Video: Discovery Institute Lies Promoted by Fox News

Science • Views: 14,227

Here’s one of the very worst, most deceptive dog-and-pony shows I’ve ever seen about evolution, from … who else? … Fox News. Steve Doocy interviews the anti-evolution Discovery Institute’s main parrot Casey Luskin, who proceeds to spew a complete load of crap, without any context or any rebuttal whatsoever.

The really galling thing about Luskin’s appearance here is that he’s cast as a defender of honesty in textbooks — after he and his organization fought like crazy to get the Texas State Board of Education to accept their absurd anti-scientific standards for schoolchildren, in a blatant attempt to influence the textbooks used in Texas schools, and promote their anti-evolution tract titled Explore Evolution. (Since Texas is such a huge market for textbooks, the books accepted in Texas influence the entire country.)

And now here’s Luskin, pretending to be the hero who wants accuracy in textbooks. It’s enough to induce projectile vomiting.

Luskin is absolutely shameless in his deceptions. He hauls out the decades old, long-debunked and extremely silly talking point about Haeckel’s embryo drawings — which are simply not used in textbooks any more — to smear all science textbooks that educate children in the facts about evolution.

Shame on Fox News for lending credence to this appalling display of mendacity and ignorance, without giving equal time to a credible scientist who could answer Luskin’s lies.

Youtube Video

UPDATE at 5/7/09 8:58:24 pm:

In 2007, PZ Myers destroyed the Discovery Institute’s nonsense about the embryo drawings in this excellent post: Wells and Haeckel’s Embryos.

UPDATE at 5/7/09 9:17:33 pm:

By the way, yes … I know that when I post articles about evolution, Google’s AdSense serves up a host of creationist advertisements. It’s because those ads are context-based; they’re automatically matched to keywords found in the page’s content.

If nothing else, this gives you an idea how much money is being pumped into the anti-evolution propaganda effort.

UPDATE at 5/7/09 9:34:01 pm:

Also see
A Moron Interviews a Liar.

Jump to bottom

260 comments
1 wasta  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:23:37pm

...and it's official...I'm done with Fox News

2 brandon13  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:23:51pm

Just posted this in another thread.

Young Americans Are Far Less Religious Than Their Parents

Just goes to show that the Republican party is going to have to distance itself from the religious faction if it's going to be relevant in the future.

3 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:24:06pm

Et tu, Fox?

4 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:26:40pm

re: #2 brandon13

Just posted this in another thread.

Young Americans Are Far Less Religious Than Their Parents

Just goes to show that the Republican party is going to have to distance itself from the religious faction if it's going to be relevant in the future.

There seems to be no future for the GOP, except as a historical footnote.

5 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:26:40pm

Lurch let a lot of words be put in his mouth. Why was the presenter making statements for him, rather than letting him make his own points?

6 Pawn of the Oppressor  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:27:48pm

Fox News, Sideshow Rick Perry (and his cronies) and all the freaky Evolution-haters can kiss my science-loving rear end.

7 wasta  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:28:01pm

re: #5 EmmmieG

Lurch let a lot of words be put in his mouth. Why was the presenter making statements for him, rather than letting him make his own points?

Trying the same techniques as CNN?

8 Pawn of the Oppressor  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:29:19pm

re: #4 FurryOldGuyJeans

There seems to be no future for the GOP, except as a historical footnote.

F 'em. Let them run screaming off the cliff with their hair on fire if they want to. Then there will be only The State, and those who oppose it.

Kinda like now, except with fewer meaningless letters in front of names.

9 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:29:22pm

I can't cry about the craziness anymore. I've decided to let some people abtusesteve likes describe my feelings:

Youtube Video
10 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:29:26pm

re: #7 wasta

Trying the same techniques as CNN?

As long as FNC doesn't adopt the obviously superior standards of MSNBC.

11 dapperdave  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:29:39pm

I wish my lame-ass internet connection would evolve into a strong signal, at any moment I'll get booted off line. Wow this is my first posting in weeks.

Can you hear me now! /

12 BignJames  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:29:49pm

I'll watch Brett Baier.....the rest of their programming is mostly junk.

13 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:29:55pm

What a crock. Steve Doucy is using an interview with Young Earth Creationist hack Casey Luskin to attempt to discuss where evolution science is wrong in Texas textbooks? Is this a joke?

This had to have been somewhat organized attempt since they included custom graphics for this interview. They also solicited for their viewers to send "examples" of were they think their kids textbooks as wrong.

Casey Luskin as an expert on evolution? What? Only on Fox News.

Steve Doucy, you're an idiot.

14 Racer X  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:30:35pm

re: #5 EmmmieG

Lurch let a lot of words be put in his mouth. Why was the presenter making statements for him, rather than letting him make his own points?

You know the answer.

Fox has an agenda - like everyone else who is paying for air time.

15 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:31:32pm

re: #2 brandon13

Just posted this in another thread.

Young Americans Are Far Less Religious Than Their Parents

Just goes to show that the Republican party is going to have to distance itself from the religious faction if it's going to be relevant in the future.

And I repost my response:

Younger people have always tended to be less religious. That said, you point to a dangerous trend. We need to work to reverse declines in religion, not accept them.

16 Desert Dog  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:31:48pm

re: #4 FurryOldGuyJeans

There seems to be no future for the GOP, except as a historical footnote.

Yes, that flood of original ideas and stellar leadership from the Dems have done us in. NOT. Reports of the Republicans death have been greatly exaggarated. I still remember the feeling after Nixon resigned and the Dems in Congress basically took over. I remember the feeling when Jimmah won. I also remember Clinton and now Obama's victory. Each time, the Republicans came back. Ideas and and the ineptitude of the other side will bring us back from the brink. The pendulum has swung over the left for now. But, a funny thing about pendulums, they have a habit of swinging back.

I have no intentions of falling on my sword or giving up. The Democrats are running us off a cliff, they will pay a price for that.

17 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:31:50pm

re: #14 Racer X

You know the answer.

Fox has an agenda - like everyone else who is paying for air time.

FNC's agenda used to be making money by presenting a political viewpoint. Now it is trying to make money by presenting stupidity.

18 Vicious Babushka  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:32:07pm

re: #2 brandon13

Just posted this in another thread.

Young Americans Are Far Less Religious Than Their Parents

Well, that's not always true. When my son comes to visit I have to hide the evolution books so the grandkids won't find them or my daughter-in-law will have a fit.

19 Sharmuta  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:33:06pm

Fox news suck.

20 stuck in california  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:33:08pm

Keep pounding, Charles, this is important..

21 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:33:25pm

re: #18 Alouette

Well, that's not always true. When my son comes to visit I have to hide the evolution books so the grandkids won't find them or my daughter-in-law will have a fit.

No offense, but that is brainwashed, not religious.

22 Salamantis  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:33:48pm

re: #18 Alouette

Well, that's not always true. When my son comes to visit I have to hide the evolution books so the grandkids won't find them or my daughter-in-law will have a fit.

You should be having a fit that your grandkids are being prevented by their parents from being exposed to solid bioscience.

23 brandon13  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:33:55pm

re: #15 Dark_Falcon

And I repost my response:

Younger people have always tended to be less religious. That said, you point to a dangerous trend. We need to work to reverse declines in religion, not accept them.

I don't think it's a dangerous trend at all, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

24 Idle Drifter  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:34:22pm

Does anybody else hear a sucking sound?

25 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:34:40pm

I don't think I've ever seen such an insane inversion of reality as this interview.

"The Trouble With Textbooks?!"

And a creationist is the guy who's cast as the hero?

Aaarrrgghhh.

26 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:35:21pm

re: #25 Charles

I don't think I've ever seen such an insane inversion of reality as this interview.

"The Trouble With Textbooks?!"

And a creationist is the guy who's cast as the hero?

Aaarrrgghhh.

I need a stiff drink now.

27 [deleted]  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:35:22pm
28 Sharmuta  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:35:30pm

Why does fox news hate accuracy?

29 erraticsphinx  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:35:38pm

If this is not called out now, it will only get worse.
I can so picture Fox News giving the DI their own show sometime next year.
Please keep up the good work, Charles.

30 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:35:54pm

re: #25 Charles

I don't think I've ever seen such an insane inversion of reality as this interview.

"The Trouble With Textbooks?!"

And a creationist is the guy who's cast as the hero?

Aaarrrgghhh.

This is getting as bad as the Palestinian video propaganda that gets released.

31 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:36:00pm

I counted three statements that the announcer guy made for the DI guy in three minutes, plus the fact that the two major pieces of "evidence" were brought up and explained by the Foxnews dude. Obviously, this is an opinion show, not an investigative news show.

32 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:36:18pm

re: #25 Charles

I don't think I've ever seen such an insane inversion of reality as this interview.

"The Trouble With Textbooks?!"

And a creationist is the guy who's cast as the hero?

Aaarrrgghhh.

That's exactly how I feel. I feel like I went to bed and woke up on the other side of the looking glass.

33 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:37:13pm

re: #31 EmmmieG

I counted three statements that the announcer guy made for the DI guy in three minutes, plus the fact that the two major pieces of "evidence" were brought up and explained by the Foxnews dude. Obviously, this is an opinion show, not an investigative news show.

FNC has been in the opinion masquerading as news business for quite some time. This is not something recent.

34 [deleted]  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:37:32pm
35 Racer X  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:37:36pm

re: #19 Sharmuta

Fox news suck.

All MFMSM outlets suck. They have long ago given up on being objective. They are clearly trying to influence public attitude and government policy. This was never their purpose.

The media exists to keep governments honest. Period. It has been years since this was the case.

36 Salamantis  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:37:39pm

re: #29 erraticsphinx

If this is not called out now, it will only get worse.
I can so picture Fox News giving the DI their own show sometime next year.
Please keep up the good work, Charles.

Fox is following the Network script to a 't'.

They already have Glenn Beck as Howard Beale; the next step is the Fortuneteller Lady telling us that empirical science is full of crap.

37 cronus  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:37:48pm

I occasionally crosspost some items from my blog at Redstate. It's clear I've been lulled into a false sense of rationality by spending time at LGF.

If anyone wants proof of how effective Luskin and there ilk are spend a few minutes on this thread. It's pretty disheartening. I'm a fan of several of the contributors over there. But man, do the blinders ever come on when evolution is raised.

38 erraticsphinx  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:37:58pm

Wasn't it just yesterday somebody was saying "Oh, they're harmless! The creationists won't have real power ever!"

Well, here's a start on a morning show probably watched by millions!

And so it begins.

39 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:38:42pm

Anyone know how to edit Wiki with footnotes?

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

40 SasquatchOnSteroids  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:38:45pm

All your children are belong to us.

WTF is the weekly prize over there ?

41 Randall Gross  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:38:47pm

Fox has the ancient World Nut Daily demographic locked up... they are broadcasting for their small niche market.

It's sick that they let all the lies and exaggerations go unchallenged, it's sick that they even had him on.

42 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:39:04pm

re: #38 erraticsphinx

Wasn't it just yesterday somebody was saying "Oh, they're harmless! The creationists won't have real power ever!"

Well, here's a start on a morning show probably watched by millions!

And so it begins.

And not a Vorlon in sight to guide the way, what a bummer.

43 [deleted]  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:39:07pm
44 Gella  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:39:33pm

can we make a religion out of science? so evaluation will be finally tought in schools with out any problems?

45 Sharmuta  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:40:00pm

re: #35 Racer X

All MFMSM outlets suck. They have long ago given up on being objective. They are clearly trying to influence public attitude and government policy. This was never their purpose.

The media exists to keep governments honest. Period. It has been years since this was the case.

