Texas Lawmaker Backs Creationist ‘Degree’

Science • Views: 2,525

Last year the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board refused to approve a master’s degree program in “science education” offered by the Institute for Creation Research, a young earth creationist institution in Dallas founded by Henry Morris in 1972. Morris is one of the authors of The Genesis Flood, a founding work of the branch of creationism labeled “creation science.”

The idea behind the ICR’s master’s degree program is to start turning out accredited “science teachers” who would get into public schools and promote Biblical literalist pseudo-science, either by teaching it outright or by less obtrusive techniques that would draw less attention.

This year, the new approach to get this approval, proposed by Republican Rep. Leo Berman, would simply let the ICR be exempt from the rules.

(I don’t think he meant “the rules of the physical universe.”)

The Institute for Creation Research couldn’t get its proposal to offer an online master’s degree in science education approved by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board last year.

Now, an East Texas lawmaker has come up with an alternative: Exempt the institute from the coordinating board’s rules. Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said his proposed legislation is intended to allow the Bible-oriented group to proceed without the coordinating board’s blessing. “Why are people who call themselves scientists afraid to hear two sides of a debate?” Berman asked Friday.

His proposal would exempt private, nonprofit educational institutions that do not accept state funding and state-administered federal funding from coordinating board rules. …

Berman said his proposal encourages different viewpoints and debate. “Personally, I don’t believe in evolution,” he said. “I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.”

Jump to bottom

264 comments
1 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:01:46pm

These creationists are like democrats; when the rules get in their way, they just change the rules. I’m sure Jesus is really proud of their actions.

2 Jack Burton  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:03:44pm

I thought ICR was here in San Diego. Did they (I hope) move or is this another quack organization?

3 Bloodnok  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:04:18pm

“Why are people who call themselves scientists afraid to hear two sides of a debate?”

They’re not afraid. I don’t like to have my time wasted either and I’m not even a scientist.

4 unreconstructed rebel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:04:25pm

re: #1 Jetpilot1101

These creationists are like democrats; when the rules get in their way, they just change the rules. I’m sure Jesus is really proud of their actions.

This is one of those times when I object that we are limited to a single ding.

5 Summer Seale  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:05:41pm

They really appear to scurry from rock to rock as each one is lifted up and exposed to the light…

…incessantly.

6 Salem  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:06:01pm

The South is doing it again.

7 wrenchwench  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:06:58pm
The Institute for Creation Research couldn’t get its proposal to offer an online master’s degree in science education approved by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board last year.

An online degree for people who reject science? The irony is painful.

8 coquimbojoe  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:07:04pm

These people are so tiresome. Push faith door to door, in your churches and homes, but don’t make my tax dollars pay for you evangelize others. It is hardly Christian if you have to lie about doing something. If you are thinking of sneaking creation into the schools by way of deception, it would be wise to remember the old saying, ‘the Devil is the father of all lies’.

9 Russkilitlover  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:07:12pm

“Personally, I don’t believe in evolution,” he said. “I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.”

Evidence? Fossils? Carbon dating? LALALALALALALA I can’t heeeeeaaarrrr you.

Sheesh.

10 Bloodnok  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:08:04pm

“Personally, I don’t believe in know the first thing about evolution,” he said. “I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.

11 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:08:05pm

Imams will flock to Texas for teaching gigs.

12 unreconstructed rebel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:08:15pm

Need to run. God keep you.

13 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:08:40pm

lotsa money goin down here…tons, in fact maybe the point is to break the bank

14 nyc redneck  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:09:44pm

“why are people who call themselves scientists afraid to hear two sides of a debate?”, berman asked.

there is NO DEBATE.

why don’t these people just get theology degrees?
they can get prayer in the schools like that.
just stay the hell away from science.

15 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:10:13pm
“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.”

Well, I’m certainly glad he’s certain about who/what his mother WASN’T.

16 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:10:36pm

Here we go….

Lawrence Ford, a spokesman for the institute, said in an e-mail that Berman’s measure “is not limited to a particular viewpoint, either creationist or evolutionist, theist or atheist, Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Buddhist or Hindu, rich or poor, or any other viewpoint.”

Get ready for sharia taught in social studies classes. We all know where this is going to end up.

17 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:10:49pm

re: #2 ArchangelMichael

I thought ICR was here in San Diego. Did they (I hope) move or is this another quack organization?

Maybe they’re selling franchises.
Actually, it’s the ICR museum that was located near San Diego. ICR sold it in 1998 and it is now operated by a different YEC gang, the Life and Light Foundation.

18 Faustus  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:10:55pm

Berman said his proposal encourages different viewpoints and debate. “Personally, I don’t believe in evolution,” he said. “I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.”

Clearly a man whose knowledge of evolutionary history is something to be reckoned with.

19 IslandLibertarian  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:11:26pm

Reality is shaped just like this, like it says in the scriptures. See I’ve got a drawing.
And Gawd says so.
Now hand me “TRUTH” so I can shape it to fit into my Reality.

/ID logic…………..

20 Bloodnok  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:11:31pm

I’m guessing it won’t be a Bachelor of Science degree…

21 Emerald  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:11:42pm
“Why are people who call themselves scientists afraid to hear two sides of a debate?” Berman asked Friday.


The scientists are the ones who don’t want to debate? I always got the impression the creationists that refuse to debate. Their entire arguments fall apart when faced with facts, so they work in stealth.

22 Bloodnok  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:11:48pm

re: #16 Killgore Trout

Here we go….

Get ready for sharia taught in social studies classes. We all know where this is going to end up.

Masters Degree in Jihad.

23 wrenchwench  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:12:12pm

re: #20 Bloodnok

I’m guessing it won’t be a Bachelor of Science degree…

And yet, BS somehow fits….

24 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:13:15pm

re: #14 nyc redneck

“why are people who call themselves scientists afraid to hear two sides of a debate?”, berman asked.

there is NO DEBATE.

why don’t these people just get theology degrees?
they can get prayer in the schools like that.
just stay the hell away from science.

they are on a rampage and little can stop them…they sneak onto the school board, then the state house, then some committee….relentless conceitists that will wear down the public…you just watch

25 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:13:32pm

Funny, but when I see ICR, the first thing that popped into my head was the IHR - the Institute for Historical Review - the anti-Semitic revisionist history Holocaust denying outfit.

The two organizations are all too alike in their sad devotion to crank theories and luring those who don’t know any better into supporting their policies and pronouncements.

You want to back a creationist degree? Do it without state funds. Do it in your churches or shuls or mosques. It has no place getting state funding.

26 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:14:10pm

People are entitled to their own opinions about religion but they aren’t entitled to their own facts about science. Science deals with facts and various religious views aren’t going to change scientific fact.

27 CapeCoddah  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:15:05pm

Good Evening, everyone!
I do so hope that God smacks these morons upside the head with a #9 cast iron skillet when they get there. They really need it. He can get away with it, we unfortunately, cannot.

28 Soona'  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:15:19pm

re: #24 albusteve

they are on a rampage and little can stop them…they sneak onto the school board, then the state house, then some committee….relentless conceitists that will wear down the public…you just watch

I doubt it.

29 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:16:03pm

science is under siege, history is dead, civics is a secret and droolers are everywhere…meanwhile Islam is knocking on the door and we have a simp for a president who only stands for socialism and control

30 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:16:50pm

albusteve — Haven’t you got any good news?

31 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:18:19pm

re: #30 Miss Molly

albusteve — Haven’t you got any good news?

yes!…the Cowboys released T Owens and my daughter got a hefty raise

32 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:18:28pm

There’s more going on here than just the creationism angle:

“It would make Texas a magnet for unscrupulous private ‘educational’ companies that will want to offer students the opportunity to pay for bogus advanced degrees,” Schafersman wrote on his group’s Web site. “If H.B. 2800 became law, it would be a gold mine to every fly-by-night, degree-granting outfit in the country.”

33 hartabuna  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:19:07pm

Well, waddaya expect? It is Texas after all. Evolution has passed it by.
After all it was a Texas governor who coined the immortal phrase “ If English was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me ” - [ Gov. Miriam Amanda Wallace “Ma” Ferguson ]

34 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:19:40pm

re: #29 albusteve

science is under siege, history is dead, civics is a secret and droolers are everywhere…meanwhile Islam is knocking on the door and we have a simp for a president who only stands for socialism and control

After the fall of the Roman Empire there came the Dark Ages.
Just sayin’…

35 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:20:22pm

albusteve — Well, there you go — at least something good for your daughter and that should be cause for celebration.

36 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:20:37pm

re: #29 albusteve

science is under siege, history is dead, civics is a secret and droolers are everywhere…meanwhile Islam is knocking on the door and we have a simp for a president who only stands for socialism and control

Any reason for optimism?

37 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:21:28pm

re: #32 Charles

That’s the same problem that Louisiana was opening itself up to with its legislation it passed previously. They open the door to all kinds of mischief and mayhem in all areas of academia with this. It has no place in a public school classroom. It has no place in a science classroom.

Of course, I am preaching to the converted.

38 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:22:02pm

Biblical literalists fall into the same trap as those who believe that the Qu’ran is infallible.

The Biblical texts as we know them were chosen by MEN who decided that they were inspired by God. Men are fallible. Translation of those texts is also a tricky feat.

39 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:22:25pm

re: #32 Charles

There’s more going on here than just the creationism angle:

there are almost 25 million people in Texas…public ed is a HUGE multi billion dollar business…connect the dots amigos…exemptions?..whoa

40 Soona'  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:22:29pm

re: #36 Dark_Falcon

Any reason for optimism?

Yes. Most people in Texas are smarter than this.

41 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:23:30pm

California already has some questionable school that grant “graduate degrees” for a very hefty tuition and very little academic work required.

42 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:24:42pm

Yeah, uh, “Ma” died in 1961. I don’t think she’s governor any longer. It’s some dufus with nice hair, IIRC.

/

43 Soona'  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:25:04pm

I’d love to stay on this “creationist thread”////////////but I have to go.

44 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:25:56pm

re: #36 Dark_Falcon

Any reason for optimism?

I think eventually the 1st is gonna take a hit….people hear REALLY don’t want to hear that tho….so in terms of creationists driving their agenda down our throats, no…I am not optimistic

45 A Man for all Seasons  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:26:44pm

re: #41 Miss Molly

California already has some questionable school that grant “graduate degrees” for a very hefty tuition and very little academic work required.

Hi Good Evening..I wouldn’t call out just California..I mean It’s a big state.

46 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:26:47pm

re: #40 Soona’

Yes. Most people in Texas are smarter than this.

why can’t you say the same for LA…are they just stupid?

47 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:27:24pm
48 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:29:17pm

re: #44 albusteve

I think eventually the 1st is gonna take a hit….people hear REALLY don’t want to hear that tho….so in terms of creationists driving their agenda down our throats, no…I am not optimistic

What do you mean, “The 1st going to take a hit”?

49 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:30:19pm

HoosierHoops — I’m sure many States have some or a few schools that are “questionable” in terms of granting degrees.

50 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:30:26pm

re: #33 hartabuna

Well, waddaya expect? It is Texas after all. Evolution has passed it by.
After all it was a Texas governor who coined the immortal phrase “ If English was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me ” - [ Gov. Miriam Amanda Wallace “Ma” Ferguson ]

Perhaps it is our tendency to generalize that makes us so backward;)

Besides, it is highly doubtful that Governor Ferguson ever said those words; and if she did, she was joking:

Miriam Ferguson, along with a few other people, have been credited with the quote: “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas.”[6] She was an educated woman and fairly well-read, so it is somewhat unlikely that she actually ever uttered those words. There are also variations of these words going back to 1881 that were often used to ridicule the backwardness of various unnamed Christians which strengthens the argument that the attribution to Ferguson was incorrect.


Ma Ferguson, the apocryphal know-nothing

51 jdog29  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:30:31pm

No, that can’t be, it just can’t. I guess the environmental pressures caused these people to evolve into Creationist Majors. So it looks like evolution triumphs again.

52 davinvalkri  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:31:26pm

Oh for the love of…why can’t these idiots bring this same sort of furor towards something where it can actually do some good?

53 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:31:36pm

IMHO, this is not religion which Berman is not-so-subtly focused upon.
It’s what I label capital-P Proselytizing — where the proselytizer becomes so caught up in his mission that it, itself, becomes his raison d’etre. (I use that in one of my dictionary’s two definitions: “justification for existence”.)

/a slippery self-righteous slope … downwards

54 A Man for all Seasons  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:32:54pm

re: #49 Miss Molly

HoosierHoops — I’m sure many States have some or a few schools that are “questionable” in terms of granting degrees.

LOL
There are many lizards that wonder how the hell the hoopster got a degree from a real college in California.
/It was a BIG party!

55 jdog29  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:33:16pm

Molly,
Great point on all the other joke-of-a-major degrees offered out there. Now, no one can cry foul on a major or degree being offered in any field.

56 A Kiwi Infidel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:33:41pm

There’s an old saying “no-one will get dragged into Heaven against their will”

I can coin another “No-one will believe in the Creation or the Creator against their will, whether you change the law or not”

57 Wild Knight  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:34:16pm

This is getting beyond a joke. The liberal faculties are already severely discredited because of their ideological insanities, now all need is for scientific faculties to be discredited. To a certain extent, I blame liberal faculties. Relativistic philosophies have leaked into society and large and this notion that any variant of truth is deserving of university study is partly a consequence.

58 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:34:20pm

re: #33 hartabuna

Yep, that was “Ma” Ferguson.
What state are you in? Damn near every state has a wacko in its history.

/Naw, … t’ hell with it.

59 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:34:42pm

re: #48 Dark_Falcon

What do you mean, “The 1st going to take a hit”?

religious fanatics will no longer be able to express themselves…their agenda may become so disruptive they will have to be shut down…states could go broke fending off these lawsuits…it’s just a scenario, but a nightmare…the separation of church and state is under stress now because of these people

60 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:34:53pm

re: #1 Jetpilot1101

These creationists are like democrats; when the rules get in their way, they just change the rules. I’m sure Jesus is really proud of their actions.


They give Christians a bad name. And I really resent that.

61 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:35:00pm

HoosierHoops — It seems you not only got a real degree but had a good time while doing that — Well Done!

62 DisturbedEma  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:35:05pm

re: #55 jdog29

Molly,
Great point on all the other joke-of-a-major degrees offered out there. Now, no one can cry foul on a major or degree being offered in any field.

“peace studies” has to be one of may all time ironic degrees…

63 Wild Knight  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:36:10pm

re: #55 jdog29

Molly,
Great point on all the other joke-of-a-major degrees offered out there. Now, no one can cry foul on a major or degree being offered in any field.

bah! After my current degree, I swear I’ll never cross the threshold of another university as long as I live.

64 cronus  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:36:27pm
“We wouldn’t do that because we know there’s no point in doing that, because the Bible has the answer.”



Georgia Purdom’s
answer when asked by Michael Shermer how she would test her creationist assertions.

65 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:37:15pm

re: #56 A Kiwi Infidel

There’s an old saying “no-one will get dragged into Heaven against their will”

I can coin another “No-one will believe in the Creation or the Creator against their will, whether you change the law or not”

See my #53.

People like what Berman appears to be are driven by self-righteousness. Doing things which affirm that self-righteous justification is the pay value they get. In a sense, it’s all about appearances to them.

66 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:37:28pm

jdog29 — How dare anyone judge what is real learning because that would be — well judgemental and no one is allowed to do that anymore.

67 A Kiwi Infidel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:38:13pm

re: #20 Bloodnok

I’m guessing it won’t be a Bachelor of Science degree…


No, you are right. It could be called a Theology Degree. But in saying that, there are already Theology degrees which must mean they dont accept the teaching within these or, more to the point, they cant get accepted into a half decent seminary to obtain one.

68 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:38:33pm

re: #63 Wild Knight

bah! After my current degree, I swear I’ll never cross the threshold of another university as long as I live.


There are still two colleges worth looking at for anyone with children and want them to have a serious academic experience : Hillsdale (Michigan) and Grove City (Pennsylvania).

69 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:39:20pm

re: #53 pre-Boomer Marine brat

IMHO, this is not religion which Berman is not-so-subtly focused upon.
It’s what I label capital-P Proselytizing — where the proselytizer becomes so caught up in his mission that it, itself, becomes his raison d’etre. (I use that in one of my dictionary’s two definitions: “justification for existence”.)

/a slippery self-righteous slope … downwards

Creationists are blinded by an agenda. Rather then open their minds to a God who transcends time and space, a God they claim to believe in, they would rather mold God into what they believe He should be. Instead of being open to the realization that maybe God could have used a process like evolution to mold current species, they want to lock him in their carefully constructed box and then ram that box down our throats. Their actions give Christians a bad name and do incredible damage to the witness of Christians around the world.

70 jdog29  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:39:24pm

re: #63 Wild Knight

bah! After my current degree, I swear I’ll never cross the threshold of another university as long as I live.


That’s what they all say. Except yours was the G rated version.

71 jaunte  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:39:52pm

“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.”

It’s all about ego.

72 quickjustice  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:39:55pm

What’s the point of having theologians masquerading as scientists?

73 Rexatosis  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:40:21pm

Degrees are supposed to be earned based on the standards of the discipline. The bastardization of standards is ruining education and has a dire consequence for the economy in the long run. This idiocy must end, standards (real ones not pc ones) must be upheld if learning is to occur.

74 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:40:57pm

re: #69 Jetpilot1101

Creationists are blinded by an agenda. Rather then open their minds to a God who transcends time and space, a God they claim to believe in, they would rather mold God into what they believe He should be. Instead of being open to the realization that maybe God could have used a process like evolution to mold current species, they want to lock him in their carefully constructed box and then ram that box down our throats. Their actions give Christians a bad name and do incredible damage to the witness of Christians around the world.

A gazillion updings.

75 quickjustice  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:41:11pm

re: #71 jaunte

It’s an insult— to salamanders! ;-)

76 Throbert McGee  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:41:30pm
“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.”

In his case, I bet the salamander wouldn’t believe it either. “That idiot sprang from my amphibi-loins? I demand a paternity test, at least…”

77 nyc redneck  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:42:25pm

how many times do we have to say science is abt. more than what someone thinks or feels.
religious beliefs can not be allowed to destroy hundreds of yrs. of thorough, credible , meticulous scientific inquiry.
it is shocking that they just keep crawling out of the wood work to insist the
freedom of religion trumps everything.

78 jaunte  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:43:31pm

re: #75 quickjustice

These guys find the following ‘icky’:
A. Monkeys
B. Slime
but
C. Salamanders
is a new one.

79 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:44:11pm

re: #46 albusteve

why can’t you say the same for LA…are they just stupid?

Randy Newman and I love LA.

80 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:44:25pm

re: #78 jaunte

These guys find the following ‘icky’:
A. Monkeys
B. Slime
but
C. Salamanders
is a new one.

Maybe Salamantis’ reputation is spreading.

81 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:44:55pm

Absolutely, salamanders should form a committee and demand not only an apology but restitution and a vacation to an expensive Hawaii Hotel for the very thought that salamanders could be related to humans. Just thiking that must make salamanders everywhere sick.

82 Teh Flowah  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:45:03pm

re: #1 Jetpilot1101

These creationists are like democrats; when the rules get in their way, they just change the rules. I’m sure Jesus is really proud of their actions.


Why do people do this?

“That stupid person is just like that other political party that I dislike”

Except in this case, most creationists happen to be Republicans… It’s like when Charles used to link to Dkos and I’d saunter over to take a peek at how nuts the comments were and all I’d see were “You guys are acting just like Republicans!” at every action they didn’t personally approve of.

The obvious reason being, BOTH SIDES DO STUPID THINGS, and it seems, attributing stupid things to exclusively one side or the other is ANOTHER stupid thing we have in common with those radical leftists. Do you /really/ want to differentiate yourself from the nuts at DKos? Then stop doing that. The difference between left and right isn’t so much our actions as it is our beliefs. We behave quite similarly.

Please, shape up or ship up. /Gob

83 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:46:08pm

The creationists behave like the ‘climate change’ zealots. Forget the science, jam an agenda down everyone’s throats.

84 Steffan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:48:03pm

It’s kinda like those online churches. I got a doctorate of divinity from one of them a few years ago — I think it cost me $25.00.

I don’t think the creationists understand that if their cause had any merit whatsoever, they wouldn’t have to lie and cheat in this fashion.

They might want to revisit the Eighth Commandment.

Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. It is gravely sinful when it significantly degrades the truth. The gravity of this sin is measured by the truth it perverts, the circumstances, intentions of the liar and harm done to the victims (CCC 2484). Lying is a sin that originates from the devil, Satan, who is “the father of all lies” (John 8:44).

85 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:48:57pm

re: #82 Teh Flowah

Please, shape up or ship up OUT. /Gob

FTFY. But unless you’re Mr. Johnson …

86 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:49:15pm

re: #83 rightymouse

The creationists behave like the ‘climate change’ zealots. Forget the science, jam an agenda down everyone’s throats.

yup..and they push their agenda through the courts, and when they win then what?

87 jdog29  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:50:39pm

re: #66 Miss Molly

jdog29 — How dare anyone judge what is real learning because that would be — well judgemental and no one is allowed to do that anymore.

You’re right, if any idea is as valid as the next, why not Creationist Doctorate. Dissertation Ideas: Faith and Science: Two Peas in a Pod, (With apologies to Mendel),

The Evolution of Political Arguments: (Adapting to Environments and Blindsiding Your Opponent Because They Underestimated Your Stupidity)

88 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:50:48pm

Steffan — WOW — does your doctorate in divinity now allow you to perform marriages in your State ? There are a few States that would allow you to do that.

89 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:51:08pm
90 cronus  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:51:21pm

Slight OT

According to Science Blogs

On IDer Bill Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent, a contributor and fellow ID supporter had a post deleted when he tried to correct the assertions of another contributor who kept insisting on the inherent link between evolution and racism.

This despite a disclaimer on the same UD blog that claimed:

“that UD, unlike the Darwinists, doesn’t ban or censor ideas… Our role is not to censor ideas but to provide a forum where hard questions can be discussed calmly, fully, and fairly, and we trust that when that happens truth will prevail.”
91 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:51:26pm

re: #86 albusteve

yup..and they push their agenda through the courts, and when they win then what?

The creationists won’t win in the courts … but the AGW acolytes will.

92 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:51:32pm

OT -

Following is an email I just composed and sent to a network of friends. I offer it as a template to anyone here who may want to send out the word to their friends and family.

This must be stopped.

===========================

I just read the following press release from the American Legion,
which represents veterans who have served when this country has been
at war.

news.yahoo.com


In order to save about $500 million, the Obama Administration is now
pushing to have treatment for battle wounds be billed to the private
insurance companies of service members.

This move will mostly affect service members who go to war as a result
of being activated for National Guard / Reserves or who are active
duty service members who have spouses (or are dependents of parents) who work in private industry or are self employed.

This new risk for private insurers will cause many service member
families to see their premiums skyrocket or coverage canceled - all
because they chose to serve their country. Group policies for
businesses will also be affected, providing employers an incentive to
not hire or fire anyone with a Guard / Reserve commitment or with a
spouse or a dependent son or daughter who has sworn an oath to protect
the country.

The policy makes no sense unless this administration intends to
economically penalize anyone willing to risk his/her life and limb
serving our country. Frankly, assessing such a penalty is amoral, sick
minded and twisted. It not only punishes the service member - it
punishes the service member’s family.

Given the trillions in entitlements and pork projects that this
administration has committed to in the last 50 days, it is hard to
imagine they need to break a commitment to those who have shed blood
for our country - all to save 500 million dollars.

Read the linked press release from the American Legion Commander who
met with Obama today and left the meeting outraged, calling the
proposal “unconscionable”.

Please pass word of this on.

93 Wishing  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:51:33pm

Just another end-around…
Spit.

94 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:51:57pm

The GOP has a problem.

95 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:52:10pm

re: #82 Teh Flowah

I think you failed to recognize the subtle humor in the comment. In many recent political struggles, when the democrat appears to be losing, they seem to move the goalposts (Gore, Franken, etc.)

I also believe the correct phrase is “shape up or ship OUT”.

96 Wishing  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:53:44pm

Ok cronus, I must be out of the loop…what is UD?

97 IslandLibertarian  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:53:46pm

re: #89 MandyManners


The most important (and sadly, truthful) part of that video is the opening!

/the rest is just fantastic writing……

98 jaunte  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:53:51pm

re: #90 cronus

Uncommon Descent

There’s that ego issue popping up again.

99 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:54:06pm

re: #9 Russkilitlover

“Personally, I don’t believe in evolution,” he said. “I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.”

Evidence? Fossils? Carbon dating? LALALALALALALA I can’t heeeeeaaarrrr you.

Sheesh.

He also doesn’t believe in geology or earth science, since those fields describe how land features like the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form, and that the Great Lakes were formed over 10,000 years ago by glaciers in an ice age.

100 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:54:16pm

re: #91 OldLineTexan

The creationists won’t win in the courts … but the AGW acolytes will.

they won in La….and that’s a start

101 Steffan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:54:16pm

re: #88 Miss Molly

Steffan — WOW — does your doctorate in divinity now allow you to perform marriages in your State ? There are a few States that would allow you to do that.

Actually, yes… and I conducted one, too. Even signed the marriage license.

:)

102 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:55:02pm

jdog29 — I can’t help but wonder if a lot of these vague subjects in colleges such as one pointed out as “peace studies” were created for the liberal factulties who were just to dumb to learn anything else — and certainly too dumb for real science. And now they are taking over universities and intimidating the science faculties.

103 Wishing  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:55:09pm

NM…I figured it out.,..sorry.

104 livefreeor die  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:55:13pm

re: #92 karmic_inquisitor

I read about this an hour ago. It’s horrible and just shows what contempt Obama and his cronies have for our armed forces. It’s a disgrace that he is the Commander-in-Chief.

105 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:55:30pm

re: #100 albusteve

they won in La….and that’s a start

In the courts? I thought they “won” in the statehouse. Did they win in the courts? If so, is it on appeal?

106 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:55:52pm

re: #82 Teh Flowah

Why do people do this?

“That stupid person is just like that other political party that I dislike”

Except in this case, most creationists happen to be Republicans… It’s like when Charles used to link to Dkos and I’d saunter over to take a peek at how nuts the comments were and all I’d see were “You guys are acting just like Republicans!” at every action they didn’t personally approve of.

The obvious reason being, BOTH SIDES DO STUPID THINGS, and it seems, attributing stupid things to exclusively one side or the other is ANOTHER stupid thing we have in common with those radical leftists. Do you /really/ want to differentiate yourself from the nuts at DKos? Then stop doing that. The difference between left and right isn’t so much our actions as it is our beliefs. We behave quite similarly.

Please, shape up or ship up. /Gob

You’ve been pretty quiet all these years since 2005, eh?

The difference between us and the Donks is that we call our bad boys out on the carpet.

107 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:56:36pm

I don’t make a clear distinction with these guy…no they did not win via the court in La, but through legislation…now will that law be sued in court?

108 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:57:02pm

re: #94 eclectic infidel

The GOP has a problem.

Yep. These freaks lose elections for the GOP, which is a tragedy because it causes things like
re: #92 karmic_inquisitor
describes.

109 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:57:17pm

re: #107 albusteve

I don’t make a clear distinction with these guy…no they did not win via the court in La, but through legislation…now will that law be sued in court?

Someone with standing could sue.

110 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:57:39pm

re: #105 OldLineTexan

In the courts? I thought they “won” in the statehouse. Did they win in the courts? If so, is it on appeal?

I’m starting to make stuff up!….pass the squid bro

111 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:57:43pm

re: #86 albusteve

yup..and they push their agenda through the courts, and when they win then what?

And what do you propose?

112 transient  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:58:08pm

These folks believe that “Darwinism” is a force causing moral decline in the world.

But they’re not worried that lying, misrepresenting facts, and circumventing laws are a cause of moral decline?

113 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:58:19pm

re: #110 albusteve

I’m starting to make stuff up!….pass the squid bro

You’re in luck! I’m out.

/

114 Miss Molly  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:58:27pm

Steffan —If you can now perform marriages then that $25 doctorate in divinity will pay off for sure.

115 Throbert McGee  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:58:35pm

re: #69 Jetpilot1101

Instead of being open to the realization that maybe God could have used a process like evolution to mold current species, they want to lock him in their carefully constructed box and then ram that box down our throats.

I’ve posted this Carl Sagan quote plenty of times before, but it bears repeating:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way!”

(Yes, he paints “major religions” with a pretty broad brush, but I think that’s quite forgivable here because he does it not in the spirit of rejecting religion, but with the intent of challenging traditional religions to do an even better job of assimilating the discoveries of modern science.)

116 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:58:40pm

re: #112 transient

These folks believe that “Darwinism” is a force causing moral decline in the world.

But they’re not worried that lying, misrepresenting facts, and circumventing laws are a cause of moral decline?

Odd, ain’t it?

117 cronus  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:58:48pm

re: #96 Wishing

Ok cronus, I must be out of the loop…what is UD?

Uncommon Descent. It’s a blog by IDer Bill Dembski

118 Baboon Cheeks  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 5:59:14pm

re: #71 jaunte

“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.”

It’s all about ego.

He might as well say “I don’t believe I’m made from that smelly carbon stuff”.

119 Wishing  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:00:02pm

re: #104 livefreeor die

I read about this an hour ago. It’s horrible and just shows what contempt Obama and his cronies have for our armed forces. It’s a disgrace that he is the Commander-in-Chief.

This may really rock the *messiah* complex that so many ppl seem to have in the Dem party. Soldiers cross all political lines. This is the most cold-hearted thing yet, but I doubt it will be his last. Wait til he suggests that you kill your granny yourself and save the state the trouble.

120 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:00:25pm

re: #104 livefreeor die

I read about this an hour ago. It’s horrible and just shows what contempt Obama and his cronies have for our armed forces. It’s a disgrace that he is the Commander-in-Chief.

I saw it on Drudge which reaches many but not all - we need to get the word out.

And remember - this is the “man” that told us we have entered an era of “responsibility”.

I don’t want to post my feelings about Obama right now for fear of being permanently banned.

I will just say that this makes me feel sick.

121 Steffan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:00:41pm

re: #92 karmic_inquisitor

I imagine the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress will let BO know just how bad an idea this is.

If he pushes this idea, he will be committing political suicide…. and he’ll take a lot of the Democratic Congress with him.

Not even Carter was that stupid.

122 jaunte  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:01:09pm

re: #118 Jimmah

I wonder if he’s a Joni Mitchell fan:

“We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devils bargain
And we’ve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden”

/nah, probably not.

123 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:01:41pm

re: #111 rightymouse

And what do you propose?

I have no clue…if this issue continues to grow then I suppose the SC will have to step in…at least at the state level….it appears the creationists are relentless…it’s disheartening because so many other issues are pressing the states just to survive right now

124 cronus  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:03:20pm

re: #98 jaunte

Uncommon Descent

There’s that ego issue popping up again.

Dembski is a true gem of a guy. He long claimed that ID and religion had nothing to do with each other. And then he proved it by taking a Professorship at a Seminary and proclaiming:

“Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute.”
125 A Kiwi Infidel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:03:54pm

re: #119 Wishing

This may really rock the *messiah* complex that so many ppl seem to have in the Dem party. Soldiers cross all political lines. This is the most cold-hearted thing yet, but I doubt it will be his last. Wait til he suggests that you kill your granny yourself and save the state the trouble.

He wont have to suggest it. The flood gates will open the court rules that euthanasia, on “humanitarian grounds” of course, is ok. How does a dead person argue that they didnt really want to be euthanised?

126 A Man for all Seasons  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:03:54pm

Well I haven’t finished my final four yet..But I know who the National Champion is going to be..All roads lead from there..
Ladies and Gentleman..The Hoopster has picked the Louisville Cards.

127 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:03:54pm

Well, at least our good state rep is honest about his intentions.

OK, I really am ready to vomit. However, there is a good side to this. I doubt sincerely anyone would take a non-accredited online master’s degree seriously as anything. Though unless they are carefull about the language of the bill, they might just make a number of lrgitimate organizations exempt from accreditation as well.

It is interesting that he said he doesn’t believe he came from a salamander. It used to be monkey. I look at guys like him and have no doubts of our relation to monkeys…

128 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:04:42pm

re: #125 A Kiwi Infidel

He wont have to suggest it. The flood gates will open the court rules that euthanasia, on “humanitarian grounds” of course, is ok. How does a dead person argue that they didnt really want to be euthanised?

Dunno about you, but I plan to haunt the sumbitch!

/

129 livefreeor die  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:05:02pm

re: #120 karmic_inquisitor

I saw it on Drudge which reaches many but not all - we need to get the word out.

And remember - this is the “man” that told us we have entered an era of “responsibility”.

I don’t want to post my feelings about Obama right now for fear of being permanently banned.

I will just say that this makes me feel sick.

I hear you. My grandfather, dad, uncle, and cousin (who is currently in Iraq) were/are in the army. I feel like I and they have been kicked in the stomach.

130 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:05:04pm

re: #127 LudwigVanQuixote

Well, at least our good state rep is honest about his intentions.

OK, I really am ready to vomit. However, there is a good side to this. I doubt sincerely anyone would take a non-accredited online master’s degree seriously as anything. Though unless they are carefull about the language of the bill, they might just make a number of lrgitimate organizations exempt from accreditation as well.

It is interesting that he said he doesn’t believe he came from a salamander. It used to be monkey. I look at guys like him and have no doubts of our relation to monkeys…

Both fling poo.

131 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:05:07pm

re: #120 karmic_inquisitor

I saw it on Drudge which reaches many but not all - we need to get the word out.

And remember - this is the “man” that told us we have entered an era of “responsibility”.

I don’t want to post my feelings about Obama right now for fear of being permanently banned.

I will just say that this makes me feel sick.

Mr. Obama is a vile, petulant child who has nothing but contempt for the military. Part of me wants to see him push this plan just so I can watch him implode and take Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the f—-tards on capitol hill with him. The better half of me will fight this with every fiber of my being because I don’t want to see any of my brothers in arms hurt by such absolute ineptness.

/rant off lest I’m banned

132 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:05:15pm

re: #121 Steffan

I imagine the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress will let BO know just how bad an idea this is.

If he pushes this idea, he will be committing political suicide…. and he’ll take a lot of the Democratic Congress with him.

Not even Carter was that stupid.

Obama has power and is using it. Assume nothing.

If we sit back on the assumption that he would never be stupid enough to do this then he will get away with doing it. The same thinking - that no one in America would accept such an outcome so we don’t need to worry about it - got the “man” elected

[by the way - I will use scare quotes from now on when referring to Obama’s gender, because he is not a “man” in the moral/societal sense of the word.

133 avanti  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:05:35pm

re: #121 Steffan

I imagine the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress will let BO know just how bad an idea this is.

If he pushes this idea, he will be committing political suicide…. and he’ll take a lot of the Democratic Congress with him.

Not even Carter was that stupid.

Not going to happen, he just announced a 25 billion dollar VA budget increase and covering a another 500,000 vets.

link

134 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:06:09pm

re: #120 karmic_inquisitor

I saw it on Drudge which reaches many but not all - we need to get the word out.

And remember - this is the “man” that told us we have entered an era of “responsibility”.

I don’t want to post my feelings about Obama right now for fear of being permanently banned.

I will just say that this makes me feel sick.

This should be a GOP litmus test. Announce that anyone voting for a bill containing this disgusting provision will be read out of the party. If ever there was a time to take a stand, this would be it. The good news is that I think we will take that stand, and I think we’ll win.

135 Carlos Dangler  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:06:13pm

re: #15 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Well, I’m certainly glad he’s certain about who/what his mother WASN’T.

His mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries…

/Monty Python and the Holy Grail

136 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:06:27pm

re: #126 HoosierHoops

Well I haven’t finished my final four yet..But I know who the National Champion is going to be..All roads lead from there..
Ladies and Gentleman..The Hoopster has picked the Louisville Cards.

you just can’t resist can you?….there is plenty of crow on ice…but for your sake I hope your are right

137 Wishing  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:07:44pm

re: #126 HoosierHoops

Well I haven’t finished my final four yet..But I know who the National Champion is going to be..All roads lead from there..
Ladies and Gentleman..The Hoopster has picked the Louisville Cards.

ok..I will put 5 cyberbucks on UCONN then!

138 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:08:20pm

re: #123 albusteve

I have no clue…if this issue continues to grow then I suppose the SC will have to step in…at least at the state level….it appears the creationists are relentless…it’s disheartening because so many other issues are pressing the states just to survive right now

They are relentless, but they will lose in the long run.
I just don’t see creationism being taught in public schools - K through 12. Period. They tend to be very liberal ideologically in many of the disciplines. And the sad part is that even the private schools have to use many of the textbooks written for a liberal agenda.

139 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:08:27pm

re: #135 talon_262

His mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries…

/Monty Python and the Holy Grail

I shall have to taunt him a second time… Feche la vache!

140 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:08:33pm

re: #137 Wishing

ok..I will put 5 cyberbucks on UCONN then!

Is Stephen F. Austin State U. out yet?

141 Wishing  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:08:56pm

re: #140 OldLineTexan

Is Stephen F. Austin State U. out yet?

No idea! Were they in?

142 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:10:23pm

re: #141 Wishing

No idea! Were they in?

The man on the radio said so … and the local rag agrees.

143 A Kiwi Infidel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:10:33pm

I am going to greet the hatchlings…….

144 A Man for all Seasons  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:10:58pm

re: #136 albusteve

you just can’t resist can you?….there is plenty of crow on ice…but for your sake I hope your are right

I had to..But tomorrow at the water cooler if you say that the Cards will exhaust anybody they play against in 30 minutes..and are the most athletic team out there..There will be some knowing nods…defense wins championships..
/I’m really in trouble here huh?

145 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:11:01pm

I think this is the bill in question, but cannot be 100% certain.

Actually, as I read the bill in conjunction with the statutes (specifically Subchapter G), I believe this is the bill in question.

This bill would:

exempt private educational institution, including a separate degree-granting program, unit, or school operated by the institution, that (1) does not accept state funding of any kind to
support its educational programs;
(2) does not accept state-administered federal
funding to support its educational programs;
(3) was formed as or is affiliated with or controlled
by a nonprofit corporation or nonprofit unincorporated
organization; and
(4) offers bona fide degree programs that require
students to complete substantive course work in order to receive a
degree from the institution.

Facially, those terms are innocent enough, but the intent appears to allow those obtaining degrees from such programs to gain access to the school system for spreading their own message. Of course, that’s how such things are done. They are written to deceive and obfuscate.

146 Baboon Cheeks  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:12:02pm

re: #122 jaunte

I wonder if he’s a Joni Mitchell fan:

“We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devils bargain
And we’ve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden”

/nah, probably not.

“Joni Mitch-who? I hope that’s not one o’ them weirdos from the ‘entertainment industry’ as modern folks seem fond o’ callin’ it. Dang fools with their fancy big-town idees that don’t amount to nothin’ more than blasphemy with the real folks”/

147 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:12:17pm

re: #108 funky chicken

Yep. These freaks lose elections for the GOP, which is a tragedy because it causes things like
re: #92 karmic_inquisitor
describes.

This issue is not a party matter.

This is an attempt by a radical leftist to create a systemic dis-incentive for people to serve in a war time military.

It is more clever than the “draft” strategy which most people saw through. This is intended to get the service member culture to reject physical risk when dealing with the nation’s adversaries. It is an attempt to make the Pentagon the “Peaceagon” - an institution that rejects warfare.

It is disgusting and amoral. It must not be allowed to happen.

148 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:13:29pm

‘24’ is on! I must bid you adieu for the evening.

149 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:15:37pm

I have an idea!

We need some more FSM out there.

The one thing that religious fundies of all types can not handle is satire. The second you can laugh at them (in a thoughtful way) is the second you see that maybe they are full of crap.

This is part of why the Mo cartoons were so explosive.

So seriously, why not have a contest to come up with good ID cartoons? Are there any artistic and funny Lizards?

Given the success of FSM, I am certain they would go viral quickly. The more people giggle at these guys, the more people see what a joke they are - and the more of a joke they become.

150 Gus  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:16:24pm

They might as well change that to Creationist Studies. That way it will fit right in with other useless college programs such as Gender Studies and Ethnic Studies.

Question: would Creationist Studies fall under the category of Revisionist Science?

151 albusteve  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:18:29pm

re: #144 HoosierHoops

I had to..But tomorrow at the water cooler if you say that the Cards will exhaust anybody they play against in 30 minutes..and are the most athletic team out there..There will be some knowing nods…defense wins championships..
/I’m really in trouble here huh?

not at all…I said the Arizona Cards could very well win the SB and everybody slammed me…maybe the underdog sentimental favorite, but win?….well they damn near did….sports are a cool thing…the Final Four, NBA playoffs and the SB…yeah baby

152 Baboon Cheeks  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:22:35pm

re: #127 LudwigVanQuixote

It is interesting that he said he doesn’t believe he came from a salamander. It used to be monkey.

It’s interesting to consider the contempt bordering on revulsion these people so often have for what they profess to be God’s creation. Nature is wonderful and mysterious for them when they are talking about how clever and powerful God is, but when it comes to talking about the idea that we are intimitely related to it and actually a part of it, it suddenly becomes disgusting and contemptible.

153 jim in virginia  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:22:36pm

re: #140 OldLineTexan

Is Stephen F. Austin State U. out yet?


Next you’ll tell me that Rice is going to a bowl game…

BTW is the Chronk going bankrupt? All the other newspapers are.

154 pingjockey  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:22:38pm

I really, really hope that when NASA get that probe to Europa, and gets through the ice to the ocean below and finds LIFE that these asshats will shut the fuck up. It is egotism of the highest order to think this little ball of rock, 2/3 of the way out in in of the spiral arms of our galaxy is the only place in the whole universe with life. What a bunch of pissants.

155 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:24:32pm

re: #153 jim in virginia

Next you’ll tell me that Rice is going to a bowl game…

BTW is the Chronk going bankrupt? All the other newspapers are.

Rice? Bowl? Not yet this year, Owls!

Dunno about Houston’s Hometown Pravda. I haven’t given them a dime in years … but I did appreciate the fact that they had that story come up first in a search.

156 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:25:21pm

re: #154 pingjockey

I really, really hope that when NASA get that probe to Europa, and gets through the ice to the ocean below and finds LIFE that these asshats will shut the fuck up. It is egotism of the highest order to think this little ball of rock, 2/3 of the way out in in of the spiral arms of our galaxy is the only place in the whole universe with life. What a bunch of pissants.

Dude, we’re not allowed on Europa.

/

157 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:25:22pm

re: #152 Jimmah

It’s interesting to consider the contempt bordering on revulsion these people so often have for what they profess to be God’s creation. Nature is wonderful and mysterious for them when they are talking about how clever and powerful God is, but when it comes to talking about the idea that we are intimitely related to it and actually a part of it, it suddenly becomes disgusting and contemptible.

Well, being literally created from dirt and wallowing in original sin is much more noble. I mean which sound more charming to you - coming from a smelly monkey - or coming from dirt and being born in a state of deserving eternal damnation? Monkey’s are so gross!

158 jaunte  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:25:55pm

re: #152 Jimmah

It’s interesting to consider the contempt bordering on revulsion these people so often have for what they profess to be God’s creation. Nature is wonderful and mysterious for them when they are talking about how clever and powerful God is, but when it comes to talking about the idea that we are intimitely related to it and actually a part of it, it suddenly becomes disgusting and contemptible.

The mindset might be a result of getting a spanking for getting dirty when they were two years old.
/Slime! get it away from me!

159 pingjockey  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:26:52pm

re: #156 OldLineTexan
If we find a big ass monolith out there, okay we get the hell out. But that would do as well to pop these fools teeny little minds.

160 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:27:01pm

re: #158 jaunte

The mindset might be a result of getting a spanking for getting dirty when they were two years old.
/Slime! get it away from me!


You may be on to something - but don’t they think they literally came from dirt anyway?

161 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:27:24pm

re: #157 LudwigVanQuixote

Well, being literally created from dirt and wallowing in original sin is much more noble. I mean which sound more charming to you - coming from a smelly monkey - or coming from dirt and being born in a state of deserving eternal damnation? Monkey’s are so gross!

I kinda like both.

162 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:27:36pm

re: #159 pingjockey

If we find a big ass monolith out there, okay we get the hell out. But that would do as well to pop these fools teeny little minds.

If we find a big ass monolith out there, we ask it how to fix the deficit!

163 jaunte  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:28:17pm

re: #160 LudwigVanQuixote

You may be on to something - but don’t they think they literally came from dirt anyway?

Yes, the objection to slime and not dirt doesn’t appear well thought out.

164 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:28:35pm

re: #161 OldLineTexan

I kinda like both.


I’m sure they will tell you that for believeing the one you will get the other - so lucky you!

165 pingjockey  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:28:49pm

re: #162 LudwigVanQuixote
Mwahahaha! Lower the tax rate, quit spending money you fools don’t have, knock off the socialist bullshit you silly humans!

166 pingjockey  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:30:28pm

going up to see new hatchlings.

167 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:30:43pm

re: #165 pingjockey

Mwahahaha! Lower the tax rate, quit spending money you fools don’t have, knock off the socialist bullshit you silly humans!


I am confident that Hollywood will have a canniption to find that the Greys are conservatives! I mean can you see Oprah or Spielberg’s face if ET said “be fiscally responsible and stop whining!”

168 Yosemite Bill  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:32:11pm

Ah yes, more hand ringing and tearing of hair over the ‘Creationist Nuts.’ Members in good standing of the “Religious Right” and certainly 100 % republicans ! YES ?
Yes Charles, there are numerous and certifiable loons on the right and many who claim to be “religious” in a manner that many here and I, for that matter, find less than credible or even in some cases less than Christian in intent or action.
HOWEVER, once in a while it would be nice to see the same disinfecting light of reason and sanity pointed at members of the RELIGIOUS LEFT.
These are the folks who are Gaia worshiping loons who masquerade as Christians or Jews…. Gore,et al. These are the Marxists who hide behind the “social justice” doctrine of the Bible to empower themselves to steal the labor and property of others in the name of ( their ) God meaning the state…. Wallis, Bob Edgar, etc.
Yes, these people- (Obama, Wright, Jackson, Carter, etc, ad nausea ) are the Religious Left and are socially and politically active. They have been- for decades- undermining the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a matter of their daily agenda. They are just as contemptuous of the fundamental truths of those documents and the facts of history, human nature
and , yes, science as any nut on the “religious right” but yet are ignored or given a wink and a nod by the secularists and a huge majority in the media. Why ?

OT but FYI my email address has changed. How do I go about updating that info. ?

169 Throbert McGee  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:34:56pm

re: #88 Miss Molly

Steffan — WOW — does your doctorate in divinity now allow you to perform marriages in your State ?

♪♫
Pray observe the magnanimity
We display to lace and dimity!*
Never was such opportunity
To get married with impunity!
But we give up the felicity
Of unbounded domesticity,
Though a Doctor of Divinity
Is located in this vicinity!
♪♫

— from the Finale to Act I of The Pirates of Penzance

Youtube Video

Starts at about the 1:50 mark in this clip.

* “dimity” = a crisp, sheer cotton fabric used in feminine garments of the era

170 jaunte  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:36:57pm

re: #168 Yosemite Bill

Our host has generously made it possible to post spinoff links to subjects we find interesting.

171 Baboon Cheeks  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:37:50pm

re: #157 LudwigVanQuixote

Well, being literally created from dirt and wallowing in original sin is much more noble. I mean which sound more charming to you - coming from a smelly monkey - or coming from dirt and being born in a state of deserving eternal damnation? Monkey’s are so gross!

You’re definitely onto something there. For creationists, it seems a poopy soul is much preferable than a poopy ass.

172 Eric Cartman's Conscience  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:38:12pm

Hey, if folks can earn viable Master’s degrees in Women’s Studies, Communications, Hegelian Philosophy, and The Culinary Arts, I think I’m kinda’ okay with some nutter and his degree in dogma. It’s just another worthless paper receipt that garners undue respect. If that same toilet paper nonsense earns them the plaudits to gain employment then huzzah to their successful bullshit.

173 Baboon Cheeks  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:39:28pm

re: #158 jaunte

The mindset might be a result of getting a spanking for getting dirty when they were two years old.
/Slime! get it away from me!

Could well be a factor. I was watching film of chimps and monkeys the other day and I did notice that they often have really big inflamed asses, and I thought that this might have something to do with the ‘creationist cringe’ as well. Its definitely in that area.

174 Baboon Cheeks  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:43:58pm

Early start for me tomorrow - have a good one folks.

PS I predict meltdowns on #186 and #302

175 Teh Flowah  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:51:28pm

re: #85 OldLineTexan

FTFY. But unless you’re Mr. Johnson …

Clearly you’ve never had the pleasure of watching Arrested Development. Your loss!

176 Zimriel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:52:47pm

re: #174 Jimmah

Early start for me tomorrow - have a good one folks.

PS I predict meltdowns on #186 and #302

I think we just had A FULL CAPS MELTDOWN on the RELIGIOUS LEFT at POST #168. AAAAAUGHH!

177 hihoherman  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:54:57pm

True to form, jihadists, too, know the ropes in using our laws; as well as how to “punch up” stories within our media. Sad. Glad, at least we’re given a head ups on this one. (I can’t imagine this does the republican party much good.) Just “another loser” from Texas. Where the pile up starts with LBJ. Sad, too, Molly Ivins’ dead. She’d have lasso’ed this story, but good.

178 Basho  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:57:12pm

re: #168 Yosemite Bill

At least when the “religious left” takes on a loony position, it’s on social issues that are fuzzy to begin with. It takes a special kind of stupid to deny objective reality…

179 Teh Flowah  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 6:58:08pm

re: #106 rightymouse

You’ve been pretty quiet all these years since 2005, eh?

The difference between us and the Donks is that we call our bad boys out on the carpet.

Uhh… not really. Plenty of Democrats can call out other Democrats, and they have done so, and plenty of Republicans refuse to acknowledge legitimate criticism. I can’t believe the number of times I heard people say that we should not question the president because it was wartime.

Off the top of my head, I can recall the circling of the wagons around Rush Limbaugh back during the drug scandal, and certainly right now with the stimulus, more than just a few Democrats have voiced their opposition to the Obama Administration. No one side has a monopoly on righteous or unjust behavior, not even close.

180 UncleRancher  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 7:08:48pm

I’m having a bit of a curiosity attack here. Howcome those most concerned with extinction seem to also be following the evolutionist dogma. One would think it should be the other way round, with evolution naturally eliminating those species no longer fit for the environment and producing new organisms that will more likely survive.

181 UncleRancher  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 7:19:03pm

Something I said?

182 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 7:23:24pm

re: #78 jaunte

These guys find the following ‘icky’:
A. Monkeys
B. Slime
but
C. Salamanders
is a new one.

Salamanders are very nice little critters.

183 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 7:25:34pm

My husband, upon hearing the salamander line, responds “Of course not. You came from a monkey you idiot!”

Me: “Well, I’m sure something came from a salamander.”

He: “Yes. More salamanders.”

184 Zimriel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 7:37:26pm

re: #180 UncleRancher

I’m having a bit of a curiosity attack here.

Creationist gotcha-post introduced as “airing a question”. DRINK!

Howcome those most concerned with extinction seem to also be following the evolutionist dogma.

Beliefs of opponents claimed to be a contradiction and / or hypocrisy. DRINK!

Basic biology is an “-ist dogma”. DRINK!

One would think it should be the other way round, with evolution naturally eliminating those species no longer fit for the environment and producing new organisms that will more likely survive.

People who agree with basic biology conflated with cold-hearted nineteenth-century “social-darwinists”. DRINK!

185 Zimriel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 7:41:45pm

re: #181 UncleRancher

Something I said?

Try asking a question in good faith next time.

186 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 7:45:06pm
“Why are people who call themselves scientists afraid to hear two sides of a debate?” Berman asked Friday.


Umm, it’s not people who call themselves scientists. It’s people who are scientists. The real scientists are not afraid to hear two sides of a debate. They’re unwilling to pretend that there’s a debate, and they’re unwilling to pretend that the “creation scientists” are members in good standing of the scientific community.

It’s a matter of false advertising. The state cannot put its seal of approval on this. It’s patent nonsense, but that’s not the deal breaker. Patent nonsense is hawked in real universities all the time, sadly. The deal breaker is that it isn’t science.

As one opponent, Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, explained,

“It would make Texas a magnet for unscrupulous private ‘educational’ companies that will want to offer students the opportunity to pay for bogus advanced degrees,” Schafersman wrote on his group’s Web site. “If H.B. 2800 became law, it would be a gold mine to every fly-by-night, degree-granting outfit in the country.”

187 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 7:51:27pm

re: #80 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Maybe Salamantis’ reputation is spreading.

Heh

188 Yosemite Bill  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 7:54:55pm

#178 - Ah yes, Bob Edgar - Past Pres of the National Council of Churches lectured a room full of sycophants on the pressing theological topic of ….. “global warming.” His favorite theologian ? Lilly Tomlin . I heard it myself.
Fuzzy Social topic ? Yes, if you ignore that the intent of AGW promotion has been and is the destruction of the US and “free markets” as they currently exist.
To ignore the articulated intent of the leadership the Eco-socialist( their term - not mine) is the same as ignoring the repeated warnings of the jihadists as to their intent of destroy all of us - the “infidels.”
AGW is a hoax - the Big Lie - bought hook, line and sinker by the President of the US and most in his cadre as a vehicle to empower themselves as the regulators of as much of the FREEDOM as we are willing to surrender in the name of “saving the planet.” And of course, who is favor of destroying the planet?
If you listen to Gore, Edgar and their ilk- only we mean nasty Conservatives, misguided Christians, selfish capitalists, etc. To speak of Christian Stewardship of the earth to these people will get you hissed at and even cursed in public. Been there and had it happen.
The apocalyptic predictions of the Eco-Socialists are parallel to the End Times apocalyptic passages in the Bible.
The denial of the obvious dynamic nature of the earth’s climate by the Warmists as reflected in the geologic record - rocks do not lie- or have a political agenda nor a need for government grants- is just as loony as asserting the earth is just a few thousand years old.

189 Spar Kling  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:02:59pm

re: #180 UncleRancher

I’m having a bit of a curiosity attack here. Howcome those most concerned with extinction seem to also be following the evolutionist
dogma. One would think it should be the other way round, with evolution
naturally eliminating those species no longer fit for the environment
and producing new organisms that will more likely survive.

One might think so, but it does make sense whether you believe in evolution or not.

Dramatic changes made to an ecosystem forces many organisms to adapt, migrate, or die. The changes caused by humans are much faster in general than those caused by nature, thus the affected organisms will likely not have time to adapt, much less have time to evolve.

Conversely, when an ecosystem becomes too favorable (also sometimes due to human intervention), a population explosion can damage the carrying capacity of that ecosystem, ultimately resulting in a mass die off.

Finally, Ecologists understand that a diverse ecosystem is inherently more stable while a monoculture more vulnerable to disease epidemics and other problems.

However, many people do not realize that any ecosystem is likely to be changing naturally, and cannot be preserved indefinitely (the natural succession of North American forests comes to mind).

Unfortunately, all of these factors have been hijacked for use as political weapons for the Left (rather than the domain of Conservatives in the true sense of the word). Thus, sadly, there is little true concern for the environment as demonstrated by the ecological disasters in Cuba, Russia, China, and other socialist or former socialist states. I’m sure the same will be true in the USSA (United Socialist States of America) in a few years.

-sk

190 Yosemite Bill  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:04:05pm

Catch you Lizards early in the am. I have not figured out how to get Obummer to pay my bills……. .

191 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:20:19pm

re: #180 UncleRancher

I’m having a bit of a curiosity attack here. Howcome those most concerned with extinction seem to also be following the evolutionist dogma. One would think it should be the other way round, with evolution naturally eliminating those species no longer fit for the environment and producing new organisms that will more likely survive.


OK, you asked for an explanation.

Biblical literalists, quranic literalists, and people who understand evolution, all realize that on the scale of human concerns, extinction is forever. Not in our lifetime, and not in seven generations, or seventy, will we see the likes of passenger pigeons, or moas, or mastodons. From this perspective, it is of no importance whether evolution might eventually generate something new in their place.

To your rhetorical tactic of tarring as “dogma” the “evolutionist” position, well, it’s not a dogma. It’s a scientific theory, and people believe it because they see the evidence as strong verging on overwhelming.

Evolution doesn’t exactly “produce new organisms that are more likely to survive.” It just quietly shuffles gene frequencies around, so that genes that have a fitness advantage in whatever environment the organism is presented with become more common. If that leads to a new species, so be it. If it leads to stasis, as with horseshoe crabs, that’s OK too. If not for mutations, evolution would eventually run out of options, but replication is imperfect and mutations crop up from time to time. Most of them are bad for the organism and evolution flushes them right back out of the gene pool, but a few turn out to be useful and they become more common. With enough new genes and enough recombinations and changes in frequency, you may get a new species. Whether it lasts a long time or not is of no concern to evolution, which has no mind, no will, and no purpose of its own. Like gravity, it doesn’t care. Like gravity, it’s real whether you believe in it or not. It’s just part of how the world is.

192 Basho  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:21:07pm

re: #188 Yosemite Bill

True… It’s all organized nicely in this diagram:
Image: conspiracy-20080927.gif
Here’s the source:
frankbi.wordpress.com

193 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:23:46pm

re: #188 Yosemite Bill

The best way to protect ourselves from pseudo-science from the left and the right is to defend and support real science education. Getting all bent out of shape about climate alarmists doesn’t solve the underlying issues.

194 Zimriel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:25:51pm

re: #191 lostlakehiker

OK, you asked for an explanation.

“I dinnae think he’ll listen, lad” — Henry the Red, Duke of Shale, Lord of the Northlands and leader of its people

195 dentate  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:40:26pm

OBVIOUSLY Mr. Berman is no fan of Star Trek Voyager, or he would know better:

On the planet, they see two reptile-like beings with a number of “children.” Chakotay stuns the two creatures with his phaser and brings them back on the ship. Chakotay has no idea which creature is Janeway; however, Tuvok notes that Janeway must obviously be the female.

196 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:40:41pm

re: #188 Yosemite Bill

If you listen to Gore, Edgar and their ilk- only we mean nasty Conservatives, misguided Christians, selfish capitalists, etc. To speak of Christian Stewardship of the earth to these people will get you hissed at and even cursed in public. Been there and had it happen.
The apocalyptic predictions of the Eco-Socialists are parallel to the End Times apocalyptic passages in the Bible.
The denial of the obvious dynamic nature of the earth’s climate by the Warmists as reflected in the geologic record - rocks do not lie- or have a political agenda nor a need for government grants- is just as loony as asserting the earth is just a few thousand years old.

Those nasty liberals shouldn’t curse you for speaking of Christian stewardship. What’s in a name? The AGW community needs all the help it can get.

Suppose, just to make up a dream world, that Al Gore shut up and allowed people of good will to carefully and without exaggeration or lies make the case for global warming being a reality and a peril. Suppose the data came in and Guelph and Ghibelline alike saw that it was pretty compelling.

Christian teaching and doctrine on the matter of stewardship would then require action on global warming.

But you put words in our mouths [well, in the more measured of us] when you say that we deny the geological record and deny that the earth’s climate is dynamic and prone to change all on its own. This we grant. It is in fact one of our reasons for worrying. We think that our own CO2 is one influence among many on the climate. We think it’s pushing the climate in a direction that, carried too far, would do us a lot of hurt. We worry that if nature’s own variations mask the problem for a while, and then turn, as chance has a habit of turning, we could find ourselves at the brink, edging back prudently, when BANG, nature pushes us over the edge.

There is an edge, you see. If things go far enough, there’s another, much warmer, not to our liking, stable equilibrium waiting to set in. Prudence suggests staying far enough back from that edge that no random gust of climate can send us over.

We haven’t made our case well enough yet. We’re not totally convinced ourselves. Hotheads and opportunists in our camp think that if we wait patiently until the evidence becomes impossible to argue against, we will have waited too long, so we must lie now, and lie with great fervor and urgency, so as to spur timely action. This is nothing new under the sun, this lying for the cause. The early Church was plagued by fake miracles. Eventually, a realization set in that this habit was counterproductive and lost the faith more converts than it won. Warmists will have to learn the same lesson the same hard way, evidently.

197 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:40:45pm

re: #188 Yosemite Bill

We are all well aware of the fact that Global Warming is a “convenient crisis” being hyped by charlatans like Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and David Suzuki as a tool to tear down capitalism. You’re preaching to the choir here.

What I see is an attempt to deflect our attention away fro the matter at hand, which is a determined assault on the teaching of science by a small minority of heretical Christians.

Gut the quality (already pathetically low) of science teaching in the public schools, and you simply make it easier for con artists like Al Gore to ply their trade.

198 dentate  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:42:17pm

Now, with ILLUSTRATIONS!

199 Zimriel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:44:33pm

re: #189 Spar Kling

One might think so, but it does make sense whether you believe in evolution or not.

Oof! Baaad starting statement. No-one honestly thinks that belief in basic biology leads to a suicidal embrace of nature and entropy.

[snipping a cogent, IMO, explanation of ecosystems and their preservation]

Unfortunately, all of these factors have been hijacked for use as political weapons for the Left (rather than the domain of Conservatives in the true sense of the word). Thus, sadly, there is little true concern for the environment as demonstrated by the ecological disasters in Cuba, Russia, China, and other socialist or former socialist states. I’m sure the same will be true in the USSA (United Socialist States of America) in a few years.

Spar Kling, a word to the wise: you’ve earned a reputation for unpopular comments here. The post you made just now was 90% excellent. But the 5% which was bad was at the beginning, and the 5% which was over the top (“USSA”) was at the end. Let me parse how Charles and the other downdingers (myself included) read your post -

re: #189 Spar Kling

[execrable quote from creationist] I agree. blah blah ecosystem blah blah I’m typing something that might be about evolution now blah blah blah rhubarb rhubarb blah United Soviet States of America and in case you didn’t get the hint, USSA! USSA! USSA!

It’s arguably unfair, but you set yourself up for this sort of thing when you wrap a good post within some highly questionable comments.

200 Basho  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:45:54pm

re: #198 dentate

The placement of the eyes and the mouth… too Earth-centric to be extraterrestrial life…

201 dentate  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:47:31pm

No, those ARE Earth creatures—that’s Paris and Janeway, reverse-evolved into their salamander ancestors. They even mated and left little salamander babies to re-evolve on that planet! Widely regarded as the worst Star Trek episode of all time.

202 Basho  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:48:30pm

re: #201 dentate

LMAO! I see… Yeah, never was a fan of Star Trek but I could imagine.

203 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 8:56:58pm

re: #201 dentate

No, those ARE Earth creatures—that’s Paris and Janeway, reverse-evolved into their salamander ancestors. They even mated and left little salamander babies to re-evolve on that planet! Widely regarded as the worst Star Trek episode of all time.

I tend to agree with that classification. Transwarp shouldn’t have been dismissed in such a fashion.

204 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 9:10:15pm

re: #168 Yosemite Bill

Ah yes, more hand ringing and tearing of hair over the ‘Creationist Nuts.’ Members in good standing of the “Religious Right” and certainly 100 % republicans ! YES ?
Yes Charles, there are numerous and certifiable loons on the right and many who claim to be “religious” in a manner that many here and I, for that matter, find less than credible or even in some cases less than Christian in intent or action.
HOWEVER, once in a while it would be nice to see the same disinfecting light of reason and sanity pointed at members of the RELIGIOUS LEFT.
These are the folks who are Gaia worshiping loons who masquerade as Christians or Jews…. Gore,et al. These are the Marxists who hide behind the “social justice” doctrine of the Bible to empower themselves to steal the labor and property of others in the name of ( their ) God meaning the state…. Wallis, Bob Edgar, etc.
Yes, these people- (Obama, Wright, Jackson, Carter, etc, ad nausea ) are the Religious Left and are socially and politically active. They have been- for decades- undermining the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a matter of their daily agenda. They are just as contemptuous of the fundamental truths of those documents and the facts of history, human nature
and , yes, science as any nut on the “religious right” but yet are ignored or given a wink and a nod by the secularists and a huge majority in the media. Why ?

OT but FYI my email address has changed. How do I go about updating that info. ?

Translation: We may be fascist Nazis, but so what? There are far worse things one could be than Nazis. Oooh, look over there! Commies! And secularists! And atheists. Oh, My!

/

205 hopperandadropper  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 9:15:09pm

On behalf of salamanders throughout Texas, I want to express my disgust and outrage at the suggestion that a slime mold like Leo Berman might be related to us.

206 Zimriel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 9:27:01pm

re: #180 UncleRancher > Rexatosis

I’m having a bit of a curiosity attack here.

Rexatosis has asserted that this, and its followup, each merit a ding up. Care to defend this statement, Rex?

207 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 9:28:03pm

re: #180 UncleRancher

I’m having a bit of a curiosity attack here. Howcome those most concerned with extinction seem to also be following the evolutionist dogma. One would think it should be the other way round, with evolution naturally eliminating those species no longer fit for the environment and producing new organisms that will more likely survive.

Yeah; you called evolution ‘dogma.’ But evolution ain’t dogma; it is massively supported by, and in fact arose and emerged from a decades-long perusal of, the empirical evidence. Dogma, religious or otherwise, is that which is not supported by the empirical evidence.

And I don’t think that the human race is in danger of extinction in the present environment, unless it (or some members of it) does something malicious or stupid and intentionally or inadvertently extinctifies itself. Maybe you are referring to the fact that smarter (and wealthier) people tend to have fewer kids. They’re still far smarter, on measured tests, than the trailer park bunnies whelping out rug cubs by the dozen. And I would like to see smarter people have more children, but a lot of them are immersed in quite productive, creative, innovative, useful and original work, and are using contraception because they don’t want to bring children into the world that they might neglect for the sake of their work. Dumber folks are just screwing on the couch in front of the TV each evening and regularly popping buns outta the oven.

And btw: the use of the term ‘evolutionist’ labens you as a creationist.

208 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 9:33:49pm

re: #188 Yosemite Bill

#178 - Ah yes, Bob Edgar - Past Pres of the National Council of Churches lectured a room full of sycophants on the pressing theological topic of ….. “global warming.” His favorite theologian ? Lilly Tomlin . I heard it myself.
Fuzzy Social topic ? Yes, if you ignore that the intent of AGW promotion has been and is the destruction of the US and “free markets” as they currently exist.
To ignore the articulated intent of the leadership the Eco-socialist( their term - not mine) is the same as ignoring the repeated warnings of the jihadists as to their intent of destroy all of us - the “infidels.”
AGW is a hoax - the Big Lie - bought hook, line and sinker by the President of the US and most in his cadre as a vehicle to empower themselves as the regulators of as much of the FREEDOM as we are willing to surrender in the name of “saving the planet.” And of course, who is favor of destroying the planet?
If you listen to Gore, Edgar and their ilk- only we mean nasty Conservatives, misguided Christians, selfish capitalists, etc. To speak of Christian Stewardship of the earth to these people will get you hissed at and even cursed in public. Been there and had it happen.
The apocalyptic predictions of the Eco-Socialists are parallel to the End Times apocalyptic passages in the Bible.
The denial of the obvious dynamic nature of the earth’s climate by the Warmists as reflected in the geologic record - rocks do not lie- or have a political agenda nor a need for government grants- is just as loony as asserting the earth is just a few thousand years old.

Translation: well, maybe some of the creationists might be condidered by some to be a tiny mite touched in the head, but they are NOTHING LIKE the raving loons that promote AGW. THOSE folks are actually DANGEROUS; the creationists folks just wanna teach our kids some stupid shit. Let’s leave the quirky cuddly creationists alone and focus on THEM. Pleeze!

/

209 Spar Kling  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 9:50:55pm

re: #197 Alberta Oil Peon

We are all well aware of the fact that Global Warming is a
“convenient crisis” being hyped by charlatans like Al Gore, Maurice
Strong, and David Suzuki as a tool to tear down capitalism. You’re
preaching to the choir here.

What I see is an attempt to deflect our attention away fro the
matter at hand, which is a determined assault on the teaching of
science by a small minority of heretical Christians.

Gut the quality (already pathetically low) of science teaching in
the public schools, and you simply make it easier for con artists like
Al Gore to ply their trade.

Yes, but I don’t think that it’s as great a threat as you think it is.

While Global Warming is indeed a convenient crisis that can and will be used as justification for anything that the Obama administration feels they can get away with, it is not correct to deny that there aren’t highly educated scientists who are convinced that global warming is real, that they haven’t published papers in peer-reviewed journals, and that global warming isn’t generally accepted as true in the scientific community. According to Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education:

If evolution carries 99 percent unanimity among scientists, then climate change as being caused by human activity has a rate of 85 to 90 percent unanimity among scientists.”

(Does this count as quote mining, or do you think that this quote accurately represents Dr. Scott’s views on the subject?)

So, I’d suggest that the same legislative tools that will keep Intelligent Design, Creationism, and what-have-you out of public schools will also be used to entrench the teaching of Global Warming (along with the administration’s radical agenda) in Science classrooms.

But it seems that many people here feel that the Obama administration’s planned deconstruction of our beloved industrialized America into a corrupt, third-world country is not nearly as great a threat as ID or Intelligent Design. I don’t.

However, I do not believe that religion should be taught in Science classes, but I do believe that controversy and challenges are good for Science and students studying the scientific method. Even wrong turns and blind alleys help sharpen students’ minds as they learn to challenge their own prejudices. So, yes, students should learn about phlogiston, aether, the Bohr atom, DeBroglie waves, Lamarckianism, spontaneous generation, and all the experiments that falsified them!

-sk

210 Euler  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 9:55:26pm

The bill offered by Berman is here. The teeth of the amendment is a new avenue for exemption from rules provided by Chapter 61, Subsection G of the Texas Education Code. Here is the new avenue:

(b) On the written request of a person acting on behalf of an
institution that claims to be exempt from this subchapter as
provided by this section, the board may issue a letter certifying a
determination by the board that the institution is not subject to
regulation under this subchapter.

So the Higher Education Coordinating Board approves the exemption by issuing the letter. What is new, it seems to me, is that once the board issues the letter, the exemption cannot be revoked (by the Board). Indeed, in Sec. 61.303 of the existing statute, there is explicit limitation on exemptions:


(d) An exempt institution or person would continue in that status only so long as it maintained accreditation by a recognized accrediting agency or otherwise met the provisions of Subsection (a).


So here is the real danger. Under the amended statute, once an institution obtained the exemption letter, the institution would be exempt even from this limitation on exemptions!

211 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:05:24pm

re: #209 Spar Kling

So, I’d suggest that the same legislative tools that will keep Intelligent Design, Creationism, and what-have-you out of public schools will also be used to entrench the teaching of Global Warming (along with the administration’s radical agenda) in Science classrooms.

Of course you do, which is why people like you constantly want to bring in AGW into ID discussions so you can lasso another group of people to help you push your anti-science agenda. Guess who publicly supported ID….. Al Gore.

212 Spar Kling  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:11:55pm

re: #199 Zimriel

It’s arguably unfair, but you set yourself up for this sort of thing when you wrap a good post within some highly questionable comments.

Zimriel, you have to understand that I was addressing a person who obviously seems to be a Creationist (from his using the word “dogma”). Thus, my “whether you believe in Evolution or not.”

I’ve already made my position painfully clear that I do not believe in Evolution as the primary source of change in species. I think that the naturalistic evidence points to a much higher degree of wholesale genetic exchange between organisms in the past. So, while I’m not willing to defend a “Darwin-of the gaps” faith, the alternative does not of necessity have to be a “God-of-the-gaps” either—whether one believes in God or not—both positions are ones of faith and not science.

As to my use of USSA, yes, I believe the self proclaimed “progressives” who have won both houses of Congress and the Presidency, much of the Judiciary, much of the media, much of the educational establishment, and certainly the vast bureaucracy running most of the country, do indeed have grandiose plans for the former USA. They won and we lost. Get used to it.

In terms of popularity, you’re completely right. If that was my goal, I’ve done a pretty bad job.

-sk

213 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:16:38pm

re: #211 Sharmuta

Of course you do, which is why people like you constantly want to bring in AGW into ID discussions so you can lasso another group of people to help you push your anti-science agenda. Guess who publicly supported ID….. Al Gore.

I take that back- Al Gore supported school districts teaching creationism:

A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the road to the White House. He suddenly got stupid — or maybe just cynical.

The event in question occurred late last month when the Democratic vice president was asked his views on the recent decision of the Kansas state school board to eliminate the theory of evolution from statewide science tests. The decision frees local school districts from the need to teach their students a key component of modern science. Through a spokesman, Gore asserted that although he favors the teaching of evolution, local school districts “should be free to teach creationism as well.”

Once informed of a 1987 Supreme Court decision that prohibits the teaching of “creation science” — a depiction of human origins as presented in the Bible — in public schools, Gore’s campaign spokesman adjusted his position to be within the letter of the high court’s decision. But the vice president himself demurred on opportunities to criticize the Kansas vote, saying that he would leave it to local schools whether evolution should be taught.

214 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:22:10pm

Maybe bringing al gore into the discussion isn’t such a good idea after all.

215 arcatan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:23:37pm

They teach stupider things than creationism, and laud themselves for their insight.

216 Zimriel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:23:39pm

re: #209 Spar Kling

So, I’d suggest that the same legislative tools that will keep Intelligent Design, Creationism, and what-have-you out of public schools will also be used to entrench the teaching of Global Warming (along with the administration’s radical agenda) in Science classrooms.

What “legislative tools”? If it’s basic science, it gets taught as basic. If it’s an interpretation of data, it gets brought up in classroom discussion. The “legislative tools” used to keep out Intelligent Design are the same ones which should be used to keep out shari’a.

But it seems that many people here feel that the Obama administration’s planned deconstruction of our beloved industrialized America into a corrupt, third-world country is not nearly as great a threat as ID or Intelligent Design. I don’t.

We’ve been through this before. No-one outside the South thinks ID is likely to get a foothold nationwide. Quit shaking that strawman around; you’re not convincing anybody and you’re just making people pissed at you.

Here is what Charles and Sharmuta and I have been repeating, over and over.

Those lizards who don’t live in Texas worry that ID is going to tag Republicans as the “Deliverance Party”, and make the Democrats into the ruling party for as long as the country lasts.

I can’t speak so much for out of state, but my angle is that I live in Texas. I worry that IDers will make it harder for me to live and work here. That they’ll run the smart people out of state and turn this place into a Third World dump where competence matters less than the right religion.

However, I do not believe that religion should be taught in Science classes, but I do believe that controversy and challenges are good for Science and students studying the scientific method. Even wrong turns and blind alleys help sharpen students’ minds as they learn to challenge their own prejudices. So, yes, students should learn about phlogiston, aether, the Bohr atom, DeBroglie waves, Lamarckianism, spontaneous generation, and all the experiments that falsified them

There is no experiment that can falsify Intelligent Design. As you are well aware, I might add; tying this to religion is more misdirection on your part.

There are experiments which could be run to falsify / verify certain parts of evolution, dealing with bacteria; although for safety reasons those might have to be done remotely, in a biohazard lab, controlled by robots. The expense would be prohibitive right now but in a few years should be practical.

217 Zimriel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:27:06pm

re: #215 arcatan

They teach stupider things than creationism, and laud themselves for their insight.

No. There isn’t anything “stupider” in a classroom than bringing deus ex machina explanations into it.

218 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:28:14pm

re: #212 Spar Kling

Zimriel, you have to understand that I was addressing a person who obviously seems to be a Creationist (from his using the word “dogma”). Thus, my “whether you believe in Evolution or not.”

I’ve already made my position painfully clear that I do not believe in Evolution as the primary source of change in species. I think that the naturalistic evidence points to a much higher degree of wholesale genetic exchange between organisms in the past. So, while I’m not willing to defend a “Darwin-of the gaps” faith, the alternative does not of necessity have to be a “God-of-the-gaps” either—whether one believes in God or not—both positions are ones of faith and not science.

It doesn’t matter what you do or not believe in; what matters is the empirical facts, and the theories that one can derive from them. Creationism is all about faith in the veracity of ancient scriptural accounts; evolution is all about empirical knowledge of the biosphere, and the conclusions and ramifications that can be logically and rationally derived from that empirical data as premises. As for ‘a much higher degree of wholesale genetic exchange in the past’, than is allowed for in evolution, you’d have a hard time making a case that 3 1/2 billion years is not long enough for the plethora of species we now observe and the plethora of other species fossil traces of which we have unearthed to have resulted from the evolutionary processes of random genetic mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, augmented by the splicing in of artifactual retroviral sequences into host genomes from infective viral phages, and genetic drift (see transposons).

As to my use of USSA, yes, I believe the self proclaimed “progressives” who have won both houses of Congress and the Presidency, much of the Judiciary, much of the media, much of the educational establishment, and certainly the vast bureaucracy running most of the country, do indeed have grandiose plans for the former USA. They won and we lost. Get used to it.

In terms of popularity, you’re completely right. If that was my goal, I’ve done a pretty bad job.

-sk

219 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:28:38pm

re: #215 arcatan

They teach stupider things than creationism, and laud themselves for their insight.

I can’t think of any such.

220 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:30:48pm

re: #212 Spar Kling

Reposted with better formatting.

Zimriel, you have to understand that I was addressing a person who obviously seems to be a Creationist (from his using the word “dogma”). Thus, my “whether you believe in Evolution or not.”

I’ve already made my position painfully clear that I do not believe in Evolution as the primary source of change in species. I think that the naturalistic evidence points to a much higher degree of wholesale genetic exchange between organisms in the past. So, while I’m not willing to defend a “Darwin-of the gaps” faith, the alternative does not of necessity have to be a “God-of-the-gaps” either—whether one believes in God or not—both positions are ones of faith and not science.

It doesn’t matter what you do or not believe in; what matters is the empirical facts, and the theories that one can derive from them. Creationism is all about faith in the veracity of ancient scriptural accounts; evolution is all about empirical knowledge of the biosphere, and the conclusions and ramifications that can be logically and rationally derived from that empirical data as premises. As for ‘a much higher degree of wholesale genetic exchange in the past’, than is allowed for in evolution, you’d have a hard time making a case that 3 1/2 billion years is not long enough for the plethora of species we now observe and the plethora of other species fossil traces of which we have unearthed to have resulted from the evolutionary processes of random genetic mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, augmented by the splicing in of artifactual retroviral sequences into host genomes from infective viral phages, and genetic drift (see transposons). The gaps of which you hopefully speak are becoming fewer and smaller as knowledge advances, and I do not see this trend not continuing.

As to my use of USSA, yes, I believe the self proclaimed “progressives” who have won both houses of Congress and the Presidency, much of the Judiciary, much of the media, much of the educational establishment, and certainly the vast bureaucracy running most of the country, do indeed have grandiose plans for the former USA. They won and we lost. Get used to it.

In terms of popularity, you’re completely right. If that was my goal, I’ve done a pretty bad job.

-sk

221 arcatan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:42:05pm

re: #217 Zimriel

“No. There isn’t anything “stupider” in a classroom than bringing deus ex machina explanations into it.”

Then you haven’t been paying attention. What’s currently going on in our national education systems is full fledged indoctrination into Leftist religious beliefs. It’s far worse than creationism that only wants to make a small statement. The degree of indoctrination is so much greater than the creationist position that there really is no comparison.

re: #219 Salamantis

Then you need to put on your thinking cap. See above.

222 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 11:11:40pm

re: #221 arcatan

“No. There isn’t anything “stupider” in a classroom than bringing deus ex machina explanations into it.”

Then you haven’t been paying attention. What’s currently going on in our national education systems is full fledged indoctrination into Leftist religious beliefs. It’s far worse than creationism that only wants to make a small statement. The degree of indoctrination is so much greater than the creationist position that there really is no comparison.

re: #219 Salamantis

Then you need to put on your thinking cap. See above.

This is ludicrous and laughable. First creationists rant against secularism and atheism, then they rail against environmentalism, and then they possess the utter temerity and gall to call both of these religious beliefs. While some environmentalists are undoubtedly Gaian pagans, others embrace different religious perspectives, or none at all, without suffering any cognitive contradiction whatsoever, because the biospheric environmental ecosystem is an immanent and empirical, not a transcendent or metaphysical, phenomenon. And to call atheism and secularism religions is kinda like calling baldness a hairstyle.

I think you’d have a helluva time putting on a thinking cap, because that requires an at least potentially thinking head.

223 Zimriel  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 11:14:51pm

re: #221 arcatan

creationism … only wants to make a small statement.

Is this small statement falsifiable, arcatan? Does this small statement deserve equal time with evolution in science class?

224 SixDegrees  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 11:22:24pm
I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.

Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t matter what you believe. Science is not a matter of faith; it’s a matter of facts, and the facts back up the salamander interpretation, or at least something closer to it than the “Poof!” explanation you’re offering.

The GOP is going to be in the wilderness for a long, long time, pushing agendas like this.

225 Spar Kling  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 11:28:02pm

re: #221 arcatan

“No. There isn’t anything “stupider” in a classroom than bringing deus ex machina explanations into it.”


Then you haven’t been paying attention. What’s currently going on in
our national education systems is full fledged indoctrination into
Leftist religious beliefs. It’s far worse than creationism that only
wants to make a small statement. The degree of indoctrination is so
much greater than the creationist position that there really is no
comparison.

re: #219 Salamantis

Then you need to put on your thinking cap. See above.


Exactly. Nicely put.

-sk

226 Spar Kling  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 11:33:06pm

re: #216 Zimriel

What “legislative tools”? If it’s basic science, it gets taught as basic. If it’s an interpretation of data, it gets brought up in classroom discussion. The “legislative tools” used to keep out Intelligent Design are the same ones which should be used to keep out shari’a.

Yep, those legislative tools. So, who’s to say that Global Warming isn’t basic Science? After all, the Earth is at stake … right?

We’ve been through this before. No-one outside the South thinks ID is likely to get a foothold nationwide. Quit shaking that strawman around; you’re not convincing anybody and you’re just making people pissed at you.

Judging by the percentage of posts here, it seems that ID or Creationism is considered a significant threat. Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s simply comedy relief from the crushing political travesties inflicted on us daily.

Those lizards who don’t live in Texas worry that ID is going to tag Republicans as the “Deliverance Party”, and make the Democrats into the ruling party for as long as the country lasts.

Are you serious? The all-out war against our free enterprise system and individual independence has been going on long before ID or creationism was even a blip on the radar. Or maybe, you’re concerned that the Democratic propaganda machine will tar Republicans as Creationist fringe elements. Watch Dr. Strangelove again. In 1964, it was people against fluoridation (among other things) that were made to look ridiculous. Or survivalists in Idaho, or greedy capitalists, or people who cling to their guns and religion. There is absolutely no shortage of possibilities!

There is no experiment that can falsify Intelligent Design. As you are well aware, I might add; tying this to religion is more misdirection on your part.

Of course there is. A direct experiment demonstrating a natural cascade of self-organization to high-level biological complexity would do nicely. And incredible luck doesn’t cut it mathematically (for example, try calculating the odds of shuffling a deck millions of times and eventually producing all the cards in order).

I’m actually advocating untying Science from religion—and politics from religion as well—and business. Mixing them corrupts them all (although strong ethics is needed for any of them to work).

There are experiments which could be run to falsify / verify certain parts of evolution, dealing with bacteria; although for safety reasons those might have to be done remotely, in a biohazard lab, controlled by robots. The expense would be prohibitive right now but in a few years should be practical.

Indeed there are. Dr. Michael Behe did show evidence of evolution in the terrible war between humanity and malaria (malaria is winning the evolutionary part of it). With something like a billion malaria parasites each in about 2-300 million people, it is a gruesome laboratory. Both malaria and humans have responded with classic evolutionary changes. But Behe demonstrates the limits of evolution from observable facts. That was the point of his latest book. (Yes, I’m aware of and have read the objections of his detractors.)

-sk

227 arcatan  Mon, Mar 16, 2009 11:42:39pm

re: #222 Salamantis

And you rant about creationists. Most creationists would be amenable to a singular statement something to the effect that some people believe that theories of evolution do little to address the actual origin of life.

re: #223 Zimriel

No, in fact real scientists know that they don’t know everything, there is certainly much they cannot explain. Creationists merely put a name to the inexplicable, making no more claim.

I’m a practical atheist, I have no religious belief at all, but I do know there is more than just material reality in the universe, I just don’t know what it is. And in this point alone, that traditional science is not the whole answer, students get an education that’s a little closer to humanity.

I am no more pleased that the material rationalists seek to indoctrinate the children with a one dimensional world view than I was to see religious domatics do so. There a little room for questions here.

228 Mr Secul  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:05:35am

re: #156 OldLineTexan

Dude, we’re not allowed on Europa.

/

Attempt no landings there.

229 Mr Secul  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:16:24am

re: #157 LudwigVanQuixote

Well, being literally created from dirt and wallowing in original sin is much more noble. I mean which sound more charming to you - coming from a smelly monkey - or coming from dirt and being born in a state of deserving eternal damnation? Monkey’s are so gross!

I’ve never understood the argument about being made in God’s image. “God ain’t no monkey!”

I assume that us being made in his image means we share some subset of his qualities or that we are made to his specification, his image of how we should have been.

I don’t take it to mean that he has everything that we have: navel, genitals, bad breath, sweaty pits, hairy nipples, and a butt crack.

Or do the Creationists actually think that he has those things? And why are they any better than having an ape’s body?

Jesus would have had them when he was flesh but that was the point, he chose to live in our world and accept our fleshy ways. He chose to live in an ape body, or God chose for him, I’m not sure how far I take the Trinity.

230 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:59:23am

re: #226 Spar Kling

Of course there is. A direct experiment demonstrating a natural cascade of self-organization to high-level biological complexity would do nicely. And incredible luck doesn’t cut it mathematically (for example, try calculating the odds of shuffling a deck millions of times and eventually producing all the cards in order).

You ask for the impossible, and you know it. It would take millions of years to demonstrate such an experiment, but we don’t have to. We have a host of other means by which to demonstrate to veracity of evolution from fossils to DNA, but you and creationists like you are never interested in dealing with the hard evidence. You just want to move the goal post to where ever you think you can get away with setting it.

I’m actually advocating untying Science from religion—and politics from religion as well—and business. Mixing them corrupts them all (although strong ethics is needed for any of them to work).

And you’re a bold faced liar. Intelligent Design was born of religion, raised by religion, and cannot survive without it’s religious sticking point- the Designer. You insult not only God, but the intelligence of those you discuss this with when you claim you’re for removing religion from science.

231 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 1:16:26am

re: #227 arcatan

And you rant about creationists. Most creationists would be amenable to a singular statement something to the effect that some people believe that theories of evolution do little to address the actual origin of life.

That’s because the theory of evolution assumes life is already present and itself does not deal with the origin of life, which is a separate field of study.

I’m a practical atheist

Sure. Your comment history shows you’re a Nirther, you’ve offered comments favoring fascist apologists, and there’s a host of lovely misogynistic comments concerning rape. You are a vile trollop.

232 UncleRancher  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 2:52:48am

re: #184 Zimriel

re: #185 Zimriel
re: #206 Zimriel


re: #189 Spar Kling

re: #207 Salamantis

Wow! I did not mean to set off a firestorm like this. First permit me to remove the word “dogma” from my question. It was not put in there to insult anyone, but rather as a perception thing, or observation that not all “science” has been proven true and like global warming, the many followers treat the teachings more as a matter of faith and belief than as a testable and provable issue. Yes, we can observe the effects of genetic mutation, and we can see in wheat breeding for instance that new varieties can be obtained by selective removal of specimens with undesirable characteristic. So in that sense we have proven the science of evolution to a satisfactory level. Wheat breeders also recognize that genetic characteristics appear not because the genes are new but because they were switched on or off, both states residing in the genetic makeup from the beginning. So, was the characteristic evolved, or was it created and waiting only to be discovered? As in my original comment, I don’t propose an answer, I only bring the question. Obviously there are many here who don’t want to hear the question but don’t mind downdinging the questioner.

In true, good science, all questions are explored and accepted or rejected on the basis of observation. Experimental design is directed to finding fact. When finally proven beyond any doubt the theories are accepted as laws. You get Nobel prizes for breaking these kinds of laws.

The question involves an observation of mine about people I know. There were good answers provided in this discussion, and I thank you for that.

233 Annar  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 3:24:40am

These people give pseudo-science a bad name. They teach creationist claptrap in many seminaries along with other varieties of the mystical black arts. People holding degrees from divinity schools should sign non proselytization clauses before being allowed to teach in public schools. Of course, specific care is needed if they are to teach science.

In the long run degrees from the so-called ‘teachers colleges’ should be banned from teaching unless the also hold a at least a bachelors degree in a classical discipline from a real university. Teachers colleges in large part attract weak students incapable of passing a real degree program at a first class institution. Such teachers are them selves gullible to the arguments of scientific fakirs and should be kept away from the children. Usually, the products of these teaching factories have only the most superficial understanding of what they teach and pass on their poor learning to the students.

234 MPH  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 5:14:47am
“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond.”

Why should that bother anyone?

235 Basho  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 6:36:40am

re: #232 UncleRancher

When finally proven beyond any doubt the theories are accepted as laws.

No.

236 Teh Flowah  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 6:54:09am

re: #232 UncleRancher


Wow! I did not mean to set off a firestorm like this. First permit me to remove the word “dogma” from my question. It was not put in there to insult anyone, but rather as a perception thing, or observation that not all “science” has been proven true and like global warming, the many followers treat the teachings more as a matter of faith and belief than as a testable and provable issue. Yes, we can observe the effects of genetic mutation, and we can see in wheat breeding for instance that new varieties can be obtained by selective removal of specimens with undesirable characteristic. So in that sense we have proven the science of evolution to a satisfactory level. Wheat breeders also recognize that genetic characteristics appear not because the genes are new but because they were switched on or off, both states residing in the genetic makeup from the beginning. So, was the characteristic evolved, or was it created and waiting only to be discovered? As in my original comment, I don’t propose an answer, I only bring the question. Obviously there are many here who don’t want to hear the question but don’t mind downdinging the questioner.

In true, good science, all questions are explored and accepted or rejected on the basis of observation. Experimental design is directed to finding fact. When finally proven beyond any doubt the theories are accepted as laws. You get Nobel prizes for breaking these kinds of laws.


I know the answer, other scientists know the answer, you don’t. That’s why you cling to this stupid idea of creationism, you’re ignorant.

First, I really don’t care if the average person takes evolution on “faith”. That they don’t understand the mechanisms behind it doesn’t reduce the fact that scientists do, and that there has been mountains of evidence gathered in its favor and NONE for ID. I don’t expect the average person to understand the concept of general relativity or quantum mechanics or even how gravity really works, BUT THEY WORK ALL THE SAME. The ignorance of the average person, which is quite high, does not change the reality of these theories.

