The Coalition of the Stupid

By now you have probably already heard (the hazards of not blogging for a few hours) that Presiden Bush has endorsed the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula:

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush’s voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.

I am beyond offended by the stupidity of this statement and President Bush’s position, and I am sort of glad I was too busy to write about this earlier, because it gave me a little time to cool down. Fat load of good it did, because I am still hopping mad. My days of defending this President are over.

To have the leader of the country, the leader of the party, and the person who proclaims that he wants to be known as the ‘education president’ to state, even casually, that he thinks intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution is lunacy of the first order. First, the facts:

1.) Intelligent design is not a theory. There is no theoretical basis to it. It is not scientific theory, and it is not just bad scientific theory, it is simply not theory. It is ascientific. It is a flight of fancy. It is a call to discard mountains of evidence, throw up ones hands, and state: “This is all too confusing and complex, and science is hard, so some ‘intelligent designer’ must be behind all this.”

2.) Intelligent design is creationism. It may not be quite as audaciously stupid as the nonsense peddled by the ‘young earth’ crowd, but it is creationism. Just who do you think this ‘intelligent designer’ is? One more time, let’s review who the candidates are for the title of ‘intelligent designer’ is:

Its advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, “intelligent design” is inherently a quest for the supernatural. Only one “candidate for the role of designer” need apply. Dembski himself—even while trying to deny this implication—concedes that “if there is design in biology and cosmology, then that design could not be the work of an evolved intelligence.” It must, he admits, be that of a “transcendent intelligence” to whom he euphemistically refers as “the big G.”

The supposedly nonreligious theory of “intelligent design” is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science—to pretend, as one commentator put it, that “faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope.”

The insistence of “intelligent design” advocates that they are “agnostic regarding the source of design” is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a “designer” who is susceptible of scientific study—in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible “designer” is nothing more than a gateway god—metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.

No matter how fervently its salesmen wish “intelligent design” to be viewed as cutting-edge science, there is no disguising its true character. It is nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on science, and should be rejected as such.

That “Big G” he was referring to isn’t Gaia, although injecting nonsensical druidic mysticism into science makes about as much sense as teaching intelligent design ‘alongside evolution.’ No, you can guess who the “Big G” might actually be.

3.) Teaching ‘intelligent design’ as science, or as a viable theory, or whatever you want to call it other than bullshit, is to assault science. Criticism of evolutionary theory is always welcome, but attempting to replace evolutionary theory with fanciful tales is to assault not only the senses, but to attack the very manner science itself is conducted.

4.) People don’t want ‘intelligent design’ taught because it is a viable scientific theory, they want it taught because it is tailored to fit their pre-existing religious beliefs. The introduction of ‘intelligent design’ into the class room will be seen as a blow to the ‘evil secularists.’ It will be just another step in ‘taking back the culture.’

The culture of stupid.

This assault on science is not a new thing- there have been groups creating their own ‘science’ establishments to do research that produces the ‘right’ results to aid the political/social cause du jour. Their most notable production of these folks is their recent ‘report’ that was used as a basis to forbid same-sex couples from becoming foster parents:

Last week, the Texas House of Representatives passed a child-services bill with an amendment that would make Texas the first state in the nation to prevent same-sex couples from becoming foster parents. The state Senate passed a conflicting bill without that measure, and the two bodies are debating how to proceed.

The proposed ban attracted national media attention, and several “pro-family” groups seeking to drum up support for the bill have been circulating some troubling stats about gay parents. Among the most striking, stated during a CNN program: children in foster homes with same-sex parents are 11 times as likely to be sexually abused as those with heterosexual parents.

To get on CNN, that number snaked through a twisting path, from a little-noticed Illinois study published by an antigay scientist/activist in a psychological journal, to several conservative Web sites, to, finally, the attention of a Texas activist who presented her misinterpretation of the study on national television, essentially unchallenged. It’s a textbook example of how flawed numbers can gain national attention if advocates work hard enough—especially when there aren’t widely-known conflicting estimates.

I have no problem with a brief fifteen minute discussion of intelligent design as part of a religious/philosophy class, provided schools offer those courses. But I don’t think that is what Bush meant, and to teach intelligent design alongside evolution (which, by itself is difficult enough to teach high school students, and usually isn’t taught well enough), as a ‘school of thought’ is simple idiocy. And that won’t change no matter how many press releases the jackasses at the Discovery Institute release.

Maybe Bush just said this to play to the base. I don’t care. It was stupid, irresponsible, and he should be widely castigated for even suggesting that this be taught. In short, the next time President Bush asks “Is our children learning,” I know what I will be thinking to myself:

“Maybe, but no thanks to you, jackass.”

See also:

Von at Obsidian Wings: Dumbing it Down
Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse: Mr. President, Shut Your Yap!
Der Commisar
Pharyngula
Joe Gandelman
Michael Demmons
Don Surber
Richard Bennett
Glenn Reynolds Link Fest
Ambient Irony
Garfield Ridge

Jeff, on the other hand, plays Devil’s Advocate.
Another viewpoint different form mine can be found here, including this tidbit:

According to this CBS news poll, 65% of the country supports teaching creationism and evolution together in schools. That total includes 56% of Kerry voters. In fact, 37% of the country supports teaching creationism instead of evolution. Thus, if the United States were to have a national referendum about Intelligent Design in schools, the position that the President expressed today might win in a landslide.

*** Update ***

From the comments:

I like to use the following classification scheme: First we distinguish between scientific theories and nonscientific theories. Then we subdivide the scientific group into viable and nonviable theories. We end up with three possibilities:

Viable scientific theories (like evolution)

Nonviable scientific theories (like biblical creationism)

Nonscientific theories (like intelligent design)

The most critical and distinguishing feature of scientific theories is that they are vulnerable to evidence. The theory of evolution is a dramatic case in point. It makes stringent postdictions that rule out an enormous variety of otherwise possible observations. Just for instance, as Haldane points out, the discovery of a single fossil rabbit from the Precambrian era would constitute very strong evidence against evolution. Indeed, evolution is a viable scientific theory because no such clearly falsifying evidence has been discovered.

Biblical creationism is ALSO a scientific theory. It too makes stringent postdictions. Specifically, it rules out the existence of Earthly things more than 6000 years old. Indeed, because the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary, the theory is a nonviable scientific theory.

[Note that this is not the same as saying that biblical creationism is not “true.” (There’s no way of being certain, for instance, that the evidence wasn’t rigged by “God” as a test of faith.) Science simply does not deal with the question of “truth.” It only deals with the question of viability. It subjects its theories to tests, tests that are only possible because the theories are vulnerable to evidence. Theories that fail those tests lose acceptance and are ultimately rejected for better theories, theories that pass more tests. But no amount of “test passing” will ever establish that a scientific theory is “true.” It merely confers greater viability.]

Intelligent design on the other hand is a nonscientific theory for the simple reason that it is invulnerable to evidence. Proponents like to say that there is a lot of evidence FOR intelligent design and indeed there is—the world is a truly remarkable place—but that is simply irrelevant for purposes of judging ID’s scientific credentials.

[Again, note that this does not mean that Intelligent Design is not “true.” It simply means it is not science and has no place in the science curriculum.]

In my opinion the primary reason that fundamentalists have moved to embrace ID is precisely because it is nonscientific and does not suffer the fatal flaw of biblical creationism, the flaw that actually makes it a scientific theory—vulnerability to evidence.

And, while we are at it, what Ace said:

With apologies to the religious, Intelligent Design is not science. It’s not science when you’re basing your “theory” on thousand year old books, and there is no way you offer to falsify your claims, etc…

Science deals in natural, not supernatural, forces. It cannot explain or analyze supernatural phenomena, even if such phemomena were proven to exist or have existed in the distant past.

Pretty much. Ace concludes:

Religion and science do not need to be in conflict. But if some of the religious continue insisting on pushing them into conflict, I’m afraid I’m going to have to side with science.

And he sounds a lot like Charles Krauthammer the other day:

But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion…

To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.

If schools want to encourage discussions of intelligent design in religion and philosophy classes, fine. That is where they belong; that would be appropriate. But to pretend that intelligent design deserves to be taught along side evolutionary theory in science classes is something that should be stopped anywhere attempts to do so are made.

For a different take, go check out Macho Nachos brand new digs:

This suggestion that schoolchildren should be exposed to more than one theory of the origins of life, is sending a bunch of otherwise reasonable people apoplectic with rage that is, frankly, shameful. You could read this or this or this or this, but I can pretty much save you some time and boil all the screaming hysteria down thusly: “Intelligent Design is faith, not science! You can’t teach faith in science class! Anybody who doesn’t believe in macroevolution is stupid and deserves our ridicule!”

