Charles Johnson Blogosphere • Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 9:35 pm PST • Views: 400
Earlier I mentioned in passing that I’d link to any bloggers who aren’t down with the “intelligent design” creationist movement — conservative/liberal/other. Here are some of the bloggers who’ve responded so far, and it’s not the usual geeks from ScienceBlogs:
Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
Well, I'm a blogger, and I'm anti-creationism...but I've never once posted about creationism or evolution. So I don't merit list inclusion. But I'm there in spirit.
Er, I mean, in soul.
No, uh, uh...I mean . . . in brutish Neanderthal consciousness!
Well, I'm a blogger, and I'm anti-creationism...but I've never once posted about creationism or evolution. So I don't merit list inclusion. But I'm there in spirit.
Er, I mean, in soul.
No, uh, uh...I mean . . . in brutish Neanderthal consciousness!
Your skills and talent are more prominent in the "exposing the moonbattery", Zombie. ;)
After having dug to a depth of 10 feet last year, New York scientists found traces of copper wire dating back 100 years and came to the conclusion, that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 100 years ago.
Not to be out-done by the New Yorkers, in California an archaeologist dug to a depth of 20 feet, and shortly after, headlines in the LA Times newspaper read: ' California archaeologists have found traces of 200 year old copper wire and have concluded that their ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network a hundred years earlier than the New Yorkers. '
One week later, a local newspaper in Texas, reported the following: After digging as deep as 30 feet in his pasture near Cut-n-Shoot, Montgomery County, Texas , Bubba Rathbone, a self-taught archaeologist, reported that he found absolutely nothing. Bubba has therefore concluded that 300 years ago, Texas had already gone wireless.
According to one local legend, Cut and Shoot was named after a 1912 community confrontation that almost led to violence. According to differing versions of the story, the dispute was either over:
* The design of a new steeple for the town's only church,
* The issue of who should be allowed to preach there, or
* The conflicting land claims among church members.
These must be the laughingstock of the blogosphere. lol
No, that would be people who believe that the earth is a few thousand year old, that every species was created independently and as is at the same time, and that God hid those bones in the ground and that DNA in our cells just to pull our legs.
They have never taken a biology class in college or high school?
Either they slept through them, or their parents and/or preachers told them not to believe that stuff, or their teachers taught them the same thing their preachers did.
I'm actually in the midst of writing a report (or what ever you want to call it) on creationists which I'll be posting at my website in a couple of weeks. I've found some very nice folks with some very crazy ideas, and they have been more than happy to share them with me.
I need to pay them one more visit before I'll be ready...
This is an album you might enjoy...It has my favorite version of Zombie Jamboree. Pay no attention to the Amazon track list, it's inaccurate. The album is actually a two CD set...See here for the proper track listing.
This is an album you might enjoy...It has my favorite version of Zombie Jamboree. Pay no attention to the Amazon track list, it's inaccurate. The album is actually a two CD set...See here for the proper track listing.
Y'know, I've always wanted to get that record! But I don't have CD player (believe it or not). Instead, I scour for the tracks online.
Also, as you will notice if you listen to the song: "Hill and Gully" is probably the original source of the lyric "back to back, belly to belly," popularized in "Zombie Jamboree!"
("Hill and Gully" may ultimately date to the 19th century, so it came first! !)
...and it’s not the usual geeks from ScienceBlogs:
Hey now, don't be dissing the geeks at the ScienceBlogs. PZ Myers has been way out front on this issue, and has the credentials to back him up. That's the best type of spokesperson to have.
Charles, hit them and hit them hard. Not only for the sake of the GOP but for the sake of sensible religious people over the world. I've often said that I come from a country so religious (Catholic) that it is to all extents and purposes a convent. There has never been an issue about evolution in my country - it was always taken to be the scientific truth. I have been following the issue in the US with scepticism. I can't believe that so many persons of good will in the USA cannot reconcile God with established science. And then, last week, in the local flagship daily, there appeared the following letter:
Some scientists are convinced that the Darwinian theory of evolution provides a satisfactory explanation for the origin of different life forms, including the human race. Richard Dawkins says: "The theory is about as much in doubt as the earth goes round the sun."
