasting is potentially a bad idea, how can it be delayed long enough for further discussion?
*

What factors might be driving this change of emphasis, away from the long-term program of patient (and quiet) listening? Is the Seti community becoming frustrated?
*

Should this discussion be broadened to include mass media?

re: #93 synergist

No, the Young Earth Creationists are trying to co-opt the philosophical point of view of Intelligent Design for themselves, hoping that people will be foolish enough to fall for it.

Sal: No, the very name 'intelligent design' was invented by the Disco Institute dewdes as a PR propaganda trojan horse camouflage label with which to help them more easily shoehorn their sectarian religious dogmas into public high school science classes.

re: #17 Charles

DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT!

That just pisses me off to no end.

Not the lack of bicycle post (they were pleasant but not important) but the threats.

I hope you contacted law enforcement.

Here's my problem. I'm a liberal from Europe, a true liberal in the 19th century sense, pro-capitalist, pro-democracy. I'm a committed democrat with a small d.

Traditionally I would have been a Democrat, but the Democratic Party has become the American socialist party. After 9-11 they have also become islam apologists.

The Democratic Party has always been problematic of course, with its origins in segregation and later influences from the "progressives" and marxists of various stripes.

In the American context I guess I'm a Republican, but I don't buy into all aspects of "conservatism". So I'm sick of hearing about "the conservative base" when it comes to Republican candidates and policies.

America needs leaders who will uphold classic liberal principles of individual freedom and responsibilities, limited government, free markets, free speech, rule of law, reason and science.

For as far as conservatism is rooted in those principles I'm a conservative. Culturally that puts me in a depressing and lonely position here in New York.

Twentysomethings, raised and educated on leftwing propaganda, don't recognize those classic liberal principles in the Republican Party. They associate conservatism with Pat Buchanan, creationism and pompous windbags like Bill O'Reilly.

Many of them are not socialists, but genuinely believe that Obama is a man of reason, a centrist who can be like a hipper version of Reagan and will make backpacking through Europe fun again.

Or they look to a nutcase like Ron Paul as a savior of classic liberalism.

More and more Americans call themselves independents. To me it seems pretty obvious they're looking for a real liberal alternative to the Dems socialism. The Republican Party has a great opportunity to offer just that. McCain should be a transitional figure.

LGF to me represents the new American center.

re: #205 J.S.

No. That would make Charles the Intelligent Designer. (Isaac Asimov wrote, btw, that, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” )

That's Clarke's Law.

Clarke and Asimov would be chuckling at your error.

re: #204 Simple Voice

it isn't because of christianity it is because of America.

"irrational science-hating warmongering evangelical Christian who would mandate creationism in schools"

You know, that's one of the more open minded, realistic portrayals of Christians I've heard in quite a while.

re: #212 Dar ul Harb

That's Clarke's Law.

Clarke and Asimov would be chuckling at your error.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is really cool.

re: #196 Bryantay

not religious but at the same time I'm not big fan of all the evolution posts...

evolution is a given but why can't intelligent design have a place as well.

I'm mean, who/what created the big bang that set all this in motion?

Go back and read. This is not about creationism vs evolution. This is about a political movement that could have disastrous consequences for our schools.

New recruits are always good.
I'm kinda annoyed that one is assumed to be anti-science unless one is explicitly denouncing creationists by name repeatedly. Having a self-designed website cataloging atrocities commited by the ROP and lies by the western media was all assumed to be a ploy on Charles part to mask his attempts to destroy science until he went after those creationists?

re: #114 MrSimplistic

But you'd have to do quite a lot of reading to understand the perspectives presented. So if that's not your MO, just avoid it. And to beat you to the punch, yes -- there is such a thing as a Thinking Catholic.

Uh-oh. So if I am Catholic and I do not agree with you, does that make me an unthinking Catholic?

re: #196 Bryantay

not religious but at the same time I'm not big fan of all the evolution posts...

evolution is a given but why can't intelligent design have a place as well.

I'm mean, who/what created the big bang that set all this in motion?

As posted numerous times above, whose religion do you want taught? And why should a science class deal with religion?

My new book project is a popular history of science in the media during the 1930s and 1940s.

My premise is that public respect for science really peaked during this period, especially in the 30s, and has been declining ever since.
The role of science in World War 2, especially the atomic bomb, is often cited as the beginning of the decline. I think it is more subtle than that, since the superiority of allied science was widely understood to have been critical to victory in some areas (cryptograpy, radar, etc.).
Besides the obvious incentive for leftist elements to subvert western science in the interest of an initially backward Soviet Union, the enormous increase in government funding could also be cited as an important factor. This was especially true after the "Sputnik Panic" of 1957-58, which led to an enormous increase in government funding in all fields of science. While beneficial in the short run, this created the phenomenon of "Big Science" and the competition, political infiltration, and ultimately pandering and corruption that these have spawned.

re: #182 Thanos

In the aggregate over time the truth always wins in science. It's self correcting. Please don't stuff words in my mouth. I said science is what it is, and that's certainly not perfect.

Didn't stuff anything, just responding to the words that are up there.

Hhmm... self correcting, but not perfect?

/sounds like a cross between Zen & Darwin? ;)

Charles -
I wondered about your safety/ security on seeing the first biking post .
Sorry state of the world we live in but reality is what it is.
If you are not carrying concealed I would urge you to consider the possibility.
Better to be prepared than the alternative..... .
Far too many folks with synaptic issues of various and assorted origins.

re: #217 nikis-knight

Having a self-designed website cataloging atrocities commited by the ROP and lies by the western media was all assumed to be a ploy on Charles part to mask his attempts to destroy science until he went after those creationists?

You're on to him!

I think Christians in America are different because AMERICA is different. as well as some countries that are like America, Canada, Australia, for example.

re: #205 J.S.

No. That would make Charles the Intelligent Designer. (Isaac Asimov wrote, btw, that, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” )

Sorry, but that was the late Arthur C. Clarke who said that.

Just stopped by to say that I, even though a staunch conservative for the last 30 years or so, am a firm believer in the theory of evolution. But, then, I am a geologist. In fact, I know that many of my geologist friends are conservative and theory of evolution supporters.

Just my $0.02 worth.

re: #208 Attaboid

*

If broadcasting is such a good idea, why aren't other civilizations doing it?
*

If we attract hostile attention, what could "they" do to us, worst-case?
*

If broadcasting is potentially a bad idea, how can it be delayed long enough for further discussion?
*

What factors might be driving this change of emphasis, away from the long-term program of patient (and quiet) listening? Is the Seti community becoming frustrated?
*

Should this discussion be broadened to include mass media?

I think broadcasting anything currently in the MSM or any reality programs could cause the immediate extinction order to be issued.

After the Sept 11th attacks, I noticed a very small but exceptionally vocal group who decided it would be the perfect time to push the "Christian America" agenda, suggesting it was the only way to fight Islamic extremism in America. They viewed the attacks on this country as an attack on a country that had abandoned its "moral superiority" and the only way to fight back was to make sure every aspect of society was infused with their particular view of Christianity so God would once again protect us.

Prayer in school and the rejection of evolution were and are two major goals for them. They really believe they have an obligation to make sure Every knee shall bow.

re: #223 SemperHunden

You're on to him!

I mean, liberals would not look at his posts on their merits until he starts criticizing people that they already enjoy hating.
Yeah, they're the rational ones.

re: #114 MrSimplistic

It seems quite a bit off base that some (maybe many) of you seem to suggest that any response is either supportive of Charles' "approach" (shall we call it?) or is otherwise hate mail. There is room for intelligent discourse in which one might simply challenge the poor science of Darwin (my opinion) without those who disagree getting in a defensive crouch waiting to have some religious dogma forced down their throat. And some of us have invested more energy than 15 second responses on a message board, and have credentials to support opposing views with at least a touch of legitimacy.

If I might recommend:

[Link: www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.c om...]

But you'd have to do quite a lot of reading to understand the perspectives presented. So if that's not your MO, just avoid it. And to beat you to the punch, yes -- there is such a thing as a Thinking Catholic.

Sal: You DO understand that the Roman Catholic faith accepts evolutionary theory as sound and valid science, don't you? And please provide examples of that "poor science of Darwin" to which you referred...

how sad that so many otherwise laudable academics hew to the "progressive" line-- this guy is actually a koz kid:

[Link: williamcalvin.com...]

re: #211 Peter Verkooijen

Peter,

I think a lot of are here for those very reasons that you and Dar ul Harb have so elegantly pointed out.

We are at the beginning. The problem is that a lot of us are thoughtful people but the time will come were we have to have leaders.

Charles is one and we need more. That, in my personal case it is going to take a huge dose of self-esteem and self-empowerment to step up to that role. I wonder to myself if I have the personality to wrestle with today's crop of political alligators? Can I be a leader after being a follower all of my life?

Tough questions and ones I find myself wrestling with the more I become frustrated with the current state of affairs.

re: #220 Shiplord Kirel

I also think that the evil scientist (Frankenstein, etc) has become such a part of Western culture that science is easily demonized. Also the fact that science with things that are new, scary, and often misunderstood doesn't really help things.

I agree....too many college-aged students are taught that they are on the Left unless they support creationism. Most of these students are pro-capitalism, pro-liberty, and and pro-limited government. Thanks Charles.

Discovery institute & Allies has been behind a lot of manufactured isses that have been diviisive to Christianity in the US the past few years.

There's a virulently anti-gay cadre out there that seems pretty hateful, and they are trying to make Fred Phelps seem sane.

re: #228 Wendya

Yes, Ann Coulter said something like "We should invade their countries and convert them all to Christianity."

re: #187 mossley

We have the ability, the equipment, the chemicals & the theories to recreate the origins of life (according to current scientific understanding) in controlled conditions in a lab.

Has that been falsified?

BTW - (actually wrong use of the term, but it's used that way here repeatedly)

/ just wondering

re: #225 FurryOldGuyJeans

Sorry, but that was the late Arthur C. Clarke who said that.

Not to mention Robert Heinlein also said the same. Clarke was a true visionary, and developed the idea of satellite communications. His other truly great idea is the space elevator, which is the only known method of low cost delivery of material to space. Kubrick's 2001, was a spectacular vision of Clarke's genius....

re: #94 Sharmuta

BTW- this was exactly the sort of thing zombie has been talking about the last few months- this mentality that right wingers are all evangelicals who want to force their religion onto others. I knew zombie was right, because I've spoken to a person like Tamala but with a twist. This person had right wing leanings but was turned off by the evangelicals, so they were hesitant to call themselves a Republican. I see this as a similar issue- I don't want religion in science class, and frankly- I don't want it in my politics either.

re: #126 EC Marm

I remember zombies comments at the time. From a purely practical viewpoint, this is hardly the time to show those that take a literal interpretation of the Bible out the side door of the Republican 'big tent'. After November, talk all you want. Now?

I pretty much summed up my current feelings on the matter in this comment from last night.

Yes, EC, now is the essential time to bring up this issue, as my comment explains. And, seeing as it is currently the second-highest rated comment in the "Top Ten Comments" sidebar thingie, a lot of people agree.

re: #228 Wendya

Prayer in school and the rejection of evolution were and are two major goals for them. They really believe they have an obligation to make sure Every knee shall bow.

And unixrab confirmed your statement the other day, when he posted this:

#402 unixrab 7/09/08 9:19:09 pm reply quote
regardless of the "characterization"..... I've been harping on the bias here and "propaganda" is a loaded word...definitely not an "unbiased" word.. plus: we creationists just want the best for all, even if you can't (yet) get it.

The best explanation of Biblical Creation I've seen..

re: #150 justdanny

"jd" -

Sorry to say, my "Conversion" came later. Had always been a "Scoop Jacksonian" kind of Democrat - AND - as actual voting in a general election need not follow my Party Registration was content with that. I actually re-registered to vote in Monmouth County, NJ in 2004, as a Democrat, through the Bush-Cheney '04 website as prior to that I was voting absentee from a "family" address a bit north of here.
2006 marked the beginning of my 'apostacy' with the treatment Sen. Lieberman got in Connecticut. By this spring, with Sens. Clinton and Obama fighting it out, and my favorite candidate - Gov. Romney - running in the 'Other' Primary, I finally made the switch. Haven't looked back, and recently harangued my Congressman, a man I have known for some years, about his opposition to offshore drilling. It felt good.

-S-

re: #120 ShaneBorgess

You're right Sharmuta - but if it were about treating all ideas equally, then the day would be spent talking non-sense in order to appease every theory or religious perspective. We ought to have the right to expound on majority opinions held by Americans - or is that a door kicked just wide enough to let in the Wiccans?

Sal: And what's wrong with Wiccans, exactly? There are several Pagan Lizards here (I am one), and we're still regally and royally pissed at having to engage in a decade-long lawsuit just so those Pagan military members who gave their last full measure of devotion for their country in places like Afghanistan and Iraq could be buried in a military cemetery with symbols of their faith on their headstones.

But I don't want ANYONE'S religion taught in public high school science class. It ain't science.

re: #240 zombie

I think they can stay in the party, they just have to keep their religion out.

Barry Goldwater agrees.

re: #211 Peter Verkooijen

You just really hit the nail on the head explaining how many of us think.
thank you.

re: #209 Salamantis

Small point: the term & ideas about 'intelligent design' existed long before the DI was conceived . That they have exploited the issue/idea for their own ends is a different matter.

re: #237 Killgore Trout

Yes, Ann Coulter said something like "We should invade their countries and convert them all to Christianity."

She had lost a very close friend in the attack on the Pentagon just two days before she wrote that.

With Ann, you get hyperbola.

re: #136 MrSimplistic

#123 Ted

Summarily executed. The easy way out. I understand.

As I said, you'd actually have to read to know you're wrong. Pretty dangerous.

I only read about science from scientists.

re: #245 Sharmuta

I think they can stay in the party, they just have to keep their religion out.

Barry Goldwater agrees.

Barry Goldwater was when I became a conservative.

re: #200 yochanan

global warming is political science not pure science.

"Yo" -

How Politically Incorrect of you. /s/ -S-

You have to be a programming nerd to get this joke, but...

One day in biology class they were explaining the concept of "junk DNA" to us. Junk DNA are stretches of genetic code that seem to perform no discernable useful functions. (See [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I leaned over and whispered to a friend, "...Comments."

re: #126 EC Marm

I remember zombies comments at the time. From a purely practical viewpoint, this is hardly the time to show those that take a literal interpretation of the Bible out the side door of the Republican 'big tent'. After November, talk all you want. Now?

Sal: If Republicans alienate the independents, the centrists, and the Reagan Democrats by publicly pandering to the religious far-right, they will lose by a landslide in November. And they will deserve to.

re: #209 Salamantis

Sal: No, the very name 'intelligent design' was invented by the Disco Institute dewdes as a PR propaganda trojan horse camouflage label with which to help them more easily shoehorn their sectarian religious dogmas into public high school science classes.

I'm guessing (as one coming late to this topic here at LGF) that the reason for some of the conflict in this thread is that distinctions aren't being drawn between Intelligent Design (TM) and the general concept of intelligent design.

re: #201 slokat

That is a logical fallacy unless you have "perfect" observers.

/ at best science, is still interpretation by humans

Look, whatever is happening, is happening. We may not be perfect observers (i.e., Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which will not be overcome until the Heisenberg Compensators get invented ;->), but reality exists, and all the poetical nonsense of The Philosophers won't change that.

re: #245 Sharmuta

Nice to see you still have that open mind.

re: #200 yochanan

global warming is political science not pure science.

Yes. They started with a conclusion and worked back to 'prove' it.

re: #254 runrabbitrun

How would the general concept differ from the Behe specification? See comment #185 for details.

Global Warming: Climate Creationism

re: #257 debutaunt

Yes. They started with a conclusion and worked back to 'prove' it.

Global warming: Poor scientific modeling backed by statistics belying their ridiculous theories...

re: #253 Salamantis

Sal: If Republicans alienate the independents, the centrists, and the Reagan Democrats by publicly pandering to the religious far-right, they will lose by a landslide in November. And they will deserve to.

I don't see evidence of McCain pandering to the religious far-right, do you? The only group I have seen him pandering to is the Hispanic constituency.
To those who want to throw them out of the Republican Party because they are a quote embarrassment, I have two words:
President Obama

Way off topic. From a thread or so back. But I am back!

If you are a qwest.net user and have the following DNS servers set and are unable to connect. ditch them and go for the opendns. This is what got my network back online.

BAD

207.108.224.1
204.147.80.5

These are bad. Do not use them!

GOOD

208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220

Thanks Charles for the info and link.

re: #245 Sharmuta

I think they can stay in the party, they just have to keep their religion out.

Barry Goldwater agrees.

Neither LGF, nor Charles, nor you, nor me, nor anyone has the power to kick anyone of out any political party. People, whatever their beliefs, remain free as always to vote for whomever they wish.

All I'm saying is that it's Charles' prerogative to stake out the territory of what he believes in. And if others want to join his fledgling belief-nation, all the better.

I think a lot of people will be lined up at the border, asking to be let in. Refugees from Moonbatistan and Neoconland.

re: #240 zombie

And, seeing as it is currently the second-highest rated comment in the "Top Ten Comments" sidebar thingie, a lot of people agree.

There are currently 279 logged in right now. The comment received less than 10% of that number.