The most hysterical pronouncements of the Spanish Inquisitors hardly look less reasonable than the stuff I’m seeing flying around the right blogosphere today. Suspiciously absent from any of these rants is any engagement on the facts or merits of Intelligent Design – it’s just all ridicule, all the time.

We’ll just have to disagree on the ‘merits’ of Intelligent Design as a competing scientific theory.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

344 replies
  1. 1
    tBone says:

    Preach on, brother.

    I have no problem with people believing in intelligent design or creationism or the Great Green Arkleseizure or whatever else floats their boat. I do have a problem with them trying to interject their beliefs into science classes.

    If we’re going to use the “people ought to be exposed to different ideas” standard, then I think we ought to have madatory lectures on evolution in Sunday School classes.

  2. 2
    Sojourner says:

    What did you expect from this guy?

  3. 3
    DougJ says:

    What we’ve been witnessing on this blog the past few months is the evolution of the Christian-bashing RINO, a new species that has developed in the last couple years. Maybe I do believe in some kind of evolution after all…

  4. 4
    Mr.Ortiz says:

    I don’t normally read Wonkette, but I’m glad I did today. She’s got the quote of the day:

    Teaching [intelligent design] as “alternative” to evolution is a little like teaching “magic” as an alternative to physics

  5. 5
    SomeCallMeTim says:

    I don’t think you’re being fair. Bush didn’t want to be the “education President,” he wanted to be the “edumacation President.” And I think he’s doing a pretty fair job of that.

  6. 6

    John, I think you left out a word in the first paragraph:

    There is no theoretical basis to it. It is not scientific theory, and it is not just bad scientific theory, it is simply not theory. It is a scientific. It is a flight of fancy.

    “It is a scientific WHAT?”

  7. 7
    albedo says:

    5) Doesn’t ID denigrate religion, too? In the sense that, at least for Christians, pure faith is the basis for their relationship with God, doesn’t stringing together some pseudo-scientific justification for God’s existence kinda cheapen things a bit?

  8. 8
    JonBuck says:

    DougJ:

    You know, there are millions of Christians out there who have no problem whatsoever with evolution.

  9. 9
    DougJ says:

    Why is it that a theory with basis Scripture is automatically denigrated by RINOs and liberals? The young earth theory involves reasoning every bit as careful and scientific as the theory of evolution. Time and time again, the Bible has been proven to be right about things, from the birth place of Jesus to the behavior of the stars and planets. Why shouldn’t we give the Biblical account of creation SOME credence instead of dismissing it out of hand?

  10. 10
    Marcus Wellby says:

    I went to Catholic schools most of my life, including a Jesuit high school. Not once was Creationism brought up outside of a religion class, and even then was not to be assumed as factual. We were also tought that all of Genesis was to be treated as metephor, not fact. Considering we were also taught that the virgin birth happened, beyond a shadow of doubt, I think it rather telling the amount of skeptisism placed on the idea of creationism.

    Granted, the Jesuits — as a religious order — are unique in their respect for scientific method. But one has to wonder what the heck is going on with the Fundies. Are all Republicans just going to let them drag our country backwards because they vote Republican? If this isn’t “special interest politics”, I don’t know what is.

  11. 11
    albedo says:

    “Why shouldn’t we give the Biblical account of creation SOME credence instead of dismissing it out of hand?”

    Because the facts do not support the Earth being 6,000 years old, or made in seven days.

  12. 12

    The young earth theory involves reasoning every bit as careful and scientific as the theory of evolution.

    Horsepucky.

    Why shouldn’t we give the Biblical account of creation SOME credence instead of dismissing it out of hand?

    Well, either Satan temporarily gained Godlike powers and PUT those fossil skeletons there, or the Bible simply glossed over Adam and Eve’s pet T. Rex.

  13. 13
    DougJ says:

    “You know, there are millions of Christians out there who have no problem whatsoever with evolution.”

    True, but most of them don’t post things on the internet referring to other Christians as the coalition of the stupid. It isn’t John’s belief in evolution that object to, it is his lack of respect for thoe who don’t believe in evolution. That’s the issue here and it always has been: we don’t have a problem with people who believe in evolution, we have a problem with the fact they want to ram evolution down our throats and call us idiots.

    Okay?

  14. 14
    Trevor says:

    Ugh. I’ve defended this guy on so many topics, and then he goes and makes a complete ass of himself. Jeez.
    Sorry folks, if that makes me a christian bashing RINO too, then so be it. Intelligent Design belongs in a church, not in a class room.
    Of course, I’d be more upset if public schools actually did a good job of teaching scietific theory, but introducing ID is not the way to improve things.

  15. 15
    DougJ says:

    “or the Bible simply glossed over Adam and Eve’s pet T. Rex.”

    Think again.

  16. 16
    jcricket says:

    Robert – John meant “ascientific” as in “the opposite of scientific” (like “asymptomatic”), not “a scientific” as in “a scientific piece of crap”. He was just trying to say that ID isn’t science, at all.

    I’d actually call it “pseudo-science”, in that it’s BS wrapped up in scientific sounding jargon meant to confuse the ignorant.

    And I’m glad John isn’t just brushing off this latest pronouncement of Bush as something unimportant. I’d argue that this goes to the core of all the arguments against the current GOP: beholden to the far-right-wing religious base, willing to put politics over science, and willfully dishonest.

  17. 17
  18. 18
    albedo says:

    we have a problem with the fact they want to ram evolution down our throats and call us idiots.

    If you don’t believe in evolution in the year 2005, you are an idiot. Sorry.

    Funny how the opposition to “relativity” that Christian Right types always harp on goes out the window when it comes to evolution.

  19. 19
    SoCalJustice says:

    Presiden Bush has endorsed the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula

    Reason number #48 why I’ll probably never be a Republican.

    Of course, the list of why I find it difficult to be a Democrat is almost, but not quite, just as long.

  20. 20
    Mike S says:

    I was wondering what your reaction would be. I’m not surprised by Bush’s comments in the least, but then I’ve never supported him so I dont have as much anger as you about this.

    It’s a sad state of affairs that makes this even possible. There’s been a war on science for ages and I don’t see it abatimg. But it’s more dangerous to the future of the states than any other “debate” we are involved in. We’re already being beaten in education by too many countries. Probably our biggest asset in our history was our ability to push science and technology forward. Now we are moving backward. If we want to remain the most powerfull nation on the planet we had better get back on track.

  21. 21
    Nikki says:

    My days of defending this President are over.

    Yeah, that’s what you say, but we know that it’s like crack–one hit and you’re addicted. Repubs everywhere are hanging out on street corners whispering to you, “We know you’ll be back. You can’t stay away…”

  22. 22

    I don’t believe ID teaches that the earth is 6000 yrs old or that fossils don’t exist. I don’t think it even addresses the Bible. From what I have read it simply says that some things that cannot be explained (like the big bang theory) could possibly be from Intelligent Design.

    Don’t put words in the President’s mouth.

    I am a Catholic Christian and believe in evolution, but also believe that God created us in an evolutionary fashion.

    What I don’t understand is why you RINOS get your panties in such a wad over this. It is simply THEORIES. Many scientific theories have been proven wrong over time. One can look at the evidence and decide for themselves.

    No go straighten out your panties….;-)

  23. 23
    JonBuck says:

    DougJ:

    You have repeatedly claimed that evolution is a Vast Liberal Conspiracy. That does not give much credence to your position. And yes, it does make you look foolish and dogmatic.

    I don’t care if you believe that the world was created in six days six thousand years ago. What I object to is your insistance that this article of pure faith has a scientific basis, and therefore must be presented as science in public schools. Teach it in your Church, where it belongs.

  24. 24
    Mr.Ortiz says:

    “or the Bible simply glossed over Adam and Eve’s pet T. Rex.”

    Think again.

    I just read that page you linked to, DougJ, and not a single mention of Adam and Eve’s pet T-Rex!

  25. 25

    BTW if anyone at all is even wavering on this issue, I suggest you go over to talkorigins.org and read the FAQ. Read all of it; it’ll take a good long while but you’ll come out much better informed as to what the actual points of contention are.

  26. 26

    The problem, RWS, is if ID is in effect evolution with God as creator and designer giving it a kickstart, ID is interchangeable with TOE and hence superfluous.

  27. 27
    John S. says:

    It is simply THEORIES. Many scientific theories have been proven wrong over time. One can look at the evidence and decide for themselves.

    Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It’s entire premise is built around something that will never have any form of factual evidence that people can base a decision on. Intelligent Design Creationism is based on faith, not science, and therefore doesn’t stand up to the test for scientific theories that you have outlined.

    Scientific theories belong in a science classroom. Religious theories belong in a theology class or your local place of worship, and never the twain should meet.

  28. 28
    Joe Albanese says:

    Once again Bush has made me embarassed to be an American.

  29. 29
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Let me take this opportunity to say “We told you so.”

    Your party is overun by religious zealots. Have a nice day.

  30. 30
    albedo says:

    What I don’t understand is why you RINOS get your panties in such a wad over this. It is simply THEORIES

    Incorrect. Evolution is a theory in the sense that the Newtonian theory of mechanics is a theory. It’s basically accepted fact with all scientists. There may be aspects they haven’t figured out yet, pieces of the puzzle to find, but it’s not a “theory” in the sense that non-scientists usually mean when they use the word.

    ID is not a scientifc theory. It is a theological theory, as there are no facts to back it up and no way to prove or disprove it. It is a hunch, a suspicion. It may actually be true, but it does not belong alongside evolution in a science curriculum.

  31. 31
    tBone says:

    Of course, I’d be more upset if public schools actually did a good job of teaching scietific theory, but introducing ID is not the way to improve things.

    Part of the problem is that the general understanding of the word “theory” has drifted so far from what the word actually means in a scientific context.

    Maybe the science community needs some new terminology. Strike “theory” and replace it with “this thing we think is true based on careful observation and other evidence collected using the scientic method and that does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God – no really.”

  32. 32
    Marcus Wellby says:

    Probably our biggest asset in our history was our ability to push science and technology forward. Now we are moving backward. If we want to remain the most powerfull nation on the planet we had better get back on track.

    If I were to wear my foil hat, for just one moment, I might assume this is part of a larger conspiracy to dumb the populous down to the point where they will be willing to work for pennies. After all, with India and China doing a better job with science education it might not be so far fetched to assume they will be outsourcing there jobs to us in the not too distant future. With global corporations it doesnt really matter where the cheap labor comes from, just as long as it is cheap and docile.

  33. 33
    neil says:

    My days of defending this President are over.

    And only ten months too late for any good to come of it.

  34. 34
    Sojourner says:

    Are all Republicans just going to let them drag our country backwards because they vote Republican?

    In a word, “yes.”

  35. 35
    John Cole says:

    What I don’t understand is why you RINOS get your panties in such a wad over this. It is simply THEORIES. Many scientific theories have been proven wrong over time. One can look at the evidence and decide for themselves.

    Intelligent Design and Creationism are not theories. They are not science. They are stories. Stories that I have no problem if people choose to believe them and live their lives in accordance to them. But they are not scientific theories, and they do not belong in a science classroom.

  36. 36
    John S. says:

    If I were to wear my foil hat, for just one moment, I might assume this is part of a larger conspiracy to dumb the populous down to the point where they will be willing to work for pennies.

    Regarding your tinfoil hat conspiracy: Orwell’s notions set forth in 1984 and Marx’s concept of an opiate for the masses seem to mesh together nicely here.

    Let’s just hope that it is a conspiracy theory.

  37. 37
    DougJ says:

    I’d like to add: how do you think it looks to the rest of the world when MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT’S OWN PARTY are calling the president an idiot while we are at war? It’s bad enough that the Moores, Sarandons, and Isikoffs of the radical left are bent on destroying the president — now the RINOs have joined the anti-Bush jihad. Wartime is not the time for stabbing the president in the back.

    Et tu, RINOs?

  38. 38
    John Cole says:

    Alright- Whoever is spoofing Doug J, just fess up.

  39. 39
    Anderson says:

    Reason number #48 why I’ll probably never be a Republican.

    Of course, the list of why I find it difficult to be a Democrat is almost, but not quite, just as long.

    I hear ya. I think I have the same lists.

  40. 40
    Steven says:

    As soon as I saw John’s post, I knew Doug J. would not disappoint in adding some levity to my day. Thanks as always Doug. You should send some of this material to Larry the Cable Guy.

  41. 41
    DougJ says:

    All right, I may stop posting here for a while until the other person who has taken to posting under my name stops. It’s hard to carry on a conversation when someone is saying silly things in your name in the middle of the conversation.

  42. 42
    John Cole says:

    DougJ- All your comments have the same IP address. Now, who are you really?

  43. 43
    tBone says:

    It’s hard to carry on a conversation when someone is saying silly things in your name in the middle of the conversation.

    Yeah, it’s much better when the silly things are coming directly from the source.

  44. 44
    Marcus Wellby says:

    All right, I may stop posting here for a while until the other person who has taken to posting under my name stops. It’s hard to carry on a conversation when someone is saying silly things in your name in the middle of the conversation.

    Which DougJ is the silly one? :)

  45. 45
    Jimmy Jazz says:

    Alright- Whoever is spoofing Doug J, just fess up.

    I hadn’t noticed.

  46. 46
    Redleg says:

    Bush is just throwing a bone to the religious right. Another cheap little bone to calm their howls and to keep them subservient to him.

    Bush hopes the Dems criticize him for this stance so that he can say they are godless unbelievers.

  47. 47
    DougJ says:

    John, I did NOT write the thing about Who’s Who giving out the names of the all the CIA agents nor did I write the “Et tu, RINOs” post. They don’t even sound like me, at least I don’t think they do. I don’t know how the IP address was faked.

    I have written all of the other comments.

  48. 48
    Don Surber says:

    When I left work, I figured you would be all over this. Yup, Bush stepped on it.

    To err is human, to forgive divine.

  49. 49
    Demdude says:

    I haven’t been here for awhile, but isn’t Doug J really Darrell?

    He sure sounds like him.

  50. 50
    jg says:

    The young earth theory involves reasoning every bit as careful and scientific as the theory of evolution.

    True but the reasoning was done about 3000 years ago. We’re a little smarter now.

    I’d like to add: how do you think it looks to the rest of the world when MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT’S OWN PARTY are calling the president an idiot while we are at war?

    To them it must look like we’re starting to realize Bush ain’t quite the almighty leader he’s been made out to be.

  51. 51
    templedog says:

    Well, intelligent design theory doesn’t have to based on religion. Intelligent design is simply someone having control of evolution. It is just a theory, that has no evidence, yet. We will be intelligent designers. Once the human race creates artificial intelligence through science, we will come full circle. We will be gods, and being so will prove the fact that there is Intellifent design. Until then, intelligent design is just science fiction. So, science and godness is one of the same.

  52. 52
    tBone says:

    John, I did NOT write the thing about Who’s Who giving out the names of the all the CIA agents nor did I write the “Et tu, RINOs” post. They don’t even sound like me, at least I don’t think they do.

    Aside from the “et tu” (fancy-pants foreign language, a dead giveaway), that post sounded exactly like you. It’s hard to tell the real caricature apart from the fake one.

  53. 53
    KC says:

    So, what’s going to happen when ID is taught in schools? I think scientific creationism is a fraud, I think ID is only slightly better, but honestly, a lot of people, probably most, don’t believe in evolution. I think Bush is probably reflecting popular sentiments, if not close to popular sentiments. So what will be the result as more and more kids are taught creation science along side evolution (and keep in mind, in a lot of cases, it’ll be evolution as seen through the eyes of groups like ICR)?

  54. 54
    John Cole says:

    Doug J. Every post has the same IP address. IF someone is spoofing you, they are doing it while sitting on your lap.

  55. 55
    DougJ says:

    “Aside from the “et tu” (fancy-pants foreign language, a dead giveaway), that post sounded exactly like you.”

    I agree. But the “et, tu” part really isn’t my sort of thing. The one about Robert Hanssen being caught via Who’s Who doesn’t sound like me at all and is obviously a joke.

  56. 56
    Horshu says:

    A theory has to be debatable to the possibility of being disproven. Intelligent Design does not open itself up to being disproven any more so than faith; it cannot be disproven, as you cannot prove God does not exist, and proof can only arrive in the form of “The Big G” actually appearing and saying it exists, in which case, religion itself would no longer be faith anyway.
    The notion that life’s complexities are not possible in a simple, mechanical world isn’t even true. There are PLENTY of very simple mechanisms that show the ability to become layered with complexity over time. Individual organisms do this during growth (this is a non-evolutionary process brought on by simple molecular reactions within DNA), and the DNA which comprises them also display the ability to derive complexity from extremely simple rules. In fact, DNA itself has an evolutionary history visible even today, as lower level organisms use the same paired-molecule structure to generate life from different shapes than the double helix of DNA we are familiar with. And if you retort with “God invented DNA,” then I invite you to look at the Game of Life, a simply mathematical automaton that results in organic patterns in a significant percentage of the possible rule variants. *We* invented the rules of the GoL, yet it shows the ability to generate the same shapes that nature does. The point here is that very simple interactions are very capable of created complexities that become even moreso over time.

  57. 57
    RW says:

    They are not science. They are stories. Stories that I have no problem if people choose to believe them and live their lives in accordance to them. But they are not scientific theories, and they do not belong in a science classroom.

    What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality exists? Is there some sort of CAT scan or blood test that denotes that Elton John is gay and Bill Clinton is not? If it doesn’t exist (and it doesn’t) why are we teaching it as scientific fact, again? [/devilsadvocate]

  58. 58
    DougJ says:

    John, I post from a computer in an office that some others pass regularly in and out of. I left the computer open to the Balloon Juice page when I out for coffee this morning and for lunch this afternoon, so someone must have done it while I was out.

    I’ll log off before I go out from now on.

    Sorry about that.

  59. 59
    Demdude says:

    What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality exists? Is there some sort of CAT scan or blood test that denotes that Elton John is gay and Bill Clinton is not? If it doesn’t exist (and it doesn’t) why are we teaching it as scientific fact, again? [/devilsadvocate]

    What the hell has this got to do with the discussion?

  60. 60
    ppGaz says:

    It isn’t John’s belief in evolution that object to, it is his lack of respect for thoe who don’t believe in evolution. That’s the issue here and it always has been

    No Doug, that’s both wrong, and a lie.

    Nobody cares what other people “believe.” The president and you can both believe that the moon is made of green cheese, and really, nobody would care.

    What we care about is that a belief system based entirely on a story is being touted as something that should be presented AS IF it were the equivalent of science.

    That is the issue. That is the problem.

    Creation theory is not the equivalent of science. That makes it neither good nor bad, wrong nor right, in and of itself. It simply classifies it as a story, which is a different thing from a testable hypothesis.

    Science is a discipline. It is useful exactly because it is designed to filter out “beliefs” and focus on observable facts and testable hypotheses. Again, this makes it neither good nor bad, wrong nor right. It’s an apple-orange thing.

    You don’t get this Doug, I assume because you are not very good at holding two opposing ideas in your head at the same time. I tend to call that stupidity, but maybe it is something else; I’m not a psychiatrist. But the point is, you and the people who talk like you DON’T GET IT. You are beating your gums about something you do not understand.

    Nobody is against the teaching of creationism. Just don’t do it in public school, because it’s about religion, and the government is not to be in the religion business. And just as important, don’t present it as the equivalent of science, because it isn’t.

    Last but not least, science is, by definition, morally neutral, in its pure form. It’s an a priori thing, it is that way by definition. Biased science is not science, it’s pseudo-science. The employment of a neutral, pure science method is not morally …. anything. The morals are inside you, Doug. Not in science. You supply the morals. You can take the information gleaned from science and use it as you see fit. But the information itself is only valid if it comes from science that isn’t contaminated by bias.

    All of this will go over your head, but it will spark someone else to tell you what really matters here:

    You are full of shit. Go away.

  61. 61
    DougJ says:

    Ppgaz, I do see your point about how creation science is a little bit different from the usual sort of science that is presented. But I feel that students need to be exposed to it somewhere during high-school, just for the sake of balance. If it shouldn’t be taught in the science class room, perhaps there is another subject class in which it might be presented. I’m open to that idea.

  62. 62
    RW says:

    What the hell has this got to do with the discussion?

    Teaching. Evidence. Fact. Evidence. Classroom. Evidence. Science. Evidence.

  63. 63
    Mike S says:

    What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality exists?

    Hypothesis: Some people prefer the same sex over the opposite sex.

    Test: Take a walk through West Hollywood.

  64. 64
    r4d20 says:

    Let’s do a little litmus test.

    Teacher who are required to present “intelligent design” can present ALL possible sources for this desing – including teaching that human life may have been created by aliens. See if the ID proponent start complaining.

  65. 65
    DougJ says:

    “Teacher who are required to present “intelligent design” can present ALL possible sources for this desing – including teaching that human life may have been created by aliens. See if the ID proponent start complaining.”

    That sounds fine to me. I have no problem with that. Despite what some of the most militant evolutionists believe, the debate has always been about balance. We want balance in the class room instead of the dogma of evolution. That’s all.

  66. 66
    Demdude says:

    Teaching. Evidence. Fact. Evidence. Classroom. Evidence. Science. Evidence.

    Evidence: Some people sleep exclusively with people of the same sex.

    Evidence: Some people have fantasies exclusively of people of the same sex.

    Evidence: Scientists can measure when men are stimulated by other men (guess where they put the sensors to determine that!).

    What else do you need sparky?

  67. 67
    Moe Lane says:

    Transcript
    here
    .

    Moe

    PS: Bad President! Bad! No biscuit!

  68. 68
    RW says:

    So, that qualifies as scientific theory for you, eh?
    Where people sleep, what they fantasize about and if men can get a boner (let’s assume that they’ve been out of prison for a while).

    Interesting “science” at play.

  69. 69
    ppGaz says:

    students need to be exposed to it somewhere during high-school

    First, no, they do not “need to be.” You “want them to be”, which is hardly the same thing. They don’t need to be.

    Second, I don’t have a problem with “exposing them to it”, as long as the “exposure” is not a religious teaching, or preachment, of any kind (public school, of course. In snake-handler school, you can teach them anything you like).

    Third, “exposure” cannot include the instruction that it is the “equivalent of science.” It is not science.

  70. 70
    Mr.Ortiz says:

    What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality exists?

    Do a quick internet search. Shouldn’t be too hard to find photographic evidence of same-sex couples engaged in intercourse and (presumably) enjoying it. To be fair, a lot of the girl-on-girl stuff I’ve seen is clearly faked. I’ll have to do some more research…

  71. 71
    albedo says:

    We want balance in the class room instead of the dogma of evolution.

    Holy shit. That’s like saying “We want balance instead of the dogma of Newtonian physics.” Evolution is accepted fact, okay? Get it through your skull. Just because you do not personally like the implications that go along with it does not make it less real, less factual, or less supported by 150 years of research. Aaaargh!

  72. 72
    DougJ says:

    “Third, “exposure” cannot include the instruction that it is the “equivalent of science.””

    I’ll concede this for the sake of progress, although I don’t really agree, but isn’t there SOME PLACE in school where creation science can be presented? I think it is important for students to learn that there are alternative explanations for creation besides those which many liberal scientists believe.

  73. 73
    albedo says:

    Where people sleep, what they fantasize about and if men can get a boner (let’s assume that they’ve been out of prison for a while).

    Are you insane?

    While we’re at it, where’s the scientific evidence that the sky is blue or water is wet? Unbelievable.

  74. 74
    Demdude says:

    So, that qualifies as scientific theory for you, eh?
    Where people sleep, what they fantasize about and if men can get a boner (let’s assume that they’ve been out of prison for a while).

    Interesting “science” at play.

    Conducting experiments, collecting data (including observations) and having it repeated by others with the same results.

    Yep, that’s science.

  75. 75
    albedo says:

    but isn’t there SOME PLACE in school where creation science can be presented?

    If high schools offer religion classes, that would be an appropriate place to teach creationism (along with other religions’ creation beliefs), although you still couldn’t teach it as “science,” since it isn’t…

  76. 76
    John Southerland says:

    Demdude says it perfect – Evolution cannot be duplicated (yet) and there is only a historical observation. Therefore it is a theory that has not been proven. Lastly, why has it stopped?

  77. 77

    Hold yer horses. All this excitement depends on the accuracy of Bush’s statements as quoted by the press. Are the quotes accurate? (Remember, the press is NEVER accurate.)

    Even if true, it’s maybe not all that radical. I abandoned the Dems because their domestic policies are offensive, and their foreign policies are suicidal. I’ve been voting Republican recently because their domestic policies are offensive, but their foreign polices, while flawed, are not suicidal – in fact, it’s the first time US foreign policy has made sense since the Berlin Airlift. Now this Bush statement is a domestic policy matter, and Republican domestic policy can’t get much worse than worthless. So, no real change there. I’ll still vote Republican as long as the Dems offer us nothing but frauds like Kerry.

  78. 78
    tBone says:

    Demdude says it perfect – Evolution cannot be duplicated (yet) and there is only a historical observation. Therefore it is a theory that has not been proven. Lastly, why has it stopped?

    Wow, wrong on all counts. You hit the trifecta! Follow the suggestions upthread to read TalkOrigins, you could obviously stand to learn something.

  79. 79
    Rob says:

    We want balance in the class room instead of the dogma of evolution. That’s all.

    Evolution has a wealth of measurable evidence to support it, which has been peer-reviewed and not disproved. This is not “dogma,” this is a scientific theory.

    Creationism has no measurable evidence to support it, cannot be peer-reviewed and therefore cannot be proved or disproved. This is not a scientific theory, this is “dogma.” At best, it is an unmeasurable hypothosis. It is NOT theory.

    It does a disservice to the the scientists that brought you the technology you use to spread talking points like “Dogma of evolution” across the Internet to refer to creationism as a theory.

    Look: sometimes when I’m really drunk, I like to believe that dreaming is actually some kind of data dump to a central server somewhere where I’ll be uploaded when I die. It makes me feel better about my mortality to think so, but it’s not a scientific theory, that fact that you can’t prove whether or not I’m wrong doesn’t make it a scientific theory, and it would be irresponsible for me to try to tell a child that it’s science.

  80. 80
    Mike S says:

    Lastly, why has it stopped?

    Who says it has?

  81. 81
    Mark says:

    John Southerland,

    Evolution stopped? Are you serious? Try google sometime, you’ll learn a lot. The only thing that appears to have stopped prematurely was your education.

  82. 82
    Vladi G says:

    What I don’t understand is why you RINOS get your panties in such a wad over this. It is simply THEORIES.

    Sparkle is right. And this why I’m proposing that alongside gravity, we teach the theory that there are trace metals in our feet, and that the earth’s core is one giant magnet. That, not gravity as many “scientists” would have you believe, is what really keeps us attached to the earth. I’m still working out the kinks, but hey, it’s just a theory, right?

  83. 83
    pleasewakeupy'all says:

    What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality exists? Is there some sort of CAT scan or blood test that denotes that Elton John is gay and Bill Clinton is not? If it doesn’t exist (and it doesn’t) why are we teaching it as scientific fact, again? [/devilsadvocate]

    Where is the EVIDENCE that homosexuality exists?

    (Rhetorical question alert)

    Are you crazy or merely ignorant?

    The irony is that there is rich scientific study of human behavior that IS actually proving a genetic component, to among many other behaviors, homosexuality. Surely
    you couldn’t be unaware of that?

  84. 84
    albedo says:

    Demdude says it perfect – Evolution cannot be duplicated (yet) and there is only a historical observation. Therefore it is a theory that has not been proven. Lastly, why has it stopped?

    Micro-evolution has been reproduced in laboratory settings. For obvious reasons, macroevolution cannot be. It’s been happening for 6 billion years and has only been a theory since the late 1800’s, therefore it’s a bit (a lot) silly to say it’s “stopped.” And actually, there has been observed evolutionary change in the Faroe Island mouse population.

    There are lots of universally accepted scientific theories that are not laboratory-reproducable or even observable. No one has ever actually “seen” an electron. Entire branches of science as well as many modern inventions (the computer you’re using, e.g.), however, rest upon the “theory” that electrons exist. “Theory” as used by research scientists is different from how you and I use the word. Perhaps that’s what’s confusing you.

  85. 85
    Walldude says:

    I have 2 words for you Intelligent Design supporters. Carbon Dating. Of course it’s within your rights to claim that Carbon Dating is just a fake test to dispel the theory of Creation but I’m sure there are a few palentologists who would disagree. One other thing, do you really think that someone as intelligent as God supposedly is would want to create this train wreck we call a planet?

  86. 86
    Brad R. says:

    Good, goooooood… let your shrillness grow, young Jedi Cole… soon, you will be turned to the Dark Side… ;-)

  87. 87
    Anthony says:

    John Cole said: “I have no problem with a brief fifteen minute discussion of intelligent design as part of a religious/philosophy class, provided schools offer those courses. But I don’t think that is what Bush meant…”

    Actually, I think that’s exactly what he meant. Read the entire question and Bush’s answer. He wasn’t interested in answering the question and gave a half-baked answer about people being exposed to different ideas. I don’t think he was putting forward a policy statement but rather trying to slip away from the topic. Of course, the MSM chopped up the colloquy, the bloggers bought it, and we’re left with “Bush endorses Intelligent Design” and a whole lot of fury. What a joke.

  88. 88
    ppGaz says:

    but isn’t there SOME PLACE in school where creation science can be presented?

    “Creation science” does not exist. There is no such science. “Creation as a story” certainly exists, and it can be taught as a story, like any other history or literature. No matter how much lipstick you try to put on it, you can’t turn the story into “science.” By the way, the fact that you are calling it “science” puts the lie to your entire empire of belief. If “science” is so damnable, why would you try to label your story “science?” If science is laudable, then ….. well, I’m sure you get my drift. Actually, I’m not sure, but others will.

    However, we are talking in a vacuum of reality here. In reality, creation is not going to be taught without the religious overtones that go with it, because the people who teach it don’t know how to do that. They can’t help themselves. Right there, a dealbreaker. If it can be taught as a story, like the story of the tortoise and the hare, as a parable, fine. That’s what it is. But if it is taught as religious belief, like in Sunday school, then no, it doesn’t belong in public school. Public school is not Sunday school.

  89. 89

    That “Big G.” he was referring to isn’t Gaia

    Is it Ganesha? Or Gautama?

  90. 90
    Defense Guy says:

    The theory of evolution (and I suppose random chance) as the origin of life on earth has in no way been proven. Do not confuse evolution as a science with evolution explaining life to begin with.

    Evolution is undeniable, but is perhaps even unprovable as the source of life. ID or creationism is another theory, but lacks a smaller state science as a sort of proof of concept of the larger possibility. In truth, it probably does, just not in terms that follow the scientific rules.

  91. 91
    Hunter McDaniel says:

    The problem with promoting something like ID is that it discredits more reasonable criticisms of the way evolution is taught in many public school curricula. But if forced to choose between the excesses of some evolutionists and a non-science like ID, folks like Juan are going to choose the former and I can’t really blame them.

    I do think that biologists are insufficiently humble about the level uncertainty that attaches to different elements of evolutionary theory. Micro-evolution is readily observable today and is just as certain as electromagnetism. Macro-evolution (speciation) fits with the fossil record, but we haven’t identified a clear mechanism for it that can be replicated; I won’t be surprised if we do identify a mechanism someday. Evolutionary theories about the beginning of life (a primordial soup of amino acids) are almost entirely speculative in my opinion.

  92. 92
    Tom says:

    John, Bush supported full-blooded creationism the schools when he was Texas governor. I don’t see why this should be the breaking point for you.

  93. 93
    Andrei says:

    Too many people on the ID side of the fence need to purchase a dictionary.

    The defition of “theory”, as it relates to science and math, means: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

    Yes, one defintion of the word is “an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture” but that is not its meaning in context when one refers to a “scientic theory.”

    ID is clearly not a scientific theory and therefore does not deserve to be taught as one to compete with the theory of evolution.

    Also, I’m glad to see John Cole flame away hard core (the “coalition of the stupid”) not moments after asking the rest of us to tone it down. 8^)

  94. 94
    ppGaz says:

    The theory of evolution (and I suppose random chance) as the origin of life on earth has in no way been proven. Do not confuse evolution as a science with evolution explaining life to begin with.

    Yeah, the person doing the “confusing” is you. Evolution is not “a science”. It’s a set of hypotheses. Science is science. Science might be employed to test the hypotheses. Don’t confuse one thing with another.

    Second, you are quite correct, the origin of life has not been discovered. But, I reckon it will be. Science is infinitely patient. Unlike “believers”, who demand answers without proof.

  95. 95
    ppGaz says:

    Bush supported full-blooded creationism

    How do you “support” a story? You can tell the story. You can believe the story. But how does one “support” it?

    What you meant to say is, he “supported” the pimping of the story. Which he is certainly entitled to do, as long as the government isn’t involved.

  96. 96
    Rachell says:

    Of course I wasnt surprised when I saw Bush talking about implementing ID in schools. It might not be such a bad idea, if it’s taught in a philosophy class. We can speculate til we’re blue in the face about why we are here and where did we come from, but to teach those speculations in a SCIENCE class where the whole purpose to be able to TEST and disprove them is ridiculous.

  97. 97
    ppGaz says:

    Also, I’m glad to see John Cole flame away hard core (the “coalition of the stupid”) not moments after asking the rest of us to tone it down. 8^)

    He’s a teacher, he cannot resist behaving like this is his classroom. It’s just something you have to get used to around here. It’s like dealing with my mother, who firmly believes that appliances, if left plugged in, will leak electricity when not in use, and cost her money. One just nods and says, Okay Mom. Argument is futile.

  98. 98
    Rachell says:

    One more thing, people need to realize that when we talk about Evolution, we’re really talking about natural selection and this is something you can see in everyday life. For example, you can see it with increasing resistance to antibiotics in bacteria. This is what the theory of evolution is based on.

  99. 99
    Neil S says:

    Evolution (or more precisely, natural selection) can be detected in the development of viruses that are immune to our anti-biotics. There are actually many examples of evolution, but even if there weren’t, the fossil record is totally convincing. Evolution is a theory that has been tested and proven to be correct.

    I have no problem with people believing that God has guided our evolution, however, if they want this taught in science classes in public schools they should try to prove it the same way that evolution was proved, i.e., through experiments, observation and argument in peer-reviewed journals.

  100. 100
    Tom says:

    ppGaz, you’re right, part of my sentence got cut off. What I meant to say was that Bush supported including creationism in science classes before he was President. So did Reagan.

    http://slate.msn.com/id/1006378/

    I don’t see how this announcement, which is not a change in ideology from Bush, should make any change in ideology from John.

    For the record, I think all creationists are ignorant, deluded, or lying.

  101. 101
    ppGaz says:

    don’t see how this announcement, which is not a change in ideology from Bush, should make any change in ideology from John.

    John is still going through his RINO crisis of faith. It’s kind of like the death of Generalissimo Franco …. it could go on forever.

  102. 102

    The theory of evolution (and I suppose random chance) as the origin of life on earth has in no way been proven.

    Let’s not confuse evolution with abiogenesis, ok? Life’s too complicated as it is. I mean, Dr. Dino managed to swirl those two AND cosmology together, and he’s got a Ph.D.

  103. 103
    BinkyBoy says:

    Creationism and ID are both methods to derive the beginnings of man to a set point.

    Evolution is a scientific theory that describes how species change and evolve to changing environmental stimuli as well as random mutation.

    Creationism and ID are setup to make mankind the final step, the goal.

    Evolution says humans arn’t anything special, we’re just bipedal and sentient with an uncertain future.

    Damn that evolution, now I don’t feel special and superior.

  104. 104
    Defense Guy says:

    Second, you are quite correct, the origin of life has not been discovered.

    Good.

    But, I reckon it will be. Science is infinitely patient. Unlike “believers”, who demand answers without proof.

    This may be so, but the “belevers” feel that they will be proven correct as well. The thing that both positions rely on is faith (or in your case reckoning).

    As to the first part, I am not confused. Evolution is a field of study in the sciences, therefore it is a science. While it may employ theories, they cannot yet proveably point to the cause of the origin of life.

  105. 105
    ppGaz says:

    For the record, I think all creationists are ignorant, deluded, or lying.

    I used to, as well, before I got older, and mellow.

    People who insist on shoving creation down our throats are of course reprobates who deserve the full measure of scorn, ridicule, and resistance.

    But the ordinary believer …. I think he’s just either intimidated by the seemingly frightening nature of the truth, or else just unable to think in the abstract or think critically. It’s like musical talent. Some people just don’t have it. You can give them piano lessons for 50 years, and they still won’t have it. Others can learn to play or sing or write music without any instruction, they just “get it.” It’s ….. genetic. Part of the natural variation within a species ;-)

  106. 106
    ppGaz says:

    The thing that both positions rely on is faith

    Oh, absolutely not. I know the difference between reasonable expectation, and faith …. even if you don’t.

  107. 107
    JWeidner says:

    That “Big G.” he was referring to isn’t Gaia

    Is it Ganesha? Or Gautama?

    No way. The “Big G” is the Giant Spaghetti Monster! The TRUE theory of Intelligent Design. (well…really the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I needed to start with a “G”)

    Good for a larf about ID theory, anyway…

  108. 108
    pajamamensch says:

    Vladi G- Your “trace metals theory” does not contradict or even address J.Stewart’s more elegant formulation that Gravity is actually angels trying to pull down your pants.

  109. 109
    Defense Guy says:

    Nice pedestal you have there ppGaz.

  110. 110
    ppGaz says:

    Evolution is a field of study in the sciences, therefore it is a science.

    Well, you missed the point … which I am guessing, you often do.

    Evolution is a set of assumptions, really, based on observations. It’s a way of explaining the observations. Science is a process, a discipline. A way of exploring the world. A way of gathering the observations. Apples, oranges.

    I suppose you can bend the words around to each other, most people would probably put up with it. However, I’m going to be keeping an eye on you to make sure you don’t get away with too much verbal chicanery, because I don’t trust you.

  111. 111
    Geek, Esq. says:

    Can Heliocentrism be the next target of the Republican base?

  112. 112

    or even address J.Stewart’s more elegant formulation that Gravity is actually angels trying to pull down your pants.

    False! I’m not even wearing pants!

    Uh…I’ll be right back.

  113. 113
    Jimmy Jazz says:

    ID or creationism is another theory, but lacks a smaller state science as a sort of proof of concept of the larger possibility. In truth, it probably does, just not in terms that follow the scientific rules.

    Could you work on mastering the theory of coherent sentences? Thanks.

  114. 114

    How Bush Threw His Groove Away

    Via The Politburo Diktat and Balloon Juice, this choice tidbit of unmitigated idiocy: President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss ‘’intelligent design’’ alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life. Du…

  115. 115
    Doctorem says:

    I like to use the following classification scheme: First we distinguish between scientific theories and nonscientific theories. Then we subdivide the scientific group into viable and nonviable theories. We end up with three possibilities:

    Viable scientific theories (like evolution)

    Nonviable scientific theories (like biblical creationism)

    Nonscientific theories (like intelligent design)

    The most critical and distinguishing feature of scientific theories is that they are vulnerable to evidence. The theory of evolution is a dramatic case in point. It makes stringent postdictions that rule out an enormous variety of otherwise possible observations. Just for instance, as Haldane points out, the discovery of a single fossil rabbit from the Precambrian era would constitute very strong evidence against evolution. Indeed, evolution is a viable scientific theory because no such clearly falsifying evidence has been discovered.

    Biblical creationism is ALSO a scientific theory. It too makes stringent postdictions. Specifically, it rules out the existence of Earthly things more than 6000 years old. Indeed, because the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary, the theory is a nonviable scientific theory.

    [Note that this is not the same as saying that biblical creationism is not “true.” (There’s no way of being certain, for instance, that the evidence wasn’t rigged by “God” as a test of faith.) Science simply does not deal with the question of “truth.” It only deals with the question of viability. It subjects its theories to tests, tests that are only possible because the theories are vulnerable to evidence. Theories that fail those tests lose acceptance and are ultimately rejected for better theories, theories that pass more tests. But no amount of “test passing” will ever establish that a scientific theory is “true.” It merely confers greater viability.]

    Intelligent design on the other hand is a nonscientific theory for the simple reason that it is invulnerable to evidence. Proponents like to say that there is a lot of evidence FOR intelligent design and indeed there is–the world is a truly remarkable place–but that is simply irrelevant for purposes of judging ID’s scientific credentials.

    [Again, note that this does not mean that Intelligent Design is not “true.” It simply means it is not science and has no place in the science curriculum.]

    In my opinion the primary reason that fundamentalists have moved to embrace ID is precisely because it is nonscientific and does not suffer the fatal flaw of biblical creationism, the flaw that actually makes it a scientific theory–vulnerability to evidence.

  116. 116
    Kimmitt says:

    Hey, wow, we elected a fundie nutjob to the highest office in the land, and he’s acting like a fundie nutjob. Who could possibly have predicted that?

  117. 117
    Timqz says:

    I imagine I’m setting myself up for an on-line bashing, but I have to admit that I feel some uneasiness about all the hostility to the concept of “intelligent design”. As I understand the term, it doesn’t deny that evolution of all life forms has occurred on this planet for a period of billions of years, it just suggests that there may be some kind of intelligence (God, cosmic consciousness, whatever) guiding this evolution. I don’t find that such an utterly bizarre idea to put forth, when you consider the complexity and inter-relatedness of all life forms. I think that “materialist fundamentalism” (to coin a term), i.e., that everything in the universe has come to be from blind, random chance, can be just as intolerant and dogmatic as religious fundamentalism.
    I’m a staunch political liberal with deep concerns about the “marriage made in hell” between Christian fundamentalists and right-wing politics. I also think that Bush’s take on “intelligent design” is most likely simplistic and steeped in Christian fundamentalism. But that doesn’t mean we can’t acknowledge the possibility of something out there in the universe besides blind, random materialism. To dismiss people who pose that question as idiots strikes me as pretty arrogant.

  118. 118
    Tom says:

    Timqz, if you asked any competent biologist, they would tell you that evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. Almost all would be very accepting and respecting of your viewpoint if you said you are a theistic evolutionist. Intelligent design is not theistic evolution. Intelligent design started off saying that they’d basically proven that some outside force was needed to explain the existence of irreducible complexity and complex specified information. When the IDists arguments were found invalid, they basically have retreated to the position of saying, “Well, we don’t have a theory, but evolution is somehow wrong and Goddidit.” They IDists are not just saying that God may have been involved. Depending on which IDist you ask, descent with modification is wrong.

    Theistic evolution-intellectually respectable
    Intelligent design=used-car salesman tactic with no scientific backing

  119. 119
    ppGaz says:

    To dismiss people who pose that question as idiots strikes me as pretty arrogant.

    Strawman.

    Nobody is out to get “people who pose that question.”

    What we do oppose is …

    The use if ID as a subterfuge for creation being taught as an alternative to science in public schools.

    The advancement of either ID or creationism as science, or the equivalent of science.

    People are free, and welcome, to believe and preach and think as they like. But they are not free to employ the government to advance a religion, or religious views.

    The arrogance comes from the plaintiffs in the case. They at the same time want to impose their beliefs on others at my expense, and then cry that I’m arrogant for opposing them. It’s a double lie. They have no right to do the former, and they are incorrectly accusing me of the latter.

    There’s nothing arrogant about saying to them, believe what you want, but leave the government out of it. That’s a political view, and the least arrogant of the two views, by far. I don’t care what they teach their kids. I only care what they try to teach my kids at my expense.

    The teaching of science is not in and of itself opposed to the story of creation. It’s anathema to dogma and blind faith, and that’s why they are out to degrade it.

  120. 120
    RW says:

    The irony is that there is rich scientific study of human behavior that IS actually proving a genetic component, to among many other behaviors, homosexuality.

    Ah, so there’s a STUDY that is PROVING a genetic component. And that’s considered a scientific fact to you.

    Surely you couldn’t be unaware of that?

    Not until you took the leap, no, I didn’t know that a study equates to a scientific fact. Interesting that the sliding scale of “science” depends on the person and their preferences.

    Folks, people “change teams”, so someone’s activity doesn’t equate to orientation. Deal.

    *caveat* I stated that I was playing devil’s advocate, folks. Since John is the favored righty-who-bashes-Bush I guess I need to tell the kossack I’m pro-civil union and hate the GOP’s record on gay matters….I’m playing devil’s advocate with all the “if it’s not a scientific fact it shouldn’t be taught” crowd because there is no scientific evidence that proves SCIENTIFICALLY that, say, Elton John is gay. Or that I’m straight. Doesn’t exist. It may some day, but it doesn’t now.

    So put away your swords and your “I can’t believe you’re saying that” blather. You have nothing but bad arguments and anger. That’s a loser every time.

  121. 121
    albedo says:

    As I understand the term, it doesn’t deny that evolution of all life forms has occurred on this planet for a period of billions of years, it just suggests that there may be some kind of intelligence guiding this evolution

    Yes, and no one is denying the possibility that this could be the case. What everyone is reacting to is the notion of teaching ID alongside evolution in science class. ID is not science. It is religious speculation.

  122. 122
    Simon says:

    Creationism/Intelligent Design isn’t a theory it’s just philosophy masquerading as scientific theory.

  123. 123
    Andrei says:

    “But that doesn’t mean we can’t acknowledge the possibility of something out there in the universe besides blind, random materialism.”

    That’s all well and good, but that’s not “science.” The ID folks are attempting to pass off ID as science while simultaneously attempting to dismiss fairly well constructed and tested scientific theories like evolution, and that’s the crux of the issue.

    “To dismiss people who pose that question as idiots strikes me as pretty arrogant.”

    No one is dismissing people who pose the question of “who is creating all this amazing stuff in the universe” as idiots. In fact, my favorite classes in school were theology and philosophy for that very reason. We are dismissing people who attempt to pass off ID as science while also attempting to dismiss evolution as a well tested scientific theory as idiots.

  124. 124
    wyldpirate says:

    Not really. ID isn’t science because it has no falsifiable hypothesis underlying its premise. Essentially it is a throwback to ancient times where folks explained things they couldn’t understand by “goddidit”.

    THe thing is, the folks pushing ID theory are far more sophisticated. They trot out a little molecular biology and biochemistry and posit that you can’t explain how something as complicated as a bacterial flagellum or the mammalian immune system evolved, ergo there must have been an “intelligent designer” behind the evolution. In essence, ID is essentially a gussied up version of the 18th century English scientist and theologian William Paley’s thesis posited in his book Natural Theology.

    In essence, the modern ID’ers are preying on the ignorance of lay people. Scientists don’t buy it becaue a.) no testabl;e and falsifiable hypoteses underlie this faux theory and b.) there is extensive evidence demonstrating that evolution has occurred in many of the examples–such as the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, the human eye–the Id’ists love to trot out to kowtow to the whackjob fundie bible thumpers.

    The ID folks are sponsored by the far right-wing funded Discovery Institute. Their agenda–which is they overthrow of materialism and methodological naturalism and the establishment of the reality of God as the cultural foundation of America–was long ago.

  125. 125
    h0mi says:

    I’ve thought ID was an attempt to explain how/why evolution worked, rather than the seeming “spontaneous” aspect of it; “sure we had a big bang but God made that happen” sounds slightly more satisfying than “Nothing existed before the big bang” or “we don’t know what existed before the big bang, except it appears all the matter in the universe existed in a small ball the size of (insert answer that I don’t know here)”.

    I think discussions about ID are important, if for no other reason than to discuss the controversy surrounding creationism, ID, evolution, abiogenesis, etc. and to educate students about the issues so that they don’t grow up into adults ignorant of the issues at hand. The question that’s not answered is whether ID is to be taught in science class as an alternative to evolution (? … or evolution as its commonly understood) or in another class.

    Here’s my attempt to turn ID into falsified theory- an intelligent designer would not design the human body in such a way as to confer benefits (malarial resistence) with significant disadvantages (hemolytic anemia or sickle cell anemia). It’s not “intelligent design” to evolve people into having these conditions that offer some benefits with significant drawbacks.

  126. 126
    albedo says:

    “I’m playing devil’s advocate with all the “if it’s not a scientific fact it shouldn’t be taught” crowd.”

    Why? Do you think things that aren’t science should be taught as science? And still trying to figure out where this bizarre homosexuality argument fits in. Because, as far as I know, no one’s teaching about the “causes” of homosexuality in public schools.

    because there is no scientific evidence that proves SCIENTIFICALLY that, say, Elton John is gay

    Dude, if you need proof that Elton John is gay, your gaydar is really on the fritz.

  127. 127
    Jimmr says:

    Who needs physics and math when we can move heaven and earth with faith and prayer?

  128. 128
    wyldpirate says:

    As I understand the term, it doesn’t deny that evolution of all life forms has occurred on this planet for a period of billions of years, it just suggests that there may be some kind of intelligence (God, cosmic consciousness, whatever) guiding this evolution.

    Your problem is that you don’t understand the theory of evolution. Biological evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe or even the origin of life on earth. It doesn’t simply operate on “random chance”. The basic mechanisms of biological evolution work on a.)random mutation in the genetic code and b.) natural selection of the organism that has undergone random mutation that is best suited for a particular ecologic niche.

    Not really. ID isn’t science because it has no falsifiable hypothesis underlying its premise. Essentially it is a throwback to ancient times where folks explained things they couldn’t understand by “goddidit”.

    THe thing is, the folks pushing ID theory are far more sophisticated. They trot out a little molecular biology and biochemistry and posit that you can’t explain how something as complicated as a bacterial flagellum or the mammalian immune system evolved, ergo there must have been an “intelligent designer” behind the evolution. In essence, ID is essentially a gussied up version of the 18th century English scientist and theologian William Paley’s thesis posited in his book Natural Theology.

    In essence, the modern ID’ers are preying on the ignorance of lay people. Scientists don’t buy it becaue a.) no testabl;e and falsifiable hypoteses underlie this faux theory and b.) there is extensive evidence demonstrating that evolution has occurred in many of the examples–such as the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, the human eye–the Id’ists love to trot out to kowtow to the whackjob fundie bible thumpers.

    The ID folks are sponsored by the far right-wing funded Discovery Institute. Their agenda–which is they overthrow of materialism and methodological naturalism and the establishment of the reality of God as the cultural foundation of America–was long ago.