Other scientists are not so certain. Molecular biologist Michael Denton responds to Dawkins: "Now of course such claims are simply nonsense. For Darwin's model of evolution is still very much a theory and still very much in doubt when it comes to macro-evolutionary phenomena."
An example of such doubt is given by David Raup, one of the world's most respected paleontologists. He writes: "Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time."
One-hundred-and-fifty years after the publication of The Origin of Species, we now possess a rich body of fossil knowledge. Did paleontology discover the "missing links"? Raup answers: "We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transitions than we had in Darwin's time, because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail... if Darwin were writing today, he would still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between major groups of organisms."
The scientific study of fossils should be the prime witness to Darwin's case, but contrary to popular opinion, it is not. Prof. Steven M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University wrote in 1979: "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
In other words, the Darwinian model is not supported by fossil evidence.Darwinian Evolution.
The author happens to be a pastor of a US-style fundamentalist Church (rare as birds' teeth in my country) and a medical doctor to boot. The man's cognitive dissonance must be cosmic boot. The growth of this creationist/fundamentalist trend is extremely dangerous and worrying. I never thought that this trend would inflitrate my country. Science, religion and politics must be liberated from this danger or we are all at risk. This is why Charles is right to maintain this campaign. Thank you, Charles. Keep it up.
My co-blogger, crazybengal, had a run in with a teacher who was teaching evolution and creationism as equally possible alternatives for the students to consider as part of their "science" class. This was in grade 3 in Saskatchwan!
I don't think that I've written a dedicated post about intelligent design or creationism, maybe because I've always just assumed that everyone knew that evolution is science and creationism is faith. The former should be taught in school and the latter should be reserved for church. Obviously, I've been naive.
As long as you're linking, I'll mention my blog, linked to my name above. Threads I've tagged include evolution, ID, and Creationism. There's a fair amount of overlap, but it's far from 100%.
They have never taken a biology class in college or high school?
Doesn't always help. Most high school science classes are pretty awful, and unless you're already interested, you will learn the bare minimum needed to pass the course, and retain it until you leave the classroom after the final exam.
In college, if you're not a science major, your teachers are likely to be graduate students. In high school, your teachers are most likely education majors, who picked that major because science was too hard.
Hey now, don't be dissing the geeks at the ScienceBlogs. PZ Myers has been way out front on this issue, and has the credentials to back him up. That's the best type of spokesperson to have.
I've noticed that a lot of the geeks at the ScienceBlogs are decidedly to the left. Part of this is due to the number of creationists and Intelligent Design / Intelligent Origin Theorists (ID/IOTs) in the Republican Party. The science geeks know enough science to know the creationists and ID/IOTs are dead wrong (and in many cases, lying). They know the creationists and ID/IOTs are welcome in the Republican Party.
They can tell the creationists and ID/IOTs reject evolution because it offends their notion of Religious Truth, and not because of the science.
They jump to the not unreasonable conclusion that Republicans reach all the rest of their positions by the same road. Since everyone likes to believe his party arrives at positions by reason, they glom on to the party that almost universally accepts this one bit of science they've studied in depth, and assume that party's right about everything else.
I think one point that needs to be made is that there are quite a few conservatives, and Republicans, who do accept evolution, who do reject creationism, and who are quite capable of deep, rational thought.
I've noticed that a lot of the geeks at the ScienceBlogs are decidedly to the left. Part of this is due to the number of creationists and Intelligent Design / Intelligent Origin Theorists (ID/IOTs) in the Republican Party. The science geeks know enough science to know the creationists and ID/IOTs are dead wrong (and in many cases, lying). They know the creationists and ID/IOTs are welcome in the Republican Party.