Your belief that theories become laws in science demonstrates the scope of your ignorance. It is beyond measure. That is not what happens in science. They stay theories.

As to the wheat, of course some of it is, yet not all of it, is caused by genes turning on and off. This actually supports evolution. It is easier for evolution to work with pre-existing materials than to develop totally new ones. So, if a beneficial adaptation can result from simply activating or deactivating an existing gene sequence, then that is usually the path it takes. That is why you see the GENETIC STRUCTURE of DINOSAURS in modern day birds. That is why birds, even though they have no teeth, and almost no tail at all to speak of, have the genetic ability to grow them.

We have DONE this. We have turned certain genes on and off in bird embryos to have them grow longer tails, instead of stopping at the 3-4 bones they usually stop at, and to grow TEETH, something they never do. Yes, it took millions of years for these developments, but we can trace them using DNA and science. I know it’s amazing how once you stop asking stupidly ignorant questions and ignoring the answers, how science has actually tackled all these long ago, but don’t fret, one day, you won’t get it. You’ll just keep your head in the sand.

237 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 7:59:14am

re: #232 UncleRancher
As in my original comment, I don’t propose an answer, I only bring the question. Obviously there are many here who don’t want to hear the question but don’t mind downdinging the questioner.

re, “Hear the question” - I had thought questions were about seeking an answer and about hearing that. But let’s get back to your original “question”:

Howcome those most concerned with extinction seem to also be following the evolutionist dogma. One would think it should be the other way round, with evolution naturally eliminating those species no longer fit for the environment and producing new organisms that will more likely survive.

There isn’t even a question mark in the above. Insofar as there is any question at all, it’s around why people who understand basic biology aren’t social-darwinists who are fine with species becoming extinct.

Believing in a natural force, as you well know, does not meant we as humans want to submit to it. We believe that outerspace is a frozen vacuum but none of us are seeking to go out into it without a suit.

The answer to your “question” is so obvious that there has to be another motive involved for you. I asserted that your motive was not to ask the question, but to trip up those in a position to answer it. It turns out from your followup “questions” that I was right.

You’re the kid in class who fires spitballs at the teacher and snickers when she looks for who did it.

And I take my downding from the likes of you as a badge of honour.

238 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 8:00:22am

re: #236 Teh Flowah

I know the answer, other scientists know the answer, you don’t. That’s why you cling to this stupid idea of creationism, you’re ignorant.

He’s not ignorant. He’s an asshole.

239 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 8:33:10am

re: #226 Spar Kling

Indeed there are. Dr. Michael Behe did show evidence of evolution in the terrible war between humanity and malaria (malaria is winning the evolutionary part of it). With something like a billion malaria parasites each in about 2-300 million people, it is a gruesome laboratory. Both malaria and humans have responded with classic evolutionary changes. But Behe demonstrates the limits of evolution from observable facts. That was the point of his latest book. (Yes, I’m aware of and have read the objections of his detractors.)

-sk

Michael Behe is such a pathetic fraud and embarrassment that his own university has posted a notice explicitly distancing themselves from his wacky Disco Institute hooey: Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

This is unprecedented. But in true creationist manner, Behe just keeps on spewing the hooey, because it sells books.

Who do you think you’re fooling with your creationist apologetics, ‘Spar Kling’? We’re still waiting for that list of peer-reviewed ID papers you swore existed (it doesn’t), and for you to tell us in which field of science you have a “scientific degree” (you don’t).

240 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 8:57:40am

Spar King,
Why on earth are you still citing Behe? Numerous folks here (myself included) have posted direct quotes from court cases in which Behe himself is cited as saying that the definition of science itself would have to be changed for I.D. to qualify as science.

The implication is clear, from Behe himself, that per the rules of empirical science, I.D. fails to pass muster. It’s not that scientists are afraid of debate, it’s that they only debate scientific theories, and I.D. doesn’t qualify.

241 arcatan  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 9:03:53am

re: #231 Sharmuta

Sure. Your comment history shows you’re a Nirther, you’ve offered comments favoring fascist apologists, and there’s a host of lovely misogynistic comments concerning rape. You are a vile trollop.

Sharmuta;

Your use of ad hominem underlies your lack of understanding the issues. I see value in all ideas and continually seek better understanding. My apologies if that offends your tiny little mind.

242 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 9:04:35am

re: #227 arcatan

No, in fact real scientists know that they don’t know everything, there is certainly much they cannot explain. Creationists merely put a name to the inexplicable, making no more claim.

Which I guess sets them apart from I.D. creationists, who believe they have the explanation even when there’s no empirical evidence to support it.

I’m a practical atheist, I have no religious belief at all, but I do know there is more than just material reality in the universe, I just don’t know what it is.

Actually, I believe that makes you an agnostic.

I am no more pleased that the material rationalists seek to indoctrinate the children with a one dimensional world view than I was to see religious domatics do so. There a little room for questions here.

They don’t attempt to do so. Science presents any theories which are supported by empirical evidence. Science should not be interested in ‘world views’ at all, and is not interested in indoctrination. It’s interested in evidence, facts, testing, and observation. It has nothing in common with religion, nor should it. That’s the whole point of keeping things like I.D. out of the science classroom.

243 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 9:05:54am

re: #241 arcatan

Sharmuta;

Your use of ad hominem underlies your lack of understanding the issues. I see value in all ideas and continually seek better understanding. My apologies if that offends your tiny little mind.

You’d obviously better start ‘bettering your understanding’ of Sharmuta, if you think Sharm has a ‘tiny little mind’.

244 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 9:14:05am

re: #241 arcatan

Sharmuta;

Your use of ad hominem underlies your lack of understanding the issues. I see value in all ideas and continually seek better understanding. My apologies if that offends your tiny little mind.

No- your comments show your lack of understanding the issues. You are ignorant, and your talking point is tired and weak. Gaps in scientific knowledge are not an open invitation to invoke God, but rather an invitation to keep seeking the scientific answer to the question(s).

245 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 9:42:18am

re: #227 arcatan

And you rant about creationists. Most creationists would be amenable to a singular statement something to the effect that some people believe that theories of evolution do little to address the actual origin of life.

Yeah, right, shuuuuure…that’s why they are trying to get laws passed in a dozen ststes that would allow ID to insinuate its ugly antiscientific head in public high school science classes, and why Disco Institute fellows keep writing their anti-evolution ‘science’ texts for schools.

And origin of life is dealt with, for the umpty-umpth time, by origin of life theory; evolution deals with what happens when already-present populations of organisms possessing high but imperfect copying fidelity are confronted by surrounding environments containing specific challenge and opportunities. And what happens is random genetic mutation and nonrandom environmental selection - in other words, evolution.

re: #223 Zimriel

No, in fact real scientists know that they don’t know everything, there is certainly much they cannot explain. Creationists merely put a name to the inexplicable, making no more claim.

Once again the argument from ignorance rears its ugly head. And once again, I answer that just because we don’t know EVERYTHING doesn’t mean we don’t know SOME THINGS. And some of the things we DO know are that evolution is an empirical fact - species populations have indeed changed over time, as any perusal of the fossil record can conclusively demonstrate - and that the core mechanisms by means of which evolution occurs are, beyond rational statistical doubt, random genetic mutation and nonrandom environmental selection.

I’m a practical atheist, I have no religious belief at all, but I do know there is more than just material reality in the universe, I just don’t know what it is. And in this point alone, that traditional science is not the whole answer, students get an education that’s a little closer to humanity.

The argument from ignorance again, rooted in a handy denial of bias, leavened and spiced with a pinch of incredulity and a dollop of emotional appeal.

I am no more pleased that the material rationalists seek to indoctrinate the children with a one dimensional world view than I was to see religious dogmatics do so. There a little room for questions here.

There is NOT room for religious dogma in public high school science classes. PERIOD. And ‘one-dimensional worldview’ is an illegitimate and unwarranted slur. There are many different rich and awe-inspiring dimensions to and disciplines within the scientific enterprise (besides which, Einsteinian spacetime itself is four-dimensional).

246 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 9:53:21am

re: #226 Spar Kling

Of course there is. A direct experiment demonstrating a natural cascade of self-organization to high-level biological complexity would do nicely. And incredible luck doesn’t cut it mathematically (for example, try calculating the odds of shuffling a deck millions of times and eventually producing all the cards in order).

Random mutation alone might be shuffling, but nonrandom environmental selection, the other part of the evolutionary process falsifies the card deck analogy.

Go to: talkorigins.org and scroll down to the section titled

1.2.3 Statistical impossibility of proteins?

to read about how such charges are grounded in willful creationist misconstruals of how evolution actually works.

And trying to sneak in a sideways reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, when it is well known that it does not apply to open systems like the biosphere, which receives energy from external sources like the sun and the earth’s molten core, is sadly typical.

Indeed there are. Dr. Michael Behe did show evidence of evolution in the terrible war between humanity and malaria (malaria is winning the evolutionary part of it). With something like a billion malaria parasites each in about 2-300 million people, it is a gruesome laboratory. Both malaria and humans have responded with classic evolutionary changes. But Behe demonstrates the limits of evolution from observable facts. That was the point of his latest book. (Yes, I’m aware of and have read the objections of his detractors.)

Objections? You must mean conclusive debunkings. Behe has yet to be able to produce an example of so-called ‘irreduceable complexity’ that has not been conclusively demonstrated, by Ken Miller and others, to be eminently reduceable.

247 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 10:03:31am

re: #232 UncleRancher

re: #185 Zimriel
re: #206 Zimriel


re: #189 Spar Kling

re: #207 Salamantis

Wow! I did not mean to set off a firestorm like this. First permit me to remove the word “dogma” from my question. It was not put in there to insult anyone, but rather as a perception thing, or observation that not all “science” has been proven true and like global warming, the many followers treat the teachings more as a matter of faith and belief than as a testable and provable issue. Yes, we can observe the effects of genetic mutation, and we can see in wheat breeding for instance that new varieties can be obtained by selective removal of specimens with undesirable characteristic. So in that sense we have proven the science of evolution to a satisfactory level. Wheat breeders also recognize that genetic characteristics appear not because the genes are new but because they were switched on or off, both states residing in the genetic makeup from the beginning. So, was the characteristic evolved, or was it created and waiting only to be discovered? As in my original comment, I don’t propose an answer, I only bring the question. Obviously there are many here who don’t want to hear the question but don’t mind downdinging the questioner.

In true, good science, all questions are explored and accepted or rejected on the basis of observation. Experimental design is directed to finding fact. When finally proven beyond any doubt the theories are accepted as laws. You get Nobel prizes for breaking these kinds of laws.

The question involves an observation of mine about people I know. There were good answers provided in this discussion, and I thank you for that.

The genes controlling evolved characteristics can be turned on and off. The presence of such a genetic switching mechanism does not indicate deific creation of the sequence.

Nobel Prizes also get awarded for discovering new laws and processes. And if you wanna read about a person who won a Nobel Prize for engaging in the kind of work you describe google Barbara McClintock and read about transposons.

This should get you started:

en.wikipedia.org

248 arcatan  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 10:17:42am

re: #242 Yashmak

Actually, I believe that makes you an agnostic.

No, it’s a little more subtle than that. While it’s impossible to determine whether or not there is a “God” (whatever that means) I am a practical atheist in that my beliefs and actions are based on the assumption that there is no “God”.

Science presents any theories which are supported by empirical evidence.

True, but science education - in grade school especially, is more than just science. In fact the schools tend to present a host of ideas that are presented as science but are little more than social convention (i.e. global warming, social justice). I don’t believe that creationism has a meaningful place in the technical discussion of science.

re: #243 Yashmak

You’d obviously better start ‘bettering your understanding’ of Sharmuta, if you think Sharm has a ‘tiny little mind’.

Using ad hominem and quick dismissiveness of the ideas of others because they don’t complement your prejudice are powerful indicators of small mindedness.

re: #244 Sharmuta

No- your comments show your lack of understanding the issues. You are ignorant, and your talking point is tired and weak. Gaps in scientific knowledge are not an open invitation to invoke God, but rather an invitation to keep seeking the scientific answer to the question(s).

You made no attempt to even understand my positions and even invoked a very narrow perceptions of my ideas in other topics. I’m amazed that you would do so much research to execute your ad hominem. That kind of intellectual intolerance is surely a mark of small-mindedness. Why did you not bother to note the host of ideas I’ve shared that you do agree with?

But I should be more understanding, there are numerous idiots who generally post nonsense and should not be taken seriously. I am not one of them. As I stated above, I’m not talking about inserting creationism into the scientific dialog on evolution, only providing a K-12 level recognition that there is another perspective on the issue that science is incapable of addressing.

re: #245 Salamantis

OK, origin of life is different than evolution though evolution tends to imply insight into origins - perhaps that fuzzy question should be addressed.

My bottom line is this: I’d rather have a dubious belief that imparts character than a correct belief that fails to address it. The growth of anarchy, absurdism, counter-culture attitudes, etc. is enhanced by the mechanistic and purely materialistic educations children receive. My argument is philosophical.

249 Zimriel  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 10:30:33am

re: #248 arcatanMy bottom line is this: I’d rather have a dubious belief that imparts character than a correct belief that fails to address it.

So honesty is secondary to you.

And you wonder why you aren’t trusted.

250 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 10:45:43am

re: #248 arcatan

But I should be more understanding, there are numerous idiots who generally post nonsense and should not be taken seriously. I am not one of them. As I stated above, I’m not talking about inserting creationism into the scientific dialog on evolution, only providing a K-12 level recognition that there is another perspective on the issue that science is incapable of addressing.

Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers. You’ve erected a strawman to knock down. If there’s a particular scientific alternative to evolution, or any other scientific theory, then please present some evidence, some hard data. Can you or any other IDer do so? How about even a testable hypothesis? We’ll wait.

251 scottishbuzzsaw  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 10:47:34am

re: #249 Zimriel

So honesty is secondary to you.

And you wonder why you aren’t trusted.

He uses that word ‘character’ ~ I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

252 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:11:04am

re: #248 arcatan

re: #245 Salamantis

OK, origin of life is different than evolution though evolution tends to imply insight into origins - perhaps that fuzzy question should be addressed.

My bottom line is this: I’d rather have a dubious belief that imparts character than a correct belief that fails to address it. The growth of anarchy, absurdism, counter-culture attitudes, etc. is enhanced by the mechanistic and purely materialistic educations children receive. My argument is philosophical.

You commit a major category error here. Truth does not bend to desire, and is not a matter of a popularity contest. Thus the moral argument has no bearing upon the truth value of a contention, and should have no bearing on whether or not that truth is taught.

Here is Richard Dawkins on the issue:

naturalhistorymag.com

Many people cannot bear to think that they are cousins not just of chimpanzees and monkeys, but of tapeworms, spiders, and bacteria. The unpalatability of a proposition, however, has no bearing on its truth. I personally find the idea of cousinship to all living species positively agreeable, but neither my warmth toward it, nor the cringing of a creationist, has the slightest bearing on its truth.

The same could be said of political or moral objections to Darwinism. “Tell children they are nothing more than animals and they will behave like animals.” I do not for a moment accept that the conclusion follows from the premise. But even if it did, once again, a disagreeable consequence cannot undermine the truth of a premise. Some have said that Hitler founded his political philosophy on Darwinism. This is nonsense: doctrines of racial superiority in no way follow from natural selection, properly understood. Nevertheless, a good case can be made that a society run on Darwinian lines would be a very disagreeable society in which to live. But, yet again, the unpleasantness of a proposition has no bearing on its truth.

Huxley, George C. Williams, and other evolutionists have opposed Darwinism as a political and moral doctrine just as passionately as they have advocated its scientific truth. I count myself in that company. Science needs to understand natural selection as a force in nature, the better to oppose it as a normative force in politics. Darwin himself expressed dismay at the callousness of natural selection: “What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”

As far as the issue of whether or not evolution undermines ethics any more than patriarchal monotheism does is concerned, I invite you to read Stephen Pinker’s conclusions:

pinker.wjh.harvard.edu

I will excerpt the article for you in my next post.

253 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 11:15:50am

pinker.wjh.harvard.edu

Finally, there’s the fear of nihilism: the fear that biology strips life of meaning and purpose. It says that love, beauty, morality, and all that we hold precious, are just figments of a brain pursuing selfish evolutionary strategies. For most people who ask the question “Why am I here,” the answer “To pass on your genes” is less than comforting.

To address this discomfort, one first has to distinguish between religious and secular versions of the fear of nihilism. The religious version is that people need to believe in a soul, which seeks to fulfill God’s purpose, and is rewarded or punished in an afterlife. According to this fear, the day that people stop believing in a soul, we will have, in Nietzsche’s words, “the total eclipse of all values.”

The answer to the religious fear is that a belief in a life to come is not such an uplifting idea, because it necessarily devalues life on Earth. Think about why you sometimes mutter the cliché “Life is short.” That realization is an impetus to extend a gesture of affection to a loved one, to bury the hatchet in some pointless dispute, to vow to use your time productively instead of squandering it. I would argue that nothing makes life more meaningful than a realization that every moment of consciousness is a precious gift.

Also, there is a problem in appealing to God’s purpose. Have you ever noticed that in practice, God’s purpose is always conveyed by other human beings? This opens the door to a certain amount of mischief or worse. Many of you are familiar with the satirical newspaper called The Onion. Four years ago, they ran the following notorious headline: “Hijackers Surprised to Find Selves in Hell. ‘We Expected Eternal Paradise for This,’ say Suicide Bombers.’” Admittedly, it’s in dubious taste, but makes an important point. Even if there are might be some people who can’t be deterred from mass murder by anything short of the threat of spending eternity in hell, we know that there are people who are attracted to mass murder by the promise of spending eternity in heaven.

To sum up: I’ve suggested that the dominant theory of human nature in modern intellectual life is based on the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine, and that these doctrines have been challenged by the sciences of mind, brain, genes, and evolution. The challenges have also been seen to threaten sacred moral values. But, in fact, that doesn’t follow. On the contrary, I think a better understanding of what makes us tick, and of our place in nature, can clarify those values. This understanding shows that political equality does not require sameness, but rather policies that treat people as individuals with rights; that moral progress does not require that the mind is free of selfish motives, only that it has other motives to counteract them; that responsibility does not require that behavior is uncaused, only that it responds to contingencies of credit and blame; and that meaning in life does not require that the process that shaped the brain have a purpose, only that the brain itself have a purpose.

Finally, I’ve argued that grounding values in a blank slate is a mistake. It’s a mistake because it makes our values hostages to fortune, implying that some day, discoveries from the field or lab could make them obsolete. And it’s a mistake because it conceals the downsides of denying human nature, including persecution of the successful, totalitarian social engineering, an exaggeration of the effects of the environment (such as in parenting and the criminal justice system), a mystification of the rationale behind responsibility, democracy, and morality, and the devaluating of human life on Earth.

254 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:24:19pm

re: #248 arcatan

True, but science education - in grade school especially, is more than just science. In fact the schools tend to present a host of ideas that are presented as science but are little more than social convention (i.e. global warming, social justice). I don’t believe that creationism has a meaningful place in the technical discussion of science.

Global warming is not merely social convention, unless you are willing to ignore a significant amount of valid scientific research. Global warming itself, is separate from debate over the potential causes or means to mitigate it. It’s a scientific fact that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling.

Why does global warming always get brought up when discussing evolution? It has no bearing on the discussion.

255 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 12:28:56pm

re: #254 Yashmak

Why does global warming always get brought up when discussing evolution? It has no bearing on the discussion.

Because the IDers are now trying to piggy back with global warming as a way to tap into a segment of the population that’s already questioning science. I hope if we keep throwing al gore at them they’ll shut up. The politicization of science from all sides has just got to stop.

256 Basho  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 4:23:33pm

re: #180 UncleRancher

Howcome those most concerned with extinction seem to also be following the evolutionist dogma. One would think it should be the other way round, with evolution naturally eliminating those species no longer fit for the environment and producing new organisms that will more likely survive.

Well, if people following “evolutionist dogma” are the most concerned with losing various animals such as elephants, rhinoceroses, tigers, and lions (for example) for all of time, then clearly those following the “evolutionist dogma” are among the most compassionate, empathic people in the world.

257 Yashmak  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 4:27:52pm

re: #256 Basho

Well, if people following “evolutionist dogma” are the most concerned with losing various animals such as elephants, rhinoceroses, tigers, and lions (for example) for all of time, then clearly those following the “evolutionist dogma” are among the most compassionate, empathic people in the world.

Also, part of those creatures’ environment are people who are trying to save those creatures…so if they survive, it’s still “natural”.

Of course, we can get sidetracked into a philosophical discussion of environmental ethics; what is, and what is not “natural”…but we’d probably be better off ignoring comments like Uncle’s…although I admit that I have as much a hard time doing so as others here :)

258 Basho  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 4:34:43pm

re: #256 Basho

Perhaps the “dogma” of evolution will be a part of the religion Pat Condell is looking to start, in which he holds free speech as the most sacred law:

Youtube Video

259 Basho  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 4:35:58pm

re: #257 Yashmak

. . .but we’d probably be better off ignoring comments like Uncle’s…although I admit that I have as much a hard time doing so as others here :)

Hehe… I purposely ignored the comment until now so that I wouldn’t fuel his need for attention =)

260 hopperandadropper  Tue, Mar 17, 2009 8:27:43pm

This is getting near the end of the thread, so consider it a general challenge. All you pro-ID wallahs and creationist apologists out there, here’s a question for you. Can you explain, in purely scientific terms that do not involve any supernatural act or agent, why all cell-based forms of life use DNA as their genetic material and use the same basic machinery for turning DNA information into proteins? You must do this without involving common origins as the reason, and Occam’s razor applies (that is, you must accept the simplest explanation that is consistent with the known facts and is otherwise consistent with the principles of science- once again, magic cannot be invoked). Extra credit for explaining why, without exception (including viruses), proteins are the functional units of all forms of life and proto-life.

Clock starts…..now. Bueller? Bueller?

261 arcatan  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 12:27:18pm

re: #249 Zimriel

My bottom line is this: I’d rather have a dubious belief that imparts character than a correct belief that fails to address it.

So honesty is secondary to you.

And you wonder why you aren’t trusted.

Don’t be an ass. While I don’t believe in “God”, many people do. In fact I teach my young son to believe in “God” because it’s good for him psychologically and emotionally. As for honesty - your argument is decidedly specious.re: #250 Sharmuta

Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers. You’ve erected a strawman to knock down. If there’s a particular scientific alternative to evolution, or any other scientific theory, then please present some evidence, some hard data. Can you or any other IDer do so? How about even a testable hypothesis? We’ll wait.

I’m not talking about an idea approved by mainstream science, I’m talking about a cultural belief. I’m not knocking down any strawman here, there was none standing to begin with.

re: #251 scottishbuzzsaw

He uses that word ‘character’ ~ I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

Apparently you think it means sharing your beliefs. I grew out of that simple mentality when I left Liberalism behind.

re: #252 Salamantis

You commit a major category error here. Truth does not bend to desire, and is not a matter of a popularity contest. Thus the moral argument has no bearing upon the truth value of a contention, and should have no bearing on whether or not that truth is taught.

Indeed, education is not about telling children the truth, but about telling them what we know and letting them discover the “truth” for themselves.

As for evolution undermining ethics, I never made such a claim, only that it is entirely amoral - making no contribution to ethics.

The fact is that the education of the young should address culturally accepted ethical elements.

Finally, there’s the fear of nihilism: the fear that biology strips life of meaning and purpose.

Thank you for your pedantic exposition, but that misses the point. All ideas need a context, one of the great failure of modern academics is the failure to even relate to another very similar field, providing only incomplete and disjointed information. And ultimately, science, in the hands of ideologues is no different than religious dogma.

re: #254 Yashmak

Global warming is not merely social convention …

Obviously I was referring to anthropogenic climate change, an idea which, not substantiated, is taken as fact in the classroom - which is why I bring it up. The classroom is not simply an environment of imparting fact.

re: #256 Basho

… clearly those following the “evolutionist dogma” are among the most compassionate, empathic people in the world.

A specious claim indeed. People with compassion and empathy should recognize the importance of belief to those who possess it.

262 Salamantis  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 5:31:23pm

re: #261 arcatan

re: #252 Salamantis
Sal1: You commit a major category error here. Truth does not bend to desire, and is not a matter of a popularity contest. Thus the moral argument has no bearing upon the truth value of a contention, and should have no bearing on whether or not that truth is taught.

arcatan: Indeed, education is not about telling children the truth, but about telling them what we know and letting them discover the “truth” for themselves.

As for evolution undermining ethics, I never made such a claim, only that it is entirely amoral - making no contribution to ethics.
The fact is that the education of the young should address culturally accepted ethical elements.

You mean including teaching our children as truth what we know to be untrue, or do not know to BE true? I’m glad I didn’t have to call you Mommy or Daddy. And once upon a Biblical time, slavery, rape and genocide were accepted ethical elements. That didn’t make them right.

Sal1 : Finally, there’s the fear of nihilism: the fear that biology strips life of meaning and purpose.

arcatan: Thank you for your pedantic exposition, but that misses the point. All ideas need a context, one of the great failure of modern academics is the failure to even relate to another very similar field, providing only incomplete and disjointed information. And ultimately, science, in the hands of ideologues is no different than religious dogma.

But this cannot be claimed of evolutionary theory, which unites many different scientific disciplines under a single efficient and effective theoreticl framework. And science is empirically supported, or it isn’t science, while religious dogma is empirically UNsupported, or it isn’t religious dogma. That bright line of the presence vs. the absence of supporting empirical evidence cannot be rhetorically erased.

263 arcatan  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 9:37:25pm

I don’t care if it’s empirically supported or not, everything we teach in the classroom, even science class, is not empirically supported. Just because science tells us so or not so, doesn’t mean its true. In my lifetime I have heard numerous conflicting definitive empirical and scientifically established explanations as the the unique quality of Man. It wasn’t long ago that science categorically declared that animals cannot feel or think and that all life on the planet is dependent on the energy of the sun. Did you know that Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the universe was not disproved by Copernicus, Galilei, and Kepler? It wasn’t until Newton that a better model was actually established.

It’s funny because I hear people raging about the ignorance of the Catholic Church is silencing these great men, when in fact it was, at the time, more mathematically substantiated. (And like any of these ragers would have recognized the truth in such heresy at the time).

I realize that science is a jealous god, wishing no others placed before it, that those who are not part of the church of science are incapable of addressing the issues of science.

But if science was simply one way of looking at the world, then why should we not juxtapose this perspective with another?

Sure, religion never put a man on the moon - but it has helped to mold and shape civilization and its constituents, an achievement you may take for granted. My point is that there are elements in religious belief which still have great value for many and in the end their belief system is no more erroneous than that of science.

I remember the sense of intelligence that was imparted with the knowledge of evolution and I believe that for many people the full acceptance of idea of evolution is continuing proof, in their hearts, of their own intelligence.

Of the vast infinity that is Truth, I will not be the man who takes someone to task for not sharing my path for I have no doubt that he may hold truths that I have not yet guessed at.

264 Salamantis  Wed, Mar 18, 2009 11:23:58pm

re: #263 arcatan

I don’t care if it’s empirically supported or not, everything we teach in the classroom, even science class, is not empirically supported. Just because science tells us so or not so, doesn’t mean its true. In my lifetime I have heard numerous conflicting definitive empirical and scientifically established explanations as the the unique quality of Man. It wasn’t long ago that science categorically declared that animals cannot feel or think and that all life on the planet is dependent on the energy of the sun. Did you know that Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the universe was not disproved by Copernicus, Galilei, and Kepler? It wasn’t until Newton that a better model was actually established.

What belongs in public high school science class is empirical science, and that means science that is supported by empirical evidence. Evolution is; creationism ain’t. And Newton’s better model was publisheded in the 15th century (1687), 172 year before Darwin’s theory of evolution first appeared. For the past 150 years, ALL the empirical evidence has supported evolution, and NONE of the empirical evidence has contradicted it.

It’s funny because I hear people raging about the ignorance of the Catholic Church is silencing these great men, when in fact it was, at the time, more mathematically substantiated. (And like any of these ragers would have recognized the truth in such heresy at the time).

They made Galileo recant, and burned Giordano Bruno at the stake because he wouldn’t. His crime? Proposing relativity theory, more than 300 years before Einstein did (he dared to maintain that the Universe lacked an absolute center).

I realize that science is a jealous god, wishing no others placed before it, that those who are not part of the church of science are incapable of addressing the issues of science.

It’s more like facts are stubborn things, and honest folks do not forsake them in order to embrace beloved dogmas.

But if science was simply one way of looking at the world, then why should we not juxtapose this perspective with another?

Because of the bright line difference of the presence of empirical evidence for scientific contentions vs. the absence of empirical evidence for religious dogmas. They are not evidentially equal.

Sure, religion never put a man on the moon - but it has helped to mold and shape civilization and its constituents, an achievement you may take for granted. My point is that there are elements in religious belief which still have great value for many and in the end their belief system is no more erroneous than that of science.

Much good, and much evil, hav been done in the name of one religion or another. And the point behind the presence vs. the absence of evidence is that the truth value of scientific assertions can be empirically tested, while religious dogmas cannot. Unlie with scientific assertions, one cannot know religious dogmas to be true; one must either accept them or reject them - that is, believe in them or not.

I remember the sense of intelligence that was imparted with the knowledge of evolution and I believe that for many people the full acceptance of idea of evolution is continuing proof, in their hearts, of their own intelligence.

The acceptance of evolution is evidence that people understand what the empirical biological evidence entails.

Of the vast infinity that is Truth, I will not be the man who takes someone to task for not sharing my path for I have no doubt that he may hold truths that I have not yet guessed at.

The argument from ignorance, yet again. But just because there are some things we DON’T know doesn’t mean that there aren’t things that we DO know - and we know that evolution happens, and also that its mechanisms are mutation and selection, beyond rational statistical dispute.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Playing With AI-Generated “Art”I haven't really explored NightCafe's free online AI Art Generator (creator.nightcafe.studio) tool yet. I have only done some preliminary tinkering around with it but, I have to say, I'm more impressed with the results than I anticipated considering how little ...
dat_said
1 day, 6 hours ago
Views: 151 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 0 •
Indigenous Americans Ruled Democratically Long Before the U.S. DidDemocracy: it was older and more widespread than we thought. At the Oconee site, called Cold Springs, artifacts were excavated before the valley became an aquatic playground. Now, new older-than-expected radiocarbon dates for those museum-held finds push back the origin ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 6 days ago
Views: 1,469 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 3 •