The msm is nothing but propaganda outlets. In the case of fox, the business model is to target a segment of the market the other outlets aren't tapping into- the right. They used to do this well. Now they're going over the cliff and mainstreaming kooks- mainly to line their own pockets. They don't give a damn about conservative principles.

46 SasquatchOnSteroids  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:40:12pm

re: #40 SasquatchOnSteroids

All your children are belong to us.

WTF is the weekly prize over there ?

and please don't say a copy of Bold Fresh.....

47 [deleted]  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:40:26pm
48 Gella  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:40:49pm

re: #47 buzzsawmonkey

no, i want more ppl to trust it for starters

49 Pawn of the Oppressor  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:41:24pm

Next on Fox

"Moon Landings: Government Lies, or LBJ Conspiracy?"
"Black People: Scary, or REALLY Scary?"
"Messicans and Why They're Stealing Your Job"
"Secrets of Revelations: Does It Tell Our Future?"

i hate television

50 erraticsphinx  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:42:21pm

re: #49 Pawn of the Oppressor

Honestly, I think some of these have already aired.

51 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:42:33pm

re: #35 Racer X

All MFMSM outlets suck. They have long ago given up on being objective. They are clearly trying to influence public attitude and government policy. This was never their purpose.

The media exists to keep governments honest. Period. It has been years since this was the case.

From the beginning of the Republic there was partisan media. Proud to declare a bias. This impartiality crap is what is new, and seems to be a television innovation that has contaminated all the other outlets.

We need to get back to the days when a media outlet proudly declared their bias again.

52 dapperdave  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:42:34pm

re: #49 Pawn of the Oppressor

You just described the History channel.

53 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:42:42pm

re: #49 Pawn of the Oppressor

Next on Fox

"Moon Landings: Government Lies, or LBJ Conspiracy?"
"Black People: Scary, or REALLY Scary?"
"Messicans and Why They're Stealing Your Job"
"Secrets of Revelations: Does It Tell Our Future?"

i hate television

...the shocking details next!

54 Randall Gross  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:42:44pm

Fraud and unbalanced.

This reminds me that Fox was also the main publicity channel for "Expelled".

55 Vicious Babushka  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:43:05pm

re: #22 Salamantis

You should be having a fit that your grandkids are being prevented by their parents from being exposed to solid bioscience.

When they get older they will read the evolution books on their own.

56 brandon13  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:43:07pm

re: #49 Pawn of the Oppressor

Next on Fox

"Moon Landings: Government Lies, or LBJ Conspiracy?"
"Black People: Scary, or REALLY Scary?"
"Messicans and Why They're Stealing Your Job"
"Secrets of Revelations: Does It Tell Our Future?"

i hate television

The Fox over the air channel actually had a conspiracy theory show on the moon landing several years back.

57 Bob Dillon  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:43:27pm

Disgusting.

58 Sharmuta  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:43:37pm

Fox news has become a parody of themselves. Mobys.

59 Pawn of the Oppressor  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:44:20pm

re: #52 dapperdave

You just described the History channel.

I can't tell anymore, really.

"We talk to that guy who took so much acid that he thinks he's a glass of orange juice... Next on Glenn Beck"

60 Racer X  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:44:34pm

re: #58 Sharmuta

Fox news has become a parody of themselves. Mobys.

The really sad part?

Fox's ratings are kicking everyone else's ass.

61 BignJames  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:44:38pm

re: #52 dapperdave

You just described the History channel.


He left out "You're gonna die!"

62 Salamantis  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:44:48pm

re: #55 Alouette

When they get older they will read the evolution books on their own.

Let us hope that you suggest as much to them.

"Why Evolution Is True", by Jerry A. Coyne, would be a good place for them to start.

63 Desert Dog  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:44:57pm

re: #45 Sharmuta

The msm is nothing but propaganda outlets. In the case of fox, the business model is to target a segment of the market the other outlets aren't tapping into- the right. They used to do this well. Now they're going over the cliff and mainstreaming kooks- mainly to line their own pockets. They don't give a damn about conservative principles.

All of MSM TV news networks have problems. Most are Kool-aid drinking Democrat shills. Fox used to be way better, but they are stuck in Lowest Common Denominator mode now. All of them are losing their viewers....so are newspapers. Unfortunately, they all still attract enough viewers and wield considerable sway.

It is disheartening to see FOX go this route though.

64 Pawn of the Oppressor  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:45:11pm

re: #61 BignJames

He left out "You're gonna die!"

That's more like the big three networks, after the news but before the weather.

65 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:45:57pm

re: #52 dapperdave

You just described the History channel.

The history channel that is pimping lame reality tv shows? *BARF*

Even History International is all about America is Crap.

66 Pvt Bin Jammin  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:46:12pm

FOX NEWS...fair or unbalanced?

67 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:47:01pm

re: #66 Pvt Bin Jammin

FOX NEWS...fair or unbalanced?

Biased, slanted, and Little Lost White Girl channel.

68 Vicious Babushka  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:48:05pm

re: #62 Salamantis

Let us hope that you suggest as much to them.

"Why Evolution Is True", by Jerry A. Coyne, would be a good place for them to start.

I'm going to give them the "Zoo Rabbi" books.

69 brandon13  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:48:23pm

re: #66 Pvt Bin Jammin

FOX NEWS...fair or unbalanced?

I honestly think their slogan has convinced quite a few people that Fox News does not have a bias. Of course, if the bias can't be seen now then it's just willful ignorance.

The power of marketing.

70 itellu3times  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:49:05pm

What's the argument with Haeckel’s embryo drawings, that "evolutionist engage in fraud"? OK, I'll watch the stupid clip. OK, that's it. So what? Show real embryos, if the Haeckel versions are bogus, the point remains the same. Good grief.

71 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:49:17pm

re: #67 FurryOldGuyJeans

Biased, slanted, and Little Lost White Girl channel.

Fox News: dumb, cheap, ignorant, corny, goofy and mostly trashy.

72 Pvt Bin Jammin  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:49:29pm

re: #67 FurryOldGuyJeans

Biased, slanted, and Little Lost White Girl channel.

I think there's a movie coming up about that Halloway girl. Wonder who will play Greta?

73 Vicious Babushka  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:50:14pm

re: #71 Gus 802

Fox News: dumb, cheap, ignorant, corny, goofy and mostly trashy.

Sounds just like ABC, CBS, and MSNBC

74 BignJames  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:50:20pm

re: #72 Pvt Bin Jammin

I think there's a movie coming up about that Halloway girl. Wonder who will play Greta?

Tina Fey.

75 Racer X  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:50:22pm

re: #51 FurryOldGuyJeans

From the beginning of the Republic there was partisan media. Proud to declare a bias. This impartiality crap is what is new, and seems to be a television innovation that has contaminated all the other outlets.

We need to get back to the days when a media outlet proudly declared their bias again.

Not sure I agree but you do bring up a good point. At least with CNN and MSNBC you know which side they are on. They make no misleading statements like "fair and balanced".

76 Pvt Bin Jammin  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:50:25pm

re: #69 brandon13

Indeed.

77 brandon13  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:50:34pm

re: #72 Pvt Bin Jammin

I think there's a movie coming up about that Halloway girl. Wonder who will play Greta?

Shamwow guy... they both have that crooked mouth thing going.

78 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:51:10pm

re: #72 Pvt Bin Jammin

I think there's a movie coming up about that Halloway girl. Wonder who will play Greta?

Ask me if I care.

No, wait, don't ask. I don't care.

79 dapperdave  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:51:31pm

I still like O'Reilly and they're not so bad in the morning.

80 cronus  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:51:44pm

1) Jenny McCarthy gets a TV deal with Oprah.
2) Tom Tancredo and Chris Mathews form a mutual admiration society over ID 3) Casey Luskin goes unchallenged on cable news.

All within about a 48 hour period.

/I think this all bodes well for the forces of reason

81 Pvt Bin Jammin  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:51:46pm

re: #77 brandon13

Shamwow guy... they both have that crooked mouth thing going.

Perfect. He has to play it in drag though. LOL

82 SasquatchOnSteroids  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:52:43pm

No Scrolling Yellow Banner ?

No Geraldo making maps on the carpet where Texas is ?

C'mon guys, this is hot stuff.

//

83 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:52:49pm

If you don't know about the way creationists distort and lie about Haeckel's embryo drawings, this is an excellent post on the subject by the dreaded P.Z. Myers:

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

84 brandon13  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:53:20pm

re: #79 dapperdave

I still like O'Reilly and they're not so bad in the morning.

Really? I think their morning show is the worst of all the MSM morning shows.

85 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:54:18pm

re: #83 Charles

If you don't know about the way creationists distort and lie about Haeckel's embryo drawings, this is an excellent post on the subject by the dreaded P.Z. Myers:

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

If they didn't lie and distort, they wouldn't Creationists, would they?

86 dapperdave  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:55:01pm

re: #84 brandon13

I find it amusing before my first cup of coffee, they show some interesting videos.

87 Racer X  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:55:27pm

Gimmie my free chicken Dammit!

88 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:55:47pm

re: #83 Charles

If you don't know about the way creationists distort and lie about Haeckel's embryo drawings, this is an excellent post on the subject by the dreaded P.Z. Myers:

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

Here's the conclusion which is important:

Conclusion

Jonathan Wells would like to discredit evolution, and in Haeckel's embryos, he has found a story to his liking. There is a bit of intentional fakery to it, there is a clear affiliation with Darwin himself, and there is a long history of recognition of Haeckel's influence intermingled with unambiguous repudiation of his ideas. All he has to do is try to entangle Haeckel's discredited theories and poor modern reputation with the set of valid observations and modern explanations, and he can bury the truth under innuendo and association. However, we just have to remember three things:

Evolutionary theory is not founded on Haeckel's observations or theories. Haeckel's work was discredited in the 19 th century, and has not been relevant to biology since the rediscovery of Mendel's laws of genetics. That the biogenetic law is false has been the consensus of biologists for over 100 years, and developmental biologists have been working constructively to provide alternative explanations, which have so far all been evolutionary in nature.

The similarities between vertebrate embryos are real. We must distinguish between observations of those similarities and hypotheses about their causes. The similarities are not in doubt; there are worthwhile studies of the degree and timing of the similarities, but none that question their overall existence. What Wells has described is one hypothesis about the cause, Haeckel's biogenetic law, which failed early and spectacularly. He has not addressed any modern hypotheses, nor has he provided a better alternative.

Evidence for common descent lies in the unity of form and process. We do not use Haeckel's outmoded, invalid mechanism to argue for evolution. Instead, we look at the marvelous convergence of disparate organisms on common principles: all animals use the same genes to define regions of their bodies, all vertebrates build their faces by unlikely rearrangements of odd pharyngeal protrusions, and even tailless mammals like us have to start with tailed embryos. The best explanation for these phenomena is that they are a consequence of a common heritage.

89 sngnsgt  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:56:10pm

re: #84 brandon13

Really? I think their morning show is the worst of all the MSM morning shows.

At least they report the morning news without the usual MSM liberal bias.

90 Pawn of the Oppressor  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:56:41pm

We'll know Fox has totally gone over to the Paleocon side when they turn on the Jews. I'd keep an eye out for that, not because I'm worried, but because it would make for an interesting study in the meltdown of the GOP and their network of choice.

91 The Shadow Do  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:58:15pm

because I don't know a darn thing about television news/opinion broadcasting, I have to wonder how this kind of thing comes about.

I am going to assume that an interview like this tacitly recognizes a controversy and that someone initiated it. The interviewer, or more likely some producer?
Regardless, the interviewer should become conversant with the subject, no?
Is the presentation just lame, the opinion of the producer, the ignorance of the interviewer, or just what?
Or is there an overarching agenda, and if so what the heck is it? Political or controversy for controversy sake (ratings)? Or is this just lame fill of air time? Impossible for a layman to tell, though the end result sucks.