They can tell the creationists and ID/IOTs reject evolution because it offends their notion of Religious Truth, and not because of the science. They jump to the not unreasonable conclusion that Republicans reach all the rest of their positions by the same road. Since everyone likes to believe his party arrives at positions by reason, they glom on to the party that almost universally accepts this one bit of science they've studied in depth, and assume that party's right about everything else.
I think one point that needs to be made is that there are quite a few conservatives, and Republicans, who do accept evolution, who do reject creationism, and who are quite capable of deep, rational thought.
Political parties are about coalitions. With a two-party system those coalitions tend to polarize. And in a political fight, yes, it's easy to point out a flaw in one area of the other side's coalition and try to taint the entire party. Both sides do it all the time.
But the Republican party has actively courted the anti-science (nice framing, huh?) crowd and made it one of the primary legs of the party coalition - cultural conservatives. Small government/fiscal conservatives, and strong defense conservatives being the other two legs. (Grossly over-simplified) There's a lot I like about those two, but the anti-science crowd is toxic to me because I think they are a threat to human survival, my survival.
So I go stand next to people I might think are a little loony on the left.
Ahh, and now we're not worried about hiding behind a facade of "both a belief in science and a belief in creation can mutually exist". Kudos Charles for pulling back the wool although it was obvious every time you posted on the matter where your true intentions were.
And exactly where the Hell did Charles repeal Lao Stinky? I haven't seen it happen.
I relished the opportunities at actual discussion on the matter. Unfortunately, I more often got told what I believe and lambasted as 'uneducated' while not receiving any opportunity to actually present a defense of biblical christianity in discussion.
Christians can accept evolutionary theory without forsaking their Bible and their faith. Unless you call 1.6 billion Roman Catholics unBiblical.
The baseless insults and speculative slander in these and similar threads are driving me away entirely. I started out as an admitted lurker who came to grow in understanding. I'm leaving with all-too-much of an understanding. You may have migrated from liberal to conservative but it seems you held onto the bitter vitriol liberals harbor. That's a shame, as I stood up for the blog to several people you'll never know about.
Science is neither liberal nor conservative; it is empirical. Apparently, you haven't understood that even yet.
You claim such a high degree of science and yet your 'proof' threads constantly beg the question, tackle straw men, feature an intentional muddling of microevolution (biblical) and macroevolution (non-biblical), and apply circular logic at best. I've continually laid out there one simple question which, when handled honestly, must cause an honest person to look elsewhere than evolution to explain how we got here. "Where did it all come from?" You've never been able to answer and you've frankly never even given it a decent bluff of an attempt. Your closest response is to dismiss it to the realm of philosophy and claim that it then has no bearing. Evolution never will be able to explain it but that's not a worry, you just skip merrily past it.
There is no sharp line between macroevolution and microevolution. Is it when two organisms manifest differing physical characteristics, yet can produce fertile offspring (the different dog breeds)? Is it when two organisms can produce offspring, but they are sterile (horse and donkeys, lions and tiger)? Is it when they can't produce offspring at all?
And the 'where did it all come from' question is one for cosmology, not evolution. Whether there was or was not a cosmic Big Bang kick-sparker has absotively, posilutely NOTHING to do with how populations of terrestrial organisms with high but imperfect copying fidelity, which appeared ten billion year LATER, react and respond when confronted with surrounding environment containing particular challenges and opportunities. And how they respond is through random genetic mutation acted upon by nonrandom environmental selection; in other words, they EVOLVE.
I've seen in another thread that posts not supporting evolution are being deleted and the user banned. Guess that'll just make this goodbye easier. Cue the classy comments about being glad to be rid of another stinkin' creationist.
That's about people complaining about what thread topics Charles posts on here. It's his fucking blog, and he posts on what he pleases. People have had their comments deleted for complaining about Vlaams Belang post, too, and posts on other topics. So you (perhaps intentionally) misconstrue, in order to gratuitously and illegitimately derive particular insult.
Frank says: