Thank you fine folks for taking the time to send the Head Lizards words of support. It's nice to know he gets more than hate mail.

Nice to see it isn't all hate mail and invective about this subject.

Can you feel the love tonight

Hear Hear Land Shark!

Oopps- didn't mean to make that plural.

Just curious what's the e-mail breakdown on this topic pro and con ? (percentages )

re: #3 jcm

Um, that's from The Lion Kng right?

If I'm following correctly:

There is no "Intelligent Design" means there is no God?

One can see how people would get their panties in a bunch.

And I'm not religious, but respect the beliefs of normal religions enough not to "pee in their pool," as it were.

I posted this on the last thread...

I'm starting to wonder if infidelia is a moby, trying to irk an ire against atheist?

Its topics like this that make LGF great and unique.

Many other sites look the other way when the idiocy comes from their own.

Not LGF.

Whether its the Disco Institute, Islamists, UN, Pat Buchanan, or Eurofascists, Charles doesn't take the easy way out.

It must be hard to stay true to your ideals when the rest of the world is busy selling out, and for that I raise my glass to you Charles.

I'd like to thank you as well Charles.

Letter #2 two (from Land Shark) captures my feeling exactly.

I have no problem with science informing a person's philosophical or religious opinions, my problem is when religion (or philosophy) involves itself in science.

Nice to see that there is other e-mail that is supportive instead of hate filled. Keep up the good work Charles. People need to see these things that try to hide in the shadows.

Keep it up Charles! You're on the right side of this issue, as usual.

Any bets on how long it takes the dingers to come out?

re: #8 William

If I'm following correctly:

There is no "Intelligent Design" means there is no God?

One can see how people would get their panties in a bunch.

And I'm not religious, but respect the beliefs of normal religions enough not to "pee in their pool," as it were.

I don't think you're following correctly.

I'm sure there are people who really believe that teaching evolution is another way of claiming there is no God but I'm not particularly worried about offending anyone that stupid.

I noticed there are no down-dings on the post. Maybe it's stay that way.

/ delerious

re: #12 MikeySDCA

Charles, you seem to be drifting into the self-referential mode of O'Reilly, Cavuto, et al. LGF has been wonderful for substance. Please don't waste it as an ego trip.

Ot

You're avatar, an solidus of antoninus pius, yes?

re: #12 MikeySDCA

Charles, you seem to be drifting into the self-referential mode of O'Reilly, Cavuto, et al. LGF has been wonderful for substance. Please don't waste it as an ego trip.

Oh, for Pete's sake....

re: #7 Macker

Um, that's from The Lion Kng right?

LOL! I think it goes back a little farther than that ;-)

Land Shark

Candygram!

re: #22 Killgore Trout

Candygram!

I know it's the land shark I'm not opening the door!

re: #8 William

There is no "Intelligent Design" means there is no God?

No- that's not what it means. "Intelligent Design" is pseudo-science, not belief in God, but that is exactly what the proponents of ID would like you and others to believe- that the two are inseparable. I personally believe in God and accept evolution, but I don't want ID taught in science classrooms.

Is life the only thing that is intelligently designed according to the ID believers or is every thing intelligently designed?

re: #25 SlimyBill

Your nic fits you.

Anybody switch over to the Republican Party?

re: #12 MikeySDCA

Charles, you seem to be drifting into the self-referential mode of O'Reilly, Cavuto, et al.

It's a blog.

re: #12 MikeySDCA

re: #25 SlimyBill

For all the hard work he does, Charles has more than earned the right to take some pride in his accomplishments.

re: #25 SlimyBill

Alas, agreed. Our good Charles is going to need rotator cuff reconstruction soon after this kind of self-congratulatory drek.

Piss off and die.

re: #31 paradox42

More than just the hard work- he's put up with enough hate mail to warrant sharing a few nice emails too.

re: #25 SlimyBill

"Our good Charles", eh.

Registered since: Jun 16, 2004 at 5:10 am
No. of comments posted: 111
No. of links posted: 0

Mmm-hmmm.

re: #8 William

If I'm following correctly:

There is no "Intelligent Design" means there is no God?

One can see how people would get their panties in a bunch.

And I'm not religious, but respect the beliefs of normal religions enough not to "pee in their pool," as it were.

As Wendya has said, you're not following correctly. Have you read any of the ID threads at all? Because the point has been made over and over and over again that one can reject Intelligent Design™ as a "scientific theory" without rejecting the existence of an Intelligent Designer, namely God.

re: #35 Throbert McGee

As Wendya has said, you're not following correctly. Have you read any of the ID threads at all? Because the point has been made over and over and over again that one can reject Intelligent Design™ as a "scientific theory" without rejecting the existence of an Intelligent Designer, namely God.

Charles:

I believe a little perspective is in order.

You know I am a Christian and a creationist.

You know I disagree with you implicitly and explicitly regarding evolution and ID.

I think you also know i do not hate you -- not in the least.

Just because you are on the wrong side of the creation/evolution debate is no reason to hate you. :-)

Besides, your principled and effective stand against the global jihadist movement is most admirable and to be commended.

(And I admit to reading many, if not most, of your evolution/creation threads -- though they probably raise my blood pressure a wee bit.)

Let me add my voice to the chorus of thanks, Charles. I have expressed some tangential disinterest in this topic in the past, but that has little to do with you, Charles, your site, or even any personal support for ID. ID is one of those things that I hate being politicized. First, it has no tangible bearing on our current existence, and second, in a rational world this would not be a political issue - and we can thank only the ID proponents for this sad fact.

The idea of a fracture within the Republican/conservative community in this election gives me nightmares because of the resultant implications of Obama running things in this country, but in the end, I think you are right to call these people out. I have found the convergence of ideologies with Western and Muslim ID proponents to be both thoroughly interesting and sickening at the same time.

Thanks, Charles.

re: #32 MandyManners

Piss off and die.

WHOA Mandy!

re: #38 gunjam

Besides, your principled and effective stand against the global jihadist movement is most admirable and to be commended.

So- how do you feel about jihadis supporting ID and the wedge strategy?

re: #36 SlimyBill

You certainly live up to your nic.

re: #36 SlimyBill

Dude, love this site, but this "LOOKUM! PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME AND ARE THANKING ME!" is just sooooooooo tenth grade girlesque.

Jerk

re: #36 SlimyBill

Dude, love this site, but this "LOOKUM! PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME AND ARE THANKING ME!" is just sooooooooo tenth grade girlesque.

Yet you can't seem to avoid this thread, can you?

re: #36 SlimyBill

You really ARE slimy.

re: #40 SlimyBill

Agreed.

And many accomplishments he has. Getting emails from ID-eschewers isn't among them.

At any rate, too long spent on this.

You started it, shithead.

re: #15 mossley

Any bets on how long it takes the dingers to come out?

Mama stroked his dinger
Daddy got a stinky finger
In those days of long ago
(Yeah-ah!)
Later in the evening
She'd complain
They'd refrain
He'd go home 'n hone his bone
A tragic case maybe
But also true
I'm sure you know
But that's the way it goes sometimes
(That's the way)
You just might find yourself in the clutches of some
Wild Love

Frank Zappa, "Wild Love"

re: #36 SlimyBill

Have you been following the ID threads the the resultant brouhaha?

I think it is quite relevant for Charles to point out that there are a variety of people who agree that the 1st amendment should be upheld and are grateful that there are people (like Charles) who are willing to blog about it.

re: #40 SlimyBill

Would you like him to post the death threats he's received? Because for every one of these good e-mamils, I'll bet there are 10 death threats. Cut the man some goddamn slack.

re: #41 BGOH

WHOA Mandy!

hey it's not like they can cast a hex right? right? RIGHT?

ohhhhh NOOOOOOO .................. (pop!)

Slimy Bill: bite me.

People, I believe the correct response to SlimyBill would be: "S**k my c**k, I will murder your family!"

/sorry. Just saw Semi-Pro for the first time. Too funny.

On the bright side, more people are reading your words now than will ever read your blog.

re: #55 jaunte

(Slimy Bill)

re: #51 jcw46

hey it's not like they can cast a hex right? right? RIGHT?

ohhhhh NOOOOOOO .................. (pop!)

OUCH! lol

Slimy Bill: good magic trick, a real David Copperfield... GONE.

re: #55 jaunte

On the bright side, more people are reading your words now than will ever read your blog.

Actually, they aren't.

BuhBye slimeball

re: #59 Charles

Brief fame, and then out like a light.

re: #54 Quintus_Arius

Charles, pardon the expression, but it might be time to move on. This creation versus evolution exchange is just about done.

Let's get back to defending freedom and the American way of life. In that struggle we can achieve consensus.

Have YOU read any of the threads. That's just what this subject is about.

re: #54 Quintus_Arius

Let's get back to defending freedom and the American way of life.

That's exactly what Charles is doing by exposing this agenda to upend American education and the Constitution.

re: #54 Quintus_Arius
You're not related to Quintus_Cinncinatus (or some such) that got the stick the other night, are you?

As I've posted numerous times, I will delete any comments telling me what I should or should not post at LGF.

re: #54 Quintus_Arius

Charles, pardon the expression, but it might be time to move on. This creation versus evolution exchange is just about done.

Let's get back to defending freedom and the American way of life. In that struggle we can achieve consensus.

Part of that whole "defending freedom" thing is defending freedom of conscience, whether the threat is from Islam or Christianity.

#40 Deleted

One toke over the line?

It looks like we're going to have some more meltdowns tonight.

There may well be a time and a place for teaching ID, but it isn’t in our classrooms funded by our taxes.

I think that's the main problem right there. The classrooms are funded by our taxes. We've got to get school choice / vouchers and let parents decide who will brainwash teach their children. Rush Limbaugh calls them the "Public Screwels".

re: #65 Charles

As I've posted numerous times, I will delete any comments telling me what I should or should not post at LGF.

Oh boy! I don't think I've ever had a post deleted before!

Charles, you should post more boobies! Definitely more boobies!

Heh.

re: #35 Throbert McGee

I love your decision to use a trademark ! I think if everyone had been doing this from the beginning, a lot fewer wounds would have been inflicted.

Intelligent Design™ = a religious or metaphysical doctrine falsely purporting itself to be a scientific theory
Creationism™= ditto

...........as opposed to belief in intelligent design or creationism (of whatever kind)

re: #52 Charles

Slimy Bill: bite me.

Hey, you're citing the time-honored legal precedent I mentioned earlier today. Very good, but you do know I'll have to charge you for that.

re: #54 Quintus_Arius

Actually, pulling the Disco Institute's agenda out into the daylight and showing where they stand and what they want is defending our freedoms. It's not just about whether they are right and other people are wrong. It's all about the tactics they are using to force their viewpoint on other people.

re: #73 BlueCanuck

Actually, pulling the Disco Institute's agenda out into the daylight and showing where they stand and what they want is defending our freedoms. It's not just about whether they are right and other people are wrong. It's all about the tactics they are using to force their viewpoint on other people.

'zactly!

re: #54 Quintus_Arius

Charles, pardon the expression, but it might be time to move on. This creation versus evolution exchange is just about done.

Let's get back to defending freedom and the American way of life. In that struggle we can achieve consensus.

This is about defending freedom and the American way of life. Haven't you been paying attention?

Charles is doing the right thing. I can't speak for him or his motivations. My own humble impression is that Charles is a non-dogmatic and gets to thinking about something and then thinks about it deeply. He reaches his own conclusions and then posts on it. He is like bulldog because once he sinks his teeth into something he believes in, he does not let it go. There is integrity in this. In this way, Charles has retained, despite his success in building LGF into a major site on the Internet, his credibility as an anti-idiotarian.

Charles could have parlayed this site into big bucks, if he had stuck to some pre-conceived marketable vein. Instead, he has followed his own sense of right and wrong - and real or fantasy - and built a site where there is no party line to tow.

I don't want to get into hagiography. The Great Lizard and all that. It's not about that. It's about being reasonable in a world where reason seems to be a waning commodity. Charles just did the right thing many times, even when it seemed to many to be a strategic or tactical or marketing mistake. I appreciate this. Charles is not dogmatic and has real integrity. He has been reasonable over many years, and he has hammered on issues, even when it might make him unpopular with some, because they were reasonable issues.

So kudos to Charles for making LGF a site where it is reasonable to be rational in a world that seems to value being unreasonable and irrational so as not to "rock the boat." LGF is an island of reason in a crazy and messed up world of fauxtography, polemics and lies. LGF is not perfect (what is?). But is eminently reasonable, which is a pretty close second.

Thanks Charles for all your efforts on this site. I agree with you completely. I wish I had the computer knowledge, the wisdom and, yes, the bravery that you display daily in creating and maintaining this site.

Intelligent design means "we don't understand science, so it can't be right." Plus ID advocates fear that science makes their beliefs irrelevant and that belief in evolution leads to devaluation of faith. It's a shame that the ID devotees aren't themselves more intelligent.

No matter how clearly the factual errors in ID critiques are pointed out, it doesn't matter. Evolution deniers fear that acceptance of evolution means their faith is dead and that there is no moral authority. It's a shame their understanding of both science and faith are so faulty.

re: #65 Charles

As I've posted numerous times, I will delete any comments telling me what I should or should not post at LGF.

Charles, I think you should post whatever you want.
Don't taze me bro!

re: #72 Occasional Reader

Hey, you're citing the time-honored legal precedent I mentioned earlier today. Very good, but you do know I'll have to charge you for that.

Listen, just because you were at the courthouse today getting fresh batteries in your electronic ankle bracelet, doesn't make you a lawyer.
:~)

re: #76 Purple Prose

Charles is doing the right thing. I can't speak for him or his motivations. My own humble impression is that Charles is a non-dogmatic and gets to thinking about something and then thinks about it deeply. He reaches his own conclusions and then posts on it. He is like bulldog because once he sinks his teeth into something he believes in, he does not let it go. There is integrity in this. In this way, Charles has retained, despite his success in building LGF into a major site on the Internet, his credibility as an anti-idiotarian.

Charles could have parlayed this site into big bucks, if he had stuck to some pre-conceived marketable vein. Instead, he has followed his own sense of right and wrong - and real or fantasy - and built a site where there is no party line to tow.

I don't want to get into hagiography. The Great Lizard and all that. It's not about that. It's about being reasonable in a world where reason seems to be a waning commodity. Charles just did the right thing many times, even when it seemed to many to be a strategic or tactical or marketing mistake. I appreciate this. Charles is not dogmatic and has real integrity. He has been reasonable over many years, and he has hammered on issues, even when it might make him unpopular with some, because they were reasonable issues.

So kudos to Charles for making LGF a site where it is reasonable to be rational in a world that seems to value being unreasonable and irrational so as not to "rock the boat." LGF is an island of reason in a crazy and messed up world of fauxtography, polemics and lies. LGF is not perfect (what is?). But is eminently reasonable, which is a pretty close second.

Wow. Really well said. What time zone are you in becuase I couldn't of come up with such finely written prose at this time of night.

re: #79 ec marm

Listen, just because you were at the courthouse today getting fresh batteries in your electronic ankle bracelet, doesn't make you a lawyer.
:~)

LOL! So that's why OR spends so much time here....
House arrest.
/ ;-P

Good Evening Lizards! It's still hot in the Very Far Western Suburbs of Chicagoland.

I don't have any news to contribute tonite.

How are you-all and what are we talking about.

re: #12 MikeySDCA

I think that it is correct to say that a proper mainstream web site is first committed to principles and not to short term gains. The problem with the American left and perhaps politics in general is that people look to see what is popular before making their positions known. The problem is that putting principles as a lower priority than popularity is a slippery slope. You first accustom yourself to lying and self-deception until in the end you sound like Clinton, Olmert, Sharon or Bush. Great speeches but no moral backing to what is said.

There is only one truth, and while one can err you should never lie.

re: #72 Occasional Reader

Hey, you're citing the time-honored legal precedent I mentioned earlier today. Very good, but you do know I'll have to charge you for that.

I must have missed it - were you referring to the "Bite Me" ruling from the 9th Circuit Court?

re: #55 jaunte

They maybe reading his word but they seem to keep missing those bullet points at the top of every page.

Just an observation.

Maybe I've just heard too many sports talk show callers get blown up, but it would be funny if the deleted posts still included the poster's ID and had a little mushroom cloud next to it.

re: #78 theparson

Don't taze me bro!

Perfect timing. I'm just watching "Fight Science" on the National Geographic channel. As an experiment, a guy whose a former Seal Team 6 member deliberately lets himself get tased, and manages to swat the electrodes out. He's knocked down, but only momentarily. Pretty damn impressive.

re: #85 unclassifiable

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was talking to the late departed (deleted) troll.

OT
My webpage is still up.

gunjam- I'm not just making it up. The jihadis ♥ ID

IslamOnline: Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design

re: #88 jaunte

No problem with you.

re: #71 wolfie

I love your decision to use a trademark ! I think if everyone had been doing this from the beginning, a lot fewer wounds would have been inflicted.

Intelligent Design™ = a religious or metaphysical doctrine falsely purporting itself to be a scientific theory
Creationism™= ditto

...........as opposed to belief in intelligent design or creationism (of whatever kind)

And the confusion engendered by the similarity between Discovery Institute's "Intelligent Design" and the natural, widespread tendency for humans to perceive signs of intelligent design in all creation is EXACTLY WHY those people at Disco In CHOSE the name, "IntelDes"

Intelligence on the Outside Means Design on the Inside! (TM) Microshaft

re: #87 Occasional Reader

After my quadruple bypass my chief gave me a tazer to carry. Some of the other officers said I had to be tazed to carry a tazer because that's the only way I would know what it feels like to be tazed and I would be sensitive to the tazee. My answer was, I carry a .45, so...

re: #84 Charles

I must have missed it - were you referring to the "Bite Me" ruling from the 9th Circuit Court?

Actually, my mistake; it was a similar, but subtly different, legal principle that I recommended as a US response to the World Court.

re: #68 Charles

Drinks on me, Charles

re: #87 Occasional Reader

a guy whose a former Seal Team 6 member

[bangs head on desk]

re: #87 Occasional Reader

I saw that a couple of weeks ago. I am glad that he's on our side, I'll tell you that.

re: #93 theparson

After my quadruple bypass my chief gave me a tazer to carry. Some of the other officers said I had to be tazed to carry a tazer because that's the only way I would know what it feels like to be tazed and I would be sensitive to the tazee. My answer was, I carry a .45, so...

What? No confidence in your Second Chance vest?
/ ;-)

re: #94 Occasional Reader

Actually, my mistake; it was a similar, but subtly different, legal principle that I recommended as a US response to the World Court.

Ah yes, an exceedingly fine distinction, but nonetheless equally appropriate.

#3 jcm: I strongly agree!

Charles, you're the one, Barack's the two! We lowly Lizoids salute you. Now, where's our monthly check, Oh Mighty One!

./snark off!

re: #99 Charles

Ah yes, an exceedingly fine distinction, but nonetheless equally appropriate.

It's from Blackstone, of course.

Bravo Charles, nice change of pace... perhaps with every "we've got [hate] mail" post, you could highlight examples from both ends of the spectrum

/just a thought...

Its getting late here so I think I'll sign off for now.

Later lizards.

re: #82 ggt

Good Evening Lizards! It's still hot in the Very Far Western Suburbs of Chicagoland.

I don't have any news to contribute tonite.

How are you-all and what are we talking about.

Hi GGT -- Good to see your nic.

I think I've finally figured what frustrates me most about this topic. I realize most Lizards are way ahead of me on this.

There are people who simply are unable to understand the concept of empiricism.

Simple, I know. Now, I understand the the "brick wall" so many Lizards have posted.

This realization came to me as I was watching the commerical for the new X-files movie.

go figure.

OT : Reuters: Springsteen defeated Communism, not Reagan

Pour yourself something Belgian, Charles, you've earned it. And keep Mr. Mossberg close.

Good night to all.

re: #104 hermeneutics

thanks.

good to see you as well.

re: #105 ggt

Thanks- I haven't had a chance to post it yet tonight.

re: #106 Abu Al-Poopypants

OT : Reuters: Springsteen defeated Communism, not Reagan

[deleted] [deleted] Roto-Rooters, and the Boss they rode in on.

re: #107 Occasional Reader

Pour yourself something Belgian

Budweiser?

re: #107 Occasional Reader

Pour yourself something Belgian, Charles, you've earned it. And keep Mr. Mossberg close.

Good night to all.

I didn't think they allowed those in the Soviet of California!

re: #112 Abu Al-Poopypants

Budweiser?

That was good New Belgium Fat Tire (USA) I just sprayed on my monitor.
ROFL!

re: #106 Abu Al-Poopypants

OT : Reuters: Springsteen defeated Communism, not Reagan

You know.....

I see articles like that and I wonder if they were written by 16 year old kids.

Don't put your dirt in Boss Kean's ditch.

re: #110 Quintus_Arius

That's another variation on the 'let's not talk about this' theme. Our host has had a few things to say about that.

Hey, if there's a Disco, is there a Disco Stu?

re: #107 Occasional Reader

Pour yourself something Belgian,
.

A waffle?

re: #116 Killgore Trout

Don't put your dirt in Boss Kean's ditch.

That can't be good.

Nighty night.

Sleep tight. Don't let the troll bugs bite.

This might have been posted already, but I think that maybe they are on their way to visit Kilgore and started on the wrong side of the continent... Fish on a walk about

re: #119 Shug

A waffle?

Made me think of the Gatorade Cookie Dough commercial on SNL.

Polling data continues to confuse me. Can any Lizards explain what is happening in the Merkley v. Smith race in Oregon?

Gordon Smith R-inc, looks to be losing his seat -- true?

is letter writer David a troll or moby or whatever

why did he have to mention voting for Obama ?
has notthing to do with the topic

a gratuitous goo of goo if you ask me
like the people years ago who used to call in talk shows
just to mention Howard Stern's name

but I do say you handled/handle the ID debate well from my point of view - that of a middle aged, white, male, heterosexual, monogamous, atheist, conservative, with glasses (something the NBA is lacking)

Hi Slo -- Doing well?

As a "creationist" I state emphatically that creationism is faith and not science. It is not provable... that's why it's called faith.
Scientists should pursue science and, of course, evolution is science. As they prove and disprove theories they hone their science.
If your faith is so fragile that it is shaken by science I suggest you spend some time renewing your faith.

Good night all.

re: #35 Throbert McGee

re: #8 William

If I'm following correctly:

There is no "Intelligent Design" means there is no God?

One can see how people would get their panties in a bunch.

And I'm not religious, but respect the beliefs of normal religions enough not to "pee in their pool," as it were.

As Wendya has said, you're not following correctly. Have you read any of the ID threads at all? Because the point has been made over and over and over again that one can reject Intelligent Design™ as a "scientific theory" without rejecting the existence of an Intelligent Designer, namely God.

Wendya responded to a point I did not make.

Regarding your post, how does one believe there is an "Intelligent Designer" yet not believe in "Intelligent Design"?  Sounds like a rationalization...

re: #42 Sharmuta

So- how do you feel about jihadis supporting ID and the wedge strategy?

How do I "feel" about that?

I am a rational male: I prefer to discuss what I "think" about the issue, if that is acceptable to you.

I liken the confluence of agreement between Christian creationists and Muslim creationists on the topic of .... well, creation, to the confluence of agreement between folks like you and Charles and Marxists on the matter of evolution.

I no more support the jihadists' quest for a worldwide Caliphate than you or Charles do setting up a "workers' paradise" in this country.

re: #113 doubleplusundead

I didn't think they allowed those in the Soviet of California!

Oh, they do. You just have to jump through some hoops to make Mr. Mossberg's acquaintance.

Strange how the ID discussion doesn't wanna stay over on the ID thread... :-|

re: #126 hermeneutics

yes, thank you - did you catch my 4th of July pics while you were freezing in the Rockies?

re: #106 Abu Al-Poopypants

OT : Reuters: Springsteen defeated Communism, not Reagan

Holy shit. That is the dumbest, most juvenile thing that I have ever read in my life. The only consolation that I can take away from having read it is that I skimmed it instead of reading it word-for-word.

The MSM is, in my estimation, populated with mongoloids if they wonder why they are losing circulation and viewership. Especially on the print side, Reuters and the AP are ruining that industry faster than a warehouse fire ever could...

re: #132 slokat

yes, thank you - did you catch my 4th of July pics while you were freezing in the Rockies?

The last pics I saw had, as a subject, your family time at the beach. Not sure of the date. I'd like to see some new ones if they exist.

Since I posted this thread, of course, several creationists have sent me hate mail.

The MSM is, in my estimation, populated with mongoloids if they wonder why they are losing circulation and viewership. Especially on the print side, Reuters and the AP are ruining that industry faster than a warehouse fire ever could...

Good post, but

... you might have added "... and jihadists" after the word "mongoloids."

To those who think we should present a united (albeit intellectually or morally compromised) front against Islamism, consider this. The one thing that unites a reasoning Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic or atheist against religious totalitarianism - or any other kind of totalitarianism - is reason. Thinking for yourself, working hard (and not taking the easy path) to figure out what is probably correct or not, and not just following what others tell you to follow.

Islamism is not the main issue. It's irrational thinking and submitting to that just because someone tells you to that is the issue. If Islamism is the crazy fascistic ideology of the day, that's what should be opposed. In a thousand years, it may be another issue.

Islamism is a hard nut to crack. Is it accurate to say Islamism, implying its a small cadre of hard-line literalist apocalyptic murderers who are the problem? That's what the MSM and even Pipes would officially argue? Or is there an intrinsic problem with Islam itself, as Spencer would argue? The discomforting support of sharia and even mass murder by seemingly peaceful Muslims might suggest the latter. But regardless of the whether the problem in this case is a tiny minority or something bigger, the only consistent and even-handed way to handle it is to oppose those who oppose reason.

When reason goes, so does any credible defense against sharia. And you can't be selective about reason. If Islamic radicalism is unreasonable, so neo-fascists and ID must be. If you start being selective about what is reasonable, when you have lots of facts to point to what is reasonable or not, you fall into a trap and become weak. Only by fighting everything that is unreasonable, including neo-fascism and ID BS, can we hope to vanquish perhaps the most potent force of unreasonableness: jihad/Islamism. So reason vs. unreason is the key not just to winning in the short term but also in the long-term, when there may be another ascendant and immediate threat to commonsense and a peaceful and moderate way of life.

re: #135 Charles

Too much time on their hands... :-|

re: #130 Charles

Oh, they do. You just have to jump through some hoops to make Mr. Mossberg's acquaintance.

You should move somewhere that isn't overrun by Marxists, or at least a pro-2nd state like Pennsylvania(as long as we can keep the Soviet of Philly at bay, which we've been pretty successful with thus far).

re: #65 Charles

Charles, reflect on that for a moment. Do you know what that sounds like? What's going on? It used to be nodrog that got under your skin, but he was tolerable and we miss him. There were laughs.

Just sayin...

re: #130 Charles

Oh, they do. You just have to jump through some hoops to make Mr. Mossberg's acquaintance.

Heh! WA I get stuff that would my CA legislators apoplectic!

re: #129 gunjam

So what do you think of having pat buchanan as an ID ally?

re: #135 Charles

Since I posted this thread, of course, several creationists have sent me hate mail.

How very Christian of them

re: #140 Quintus_Arius

Charles, reflect on that for a moment. Do you know what that sounds like? What's going on? It used to be nodrog that got under your skin, but he was tolerable and we miss him. There were laughs.

Just sayin...

Nobody has gotten under my skin. I'm just very tired of creationists trying to guilt-trip me into avoiding the subject.

re: #128 William

Wendya responded to a point I did not make.

Regarding your post, how does one believe there is an "Intelligent Designer" yet not believe in "Intelligent Design"?  Sounds like a rationalization...

I believe in intelligent design because I think that an intelligent God designed all of creation and its processes. You may call that a belief, a religious doctrine, or a philosophical viewpoint. Whatever.
You may NOT call it science or a scientific theory.
Intelligent Design™ includes the claim that the belief in intelligent design is a scientific theory. This is false and deceptive.

When reason goes, so does any credible defense against sharia. And you can't be selective about reason. If Islamic radicalism is unreasonable, so neo-fascists and ID must be. If you start being selective about what is reasonable, when you have lots of facts to point to what is reasonable or not, you fall into a trap and become weak. Only by fighting everything that is unreasonable, including neo-fascism and ID BS, can we hope to vanquish perhaps the most potent force of unreasonableness: jihad/Islamism. So reason vs. unreason is the key not just to winning in the short term but also in the long-term, when there may be another ascendant and immediate threat to commonsense and a peaceful and moderate way of life.

So, you are making Christian creationists the enemy?

Let me suggest that virtually no combat commander in the theater of operations would agree with you -- so numerous are Christiancreationists in the ranks. (No: not a majority, but more than a sprinkling.)

You can't have it both ways: Allowing creationists to shoulder at least their share of the war effort and then call them the enemy.

re: #3 jcm

Can you feel the love tonight

Can't get enough of that love

re: #146 gunjam

Bravo!

re: #142 Sharmuta

So what do you think of having pat buchanan as an ID ally?

I'll answer you with an equally irrelevant question: "What do YOU think of having Fidel Castro as an evolutionist ally?

re: #135 Charles

PZ Myers has been getting hate mail from 1800Flowers. Go Figure.

re: #137 Purple Prose

Well said and I agree, but......................
Who gets to say what is "unreasonable?"

(All I'm saying is that things are not so simple.)

Another statement that keeps coming to mind, that of the unestimatable P. J. O'Rourke:

"Evolution is Intelligent Design"

re: #135 Charles

Since I posted this thread, of course, several creationists have sent me hate mail.

I still think pushing for privatization/vouchers while explaining to IDers and Creationists that trying to get ID/Creation taught in public schools is futile, is the best solution. You'd totally disarm DI and probably peel off a lot of Creationists and IDers sympathetic to DI. As long as its just attacks on DI, without a policy suggestion that would appeal to those people, DI will be able to successfully dismiss you as a secular hater to IDers and Creationists sympathetic to their efforts.

Undermine the theocrats at DI by giving the religious yet decent folks a workable alternative.

re: #147 gman

Can't get enough of that love

OH! YEAH!

re: #149 gunjam

Evolution isn't a political movement trying to undermine our Constitution.

ID is.

re: #135 Charles

Since I posted this thread, of course, several creationists have sent me hate mail.

Like this?

re: #152 ggt And neither is creation.

re: #153 doubleplusundead

I still think pushing for privatization/vouchers while explaining to IDers and Creationists that trying to get ID/Creation taught in public schools is futile, is the best solution. You'd totally disarm DI and probably peel off a lot of Creationists and IDers sympathetic to DI. As long as its just attacks on DI, without a policy suggestion that would appeal to those people, DI will be able to successfully dismiss you as a secular hater to IDers and Creationists sympathetic to their efforts.

Undermine the theocrats at DI by giving the religious yet decent folks a workable alternative.

I'm a firm believer in vouchers, not only because it will end this debate and other similar debates, but because it will allow those stuck in lousy schools to choose better ones.

re: #149 gunjam

I'll answer you with an equally irrelevant question: "What do YOU think of having Fidel Castro as an evolutionist ally?

Wait, you didn't see the last thread?

re: #128 William

Wendya responded to a point I did not make.

I'm fairly certain you're still not following correctly.

OK, here's my opinion on Evolution and Creationism.
I believe in an active living God who is intimately involved in His creation. Did he use Evolution to generate the world we see today? I dunno, I have only been around 56 years, so I haven't seen a lot of evolution. That being said, it's a good explanation for the diversity of nature. My Faith is not dependent upon a provable set of laws and rules, and if it ever becomes that, I know I will have quit listening to Him and built a graven image to worship.

Frankly the whole discussion is not germane to my life and is interesting, but not binding. If however, the islamists use ID to co-opt the education system, to end free thought, we all lose, no matter what your belief (or non belief).

re: #22 Killgore Trout

Candygram!

I guess they don't have the original on Youtube...the best I could find was the audio w/some stupid cartoon.

Just as a experiment. How much of your property taxes are you paying toward public education?

I pay (I think) 4K a year. I have friends in other 'burbs that pay more than 6K.

I pay another 8K in tuition for private school.

I have issues with vouchers. I also have issues with paying so much of my property tax $$ for political indoctrination schools. I also understand that the public school system provides "services" many children need with my tax dollars. I am glad those "services" are there, as the kids in need would not get it any other way. I've personally seen the benefits in individual children I've known.

I don't know what the answer is. I know many parents who would like to give their children the benefit of a parochial school (not for creationist reasons) education, but with multiple children, simply cannot afford it. The local Christian Academy is 5K per child per year. That adds up quick.

Thena gain, I don't want my tax dollars going to fund schools that teach any religion, so for me, vouchers are not the answer.

re: #158 hermeneutics

I'm a firm believer in vouchers, not only because it will end this debate and other similar debates, but because it will allow those stuck in lousy schools to choose better ones.

Well, at one time I was a firm believe in vouchers. But after the recent stories about what is being taught in that Saudi Islamic school - I'm not so certain anymore.

That school, I think, is operated as a public school. But other Islamic schools are not, and there is no telling what sorts of things students are "studying".

I'm just not as certain as I once was that vouchers would be the best idea, right now.

re: #147 gman

Love stinks

re: #155 Sharmuta

Evolution isn't a political movement trying to undermine our Constitution.

ID is.

Bull, ID is a belief, nothing more. DI and some of their supporters? Yeah, they're theocrats and hucksters, who have a lot of decent people sold on the false hope that they can make the government educate their children according to their beliefs. They can't make that happen, only in private school can that happen, and the way things are set up, most people can't afford that until we break the public school monopoly, DI is exploiting people.

re: #150 Killgore Trout

Did you see this about the 1-880 FLOWERS email?
[Link: www.networkworld.com...]

re: #146 gunjam
You know, the problem I've been having with all of this is this: there are a distressing amount of people (to me, anyway) who confuse people who believe in intelligent design because they think that an intelligent God designed all of creation and its processes (that is what I consider "Faith" or "Philosophy" but not science), with the people who believe in the Discovery Institute's definition of Intelligent Design as a science.
As a result of this confusion in terminology - to be charitable - some folks on both (three?) sides of the fence out here (and apparently in the hate mailbag that Charles has) have made truly hurtful and disturbing comments about people of faith and people of faith have done the same about Science.

re: #166 doubleplusundead

Bull back attcha- ID in these conversations isn't about your personal beliefs in ID- it's about ID getting pushed into science classrooms, and that is undermining our Constitution.

re: #167 jaunte

Yeah I saw that. I almost have pity on the guy, his chick is never gonna let him live that down.

re: #164 reine.de.tout

Well, at one time I was a firm believe in vouchers. But after the recent stories about what is being taught in that Saudi Islamic school - I'm not so certain anymore.

That school, I think, is operated as a public school. But other Islamic schools are not, and there is no telling what sorts of things students are "studying".

I'm just not as certain as I once was that vouchers would be the best idea, right now.

That's interesting, Reine. I used to be skeptical but now I'm a true believer in vouchers. Lets say that we voucherize (pay for) the education of a few thousand kids in Islamic schools. Not good, I agree, but still better than trashing the education of a several million kids who can't opt out of public schools.

If you trust the ordinary American parent, you'll trust vouchers. Yes, some kids will slip through the cracks and get lousy educations ... what else is new?

gotta get some sleep --night all!

Weet dreams.

re: #134 hermeneutics

The last pics I saw had, as a subject, your family time at the beach. Not sure of the date. I'd like to see some new ones if they exist.

Sorry, got sidetracked - had to explain to my wife, who walked into my office, why I was expecting fish to walk from Florida to Oregon... (how succinctly can any of you sum up the ID/DI threads?)

Herme - hit my nic, there are two links on the first page that go to Solstice in SB & Fireworks in Pismo

I'm thinking that the fish might make it to Oregon by fall if they aren't battered, fried & eaten by rednecks on the way....

re: #166 doubleplusundead

Bull, ID is a belief, nothing more. DI and some of their supporters? Yeah, they're theocrats and hucksters, who have a lot of decent people sold on the false hope that they can make the government educate their children according to their beliefs. They can't make that happen, only in private school can that happen, and the way things are set up, most people can't afford that until we break the public school monopoly, DI is exploiting people.

Unfortunately, you're vastly underestimating the ID advocates. They are pushing to get their agenda into public school in at least 5 states that I know of (and probably more), and they've succeeded in Louisiana for now. (Until it's challenged in court, which it will be.)

Every time they lose a legal battle over this, they pull back, lick their wounds, come up with a new deceptive tactic, and get right back to work.

re: #166 doubleplusundead

If you haven't read it yet, google the "Wedge Strategy". This is a well-funded, well-organized effort to subvert the Establishment Clause.

re: #170 Killgore Trout

Based on his account here, he hasn't learned anything yet. He apologizes, and then justifies. (scroll down to c kroll message)
[Link: breakingspells.wordpress.com...]

re: #163 ggt

Just as a experiment. How much of your property taxes are you paying toward public education?

I pay (I think) 4K a year. I have friends in other 'burbs that pay more than 6K.

I pay another 8K in tuition for private school.

I have issues with vouchers. I also have issues with paying so much of my property tax $$ for political indoctrination schools. I also understand that the public school system provides "services" many children need with my tax dollars. I am glad those "services" are there, as the kids in need would not get it any other way. I've personally seen the benefits in individual children I've known.

I don't know what the answer is. I know many parents who would like to give their children the benefit of a parochial school (not for creationist reasons) education, but with multiple children, simply cannot afford it. The local Christian Academy is 5K per child per year. That adds up quick.

Thena gain, I don't want my tax dollars going to fund schools that teach any religion, so for me, vouchers are not the answer.

What if your tax dollars went to PARENTS not schools, and parents were allowed to send their kids to Lutheran, Catholic, Muslim, etc. schools, vehemently secular schools, arts-based schools, science and math academies, remedial schools, etc. Would you oppose this?

re: #164 reine.de.tout

Well, at one time I was a firm believe in vouchers. But after the recent stories about what is being taught in that Saudi Islamic school - I'm not so certain anymore.

That school, I think, is operated as a public school. But other Islamic schools are not, and there is no telling what sorts of things students are "studying".

I'm just not as certain as I once was that vouchers would be the best idea, right now.

Consider this, by allowing vouchers, you allow everyone to pick their schools. The vast majority will pick better schools, vastly better in many cases, than what the current system provides. Yes, this will benefit schools like the Saudi school in some way, but then you have to consider the massive boost in intellectual power our nation receives in total, you have to look at the macro. One tiny jihad school will be overrun quickly by the students churned out by our new education system.

re: #146 gunjam

So, you are making Christian creationists the enemy?

Let me suggest that virtually no combat commander in the theater of operations would agree with you -- so numerous are Christiancreationists in the ranks. (No: not a majority, but more than a sprinkling.)

You can't have it both ways: Allowing creationists to shoulder at least their share of the war effort and then call them the enemy.

No, I am not, gunjam. I am simply making the case that the war against Islamofascism is a war that will be won by those who oppose commonsense. We all know by now that this is not going to be exclusively or even mainly a conventional war. To use the cliche, it is a war of ideas. We see this with the legal jihad CAIR and the like are waging in the courts. The high ground in this war will then be "do facts support that contention" and not "does your God or my god support that contention."

Being reactionary only plays into the hands of the Islamists and multiculturalists, both of whom will take any presupposition of moral superiority on any religious grounds (except those they deign acceptable) an admission of bias and guilt. The only non-assailable position will be: is it factual or not? Is it reasonable or not? Is it supported by science or not?

One can be a creationist and reasonable. But you have to go with the evidence. If not, you risk losing on the grounds of being one subjective belief against another.

You are selling Christianity short, because Christianity is grounded on reason.

There will be no Christian cannon-fodder foot soldiers in this fight. If anything, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews have suffered more in recent time against Islamism than Christians. There will only victory when people who want a moderate and non-invasive life stand up against those who want to to tell us what to do, think, teach and kneel down to; in other words, when we tell fundamentalists of all stripes to take a hike because as long as I don't hurt anyone I can think and do what I wish.

re: #76 Purple Prose

That post needs more up-dings.

re: #174 Charles FIVE states (at least)? Holy crap - that's almost unbelievable to me in this day and age.

There is afaik, NO real "science" behind what the DI calls "Intelligent Design" so I don't see how the hell they could succeed and I was, in fact, SHOCKED at Louisiana (and sorely disappointed in Bobby Jindal).
This is 2008 and we're back, essentially, to the days of the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in at least 5 states?

re: #128 William

Wendya responded to a point I did not make.

Regarding your post, how does one believe there is an "Intelligent Designer" yet not believe in "Intelligent Design"?  Sounds like a rationalization...

Fair question. I believe that Intelligent Design™ implicitly denies the possibility that God pushed the Big-Bang button to start the Universe in motion, and then sat back in his hammock for 15 or 20 billion years to let the machinery of gradualistic evolution produce intelligent life, including human beings here on Earth.

Note that such a Universe, although created by God, would theoretically look more or less identical to an atheistic Universe, because God avoided micromanaging the development of stars, planets, and biological life.

And that's exactly why the Intelligent Design™ crowd wants to deny the possibility of God allowing evolution to proceed in a totally hands-off way -- because they think that if they prove it was "impossible" for evolution to have happened all by itself, they will thereby prove the existence of God.

re: #169 Sharmuta

Bull back attcha- ID in these conversations isn't about your personal beliefs in ID- it's about ID getting pushed into science classrooms, and that is undermining our Constitution.

I don't believe in ID, I believe in Evolution, but you need to specify between ID as a personal belief and people trying to push ID in classrooms when you make a statement like you did.

re: #151 wolfie

Well said and I agree, but......................
Who gets to say what is "unreasonable?"

(All I'm saying is that things are not so simple.)

I mean factually ascertainable, commonsense-based reason. In the realm of science, it's falsifiability, etc. In the realm of normal life, it's live and let live, separation of Church and State, and basic things we have already believe in and have grown accustomed to, so anything that threatens that commonsense is something unreasonable and should be opposed.

Source of the term Intelligent Design:

"Though the phrase can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, it was probably coined in its present sense in "Humanism," a 1903 book by Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design."
The phrase lay relatively dormant for nearly a century. "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA," recalls Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, who was present at the phrase's re-creation. "Charles Thaxton referred to a theory that the presence of DNA in a living cell is evidence of a designing intelligence. We weren't political; we were thinking about molecular biology and information theory. This wasn't stealth creationism. The phrase became the banner that we rallied around throughout the early '90s. We wanted to separate ourselves from the strict Darwinists and the creationists."

[Link: www.iht.com...]

re: #185 jaunte

Source of the term Intelligent Design:

[Link: www.iht.com...]

Interesting -- but I don't believe the Discovery Institute shill's explanation.

If the Discovery Institute says the sky is blue, you'd better walk outside and check.

re: #158 hermeneutics

I'm a firm believer in vouchers, not only because it will end this debate and other similar debates, but because it will allow those stuck in lousy schools to choose better ones.

I hear you ! The point you made in the last thread about our no longer having a consensus is well taken.
I think something has to be done. (Something has to be done soon for those stuck in wretched inner city schools.)
But I have a lot of reservations about vouchers and how they would work.
-Whoever pays get the say. Govt money sooner or later leads to
govt control.
-There would have to be some mechanism to control prices.....and I can't think of how you could do that. If a school right now is doing fine by charging $5000 per year, and then the govt gives everyone a $5000 voucher, well...........The market could bear $5000 before, so now it can bear $10,000. The tuition may not go up to 10K, but you can bet it will take a big jump.
The idea needs a lot of work.

re: #186 Charles

It's curious that he makes a point of saying "we weren't political."

re: #164 reine.de.tout

Well, at one time I was a firm believe in vouchers. But after the recent stories about what is being taught in that Saudi Islamic school - I'm not so certain anymore.

That school, I think, is operated as a public school. But other Islamic schools are not, and there is no telling what sorts of things students are "studying".

I'm just not as certain as I once was that vouchers would be the best idea, right now.

The Saudi Academy in Virginia is NOT a public school.

re: #183 doubleplusundead

I would, except this debate isn't about individual personal beliefs- it's about a political agenda, and this discussion always has been about a political agenda.

Either everyone needs to put a disclaimer at the end of every comment they make on this topic, or we all finally come to an agreement that this IS NOT, nor WAS IT EVER about anyone's personal beliefs. This is about a political agenda- period.

re: #174 Charles

Unfortunately, you're vastly underestimating the ID advocates. They are pushing to get their agenda into public school in at least 5 states that I know of (and probably more), and they've succeeded in Louisiana for now. (Until it's challenged in court, which it will be.)

Every time they lose a legal battle over this, they pull back, lick their wounds, come up with a new deceptive tactic, and get right back to work.

They're gonna get smacked down unceremoniously in the courts, as they have for ages, I think you're overestimating them. All I'm saying is there is no need to automatically associate IDers with with theocrats like the people at DI. That has to undermine us with IDers open to our arguments. Yeah, DI might get lucky, but we can disarm DI by offering a different solution to IDers that doesn't undermine our Constitution, I argue for privatization and vouchers partly for this reason.

re: #187 wolfie

I hear you ! The point you made in the last thread about our no longer having a consensus is well taken.
I think something has to be done. (Something has to be done soon for those stuck in wretched inner city schools.)
But I have a lot of reservations about vouchers and how they would work.
-Whoever pays get the say. Govt money sooner or later leads to
govt control.
-There would have to be some mechanism to control prices.....and I can't think of how you could do that. If a school right now is doing fine by charging $5000 per year, and then the govt gives everyone a $5000 voucher, well...........The market could bear $5000 before, so now it can bear $10,000. The tuition may not go up to 10K, but you can bet it will take a big jump.
The idea needs a lot of work.

Agreed the idea needs work, but I think it may be workable.

Perhaps grade school will be like colleges, with highly priced as well as cheaper alternatives. Not everyone can afford to go to the pricey colleges, even if admitted -- perhaps not everyone should be able to go to the pricey gradeschools, even if admitted. Sounds harsh, but it is no different than the two-tier system we have in place now in which "wealthier" parents opt out of public schools by paying double: private school tuition and their property/school tax.

My thoughts on vouchers.

The free market I think will sort this problem out in a generation. Those that picked a totally religious indoctrination school for their kids would see them fail in society and the workforce. And those schools would die out. Sucks to be that kid but we are already generating a great number of losers in the current system and it sucks to be them now.

Intelligent Design as we know it is a paradigm, a basic set of beliefs that determine our assumptions when observing scientific phenomena.

A scientist with an ID perspective assumes that the subject under investigation has a fundamental order and complexity that can ultimately be understood through causality by design. Thus, for example, a biologist studying DNA will not assume that everything not understood is "junk DNA" or that any biological process not understood is likely to be a vestigial remnant of an evolutionary process.

However, the purpose of science is not to prove or disprove the existence of God. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible specifically does not allow himself to be discovered this way.

I would point out that associating ID with a variety of strange ducks does not refute ID any more than associating Adloph Hitler's obsession with controlling human evolution through "genetic hygene" refutes evolution.

- SK

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

re: #171 hermeneutics

That's interesting, Reine. I used to be skeptical but now I'm a true believer in vouchers. Lets say that we voucherize (pay for) the education of a few thousand kids in Islamic schools. Not good, I agree, but still better than trashing the education of a several million kids who can't opt out of public schools.

If you trust the ordinary American parent, you'll trust vouchers. Yes, some kids will slip through the cracks and get lousy educations ... what else is new?

It's all a question of whether you believe in freedom or not.
Some people don't like freedom of speech because it allows Nazis to spew their hatred.
Some people don't like freedom of religion because it allows the imams to preach their rot.
Some people don't want parents to have freedom in educational choice because other parents may not choose "correctly."

To be honest, I'm far less concerned with ID than the corrosive rewriting of history and the teaching of anti-American ideals. Science is rather self-correcting -- the humanities have to be instilled.

Thus, I'm for vouchers because I firmly believe that a solid grounding in the great texts of Western civilization will prepare students for citizenship ... and life. Science and math prepare for mere occupations. Humanities prepare for our preoccupations.

re: #195 wolfie

It's all a question of whether you believe in freedom or not.
Some people don't like freedom of speech because it allows Nazis to spew their hatred.
Some people don't like freedom of religion because it allows the imams to preach their rot.
Some people don't want parents to have freedom in educational choice because other parents may not choose "correctly."

YES!

re: #194 Spar Kling

Intelligent Design as we know it is a paradigm, a basic set of beliefs that determine our assumptions when observing scientific phenomena.

A scientist with an ID perspective assumes that the subject under investigation has a fundamental order and complexity that can ultimately be understood through causality by design. Thus, for example, a biologist studying DNA will not assume that everything not understood is "junk DNA" or that any biological process not understood is likely to be a vestigial remnant of an evolutionary process.

However, the purpose of science is not to prove or disprove the existence of God. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible specifically does not allow himself to be discovered this way.

I would point out that associating ID with a variety of strange ducks does not refute ID any more than associating Adloph Hitler's obsession with controlling human evolution through "genetic hygene" refutes evolution.

- SK

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

What you have described here is not even close to being science. If responsible biologists studying DNA don't understand something, they will find another way to approach the problem. They don't just sit back and say, "Well, at this point a miracle happens."

re: #196 hermeneutics
"I firmly believe that a solid grounding in the great texts of Western civilization will prepare students for citizenship ... and life. Science and math prepare for mere occupations."
See, I have some problems with vouchers, but your last sentence is, and I say this respectfully, incorrect.
Science and math advance the sum total of human knowledge - sometime incrementally and sometimes in leaps and bounds (or at least what apear to those of us not scientifically or mathematically inclined perceive to be leaps and bounds).
I'll hold off on my feelings about vouchers for another day.

re: #193 Metal Man

My thoughts on vouchers.

The free market I think will sort this problem out in a generation. Those that picked a totally religious indoctrination school for their kids would see them fail in society and the workforce. And those schools would die out. Sucks to be that kid but we are already generating a great number of losers in the current system and it sucks to be them now.

But it has been longer than a generation, MM. The current system has failed since the 1960s, at least in the more "progressive" parts of the country, and no self-corrective mechanism has emerged. It seems so logical to look at math scores, for instance, and correlate them with the changes in curriculum. But they don't. They keep on fiddling with the curriculum, trying to make something "new" that worked better in its older renditions.

I agree, though, that kids whose parents put them in good schools, or were home schooled, have a huge advantage over those who were poorly educated. Its not fair, but neither is the rest of life. Vouchers would allow more parents to make better choices, not ALL parents, mind you, but more of them.

re: #199 realwest

"I firmly believe that a solid grounding in the great texts of Western civilization will prepare students for citizenship ... and life. Science and math prepare for mere occupations."
See, I have some problems with vouchers, but your last sentence is, and I say this respectfully, incorrect.
Science and math advance the sum total of human knowledge - sometime incrementally and sometimes in leaps and bounds (or at least what apear to those of us not scientifically or mathematically inclined perceive to be leaps and bounds).
I'll hold off on my feelings about vouchers for another day.

I agree that science and math advance the sum total of human knowledge. But without "understanding" of the culture, ideas and history of one's society, that sum total seems sadly small.

re: #144 Charles

Charles, I have nothing but admiration for you and what you have accomplished here. It is nothing short of amazing.

I haven't read all the threads, but the notion that there are a collection of people called 'creationists' seems very starnge to me.

I'm a Catholic, a decent one at that, but to be called a creationist seems like someone is trying to insult my intelligence. Charles, it is not a zero sum game.

Your ideas and values may not be the same as mine when it come to theology or the absence thereof. But on the issue of good versus evil, right versus wrong, we are on the same page.

At times the dialogue among your LGFers makes me wince. Like the person who noted that the guards at the concentration camps were mostly Christian. It would never occur to me to note that the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were also mostly, if not all, Christians.

It's probably comments like that make me want you to change the subject, but I'm wrong.

Now look what you've done. I'm past my bedtime for an early tee time tomorrow.

God Bless.. ;-)

OT and my apologies if this has been covered before or in some spinoff link, but I just got this from Reuters:

U.S. to establish presence in Tehran: report
LONDON (Reuters) - The United States will announce in the next month that it plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a British newspaper said on Thursday.

In a front-page report, the Guardian said Washington would open a U.S. interests section in the Iranian capital, halfway towards opening an embassy.

The unsourced report by the newspaper's Washington correspondent said: "The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a U.S. interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy.

"The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country."

Senior U.S. diplomat William Burns said in testimony to Congress last week the United States was looking to opening up an interest section in Tehran but had not made a decision yet.
[Link: www.reuters.com...]
Yet another in what seems to be an accelerating train wreck by President Bush [realwest]

re: #190 Sharmuta

I would, except this debate isn't about individual personal beliefs- it's about a political agenda, and this discussion always has been about a political agenda.

However, there needs to be some way to divide those who believe in ID as a personal belief, and those that pursue it in public schooling. Until such a time, you need to specify.

Either everyone needs to put a disclaimer at the end of every comment they make on this topic, or we all finally come to an agreement that this IS NOT, nor WAS IT EVER about anyone's personal beliefs. This is about a political agenda- period.

Sounds to me like you've basically decided all ID believers are theocrats, and you won't be bothered to make a distinction, so now you are going to try to force everyone else to use terms according to your definition of them.

Why don't you just call IDers who want to push ID in classrooms Political IDers or something? Short and makes a distinction.

re: #184 Purple Prose

I mean factually ascertainable, commonsense-based reason. In the realm of science, it's falsifiability, etc. In the realm of normal life, it's live and let live, separation of Church and State, and basic things we have already believe in and have grown accustomed to, so anything that threatens that commonsense is something unreasonable and should be opposed.

Forget the world at large. You can find plenty of reasonable Americans who will disagree "in the realm of normal life."
I support what you're saying, BTW. I guess I just think things are much more complicated.

OTOH, since I don't have any answers, I'll just applaud your exhortation to common sense! :)

Another thought on Public Education.

There is no mention of it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Which begs the question should the government be in it at all?

(I would tend to lean for yes since I fear an uneducated society and all that that entails both economically it's the fast-lane to fascism)

But it is no more a right than housing, food or starbucks coffee.

re: #203 realwest

I remember the old embassy as a child and can't imagine that the new quasi-embassy won't be riddled with listening or espionage devices, etc.

re: #202 Quintus_Arius

The Catholic Church's position on evolution: Evolution and Catholicism Compatible, Pope Says.

Pope Benedict has referred to the debate between creationists and supporters of evolutionary theory as an "absurdity":

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

re: #194 Spar Kling

Intelligent Design as we know it is a paradigm, a basic set of beliefs that determine our assumptions when observing scientific phenomena.

A scientist with an ID perspective assumes that the subject under investigation has a fundamental order and complexity that can ultimately be understood through causality by design. Thus, for example, a biologist studying DNA will not assume that everything not understood is "junk DNA" or that any biological process not understood is likely to be a vestigial remnant of an evolutionary process.

However, the purpose of science is not to prove or disprove the existence of God. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible specifically does not allow himself to be discovered this way.

I would point out that associating ID with a variety of strange ducks does not refute ID any more than associating Adloph Hitler's obsession with controlling human evolution through "genetic hygene" refutes evolution.

- SK

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

There's a reason that ID proponents use "paradigm", in ancient greek meaning "a pattern" or example. See Scientific paradigm here, but understand that beliefs begetting assumptions rather than prior evidence, theory, tests, and data makes it non-science.

That said, time to get some zzz's , goodnite all

re: #200 hermeneutics

There has been no free market in Public education since the 60s (except for moving away from the power centers of it in the big cities) so the lack of movement is understandable.

re: #208 Charles

Just curious. Did he mention what was on the other hand?

And honestly, I'm not taking a pot-shot at ya. Just wondering what else he said.

re: #196 hermeneutics

AMEN !

re: #211 Noam Sayin'

Could have followed the link, I guess. I have a couple things going on right now. Just trying to follow the debate and that was the first question that came to mind.

re: #208 Charles

The Catholic Church's position on evolution: Evolution and Catholicism Compatible, Pope Says.

Absolutely, and we were always taught evolution by the Church, this is more an issue amongst Protestants than us damned Papists.

re: #211 Noam Sayin'

Just curious. Did he mention what was on the other hand?

And honestly, I'm not taking a pot-shot at ya. Just wondering what else he said.

It's right there in the link I posted -- I just didn't quote the whole thing. Here's the rest:

On the other hand, there are certain questions that evolutionary theory can never answer: "Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, 'Where does everything come from?'" Christians, thus, can learn truth from science, but scientists must learn to accept the limits of their own work. No scientific investigation can ever prove that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world, or even that man is only the sum of his physical parts.

I'll just point out that evolutionary theory is not intended to answer the question of where everything came from, so this is a bit of a non sequitur.

Oops...

Missed a link in that last post, this is wiki but close enough for this discussion

scientific paradigm

DI is now trying to move to the position that they aren't attacking evolution in total, now they will just attack some of it's "paradigms". Right.

re: #146 gunjam

So, you are making Christian creationists the enemy?

I think this type of argument is known as a Reductive Fallacy, a fallacy used quite frequently by the VB apologists a while back.

To reduce the following argument...

When reason goes, so does any credible defense against sharia. And you can't be selective about reason. If Islamic radicalism is unreasonable, so neo-fascists and ID must be. If you start being selective about what is reasonable, when you have lots of facts to point to what is reasonable or not, you fall into a trap and become weak. Only by fighting everything that is unreasonable, including neo-fascism and ID BS, can we hope to vanquish perhaps the most potent force of unreasonableness: jihad/Islamism. So reason vs. unreason is the key not just to winning in the short term but also in the long-term, when there may be another ascendant and immediate threat to commonsense and a peaceful and moderate way of life.

...and imply that it means the poster is "making Christian creationists the enemy" is absurd, and shows either poor reason or dishonest intent on your part.

it sucks that you call people of my faith con artists, charles.

im fine with the fact you dont believe in a higher power.....i think you are ignorant, but that is your choice.....why do you ridicule people for their choices in beliefs?

ive never been that much of a poster here, but i bet ive been reading here and a member longer than many.....sadly, im tired of being insulted by you and your continual postings insulting people of my faith.....

perhaps one day you will understand that christians are not the ones who are intending to harm you and self righteous people like you.

enjoy laughing at people of faith while you can, charles......soon i trust you will understand your errors.

see yall....

Guess it's hopeless to point out that ID is a theology which is not the same theology as 6 day Biblical creation. So, why does everyone use CREATIONISTS when they are talking about ID? Is it a new word with a connotation that implies something it's really not? Like the Left twists language to completely derail debates? Is it an off-shoot of Andrew Sullivan's snarky and angry "CHristianists?"

Look, theology means something. Biblical creation describes a SINGULAR EVENT, with a very specific time frame. ID is a PROCESS, borrowed heavily from Evolution PROCESS, and just like Evolution, requires incredibly huge time frames for the process to function. Thus, a true Biblical creation believer cannot in any way support ID, for it would be counted as heresy. SO, why are people saying ID is a sneaky way to get creationism into schools? They are not the same things at all. If people consider themselves secular, non-religious, and consider themselves fair, then please spend at least a nano-second understanding that words have meaning, especially in theologies. If creationism doesn't mean 6 day BIblical creation, and since THAT isn't what is being argued here, there and everywhere, then why is it being murkied up like that? Isn't it correct to say, ID is a sneaky way to get ... ID in the schools? Biblical creation isn't ID, so why is everyone using creation as a synonym for ID? That's false. And why are "creationists" sending nasty grams to Charles for expressing his personal opinion? Does that mean "creationists" are a cult of some sort, hiding behind "Christian" yet with no love or grace in them? What true Christian would even think to be mean and petty? Are some of these nasty-grammers MOBYs" pretending to be something they aren't in order to smear another? What gives?

Meanwhile, it's all touching to see all the concern about maintaining scientific rigor in our schools, but the schools are wrecks now, & ID isn't the reason why. When the group, MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT presented to the California state school board a massive, comprehensive overhaul of the CAlifornia state science curriculum, for FREE, crafted by scores of scientists, all experts in their disciplines, including several NOBLE SCIENCE PRIZE winners, because the current top research scientists in the WORLD have discovered that US schools are not preparing students in any adequate way for careers in science, they were TURNED DOWN BY THE SCHOOL BUREAUCRATS. The proposal was rejected in favor of a contract to a school educator. They turned down Noble Science Prize winners. They really did.
Can we have some righteous anger about that? Can we get something fixed about that? The LEFT politicized science, it's a mess now. How do ya'll propose we solve our problem of getting a decent science and math program RIGHT NOW? The head of the school just told us THEY CANNOT FIND GOOD MATH TEACHERS for the students. They recruit nationally & have a great school environment. They shouldn't have any problem, but the monopolistic educational system hires via teaching colleges which teach PROCESS, not facts. Our family, like millions of others, has a PROBLEM & it's called SCHOOL. We have kids to prepare for society & careers to be productive citizens. We can't wait 10 years to fix it, our kids & millions more will miss out. We need to get it NOW.
Our daughter told everyone that she'd gone kayaking & fell into 22 degree F water. Of 20 high school students, 1 stopped & said, "wait a minute..." High school prep - very good school. Pure suckers primed for the shyster. AL Gore comes by and says the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting, and shows photos to prove it. Everyone wrings their hands and nods their heads and worries about dying of overheating. We've been to the top of Kilimanjaro. It's a steady state -3 F, 365 days a year. The snows of Kilimanjaro are at 19,000 feet. They will never melt.
The schools are producing superstitious pagans.

re: #200 hermeneutics

I jumped the gun on my last comment. I think you and I agree. My point was allowing for vouchers will move us towards a free market in education not that one exists now.

re: #210 Metal Man

There has been no free market in Public education since the 60s (except for moving away from the power centers of it in the big cities) so the lack of movement is understandable.

Yes. When people have kids, they move to the burbs for safety, better schools, and a vibrant civil society. Thus, mobility is paramount, as you note. You have to be able to leave the old place. Both inner city kids and those in lousy non-city schools seem stuck in place, don't they? Mobility isn't theirs.

As long as public schools are geographically based and kids are zoned into a particular school, only mobility will allow them to escape.

Or vouchers.

re: #204 doubleplusundead

Sounds to me like you've basically decided all ID believers are theocrats, and you won't be bothered to make a distinction.

No- I'm just tired of people thinking this discussion is an attack on their faith, when it's been posted over and over again that if you accept evolution it doesn't mean you don't believe in God, nor does belief in God mean you can't accept evolution.

I grow weary of people thinking this is an attack on faith because they're the one's who can't make the distinction between creationism, ID, political agendas and person belief systems. Why do I have to make a distinction, and they get a pass at not understanding the difference?

I am again reminded of the threads on euro-fascism, and I was told then that I was using "fascist" too liberally. So I asked, "what am I supposed to call an actual fascist?" So- I will ask now- what am I supposed to call an actual creationist? What am I supposed to call an actual ID advocate?

*Disclaimer- I believe in God and accept evolution. Call me an IDer and I will chew your ass out.

re: #207 hermeneutics
I remember the day the Iranian "Student Revolutionaries" took over the American Embassy in Teheran in 1979, and took 54 American citizens and held them hostage for 444 days. I also remember Iran's role in the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebbanon in 1983; and I remember that we have captured LIVE Iranian Quods or special forces, in IRAQ, trainging "insurgents" how to kill Americans, how to build weapons to better, more efficiently kill Americans and how Iran has supplied tons of military material, from assault rifles to fairly sophisticated anti-armor weapons to those in Iraq who would use them to kill Americans.
AND NOW WE'RE GONNA BUILD AN EMBASSY OR CONSULATE OR ANYTHING ELSE that would open diplomatic relations with Iran? And with Iran promising to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? And with Iran which loudly proclaims it will NOT cease working on a nuclear weapon and that it has missiles which can reach US Troops In Iraq as well as many countries in Europe?
I am FUCKING OUTRAGED AT THIS STORY IF it is true.

re: #220 Metal Man

I jumped the gun on my last comment. I think you and I agree. My point was allowing for vouchers will move us towards a free market in education not that one exists now.

Ditto. Agreed.

Another meltdown.

re: #67 Noam Sayin'

#40 Deleted

One toke over the line?

Not that one! Try this one:

"One Toke Over the Line" (The Lawrence Welk Show Version)

It must have taken a rare wisdom, I'd say the wisdom of a creationist, to advocate to Mr Welk that he include this "modern spiritual" in his show.

re: #223 realwest

I remember the day the Iranian "Student Revolutionaries" took over the American Embassy in Teheran in 1979, ...

I was there.

re: #223 realwest

As far as I'm concerned, we have been at war with Iran since 1979.
I'd like to see it finished.

re: #149 gunjam

I'll answer you with an equally irrelevant question: "What do YOU think of having Fidel Castro as an evolutionist ally?

That is the Fallacy of Faulty Comparison.

Evolution is verifiable/falsifiable science, Intelligent Design is a political movement that employs leftist tactics. You're comparing apples and hand grenades.

You are obviously lousy at debate, if I guy like me can see through your arguments so easily.

re: #214 doubleplusundead Oh, smart move there skippy - start a war between protestants and you damn Papists!
Next you'll be starting up on Christians vs Jews.
/

re: #198 Charles

And neither do Christians that are scientists or non-scientists. Oh, Please, Mendel, Lister, Pasteur, and yes, Darwin, et.al, all sought further cause from effect. We aren't idiots. Accepting Jesus as your savior does not turn your intellect off. I would argue that intellect is more critical as a Christian.

re: #206 Metal Man

The federal government has no business being involved in it.
THAT much is certain.

> There may well be a time and a place for teaching ID, but it isn’t in our classrooms funded by our taxes.

ID is useful in science classes. It's valuable example of what science isn't!

re: #215 Charles

Thanks, Charles. I just read that moments before you posted it. I was curious what The Holy See might have said on the other hand.

It's getting late, so I'll track down Mr. Richert's post and links in the morning.

I'm not trying to include my position in this argument. I've read through most of the ID threads and stayed out of the discussion - aside from taking a shot at Marvo the other night. What I see mostly is Charles showing some serious attempts at hijacking science with pseudosciend in what I believe is an effort to inject christianity into places where it doesn't belong.

I implore Christiands on this blog to understand that Charles raises an important movement to legitimize Christianity as part of the science curriculum. This is preposterous, because Christianity is based on your faith in your Lord and Savior. No science can prove this, nor can any science disprove your faith.

Stop being offended. It only impugns your faith. You are stronger than that - I hope.

re: #227 hermeneutics
How did you get out - or were you one of the captives (I've met and spent a long afternoon talking to one of the captives)?

re: #231 ASU86PE

And neither do Christians that are scientists or non-scientists. Oh, Please, Mendel, Lister, Pasteur, and yes, Darwin, et.al, all sought further cause from effect. We aren't idiots. Accepting Jesus as your savior does not turn your intellect off. I would argue that intellect is more critical as a Christian.

This has nothing to do with the point I was making. I was responding to this assertion, which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific research:

A scientist with an ID perspective assumes that the subject under investigation has a fundamental order and complexity that can ultimately be understood through causality by design. Thus, for example, a biologist studying DNA will not assume that everything not understood is "junk DNA" or that any biological process not understood is likely to be a vestigial remnant of an evolutionary process.

re: #228 jaunte

As far as I'm concerned, we have been at war with Iran since 1979.
I'd like to see it finished.

Frankly, I'm surprised Iran hasn't imploded yet. Stupid Carter sold out the Shah. Carter still doesn't understand that imperfect friends are better than unknown enemies.

I've heard that ordinary Iranians remember Americans fondly. Certainly hope that is true. What they must be thinking, knowing the Americans have pacified Iraq next door, is a mystery to me. Perhaps they are hopeful. Then again, their pride may be muffed.

The Iraq-Iran-Afganistan balance is seriously upset now -- who knows what these different nationalities with the same religion, though different branches, will do?

re: #228 jaunte Oh yeah - I do hope I get the chance to see that war ended myself.
And I mean ENDED.

re: #222 Sharmuta

No- I'm just tired of people thinking this discussion is an attack on their faith, when it's been posted over and over again that if you accept evolution it doesn't mean you don't believe in God, nor does belief in God mean you can't accept evolution.

I grow weary of people thinking this is an attack on faith because they're the one's who can't make the distinction between creationism, ID, political agendas and person belief systems. Why do I have to make a distinction, and they get a pass at not understanding the difference?

I am again reminded of the threads on euro-fascism, and I was told then that I was using "fascist" too liberally. So I asked, "what am I supposed to call an actual fascist?" So- I will ask now- what am I supposed to call an actual creationist? What am I supposed to call an actual ID advocate?

*Disclaimer- I believe in God and accept evolution. Call me an IDer and I will chew your ass out.

I would suggest people come up with terms like Political Creationist or Political IDer, or something like Indoctrinating IDer or Creationist, some terminology that gives a distinction between those that believe in ID or Creation, and those who want to use the government to impose it, some term that can quickly be typed instead of a lengthy disclaimer.

As for the disclaimer, I'm Catholic, most of us agree with evolution.

re: #185 jaunte

"Charles Thaxton referred to a theory that the presence of DNA in a living cell is evidence of a designing intelligence.

Yeah, but what kind of reasoning is that? Why is that any better than saying the presence of a proton in the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is evidence of a designing intelligence?

It utterly fails Occam's Razor to draw such grandiose conclusions from a simple observation. DNA in a cell proves there's DNA in a cell, end of story.

If I hadn't already known it, I would have learned from these ID threads that science just isn't for everyone, and even most practicing scientists are better at doing it, than at explaining what a paradigm is or quoting Popper or Kuhn or Suppe or Feyerabend, etc.

I already know how delicate the idea of science is, from some work I've done over the past ten years reading a ton of philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, biology and philosophy of biology, and the associated philosophy of science. And then, witnessing how absent so much of these things are, from most general discussions.

"DNA as evidence of design", fooey. That's supposed to follow from "watch as evidence of watchmaker". It doesn't. DNA is so many orders of magnitude more complex, that the term "design" doesn't even cover it. For that matter, the proton is so many orders of magnitude simpler, that the idea that it is NOT designed, seems odd. Well, hey, is a proton "simple"? It's full of quantum chromodynamics, we now know. We simply can't jump from an observation to a framework, the hypothetico-deductive process says it's always more complicated than that. Think Hegelian dialectic. OK, don't.

Just a little late evening rant, good night, lizards and gentilepersons.

re: #235 realwest

How did you get out - or were you one of the captives (I've met and spent a long afternoon talking to one of the captives)?

Too young to be a captive though my father barely made it out. I managed to get to the airstrip and was ferried to Morocco. Lucky me.

re: #230 realwest

Oh, smart move there skippy - start a war between protestants and you damn Papists!
Next you'll be starting up on Christians vs Jews.
/

Heh, I'm such a troublemaker.

re: #219 wanumba

The points you make about the state of our schools and the main reasons for them are good ones. I truly sympathize with your frustration.

re: #229 Slumbering Behemoth Um, don't know how lousy at debate he really is; it did, after all, take you over 100 comments here to post your answer.
;')

re: #237 hermeneutics

I sympathize with the people who are struggling under that tyranny, and I hope we can bring enough pressure to bear to get rid of the gangsters at the top.

re: #239 doubleplusundead

See- I believe it's inherent to the discussion that we're talking about a political agenda. I've made that distinction. So why can't others? Why is it incumbent upon me to continually make this distinction because others can't grasp what the discussion is concerning?

re: #245 jaunte

I sympathize with the people who are struggling under that tyranny, and I hope we can bring enough pressure to bear to get rid of the gangsters at the top.

I think the Iranians have to deal with their own political monsters. Maybe not, though. Perhaps Iran is more like Iraq, though there isn't an oligarchy (Saddam's family) to depose. We can't get rid of every country's lousy dictatorship, can we?

re: #240 itellu3times

I think it may come down to something as simple as pride: "If I can't figure it out (as good as I know I am) then the Creator must have made it a mystery.

re: #247 hermeneutics
Figuring that question out will probably take the rest of the century.

Wolfie, Any college news?

re: #250 hermeneutics

Wolfie, Any college news?

I think it will be Hillsdale !

re: #205 wolfie

Forget the world at large. You can find plenty of reasonable Americans who will disagree "in the realm of normal life."
I support what you're saying, BTW. I guess I just think things are much more complicated.

OTOH, since I don't have any answers, I'll just applaud your exhortation to common sense! :)

Yeah, things are always more complicated. But if you think too much on that, you can't post anything because you're always going to second-quess of caveat yourself into oblivion. That's what liberals used to do before they became so cock-sure of themselves.

Anyway, I see no contradiction between Charles' positions on Islamofascism, neo-fascism or Intelligent Design (as propaganda that should be pushed down students' throats as science). It's all consistent to me.

I can't get into Charles' mind, but I think he always believed in science and evolution as a product of reason, and then the issue surfaced in his consciousness again and he decided to press it. He has an obsessive streak. That's a good thing. It's something he obviously believed in and now wants to press because it is on his mind. That's how I work and a lot of people work. You believe something sort of without ever enunciating it much, then some little bit of information or some trigger makes you start thinking about it more. Then you want to explore it in more depth. But the thing is it is all consistent with Charles' previous thinking. This blog is his, and, in a way, it is his work of art.

Anyway, what I see is a consistent position on Charles' part: Islamic insanity, neo-fascist insanity or ID fantasies to replace science: they are all about accepting reason and opposing absolutism. There is place for faith. I have no idea whether Charles is religious or not, but that is beside the point. Rejecting the irrational is not a faith-based decision. Faith can and should co-exist with reason. Otherwise, you get Ahmadinejad.

re: #251 wolfie

I think it will be Hillsdale !

REally! I'm so thrilled for you. Just speechless.

CONGRATULATIONS, Mom. You did it!

re: #219 wanumba

We've been to the top of Kilimanjaro. It's a steady state -3 F, 365 days a year. The snows of Kilimanjaro are at 19,000 feet. They will never melt.
The schools are producing superstitious pagans.

The snow sublimates, not melts. And, it is not being replaced fast enough:
[Link: earthobservatory.nasa.gov...]

re: #177 hermeneutics

What
if your tax dollars went to PARENTS not schools, and parents were
allowed to send their kids to Lutheran, Catholic, Muslim, etc. schools,
vehemently secular schools, arts-based schools, science and math
academies, remedial schools, etc. Would you oppose this?

At the end of Greenspan's book, The Age of Turbulence, he notes that the abysmal performance of public schools in general constitutes the most serious long-term threat to the United States!

Vouchers would introduce much-needed competition to the public school system. Unless many public schools improve, they would lose out to better run public and private schools and might even be forced to close as better schools take their place. Here in California, where about half the budget goes to education, this would probably result in better education at a lower cost.

While I support vouchers for public and private secular schools, I'm against their use for homeschooling. As a homeschooling parent, I recognize that with government funding comes government regulation--of necessity. Homeschooling is not expensive and I don't want government money or government regulation.

- SK

re: #218 bluegrass boy
Ah, I ain't even gonna start with my usual "respectfully" with you - If I honestly thought Charles was declaring war or engaging in an uncommitted war against Christians or Jews (we do share the same God, ya know) I'd leave.
What Charles IS trying to do is to show that some "Christians" are using something called the Discovery Institute and something called Intelligent Design (TM) to get religion taught in public - that is taxpayer funded - schools and schools which are not strictly speaking public but receive taxpayer assistance - as SCIENCE. It is manifestly NOT science, it is a matter of FAITH; and frankly, speaking as a Christian I RESENT the Discovery Institutes' perversion of the term "intelligent design" as a means to get faith taught at taxpayer funded schools as science.

re: #246 Sharmuta

See- I believe it's inherent to the discussion that we're talking about a political agenda. I've made that distinction. So why can't others? Why is it incumbent upon me to continually make this distinction because others can't grasp what the discussion is concerning?

Maybe, but not everyone sees it that way, and it is causing some confusion, and this being such a huge site, it can be hard to follow the usually multiple discussions occurring on any given thread, so clarity becomes even more important.

As for making distinctions, everyone should, and judging from the reactions of some people of faith on the various threads, even from some well known and respected commenters, it hasn't being made clear enough.

re: #204 doubleplusundead

IDiotarians is shorter. Happy?

re: #244 realwest

Um, don't know how lousy at debate he really is; it did, after all, take you over 100 comments here to post your answer.
;')

Sorry, Realwest, but I have a tendency to read every comment, and sometimes show up late to a thread.

And it was not "over 100 comments" but exactly 80, so there. :P

re: #255 Spar Kling

I home school as well, SK, and it isn't a financial burden to do so. It is a personal sacrifice -- it has taken a HUGE toll on my writing and career -- I'm willing to make. I haven't thought through the implications of voucherizing home schooled kids, but it only seems fair to give ALL children the same voucher.

The only exception would be kids with special needs, and this would have to be very, very carefully identified.