92 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, May 7, 2009 8:59:26pm

re: #90 Pawn of the Oppressor

We'll know Fox has totally gone over to the Paleocon side when they turn on the Jews. I'd keep an eye out for that, not because I'm worried, but because it would make for an interesting study in the meltdown of the GOP and their network of choice.

Well, they have Buchanan and Ron Paul on.

93 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:01:31pm

Watch -- now that I linked PZ Myers' post above, the creationists will come out of the woodwork screaming about his atheistic views, to try to divert the attention away from Luskin's lies.

94 Pawn of the Oppressor  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:01:31pm

re: #92 Kosh's Shadow

Well, they have Buchanan and Ron Paul on.

I mean "openly". Maybe when they start talking about "The Israel Lobby" and how they're "influencing" foreign policy at the highest levels of government, et cetera.

95 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:01:33pm

re: #91 The Shadow Do

because I don't know a darn thing about television news/opinion broadcasting, I have to wonder how this kind of thing comes about.

I am going to assume that an interview like this tacitly recognizes a controversy and that someone initiated it. The interviewer, or more likely some producer?
Regardless, the interviewer should become conversant with the subject, no?
Is the presentation just lame, the opinion of the producer, the ignorance of the interviewer, or just what?
Or is there an overarching agenda, and if so what the heck is it? Political or controversy for controversy sake (ratings)? Or is this just lame fill of air time? Impossible for a layman to tell, though the end result sucks.

Watch the movie Network and you will get a very accurate picture of how media and news is done. It was considered pointed satire and over-the-top parody when it was released in 1979, but now is widely regarded as being highly prophetic for how things really operate.

96 pingjockey  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:02:35pm

re: #92 Kosh's Shadow

PMSNBC has Buchanan on almost every day of Joe Scarboroughs show.

97 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:02:44pm

re: #93 Charles

Watch -- now that I linked PZ Myers' post above, the creationists will come out of the woodwork screaming about his atheistic views, to try to divert the attention away from Luskin's lies.

Let 'em come, I say, Stinky'll squash 'em.

98 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:03:10pm

In this video, Casey Luskin displays a high "blink per second" rate, and is regularly and quite quickly shifting his eyes to his right and back to center again.

Not exactly indicators of a person who is being honest.

99 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:03:10pm

re: #94 Pawn of the Oppressor

I mean "openly". Maybe when they start talking about "The Israel Lobby" and how they're "influencing" foreign policy at the highest levels of government, et cetera.

I know; I was pointing out how far they are on that road.
And the Democrats aren't so great towards Jews either, unless they're the kind who worship liberalism more than G-d.

100 SasquatchOnSteroids  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:04:25pm

re: #87 Racer X

So is this what we've come to? Can't get people to organize around the crisis of impoverished schools or our well funded, for-profit, out-of-control prison industrial complex, for example; but deprive people of their free two piece, or just delay it for a day, and all hell breaks loose.

Impoverished schools ?
Prisons make money ?

Can't even stop spewing on an outrage over chicken story.

KFC biscuits are legal tender in my house, BTW.

101 [deleted]  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:04:27pm
102 cronus  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:07:04pm

re: #93 Charles

Watch -- now that I linked PZ Myers' post above, the creationists will come out of the woodwork screaming about his atheistic views, to try to divert the attention away from Luskin's lies.

PZ will have quite a surprise when he views his referral stats in the morning.

103 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:09:46pm

re: #3 FurryOldGuyJeans

Et tu, Fox?

I was thinking the same thing, but really, they're no less biased than any other MSM source. Their bias simply tacks in a different direction.

104 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:12:14pm

re: #103 Slumbering Behemoth

I was thinking the same thing, but really, they're no less biased than any other MSM source. Their bias simply tacks in a different direction.

Correct. It's amazing how people think that their talking heads are so much better or different than on the "other networks." Steve Doocy for example came over to Faux News after a stint with NBC and CBS. If he got a better offer from MSNBC he would take if in a heartbeat.

105 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:12:46pm

re: #103 Slumbering Behemoth

I was thinking the same thing, but really, they're no less biased than any other MSM source. Their bias simply tacks in a different direction.

The FMSM outlets other than FNC have been staunchly resistant to change regarding their Liberal/Democrat bias. FNC is changing direction and sailing into the winds of craziness, kookery, and morons.

106 BatGuano  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:15:05pm

Isn't PZ Meyers making the point Luskin made? (this is a review of a book I haven't read).

"In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory."

107 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:17:30pm

re: #106 BatGuano

Isn't PZ Meyers making the point Luskin made? (this is a review of a book I haven't read).

"In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory."

Negative

Conclusion

Jonathan Wells would like to discredit evolution, and in Haeckel's embryos, he has found a story to his liking. There is a bit of intentional fakery to it, there is a clear affiliation with Darwin himself, and there is a long history of recognition of Haeckel's influence intermingled with unambiguous repudiation of his ideas. All he has to do is try to entangle Haeckel's discredited theories and poor modern reputation with the set of valid observations and modern explanations, and he can bury the truth under innuendo and association. However, we just have to remember three things:

Evolutionary theory is not founded on Haeckel's observations or theories. Haeckel's work was discredited in the 19 th century, and has not been relevant to biology since the rediscovery of Mendel's laws of genetics. That the biogenetic law is false has been the consensus of biologists for over 100 years, and developmental biologists have been working constructively to provide alternative explanations, which have so far all been evolutionary in nature.

The similarities between vertebrate embryos are real. We must distinguish between observations of those similarities and hypotheses about their causes. The similarities are not in doubt; there are worthwhile studies of the degree and timing of the similarities, but none that question their overall existence. What Wells has described is one hypothesis about the cause, Haeckel's biogenetic law, which failed early and spectacularly. He has not addressed any modern hypotheses, nor has he provided a better alternative.

Evidence for common descent lies in the unity of form and process. We do not use Haeckel's outmoded, invalid mechanism to argue for evolution. Instead, we look at the marvelous convergence of disparate organisms on common principles: all animals use the same genes to define regions of their bodies, all vertebrates build their faces by unlikely rearrangements of odd pharyngeal protrusions, and even tailless mammals like us have to start with tailed embryos. The best explanation for these phenomena is that they are a consequence of a common heritage.

108 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:21:12pm

Hey y'all - I've always thought that of all the talking heads at Fox Steve Doucy is the lamest. Well, ok, maybe it's a tie between him and that guy Brain Kilmeade(?) on Fox and Friends.
And frankly I think expecting Steve Doucy to ask an honest or hard hitting question of anyone is a bit much.
I know Charles - I think - or others here have said this is all pre-programmed: some producer contacts this guy Casey Luskin because someone at Fox has heard about the evolution/creationism/ID flap down in Texas and they contact the Disco Institute and the DI recommends Luskin as a good person to talk to about it. And, as has become typical of Fox (see, e.g., O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck et.al.) NO ONE researches the issue at all they just say well let's get Casey Luskin on and here what he has to say and hey, we're paying Doucy anyway, let him interview him. And Doucy, being Doucy, probably can't even spell research or be bothered doing any himself.
I rather strongly suspect that if Chris Wallace was doing the interview, it would have been radically diffierent both in approach and in results.
This of course doesn't exonerate Fox or Doucy, it's merely an observation that Fox is just like the rest of the MSM - go for whatever may be a hot topic, thow up a trial balloon (Doucy) and see what happens.
And as much as I respect Charles and understand his anger at this bullshit perpetrated by both Fox and Casey Luskin/the Disco Insitutue, I think someone who knows someone who is articulate on this matter, write to Fox and say hey Doucy's "interview" was just a prepaid ad for a discredited group of poeple and y'all ought to contact Mr/Ms XXXX and interview HIM (or HER) about what's really going on cause you guys got suckered by Luskin and the Disco Insitute.

109 Altermite  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:21:16pm

...

Screw this. If America has gotten worse by the time I finish grad school, I'm going to find a nice little research station somewhere else (maybe australia?) and study fungi.

110 BatGuano  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:23:09pm

re: #107 Gus 802

Thank you, I read your post earlier.

111 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:24:10pm

re: #108 realwest

I think someone who knows someone who is articulate on this matter, write to Fox and say hey Doucy's "interview" was just a prepaid ad for a discredited group of poeple and y'all ought to contact Mr/Ms XXXX and interview HIM (or HER) about what's really going on cause you guys got suckered by Luskin and the Disco Insitute.

They didn't get suckered at all. This was quite deliberate on Fox News' part; they were also one of the main promoters of Ben Stein's "Expelled" movie. I have never seen an honest presentation of the issues around creationism vs. evolution on Fox, but I've seen dozens of shows that promote creationism.

(And this was the worst yet.)

112 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:25:05pm

re: #108 realwest

The worst of Doocy's performance is that he seemingly cooperated with Luskin in perpetrating the propaganda. In my opinion Doocy no doubt prepared for this and is line with the DI.

113 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:25:53pm

re: #101 buzzsawmonkey
Hey buzz

What bothers the creationists, though, is not that science gets things "wrong," i.e., does not know everything. It is that science gets so many things right. It is verifiable scientific knowledge that upsets those who wish to denigrate it, because the very fact that it is verifiable is what they feel threatens the creationist worldview, and it is the fact that it is verifiable that must be obscured and combated.

wish I could give ya a hundred updings on that. But as I said in #108, Fox is at least as stupid as CNN or MSNBC and needs to be smacked with a cluebat if they seriously give a damn about ID/creationism.

114 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:27:17pm

re: #110 BatGuano

Thank you, I read your post earlier.

YW It's the conclusion from the text.

They're using old talking points from the young earth creationists.

115 SummerSong  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:27:25pm

Steve Doucy comes off as a failed actor, to me.

116 clgood  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:28:19pm

My own fisking of the video posted here.

As for being through with Fox News, I've been through with all TV news for at least a decade.

117 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:28:22pm

re: #2 brandon13

Just posted this in another thread.

Young Americans Are Far Less Religious Than Their Parents

Just goes to show that the Republican party is going to have to distance itself from the religious faction if it's going to be relevant in the future.

Not so much that they need to distance themselves from religious people; more that they need shun the kooks and nuts that peddle nonsense to credulous people of faith.

118 BatGuano  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:30:00pm

re: #114 Gus 802

Yes, I know. I read Meyer's piece last year or thereabouts.

119 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:30:56pm

re: #111 Charles
Charles, have you ever seen an honest presentation of the issues around creationism vs. evolution on any other MSM Network ? If you say they promoted "Expelled" I'll take your word for it, my problem being that the only time I watch any news outlet is Fox and Friends when Mom and I are eating breakfast - and that's only cause I'm not fit to talk with before breakfast and a cuppa coffee.
And I STILL think someone - maybe you, Charles, should write to Fox and suggest that they inteview someone you know who would be a credible and presentable person on the correct side of this issue.

120 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:32:38pm

re: #112 Gus 802

The worst of Doocy's performance is that he seemingly cooperated with Luskin in perpetrating the propaganda. In my opinion Doocy no doubt prepared for this and is line with the DI.

I agree. He was prepared for this show, all right -- prepared to promote Casey Luskin.

121 Mich-again  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:32:52pm

Thanks Charles for leading the charge here. Odd how Fox News and so many of its celebrity talking heads beat on the US education system like it was a pinata for being a failure and then Fox goes and broadcast crapola like this.

122 [deleted]  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:33:01pm
123 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:34:18pm

re: #118 BatGuano

Yes, I know. I read Meyer's piece last year or thereabouts.

OK

I'm wondering if and where Haeckel's embryos show up in modern textbooks. The main theme of this interview seemed to be that the whole effort by creationists is to correct the record on that end. I find it hard to believe that Doocy would see Luskin as a means of correcting the record of evolution science.

I can see it now. If a schools district need some science books corrected:

"We're from the Discovery Institute, and we're here to help."

Not likely.

124 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:34:31pm

re: #116 clgood

My own fisking of the video posted here.

As for being through with Fox News, I've been through with all TV news for at least a decade.

Good one. I linked to your post above.

125 aRedPhishHead  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:34:38pm

Mmmmmm yeah...there's the sweet, sweet ID-craziness I love so well.

126 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:35:48pm

re: #120 Charles

I agree. He was prepared for this show, all right -- prepared to promote Casey Luskin.

There's no doubt in my mind. I already mentioned the graphics. He was not only prepared but he was in agreement to the fraud.

127 dwells38  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:35:49pm

re: #28 Sharmuta

Why does fox news hate accuracy?

Thing is I go out to their website all the time and the science news is good stuff and I've never seen any creationism crap there. I quick check now shows the hottest news in biology as expected: Strange 'Hobbit' Feet May Change Human Prehistory.

Doucy's the morning jokester weather guy too and the segment seemed rushed. I thought I heard the creationism guy at one point say they don't want creationism taught but they just want accuracy. Since Haeckel's was a Lamarckian I don't find a problem with them not wanting the drawings but I agree with Charles given this guy is a pro-creationist in his real life his objections to the drawings are pretty rich.

Hopefully they'll get enough hate mail that maybe they'll give someone with credibilty some equal or greater time. They do get the most viewers so that's more scientists too hopefully. Or maybe CNN will see an oppurtinity to jump on this making Fox look like asses for this and MSNBC look like asses for that Chris Matthews/Tancredo mess the other night.

128 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:35:50pm

re: #112 Gus 802 Hi Gus - I don't know what Doucy's take on ID/crationism is and when I watched the clip Charles so kindly provided, it sure SOUNDED to me as if Doucy - not the brightest soul around - simply read from a scrpt or said what someone told him to say.
An issue like this and an interview with Luskin deserved to have Chris Matthews on it - even though there are a lot of things I don't like about Wallace, I won't accuse him of not doing research on a topic before he interviews someone about it.

129 aRedPhishHead  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:37:58pm

OT:

BTW, Charles, I've modeled a long series of music posts inspired by your exquisite jazz and fusion and guitar-awesomeness posts here at LGF for the Jawa Report.

If you get a minute or nine, check out the latest installment, complete with Trey Anastasio wrecking house with his crew in 1996:

It's Ice!

130 [deleted]  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:41:42pm
131 Rich H  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:42:38pm

Conservative Christians have a moral blind spot. Equating moral absolutism with scriptural literalism is the same mistake that Islamic and Jewish fundamentalists make. If you read scripture literally, then you must adopt an absolute unconditional faith and obedience to religious authority.

But scripture records numerous stories in which the scriptural authority contradicts universal moral principals.

For example scripture forbids the taking of an innocent human life. Yet Abraham was instructed by God (and was willing to obey) a command to commit murder of his son.

If morality is universal and eternal, then Murder is always and everywhere wrong. Yet Abraham was given a pass for placing blind obedience (committing murder) above making the morally correct choice (moral rejection of authority).

This is a lesson that conservative Christians must learn. The Jihadists are doing the same thing thing that the conservative Christians are doing - placing blind obedience to authority above universal principles of morality.

132 dwells38  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:42:38pm

re: #128 realwest

Hi Gus - I don't know what Doucy's take on ID/crationism is and when I watched the clip Charles so kindly provided, it sure SOUNDED to me as if Doucy - not the brightest soul around - simply read from a scrpt or said what someone told him to say.
An issue like this and an interview with Luskin deserved to have Chris Matthews on it - even though there are a lot of things I don't like about Wallace, I won't accuse him of not doing research on a topic before he interviews someone about it.

Yeah I agree with that RW. Doucy's too lightweight for this. He's just a big goofy jokester. With it being a hot topic now I'd like to see them address it on the Sunday morning show with Chris Wallace who I would expect to do a professional job of it.

133 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:44:24pm

re: #116 clgood
clgood - your blog starts off with this

This is a sickeningly shameful performance by Fox News (which has apparently just come completely off the rails lately) wherein some idiot reporter who obviously has no idea what he’s talking about (which describes nearly all reporters) interviewing a smug liar. Casey Luskin is lying through his teeth here, and he knows it. Let’s see if we can count the lies.

[emphasis realwest] is better written than what I said in my #108, but neglects to mention Charles admonisment to me at #111 - which rather clearlys says Doucy knew full well what he was doing and that is furthering Fox's agenda to promote the Disco Institute and their bullshit. If you read Charles #111, y'all might be able to update or edit your blog to take that into account.

134 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:44:55pm

re: #128 realwest

Hi Gus - I don't know what Doucy's take on ID/crationism is and when I watched the clip Charles so kindly provided, it sure SOUNDED to me as if Doucy - not the brightest soul around - simply read from a scrpt or said what someone told him to say.
An issue like this and an interview with Luskin deserved to have Chris Matthews on it - even though there are a lot of things I don't like about Wallace, I won't accuse him of not doing research on a topic before he interviews someone about it.

Doocy says as part of his introduction:

The fight over how to teach the subject, evolution, should have been over, but some textbooks, are still getting it wrong.

The he proceeds to introduce Luskin from the Discovery Institute to bring up an old argument about Haeckel's embryos in textbooks.

He later answers to Luskin, "Right,exactly."

This should have been argued by a scientific expert not a hack such as Luskin.

Doocy was part of the deal.

135 MandyManners  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:45:08pm

re: #130 Miss Molly

Oh not again! When will this argument over evolution vs creation vanish into outer space never to be heard from again?

When you get your own blog and post what you want on it?

136 Jim D  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:47:18pm

re: #130 Miss Molly

That's an easy one. It will all go away as soon as creationists stop trying to subvert the US Constitution by using public schools to indoctrinate our children.

137 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:47:45pm

re: #128 realwest
PINMF! Chris Wallace, not Matthews.

138 clgood  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:48:10pm

re: #133 realwest

Thanks for the kind note. I think I'll stick with my wording because, while I'm sure he was doing what he did deliberately, he could only do it because he's clueless. I've had a nonzero amount of experience with the press and have learned not to ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. And incompetence is a prerequisite at journalism school. The IDiot, on the other hand, not only has intention but obviously has to know that he's lying.

139 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:49:35pm

re: #132 dwells38
Thanks for that.

140 BatGuano  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:51:42pm

re: #123 Gus 802

Steve doucy is a light weight morning show host. He has as much credibility and knowledge as a Katie Couric. My post was limited to what Luskin said in the interview about Haeckel and what Meyer's wrote on the same scientist.
I'm backing out now.
:)

141 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:52:51pm

re: #140 BatGuano

Steve doucy is a light weight morning show host. He has as much credibility and knowledge as a Katie Couric. My post was limited to what Luskin said in the interview about Haeckel and what Meyer's wrote on the same scientist.
I'm backing out now.
:)

I know. I was just shooting the breeze since it seemed like no one was saying anything for a while there.
:)

142 Sharmuta  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:53:00pm

re: #127 dwells38

That entire segment was BS, and I highly doubt they'll get hate mail over it.

143 BignJames  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:53:32pm

And I always thought Kilmeade was the lightweight of that trio.

144 Sharmuta  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:53:34pm

re: #132 dwells38

Yeah I agree with that RW. Doucy's too lightweight for this. He's just a big goofy jokester. With it being a hot topic now I'd like to see them address it on the Sunday morning show with Chris Wallace who I would expect to do a professional job of it.

That doesn't make it okay.

145 countrygurl  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:54:14pm

from the post by Charles, front page

By the way, yes ... I know that when I post articles about evolution, Google’s AdSense serves up a host of creationist advertisements. It’s because those ads are context-based; they’re automatically matched to keywords found in the page’s content.


I noticed the muslima.com site doesn't show up any more. I guess they figured out how to block it from showing up here. Or did you do that? I found that site mildly interesting.... the women were pretty but the dudes, man, they were scary and lots of the OLD DUDES were advertising for very young chicks. It kinda' turned my stomach, but like driving by a car accident, it's hard not to look!

146 Sharmuta  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:54:34pm

Doocey's not idiot. He had the talking points down pat. He totally set up Luskin- what a complete puffball interview. Disgusting.

147 BignJames  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:55:49pm

re: #146 Sharmuta

Doocey's not idiot. He had the talking points down pat. He totally set up Luskin- what a complete puffball interview. Disgusting.


Scripted.

148 CapeCoddah  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:57:01pm

Hey all, quiet in here!
For your entertainment, Howie Carr has written a great column for tomorrow morning's Boston Herald. One of his best subjects, Senator John Kerry.
It is pretty funny.

149 CapeCoddah  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:57:23pm

sorry, late here...link
[Link: www.bostonherald.com...]

150 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:58:17pm

re: #134 Gus 802
Gus, do you really think Steve Doucy wasn't reading from a script when he said "The fight over how to teach the subject, evolution, should have been over, but some textbooks, are still getting it wrong." I mean seriously, Doucy is one of the more embarrassing airheads on TV - or is worse than any I remember and I doubt if he even understood that sentence and he was obviously prepped to say "Right, exactly" - Charles has said that Fox promotes ID/creationism and so it wouldn't surprise me that someone scripted ever fucking word Doucy said.
And since Fox takes the ID position, and Fox pays Doucy's salary (although I don't know why; maybe he works for minimum wage or something) you couldn't really tell whether Doucy himself believes this crap or was reading from the script.

151 dwells38  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:59:09pm

re: #148 CapeCoddah

Hey all, quiet in here!
blockquote>

Nobody here but us chicken embryos!

152 CapeCoddah  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:59:11pm

re: #146 Sharmuta

Doocey's not idiot. He had the talking points down pat. He totally set up Luskin- what a complete puffball interview. Disgusting.

Charles made a great point, though, they should have had a crack evolutionary scientist on hand to rebut that fool.

153 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, May 7, 2009 9:59:24pm

Anyone who has been following this issue knows that around about this point in the thread is when we can expect to see plaintive posts that say, in effect, "Why are you bashing Christians?" The IDers like to peddle the idea that they speak for all Christians, and that anyone who accepts evolution is not a Christian.

It's high time that the scientific community puts out some feelers to influential and prominent Christians, and Jews, and Muslims, and try to get some bold statements made. I'd like to see the Pope sit down with, say, Billy Graham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church, and a couple of respected Rabbis and Imams, and have them issue a joint statement: "Evolution is a fact. We regard it as one of the tools that God used to create the world. Those that refuse to accept the fact of evolution are in fact being taken in by agents of Satan. Full stop."

154 Sharmuta  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:00:30pm

re: #152 CapeCoddah

Charles made a great point, though, they should have had a crack evolutionary scientist on hand to rebut that fool.

And that they didn't tells me they're more interested in pushing an agenda than reporting facts.

155 dwells38  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:01:00pm

re: #151 dwells38

Sorry I messed that up and made it look like you said what I said.

Oh well. Time for bed. G'nite

156 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:01:54pm

re: #150 realwest

Gus, do you really think Steve Doucy wasn't reading from a script when he said "The fight over how to teach the subject, evolution, should have been over, but some textbooks, are still getting it wrong." I mean seriously, Doucy is one of the more embarrassing airheads on TV - or is worse than any I remember and I doubt if he even understood that sentence and he was obviously prepped to say "Right, exactly" - Charles has said that Fox promotes ID/creationism and so it wouldn't surprise me that someone scripted ever fucking word Doucy said.
And since Fox takes the ID position, and Fox pays Doucy's salary (although I don't know why; maybe he works for minimum wage or something) you couldn't really tell whether Doucy himself believes this crap or was reading from the script.

Perhaps I'm in a take no prisoners mode with Doocy. I don't know. There's a background here with Fox and Friends and Doocy which leads me to believe that it's more than just a cold read. Doocy is fully capable of improvising the script and I have seen it done before. If it was just Doocy reading the script it was poor journalism at the very least.

157 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:03:34pm

re: #153 Alberta Oil Peon

It's high time that the scientific community puts out some feelers to influential and prominent Christians, and Jews, and Muslims, and try to get some bold statements made. I'd like to see the Pope sit down with, say, Billy Graham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church, and a couple of respected Rabbis and Imams, and have them issue a joint statement: "Evolution is a fact. We regard it as one of the tools that God used to create the world. Those that refuse to accept the fact of evolution are in fact being taken in by agents of Satan. Full stop."

It's being done already:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Unfortunately, it seems to have no effect at all.

158 clgood  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:03:49pm

re: #153 Alberta Oil Peon

It's high time that the scientific community puts out some feelers to influential and prominent Christians, and Jews, and Muslims, and try to get some bold statements made.

You mean like this one, who testified in Kitzmiller?

159 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:04:35pm

re: #140 BatGuano
Steve doucy is a light weight morning show- CO*- host. He has as much even less credibility and knowledge as a Katie Couric."
TFTFY

*Co Host because he's such a lightweight that even with telepompters and his stupid Tweeters, he couldn't carry hosting duties on his own. Hell he can't even do the weather on his own.

160 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:05:41pm

re: #156 Gus 802

Perhaps I'm in a take no prisoners mode with Doocy. I don't know. There's a background here with Fox and Friends and Doocy which leads me to believe that it's more than just a cold read. Doocy is fully capable of improvising the script and I have seen it done before. If it was just Doocy reading the script it was poor journalism at the very least.

It was a complete set-up. The show even started with a custom graphic titled "The Trouble with Textbooks," to promote Luskin.

161 [deleted]  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:06:29pm
162 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:07:25pm

re: #160 Charles

It was a complete set-up. The show even started with a custom graphic titled "The Trouble with Textbooks," to promote Luskin.

Yep. Plus he had to coordinate his words and the whole segment with the graphics insert.

163 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:08:39pm

re: #143 BignJames
It's really too close to call, but the woman who sits between them (can't remeber her name) is either one of the sharpest knives in the drawer on TV News or merely appears that way contrasted with Doucy and Killmeade.
I still don't know why Fox hire either of them except that maybe they work for minimum wage.

164 CapeCoddah  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:09:55pm

I gotta disagree with you about Doucy, he is an idiot. I don't know if those 3 are considered or consider themselves journalists or talk show hosts, but, it seems to me that they should be insisting on having both sides present, it is, after all, they who are spouting the "fair and balanced" motto ad nauseam. It is his/ their reputation that takes a well deserved hit because they did NOT insist on what they preach. (absolutely no pun intended!)
I think he is an idiot.

165 BignJames  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:10:32pm

re: #163 realwest


And they're the old hands of the show.

166 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:10:35pm

re: #144 Sharmuta
Uh Sharm, neither dwells38 NOR I said it did make it alright. Nor is there any implication or an inference that can be drawn that either of us DID think it was right.

167 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:10:45pm

re: #116 clgood

Excellent fisking.

Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism in drag.

Damn near spit beer over that one.

168 clgood  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:11:48pm

re: #167 Slumbering Behemoth

I assume no responsibility for beer-soaked keyboards.

169 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:12:07pm

re: #157 Charles

It's being done already:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Unfortunately, it seems to have no effect at all.

Perhaps because it's being done piecemeal? If you could get the leaders of the Roman Catholic, mainstream Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, plus influential Jewish and Muslim religious authorities to jointly issue such a statement, perhaps the world at large might get clue that I.D./Young Earth Creationism belongs in the realm of marginal cults.

Think of such a joint statement as a form of clue-bat.

170 clgood  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:13:51pm

re: #169 Alberta Oil Peon

If you could get the leaders of the Roman Catholic, mainstream Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, plus influential Jewish and Muslim religious authorities to jointly issue such a statement...

Sure. While I get all the world's great religions to agree on something and hold a press conference together, would you mind tending to my herd of cats?

171 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:14:02pm

re: #160 Charles

It was a complete set-up. The show even started with a custom graphic titled "The Trouble with Textbooks," to promote Luskin.

Come to think of it Doocy was a complete suck up to Luskin. If he had one iota of scientific thinking in him he would have asked a challenging question.

172 MandyManners  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:15:35pm

Doesn't Fox do a routine piece on text books weekly?

173 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:16:35pm

re: #156 Gus 802
Well you obviously think more highly of Doucy than do I when you say "Doocy is fully capable of improvising the script and I have seen it done before. If it was just Doocy reading the script it was poor journalism at the very least."
Do y'all remember where you've seen Doucy do it before? And I've BEEN SAYING that it's pour journalism since my first post. I don't think anyone at Fox news does any real research or has a handle on any topic that they cover.

174 BignJames  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:17:28pm

re: #172 MandyManners

Doesn't Fox do a routine piece on text books weekly?

Dunno....might be helpful if they actually read a few.

175 clgood  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:18:31pm

re: #172 MandyManners

Doesn't Fox do a routine piece on text books weekly?

Apparently.

176 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:18:56pm

re: #170 clgood

Sure. While I get all the world's great religions to agree on something and hold a press conference together, would you mind tending to my herd of cats?

Heh. But seriously, ecumenism is one of the goals toward which religious leaders, at least the responsible ones, are working. It wouldn't "cost" them very much to make a joint statement on something of this nature, which most of them tacitly accept, anyway. I'm not sure if there are any influential Muslim thinkers who accept evolution, but chances are you could dredge one up.

Thing is none of them would have to give away the farm to make a joint statement on this topic, and they could all have warm fuzzies for being seen to publicly agree on it.

177 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:19:36pm
53.7%


Ron Paul!

178 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:21:05pm

re: #173 realwest

OK

179 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:21:45pm

re: #160 Charles
Uh, I think you and Gus are in some disagreement here - Gus says Doucy's fully capable of doing it all on an improvised basis and you're saying it was a set up from the jump.
Can't really be both - you obviously keep much closer tabs on Fox News than do I and I respect you and agree with you that they promote ID/creationism simply because you're an honest guy whom I respect. But if I were Fox, I sure as hell woulnd't let a true airhead like Doucy carry Fox's water on this without telling him what to say.

180 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:21:48pm

re: #174 BignJames

Dunno....might be helpful if they actually read a few.

It would help if they wanted to do a story. That segment was little more than a feelings validation piece for creationists, no better than when MSNBC does a GOP-bashing story of poor quality to feed its base. Its pandering, pure and simple, and I hate it.

181 MandyManners  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:22:21pm

Mr. Sandman is calling.

182 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:22:57pm

re: #179 realwest

Uh, I think you and Gus are in some disagreement here - Gus says Doucy's fully capable of doing it all on an improvised basis and you're saying it was a set up from the jump.
Can't really be both - you obviously keep much closer tabs on Fox News than do I and I respect you and agree with you that they promote ID/creationism simply because you're an honest guy whom I respect. But if I were Fox, I sure as hell woulnd't let a true airhead like Doucy carry Fox's water on this without telling him what to say.

I'm just exploring the possibilities but sticking with Doocy being in agreement with Luskin. Maybe I'm wrong but Doocy is in the Knights of Columbus and also a lector.

183 NY Nana  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:23:31pm

OT:

Busy day! I am off to sleep. My kids play the very worst game of telephone of anyone on the planet, and today's goings on would make a great TV comedy series! Hmmm, I am thinking....

G'nite, all, and sweet dreams!

184 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:23:57pm

re: #164 CapeCoddah
Who are you disagreeing with? Did someone out here say Doucy has any brains, much less the ability to be a journalist?

185 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:25:43pm

re: #181 MandyManners

Mr. Sandman is calling.

I thought he got banned?

///

186 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:27:53pm

re: #182 Gus 802
Sigh. I mean no disrespect to the Knights of Columbus when I say the Doucy's being a member means he has a lot of grey matter between his ears. And you said "Knights of Columbus and also a lector." and I apologize Gus, but what is a "lector"?

187 lostlakehiker  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:29:24pm

re: #101 buzzsawmonkey

I have said it before, will not doubt say it again: Science has not only the right, but the duty, to be wrong. Human inquiry is something which occurs in increments, and there are false starts and errors all along the way. New information constantly changes the way we understand the old--and there is always new information. That means that science will always be wrong--and always be right, too, but just a little less right than wrong. Why a little less right than wrong? Because knowledge is never complete, so that however right scientific findings are, there is always something unknown which exists beyond the known, so there will always be more "wrong" to investigate and comprehend no matter how much science gets things right.

What bothers the creationists, though, is not that science gets things "wrong," i.e., does not know everything. It is that science gets so many things right. It is verifiable scientific knowledge that upsets those who wish to denigrate it, because the very fact that it is verifiable is what they feel threatens the creationist worldview, and it is the fact that it is verifiable that must be obscured and combated.

How about this: it isn't so much what science has got right, far less what it's got wrong. It's the way science goes about determining what it will accept and, even more important, what it won't.

Once a child gets the notion that something has to have a reason and some evidence before it counts as fact, there's no telling what they'll question.

188 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:30:11pm

re: #186 realwest
PIMF: I say that Doucy's being a member doesn't mean he has a lot of grey matter between his ears.

189 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:31:43pm

re: #182 Gus 802

I'm just exploring the possibilities but sticking with Doocy being in agreement with Luskin. Maybe I'm wrong but Doocy is in the Knights of Columbus and also a lector.

If Doocy is in the K of C, which is a Catholic lay order, as I understand it, does it not put him at odds with the Pope to be supporting I.D?

190 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:31:53pm

re: #186 realwest

Sigh. I mean no disrespect to the Knights of Columbus when I say the Doucy's being a member means he has a lot of grey matter between his ears. And you said "Knights of Columbus and also a lector." and I apologize Gus, but what is a "lector"?

I don't mean any disrespect either. Just thinking about possible associations. I just saw a video of his from his time at a local station in 1988 and he was quite the mimbo. Lector would be defined here which in this case would be Ecclesiastical Lector. I am in no way criticizing those positions or associations just sizing things up.

191 realwest  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:32:02pm

Well y'all I gotta go to bed now, hope you all have a great evening/early morning and that I get the chance to see you all down the road.

Good Night, all.

192 capitalist piglet  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:32:04pm

re: #186 realwest

Sigh. I mean no disrespect to the Knights of Columbus when I say the Doucy's being a member means he has a lot of grey matter between his ears. And you said "Knights of Columbus and also a lector." and I apologize Gus, but what is a "lector"?

I think it's someone who reads to the congregation during Catholic mass...but there are surely Catholics here who can confirm or correct.

193 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:32:38pm

re: #189 Alberta Oil Peon

If Doocy is in the K of C, which is a Catholic lay order, as I understand it, does it not put him at odds with the Pope to be supporting I.D?

Yeah, I guess so. OK, I'm dropping that angle. I don't want to start a skirmish here. ;)

194 [deleted]  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:33:54pm
195 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:45:44pm

Things seem to be winding down, so I'm signing off for the night.

196 Gus  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:46:07pm

re: #195 Dark_Falcon

Things seem to be winding down, so I'm signing off for the night.

Have a good one.

197 BatGuano  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:48:58pm

re: #196 Gus 802

G' night Gus.

198 Pvt Bin Jammin  Thu, May 7, 2009 10:57:06pm

Shhhh, don't tell Charles but I think the little hamsters are moonlighting. ;-)

Youtube Video
199 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, May 7, 2009 11:09:15pm

I only have one quibble with Charles...

Not shame on Fox for showing this without a credible scientist to refute the lies...

Rather, shame on Fox for showing this garbage at all.

One does have to ask though, if Fox is now going to be the channel that totally sucks up to the religious right, how is Fox going to keep showing the most salacious and trashy programming on the air?

200 Pvt Bin Jammin  Thu, May 7, 2009 11:19:13pm

Tap, tap, tap.....testing, testing 123

201 SpaceJesus  Thu, May 7, 2009 11:20:05pm

re: #199 LudwigVanQuixote


One does have to ask though, if Fox is now going to be the channel that totally sucks up to the religious right, how is Fox going to keep showing the most salacious and trashy programming on the air?


um because the religious right is pretty hypocritical?

202 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 7, 2009 11:20:48pm

Hi PBJ, it's working, but the moonbats have taken over the media!

203 Pvt Bin Jammin  Thu, May 7, 2009 11:21:36pm

re: #202 Floral Giraffe

Hi PBJ, it's working, but the moonbats have taken over the media!

Apparently so, LOL

204 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 7, 2009 11:21:55pm

Is there any way for the US to regain or re-create an independant media?

205 Salamantis  Thu, May 7, 2009 11:30:13pm

re: #194 buzzsawmonkey

BTW--in case you have any lingering doubt that #161 refers to you, consider this; the story of the Akeidah (the Binding of Isaac) is considered by anyone who knows anything about the Bible to be a story which states that human sacrifice--a common practice in the ancient world--is not acceptable as an act of worship to G-d.

In other words, your supposed moral pronouncement is fatuous wind that reveals you are too f*cking ignorant of what the Bible says and how what it says is understood to be able to make any pronouncement on it whatsoever.

Pointing out that science and religion deal with different areas of knowledge, and different parts of the human makeup, is one thing. But moronic utterances about a document of which you clearly have less knowledge than a creationist has of Darwin is something else again.

In addition, both the simplistic moral equivalence of your post--in its facile equations of "blind obedience"--and its appeal to a "universal morality" without displaying the slightest consciousness that what you believe to be "universal morality" is actually Biblically-based, shows that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

And where did the Bible get its morality? The same place that other religious scriptures did; from the mores and folkways of the societies and cultures in which the religions arose and the scriptures were written - or else they were appropriated by the scripture writers from prior religions that got them from such societies and cultures. And most probably both (check out the Babylonian Code of Hamurabi, among many other ancient documents, as precursors and inspirations for the Ten Commandments, for instance).

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

That's why there are some differences between the different religiously based moralities; they emerged from different cultures. But it is also why the majority of their ethical systems agree; because although their roots are in different cultures, they are all rooted in human cultures, where self-consciously aware and spatiotemporaly finite beings strive to solve the problem of how to maximize their collective ability to congenially share limited space and resources with others while still preserving the greatest possible capacity for individual freedom, prosperity and security. This is why prohibitions against murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, enslavement, and lying, at least against other members of one's own tribe, are damn near universal across the various sets of moral precepts of sundry religious traditions.

206 freetoken  Thu, May 7, 2009 11:48:09pm

Did anyone actually go to the "foxandfriends.com" website to look for textbook info?

Guess what - all it is ... is an email and address mining outfit - you are supposed to enter a sweepstakes!

When done, you just get sent back to the Fox.com site.

What a con-job.

207 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 12:06:46am
208 SixDegrees  Fri, May 8, 2009 12:23:04am

re: #160 Charles

It was a complete set-up. The show even started with a custom graphic titled "The Trouble with Textbooks," to promote Luskin.

This raises the question: is Fox simply turning itself into an infommercial outlet, selling airtime to the highest bidder and wrapping the presentation in a "newsy" format? Things are tough all over, and Fox is all about making money, not about ideology.

Anybody have the skills to follow the money on this one? I'd be curious to find out if cash is flowing from the DI straight into Fox's accounts.

Perhaps it's just as simple to believe that Fox is appealing to the Freak Show phenomenon, getting people to tune in by offering daily appearances by JoJo The Dog-Faced Woman and the Monkey Boy, taking people's money while allowing them a few minutes to gawk and stare at each in turn.

But in this case, Fox has moved beyond mere sensationalism and into the realm of advocacy. It's like watching a never-ending Sham-Wow! commercial.

209 freetoken  Fri, May 8, 2009 12:35:21am

re: #208 SixDegrees

This raises the question: is Fox simply turning itself into an infommercial outlet,

See my comment upstream about the promoted website at the end, foxandfriends.com.

210 theheat  Fri, May 8, 2009 1:06:20am

Any more, Fox News is about one hair away from televangelist Klukkers selling flat earth maps. If it weren't for LGF, I'd be completely out of the loop for the latest crazy shit they promote, because I refuse to watch it.

Fox News isn't conservative, it's madness. If this (Fox) is what so-called conservatives thrive on to keep their blood pumping and feel legitimized, then fuck 'em, as far as I'm concerned. Far right craziness has no appeal to me.

211 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 1:13:48am

re: #207 buzzsawmonkey

You've tried the same crap before, Sal, and it's still crap. Who gives a rat's ass for the Code of Hammurabi? Nobody has lived by it for millennia.

You appear to suffer from the delusion that I am arguing for some sort of Biblical inerrancy, or something. Not a bit of it--though I would argue that the fact that the Bible is alive and well, while the Code of Hammurabi is a long-dead letter, argues very well indeed for the Bible's superiority. I am merely pointing out the gross vulgarity of boobs like Rick H, who don't know squat either about what the Bible actually says, or about how what it says has been interpreted, but think nonetheless that their facile, shallow, visibly ignorant reading of an extraordinarily complex document entitles them to shit all over other people's belief systems.

Whatever anti-Bible passions Rick H--or you--want to work off, whatever twisted rot in the bowels of your souls drives you to seek the glazed applause of people with a similarly facile understanding, are not my concern. They are your own demons, and you are welcome to them. I am merely pointing out that his, and your, puerile attempts at Biblical exegesis have absolutely no bearing on the extraordinarily simple reality that religion and science are two separate and distinct forms, and areas, of knowledge--and that interjecting distaste for one of them into a discussion which merely demands that the two be kept separate is not only counterproductive, but extraordinarily bad form.

The complex interwoven strands of dependency between various and sundry religions have been painstakingly and meticulously teased out - and are still being teased out - by disciplines such as comparative religion, cultural anthropology, and the history of ideas. Such efforts are not puerile - only your stunted lack of appreciation of their accomplishments is. And it is clear as glass that without the prior existence of the Code of Hammurabi and those other ancient compendia from which they indisputably drew and to which they owe such a clear and undeniable debt, the Ten Commandments as they are would never have existed. That irrefutable fact torques your chauvinistic jaws and twists your religious supremacist panties in a knot every damn time it is mentioned. But that irrational visceral animus for reviled yet valid historical facts is your own private demon, and it has nothing to do with the public facts of the matter except irrational resentment of them. It most certainly can't change them. Religions didn't begin with yours. And neither did all the moral rules found in your religion first appear within it. Deal with it.

As far as such gratuitous vicious and false spewage as 'anti-Bible passions' and 'twisted rot in the bowels of souls' are concerned, I simply state a historical truth about the societal sources of religious ethics and you accuse me of religion-hatred, and in the most hateful manner. You have thus revealed youself to be no better than those non sequitous ad hominem slinging religious bigots who accuse Charles of hating all Christians because he exposes Genesis Literalist creationism for the cynically propagandized empirical falsehood that it is. You just do something remarkably similar with more text and with bigger words.

212 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 2:05:34am
213 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 2:30:33am

re: #212 buzzsawmonkey

Not in the least. I am merely pointing out a few things which are grossly obvious:

1) No matter how much you jerk yourself off, or others around, over the "strands of dependency between various and sundry religions," such things are utterly irrelevant to the issue of not conflating religion with science;

2) To the extent that you or anyone else interjects such observations into a discussion where they are not relevant, such interjections serve only as a vehicle to attack what you perceive as the beliefs of your opponents, not to advocate your own alleged cause;

3) Regardless of whatever "strands of dependency between various and sundry religions" you may perceive to exist, and however interesting it may be from an ethno-historical vantage point to bombinate on them, those "strands" are utterly irrelevant as regards the operation, or the value of the living religions themselves;

4) That you, time and again, bring up such irrelevancies in these threads, and typically leap to defend grotesquely ignorant antireligious posts, reveals a smoldering hostility to those religions based upon Biblical texts, which exists wholly independent of your position on these threads regarding the actual issue of the separation of science from religion;

5) Having established the above as a drearily predictable pattern of behavior, when called on them you whine about ad hominems, and have the effrontery to compare your being called on injecting your bigoted irrelevancies into these discussions with Charles being attacked for merely stating, straightforwardly, that religion is not science--in a clear (and despicable) effort to conflate your irrelevancies with his on-point factual statements.

YOU are the one who first broached/interjected what you are now declaring as someone else's 'irrelevancy', as part of your own attack on another poster:

re: #194 buzzsawmonkey

Excerpt:

In addition, both the simplistic moral equivalence of your post--in its facile equations of "blind obedience"--and its appeal to a "universal morality" without displaying the slightest consciousness that what you believe to be "universal morality" is actually Biblically-based, shows that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

That bolded statement portion of yours not only has nothing whatsoever to do with not conflating religion with science, it is also undeniably historically false. You lashed out at me when I dared to correctly point out that it was historically false, in my post # 205.

In NO PLACE, either in that post or since, have I attacked religions that contain the Ten Commandments; I simply pointed out that the Ten Commandments owe such a substantial debt of influence to prior ethical compendia found in prior religions that it is inconceivable that they would exist in their present form in the absence of those prior compendia. Do you deny this clearly true and UNbigoted statement? And if so, on what empirical grounds? Let me hasten to assure you that I have plenty of empirical grounds to support it.

I am well aware of your own bigotry against my religious faith; you have stated it proudly, and repeatedly engaged in your own festering jihadic fulminations against my faith. These snide and contemptuous sneerings of yours are preserved in the archives.

For you, a proud religious bigot, to possess the utter temerity and gall to accuse me of antireligious bigotry for making an uncontroversially true statement refuting your false assertion is the leftist slime and smear equivalent of an ebon pot calling a stainless steel kettle black (accusations of bigotry being the last refuge of those who lose the debate on the facts).

My statement is as academically solid as the Rock of Gibraltar, and your Everest-sized shoulder chip skews you far from all reason.

214 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 2:44:52am

I think what really gets your goat, buzz, is that although your utter contempt for my pagan faith has in the past dripped like treacle from your text, it is historically undeniable that the Ten Commandments depended for much of their content upon prior pagan moral compendia such as the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu, King of Ur, the Laws of Eshnunna, and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin, just as the Biblical Noah flood story depended upon the prior pagan Epic of Gilgamesh. I think that these incontrovertible facts just chafe you immeasurably.

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

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

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

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

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

215 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 2:56:33am

Let me put it to you this way, buzz; your Rage Boy response to the mere mention that the Bible draws from pre-biblical religious antecedents reminds me of the incandescent response that Islamists made to the publication of the German studies of textual antecedents to the Quran.

216 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 3:07:08am
217 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 3:14:53am

re: #216 Acidtrash

LGF is an anti-idiotarian blog, and it exposes all manner of idiotarians to the antiseptic gaze of public Lizard inspection, including GWOT jihadis and their leftist propaganda enablers, the regrettable rapproachement between some naive and undiscerning antijihadis and euroneonazis, nirth certificat and anti-vax trooferism, and the efforts of the Disco Institute and its allies to shoehorn their pet sectarian dogmas into public high school science classes.

It's a multitasking thang, and yes, we can walk, chew gum, and wave to folks all at the same time.

If you don't like certain threads, don't frequent them. And if you want to see different topics posted, start your own blog and post them there, so we can drop in and complain about your choices to you.

218 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 3:33:22am
219 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 4:03:33am
220 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 4:42:48am
221 abbyadams  Fri, May 8, 2009 4:42:56am

re: #35 Racer X

They are clearly trying to influence public attitude and government policy. This was never their purpose.

The media exists to keep governments honest. Period. It has been years since this was the case.


Respectfully, I disagree. I wish that were the case, but it has never been so. The first newspapers essentially were propaganda for political causes. Andrew Jackson even published one with so much governmental support that it drove others out of business.

I think the real problem (insert "duh" here) is that there is no public discernment of the political agenda; too many people think that "because it's on the TV and spouted by an important looking guy in a tie" it must be true!
Frankly, with the advent of the Internet, there's little excuse. If nothing else, I try to read the same news story written by someone on the left, and someone on the right, and figure the reality's somewhere in the middle.

Fox News left any sense of "fair and balanced" quite a while ago. MSNBC never even bothered.

222 abbyadams  Fri, May 8, 2009 4:45:12am

re: #192 capitalist piglet

A "lector" does indeed read at Mass.

223 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 5:23:32am
224 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 5:37:08am

re: #220 Acidtrash

I think what troubles me is that this whole witch hunt against creationists is a bit self indulgent when there are waaaaaaay, waaay more pressing things going on, namely obamas spendathon. The current political landscape is what your Airmen call a "target rich environment" and you're hunting down and destroying some basically ok people who mostly think like you do but are a bit wonky in the god department (mike pence for one). Sure they might be creationists but unless theyre planting bombs under peoples cars then it's really not such a big deal.

I can see theat them trying to push creationism onto the school sylabus is way out of line but in a truly free america, the state shouldnt be dictating the sylabus anyway, not at federal or state or even county level. If parents want to set up a school that teaches kids that god is the stay puff marshmellow man who created us in his image and that we evoled from early models of the Ford Probe, then that is their perrogative so long as they want to fund it. Let parents have the choice and let democracy do its thing. Socialised education doesn't work here and it wont over there either.

Go for economic liberty/conservatism in its most pure form and then the government couldnt install creationism if it wanted to. Pulling down Republicans when the left is mortgaging the US to the hilt and regulating and taxing business out of the country is absolute luncay. It's a question of priorities no?

Never mind the politicians and their beleifs. What about their policies? If you're anti idiotarian you could start with Obamas green New deal. Theres enough there to keep you busy for a while.

Or am I missing a major point here?

Yeah. You're missing the point that they're not trying to teach this stuff to just their own kids (which they can, and do, do in church and at home and in private religious schools anyway); they're trying to unconstitutionally abuse the machinery of the state, in clear and judicially ruled violation if the 1st Amendment, to indoctrinate other peoples' kids in their pet religious dogmas in public school science class. That sorta thing violates the 1st Amendment in two different ways; by 1) governemtnally favoring some religious dogmas over others, and 2) by infringing on the rights of those parents whose faiths (or lack of faith) do not share such dogmas from raising their children in the metaphysical/religious systems of their choice, without intrusive interference from the state.

You really oughta read up on the extensive history of this discussion here before you make the same mistaken assumptions about it that many others have made before you:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

225 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 6:03:27am

re: #219 buzzsawmonkey

Yes, you do--regardless of the facts.

Actually, it is I who am linking to facts. Not you.

Fact is, Sal, I don't give a damn about Hammurabi, Gilgamesh, or the rest of it. I will grant you all the "influences" you want, and raise you some. They don't matter, you see--because nobody has cared about Hammurabi as a living influence for 4000 years plus, and whether Gilgamesh (or Deucalion) is recorded as building an ark doesn't mean shit to anyone today in terms of living religion. In terms of comparative religions, human development, yadda yadda, it's fascinating--to me as well as to formal academics. But it don't mean a thing in terms of living a faith, any more than the fact that Assyrian bas-reliefs portray the bird-headed god picking esrogs alters the meaning of Sukkot.

History matters. We refuse to heed its lessons at the risk of repeating them. We can best figure out where we are going by drawing a line from where we have been to where we are and extrapolating it into the future; and then we can decide whether that is or is not where we want to go, and take appropriate measures. And not all of these ancient faiths are dead; Zoroastrianism, which provided the idea of angels and demons and of a good deity opposing an evil demideity to Judeo-Christianity, yet survives in the Parsis of India.

Anyone--that means you, and Rick H--who jabbers about "universal morality" is self-blinded to the fact that religious laws and codes of conduct are anything but "universal." One need only look at the striking differences between the three "Abrahamic faiths" to see this; e.g., Christians discarded the Jewish laws of kashrut early on, whereas the Muslims adopted them, albeit in milder form. Christianity and Islam are both "evangelical"; Judaism is not. Do similarities exist? Of course. "Universality?" Not on your life.

One is hard pressed to name a major faith, east or west, be it nontheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic, that does not include injunctions against murder, theft, rape, lying, kidnapping, or enslavement of one's co-religionists. The fact that Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the many Paganisms worldwide all contain these prohibitions points to them being independent upon any particular faith, and ubiquitous in human society.

As far as your whining about my refusal to endorse or otherwise embrace your cafeteria paganism, I suggest you get over it. Your posts over time have made it clear that you adopted this "faith" in large part as a reaction against the Biblically-based faith you were raised in. All of your hardily-acquired factoids about cross-cultural influences, it seems, were not enough to enable you to reconcile your anger with your origins--or to adopt the strictures of any other particular belief system. Not my problem. As a devotee of the First Amendment, I defend your right to choose or concoct your own belief system; and, as a devotee of the First Amendment, I defend my right to say freely exactly how sad I find it. That shouldn't bother you; any religion looks silly to those who do not share its tenets.

I wish that you would abandon your turnspeak tactic

[Link: www.eretzyisroel.org...]

of accusing me of what you yourself perpetrate. At least you are admitting your own antipagan bias. However, your Tu Quoque is gratuitous and false; I changed faiths, but did not do so out of hate. I did so because my present faith called to me. I have never expressed the vicious visceral animus against faiths not my own that you have expressed against mine.

I do, however, agree with you concerning the 1st Amendment; I am free to challenge statements that you make about particular religions, and you are free to persist in making them.

226 tfc3rid  Fri, May 8, 2009 6:09:13am

re: #160 Charles

It was a complete set-up. The show even started with a custom graphic titled "The Trouble with Textbooks," to promote Luskin.

Not defneding what was basically free media for DI, but the 'Trouble with Textbooks' segment is weekly... It points out issues with existing textbooks, like rewrites of history, liberal slants, etc...

The graphic is used on a weekly basis.

227 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 6:17:56am
228 Yashmak  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:00:23am

re: #227 Khouri

I come back from serving as a translator overseas, hungrily check out LGF for the first time in years, and am dismayed to find that LGF is nothing like it used to be. I guess that it has "evolved" along with the "progressives".

You say this, then proceed to agree with just about every point that said 'highbrow' commentors have made here. Odd that.

229 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:02:30am
230 Achilles Tang  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:07:45am

re: #227 Khouri

You're an ass Khouri. You simultaneously agree with Charles regarding where Creationism belongs, yet are critical because the thrust of LGF is to oppose those who won't leave it where you think it should be.

How do you translate the word "apologist" to whatever languages you know?

231 Yashmak  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:15:31am

re: #230 Naso Tang

You're an ass Khouri.

Careful, you'll be accused of being 'high-brow'. Heh. Tell us how you really feel Naso :)

232 Achilles Tang  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:21:17am

re: #231 Yashmak

Careful, you'll be accused of being 'high-brow'. Heh. Tell us how you really feel Naso :)

I try to stick to three letter words, but I have no problem with high brow. It's a compliment where I come from.

:)

233 idioma  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:33:47am

re: #9 Dark_Falcon

Religion is the problem though:

Youtube Video
234 idioma  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:35:35am

re: #21 FurryOldGuyJeans

No offense, but that is brainwashed, not religious.

Who do you know that is against evolution WITHOUT a religious agenda?

235 idioma  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:37:47am

re: #27 buzzsawmonkey

I feel dirty after watching that.

Seriously.

You and I agree on that...

whoa, Freaky Friday.

236 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:43:12am
237 jamie  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:49:41am

Ahh, Steve Doocy. Also known as the former Times Square reporter on Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve. He's as serious a journalist as the love child of Laura Ingraham and Keith Olbermann.

238 idioma  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:51:19am

re: #157 Charles

I don't think people that support ID or creationism should be allowed to receive flu shots. After all, evolution has many holes, and is a flawed theory with many alternative contending theories; I'm sure ID biologists could simply use their theory to produce superior medicine.

239 Annar  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:52:44am

re: #15 Dark_Falcon

And I repost my response:

Younger people have always tended to be less religious. That said, you point to a dangerous trend. We need to work to reverse declines in religion, not accept them.

Religion is the problem to a large extent. In particular, the fundamentalist cults feel obligated to justify their bronze age myths by any means necessary. After all if god said it was true then any science or cartesian logic that indicates he contrary must be a perversion inspired by Beelzebub. Unfortunately several more centuries will pass before superstition is finally accepted by a tiny minority of the population. Between now and then a well-known 7th century cult may lead us into a rerun of the dark ages if we don't come to our senses.

240 jdog29  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:58:07am

"1984 newspeak is all the rage." Austin Powers

241 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:04:35am

re: #236 buzzsawmonkey

Utterly beside the point--as you doubtless know, since you strenuously seek to obscure that

a) it is not the prohibitions, but the mindset and mandates/codes of conduct surrounding them that are important (one of the reasons why "cafeteria paganism" is innately a crock, since its entire purpose, from your own posts, is to avoid the strictures of any particular mindset, code, or organized set of mandates);

No, the purpose is to appropriate what one judges to be the best of many different faiths and philosophies, leaving aside the worst, and organize one's own moral code.

b) There is not any exact equivalency among the many religions you so blithely string on your laundry list--as well you know. If there were, you would not be the "cafeteria" religion-shopper you have in the past proudly proclaimed yourself to be.

There is no exact equivalency, because we are different humans with different cultures from which the different religions emerged, but neither is there absolute disparity, for we are still all human. Religions, like the humans that practice them, are similar to each other.

I have never denied my antipagan bias. Paganism may have been a logical choice for primitives, but for modern man--something you claim to be--it is a conscious, intentional step backwards on the road of human development. Paganism exalts the works of the Creator over the Creator Himself; that someone allegedly educated would intentionally seek to lower himself to the spiritual level of a Stone Age hominid is grotesque. That he would, further, do so in such a feckless manner as to take pride in his refusal to commit to a coherent belief system, but instead surf the world for "spiritual" trinkets, is merely pathetic. Straightforward atheism has an integrity which your dilettante devotion lacks.

Eclectic paganism allows one to choose principles and perspectives that are not at odds with the knowledge that has been accrued at great cost in the last several millennia. Dogmatic revealed religion, on the other hand, is obdurately frozen like amber to anachronistic principles of primitive times, and mental contortions that would make a Gordian knot blush with envy have to be indulged in to reconcile them with the modern world. In this way, paganism is more science-friendly, because it, too, evolves, by choosing what works.

Your cynical allusion to "turnspeak"--with its slyly snarky link to a "Palestinian" reference--shows that, as your rationalizations fail, you are not above attempting to recoup lost ground by smear tactics. You claim to have "never expressed the vicious visceral animus against faiths not [your] own"? To the contrary, given a ten-second running head start you drip vitriol against anything which has the temerity to reference the Bible without genuflecting to Gilgamesh, or something.

I wasn't referring to religion itself with the reference; I was referring to your behavior towards me on this thread, as a simple perusal of the post in which I referenced the turnspeak principle (# 225) will clearly and conclusively demonstrate. Not even an adroit attempt at a smear of my stance; that one was hamhanded and inept - not to mention transparently false and effortlessly debunked. You are the vitriol dealer on this thread.

242 Acidtrash  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:07:12am

re: #224 Salamantis

Yeah. You're missing the point that they're not trying to teach this stuff to just their own kids (which they can, and do, do in church and at home and in private religious schools anyway); they're trying to unconstitutionally abuse the machinery of the state, in clear and judicially ruled violation if the 1st Amendment, to indoctrinate other peoples' kids in their pet religious dogmas in public school science class. That sorta thing violates the 1st Amendment in two different ways; by 1) governemtnally favoring some religious dogmas over others, and 2) by infringing on the rights of those parents whose faiths (or lack of faith) do not share such dogmas from raising their children in the metaphysical/religious systems of their choice, without intrusive interference from the state.

You really oughta read up on the extensive history of this discussion here before you make the same mistaken assumptions about it that many others have made before you:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Well isn't this more an argument for dismantling those mechanisms of state, espcially in education? Government by and large fcks up everything it touches, why should education be any different? No state aparatus, no religious manipluation. The only intervention in schools by authority should be on a community level. State eduaction has become deeply engrained as a good thing and it isnt and this demonstrates the total lack of ability of even conservatives to think outside that box. Thats why we in the UK cannot get rid of the NHS.

243 Ziggy Standard  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:15:15am

re: #211 Salamantis

As far as such gratuitous vicious and false spewage as 'anti-Bible passions' and 'twisted rot in the bowels of souls' are concerned, I simply state a historical truth about the societal sources of religious ethics and you accuse me of religion-hatred, and in the most hateful manner. You have thus revealed youself to be no better than those non sequitous ad hominem slinging religious bigots who accuse Charles of hating all Christians because he exposes Genesis Literalist creationism for the cynically propagandized empirical falsehood that it is. You just do something remarkably similar with more text and with bigger words.

Many updings, Sal. Remember buzzsaw's meltdown over criticism of the biblical command to kill those who work on the sabbath? I was starting to think that he had reflected on that fiasco and learned to either manage his anger or accept that others raising issues with parts of scriptures (that he himself claims to acknowledge as imperfect) was not a mark of stupidity, ignorance or indeed having a head full of "demons". It saddens me to see now that he was just lying low for a while, building up resentment for the next eruption.

244 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:15:51am

re: #242 Acidtrash

Well isn't this more an argument for dismantling those mechanisms of state, espcially in education? Government by and large fcks up everything it touches, why should education be any different? No state aparatus, no religious manipluation. The only intervention in schools by authority should be on a community level. State eduaction has become deeply engrained as a good thing and it isnt and this demonstrates the total lack of ability of even conservatives to think outside that box. Thats why we in the UK cannot get rid of the NHS.

The Disco Institute and their allies would be all too willing to accept the dismantling of public education in general if they cannot succeed in polluting science education in particular with their pet sectarian religious dogmas. An entire nation of children either uneducated (because their parents could afford neither to send them to a school they must pay for or to take time off from work and buy the supplies to homeschool them) or educated in private creationist religious schools (which would spring up like mushrooms, and which they would price very cheaply in exchange for student indoctrination privileges) would serve their purpose of raising up scientifically naive and theocrat-friendly voters that they could employ to get their Dominionist and Reconstructionist candidates elected, and thus try to exchange the US Constitution for the Bible, and morph our constitutional democracy into a Christian version of Iran or Saudi Arabia, complete with a fundamentalist Christian version of Sharia law.

245 [deleted]  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:18:39am
246 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:22:05am

re: #242 Acidtrash

You really have some gall to continue to post comments at my website, after your sly support of the BNP, and what you posted at your blog last night. Get off my website.

247 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:27:48am

re: #245 buzzsawmonkey

This be idiocy.

No, idiocy is your outraged insistence that free religious choices be arbitrarily restricted to choosing one of several package deals, warts and all, rather than to drive one's cognitive cart down the aisle of the marketplace of ideas, and choose from the shelves what fits best together, and best with oneself. One, or several, pre-packaged sizes do NOT fit all, nor should all be constrained to be shoehorned into one or another of them, like so many round pegs in square holes.

If one wants to buy a pre-packaged deal as is; fine. If one wants employ one's own moral judgment to mix and match one's own particular religious meal from the world religion and philosophy menu, that should be fine, too. What's wrong with cafeteria cuisine, anyway?

248 Ziggy Standard  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:30:31am

re: #230 Naso Tang

You're an ass Khouri. You simultaneously agree with Charles regarding where Creationism belongs, yet are critical because the thrust of LGF is to oppose those who won't leave it where you think it should be.

How do you translate the word "apologist" to whatever languages you know?

Obviously hankering for those days when creationists assumed, for some unknown reason, that they represented the LGF 'base' and enjoyed telling 'pro-evolution types' where to go.

249 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:31:45am

re: #226 tfc3rid

Not defneding what was basically free media for DI, but the 'Trouble with Textbooks' segment is weekly... It points out issues with existing textbooks, like rewrites of history, liberal slants, etc...

The graphic is used on a weekly basis.

I didn't know that -- don't usually watch the show. So I'll retract that statement, but it was still a complete set-up to promote Luskin and "intelligent design" creationism.

250 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:38:17am

re: #249 Charles

I didn't know that -- don't usually watch the show. So I'll retract that statement, but it was still a complete set-up to promote Luskin and "intelligent design" creationism.

Yeah; as if the Disco Institute belongs on a regular segment advising people about what's wrong with public school textbooks. Of Pandas and People? Explore Evolution? HELLO? They're part of what's wrong with public school textbooks!

251 Ziggy Standard  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:39:29am

re: #249 Charles

It's got be one of the most scandalously stupid, ignorant and dishonest pieces of television I've ever seen. What's next? A 'serious' discussion with Ray Comfort and his banana?

252 Achilles Tang  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:40:57am

re: #15 Dark_Falcon

And I repost my response:

Younger people have always tended to be less religious. That said, you point to a dangerous trend. We need to work to reverse declines in religion, not accept them.

You may be interested in this then

40 million non believers in America

As to the implications, I would imagine that many of these are simply lazy rather than conscious "non believers" and in those cases religion may very well be a better mindset, than "lazy".

On the other hand, your desire to work to reverse this has many interpretations. One might assume that you mean reverse it for some religions, but not all....?

253 tfc3rid  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:43:23am

re: #249 Charles

I didn't know that -- don't usually watch the show. So I'll retract that statement, but it was still a complete set-up to promote Luskin and "intelligent design" creationism.

Oh, it came off as sounding 100% absolutely as a ball-wash for the DI folks...

I was listening via XM on the way to work when it was on so I did not see it on TV but as the segment ended, the 'cast' of the show were laughing after they said goodbye to Luskin the Clown.

254 Altermite  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:44:51am

re: #252 Naso Tang

You may be interested in this then

40 million non believers in America

As to the implications, I would imagine that many of these are simply lazy rather than conscious "non believers" and in those cases religion may very well be a better mindset, than "lazy".

On the other hand, your desire to work to reverse this has many interpretations. One might assume that you mean reverse it for some religions, but not all....?

You think some people are agnostic/atheists/non religious because they are lazy? Wouldn't that entail the belief being a conscious decision?

255 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:48:09am

re: #254 Altermite

You think some people are agnostic/atheists/non religious because they are lazy? Wouldn't that entail the belief being a conscious decision?

Some people undoubtedly have the presence of a belief in the absence of deity, while others undoubtedly merely have an absence of the belief in the presence of a deity.

These two categories are not the same.

256 Ziggy Standard  Fri, May 8, 2009 8:51:58am

re: #254 Altermite

I'm sure many believers and non believers are lazy, and haven't thought that much about their positions and just go along with what they were brought up with, or what their peers think.

257 Yashmak  Fri, May 8, 2009 10:39:42am

re: #256 Jimmah

I'm sure many believers and non believers are lazy, and haven't thought that much about their positions and just go along with what they were brought up with, or what their peers think.

That's true for many Americans, on issues beyond religion/spirituality. For a large portion of our population, as long as they can keep feeding themselves, keep watching American Idol, and keep driving their cars, they don't care to bother themselves with looking more deeply into contemporary social or political current events, let alone philosophical issues.

258 Achilles Tang  Fri, May 8, 2009 11:43:03am

re: #254 Altermite

You think some people are agnostic/atheists/non religious because they are lazy? Wouldn't that entail the belief being a conscious decision?

Not exactly in the way one normal thinks of it, after due considerations. There are plenty who are too busy partying to go to church and they describe themselves that way because they haven't thought about it much.

Then there are those who are mad at God for one reason or another, and think that makes them atheists. You see them often on Pat Roberston's showtime, after they have seen the light.

259 FKLane  Fri, May 8, 2009 1:18:45pm

I sent this email to FNC just after the interview aired.

Your segment this morning with the fellow from the Discovery Institute was exceptionally disappointing and misleading -- and definitely not "fair and balanced." Through its Center for Science & Culture, this organization is a creationist front organization as 5 seconds on its website readily reveals. It's position on everything relating to evolution has been thoroughly debunked by any number of persons. If you truly want to be fair and balanced, you should invite the author of the textbook attacked in the Kitzmiller litigation, Prof. Kenneth Miller of Brown University, to be on your show Read, as I did, the his testimony, and the testimony of the many experts both sides called to the stand. The cross examination of Michael Behe, touted as the foremost exponent of intelligent design grounded the concept of irreducible complexity, reveals the utterly unscientific nature of both creationism and its latter-day cousin, intelligent design. Read the court's decision in its entirety.

Visit Prof. Miller's website on evolution and read the materials to which he links. [Link: www.millerandlevine.com...]

You will note that Prof. Miller devotes much attention to the false notion that there is a conflict between religion and evolution. You should note that both he and Michael Behe are practicing Catholics. Read Pope John Paul's statements that the mounting evidence demonstrates that evolution is "more than a mere hypothesis." The atheists and the irreligious who contend that evolution disproves the fundamental truths of faith are just as wrong as the religious fundamentalists who, despite their embrace of a pseudo-scientific rhetoric, believe that evolution must be wrong because it contradicts the word of the Bible.

Encourage Prof. Miller to appear on your show and let him address each of the issues and criticisms raised by the Discovery Institute representative in this morning's segment. He and others have effectively destroyed those criticisms many times before and fair-minded people who pay attention to this topic recognize that. To the extent that your segment this morning created the impression that there is serious substance to the Discovery Institute's claims, it was -- frankly -- dishonest.


Miller, along with others, absolutely demolished Behe and ID during that trial. While the case was pending, the citizens of Dover, PA voted the creationist school board members out of office.

260 Salamantis  Fri, May 8, 2009 7:01:18pm

Is it just me, or does Casey Luskin look like that doofus on the FinallyFast.com TV commercial?


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: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

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
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 154 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1