  129. 129
    wyldpirate says:

    sorry for the double post folks. ;)

  130. 130
    RW says:

    Dude, if you need proof that Elton John is gay, your gaydar is really on the fritz.

    Were you saying that in 1984 when he was married to the very female Renate Blauel? Is that part of the ongoing scientific studies, a man who says he likes men but who marries a woman?

    I’m playing around, but unless you can point me to the genetic code that displays – with scientific proof – a preponderance to homosexuality within the human DNA, you’re fighting a similar battle that you’re claiming that the IDers are fighting.

  131. 131
    Andrei says:

    “…because there is no scientific evidence that proves SCIENTIFICALLY that, say, Elton John is gay”

    That’s actually incorrect. It’s quite clear that Elton John and many other people are gay. What hasn’t been proven scientifically yet is why John Elton is gay. There is more mounting scientific evidence that being gay is genetic and not a lifestyle choice, but that part has not been proven without a shadow of scientic doubt… yet. Although more evidence seems to finally be coming to light on the subject.

    Just because humans lived thousands of years without Newton’s theories on physics doesn’t mean gravity didn’t exist.

  132. 132
    RW says:

    Where’s the scientific proof, Andrei. Point us all to it, please. I have a five year old son and I’d like to know – with scientific proof as a guide – whether he’s straight or gay. Please, enlighten us all with the source for this evidence that is “quite clear”.

  133. 133
    albedo says:

    Were you saying that in 1984 when he was married to the very female Renate Blauel?

    Errr, no.

    I’m sorry, but what (tf) are you talking about? First of all, I’m not claiming anything about homosexuality. Secondly, it’s a bad comparison anyway – scientists are working on the issue of whether or not there’s a “gay” gene. ID is inherently unprovable – it’s non-science. And third, wasn’t this

    What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality exists

    your initial contribution? We don’t need scientific evidence that homosexuality exists. We have empirical evidence in the form of IKEA, Chelsea, Rip Taylor, and Tom Cruise.

  134. 134
    albedo says:

    I have a five year old son and I’d like to know – with scientific proof as a guide – whether he’s straight or gay.

    Does he read Pottery Barn catalogs? Enjoy apple tartinis? Watch Sex in the City? Spend hundreds of dollars on Madonna tickets? Drive a Miata?

  135. 135
    RW says:

    ID is inherently unprovable – it’s non-science.

    You’re correct. As is evolution as the genesis of life (evolution itself – that things evolve – is a fact). No one knows how that first living organism came about that everything else came from and evolution has no explaination.

    We have empirical evidence in the form of IKEA, Chelsea, Rip Taylor, and Tom Cruise.

    LOL! Comment of the day.

  136. 136
    RW says:

    Okay, I’m busy and have played around enough. The answer, folks, is that human behavior cannot be quantified as a scientific fact. “Gattica” was a movie, not real life and while we may find out the ‘gay gene’ one day, we cannot use science to show how people will act.

    That some were willing to actually pass along the notion that there WAS scientific evidence that homosexuality can be proven is pretty freaking scary, though.

    Have a pleasant evening, folks. It was fun….and funny.

  137. 137
    Andrei says:

    Here, go through the research yourself. As you’ll see from all the various commentary on the subject, origins of homosexuality is a pretty hot topic in genetics these days.

    Then please buy yourself a clue since you missed the point in my post. It wasn’t about whether being gay is “scientific fact.” Obviously, my simple point went right over your head.

    So I’ll be more direct: Did gravity exist before Newtonian physics?

  138. 138
    albedo says:

    You’re correct. As is evolution as the genesis of life (evolution itself – that things evolve – is a fact). No one knows how that first living organism came about that everything else came from and evolution has no explaination.

    Alright – consensus has been reached.

  139. 139
    ppGaz says:

    I’m playing around, but unless you can point me to the genetic code that displays – with scientific proof – a preponderance to homosexuality within the human DNA, you’re fighting a similar battle that you’re claiming that the IDers are fighting.

    It’s a false battle, that you are pimping.

    There is no evidence that gayness is a mental disorder. There is no reason to think that it is a moral failure, the shrieks to the contrary, notwithstanding. There is no reason to think that it is a “choice” made by misguided “normal” people.

    There isn’t much left. There also isn’t much left to fight about, except that gratuitous gay-bashers keep ginning up things to fight about, and using phony moral arguments to prop up what is nothing more than abject bigotry.

    Science will continue to look at the question, and more information will become available. Meanwhile, gays should be left the hell alone, and you should stop flapping your gums about them.

  140. 140
    Horshu says:

    I’ll go one further and say that within 20 years, we will be able to simulate a complete evolutionary cycle on a computer. By that, I mean that we will be able to place virtual organic compounds in a virtual primordial soup, and the end result will resemble organic *patterns* that we will recognize. You will see this in the coming years on Mars and Titan; order necessarily derives from certain rules, which in this case are the rules of quantum interactions. If you place molecules of a certain combination in an environment, the rules governing their interaction will result in organic compounds and likely go a level higher and result in organic lifeforms. We will see it on Mars. If environment permits, we will see it on Titan. And I can say with all the certainty a non-psychic can that a computer simulation will do the same (and on a parallel track, it has).

    The atomic-level interactions of various particles is chaotic, but chaos itself is ordered (chaos falls within a range), in spite of entropy. Given certain rules of interaction among these particles, micro-order rises out of the general randomness (i.e. quarks form into atoms, atoms form into molecules, molecules form organic compound). My basic point is that the fundamental tenent of ID – that life is too complex to arise from simple atomic processes – is wrong, and we have evidence to *suggest* (not proven yet, but I challenge anyone to use ID to prove a damn thing) this.

    And if that isn’t enough, try this one: I am God, and I created the universe. You (that means everyone) must do what I say. If you wish do not follow my Word, then you have the obligation to prove that I am not God. Starting….NOW.

  141. 141
    Andrei says:

    “That some were willing to actually pass along the notion that there WAS scientific evidence that homosexuality can be proven is pretty freaking scary, though.”

    I take it all back… John Cole was right to title this post “Coalition of the Stupid.”

  142. 142
    RW says:

    Then please buy yourself a clue since you missed the point in my post. It wasn’t about whether being gay is “scientific fact.” Obviously, my simple point went right over your head.

    Me: “…because there is no scientific evidence that proves SCIENTIFICALLY that, say, Elton John is gay”

    You: “That’s actually incorrect.”

    Get your arguements in line before you assume the mantle of supreme judge and arbitor. And then lighten up, Francis. You made a bogus argument. If you mistyped or I misread….that happens. If the former, no biggie. If the latter, I apologize in advance (although the text shows that to be improbable).

    There is no scientific evidence that proves that Elton John is gay, by the way. You can link to studies that may or may not show progress in some direction endlessly, it’s not a scientific fact. You’re fighting a losing argument.

  143. 143
    ppGaz says:

    I am God, and I created the universe. You (that means everyone) must do what I say. If you wish do not follow my Word, then you have the obligation to prove that I am not God. Starting….NOW.

    Congratulations, you just channeled my drunken grandfather.

  144. 144

    […] The way some people are reacting you’d think he’d just handed down a mandate to replace all the science textbooks with the bible. […]

  145. 145
    ppGaz says:

    There is no scientific evidence that proves that Elton John is gay

    Only because nobody has bothered to seek such evidence.

    There’s no “scientific” evidence that I can play the piano by ear, either. But I can, and I could when I was 7. So what?

    There’s no “scientific” evidence that my wife can’t do math, but I’ve seen her checkbook. And if you try to correct her, she’ll cry and then go to bed with a headache.

    Behavior is a lot of mystery. But the thing is, the Elton John question is about the fact the some people out there insist that he’s made a “choice” and should be treated as a second class citizen for it. YOU provide proof of that, and then you can call me.

  146. 146

    If you think about it, it makes perfectly good sense that guys like Bush want to dumb down the population. After all, no intelligent (and informed) person could possibly vote these crazed fools into power.

  147. 147

    If they teach “intelligent design” (notice, more Orwellian speak here…after all, no intelligent person would buy into this crap) in a philosphy class, thats fine. But to teach it in a science class, when there is ABOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of intelligent design is to actually assault our education system by introducing non-science as science.

  148. 148

    Sorry, but there’s probably not a political motive behind this statement of Dubya’s. He’s talked about creationism a lot, and it’s evident that he genuinely believes it.

    Which is a lot scarier than talking this crap to fire up the base, of course.

  149. 149

    Bulldog, this crap has no place in a philosophy class either. The only place to teach ID is in a theology class or in Sunday School.

  150. 150
    RW says:

    ppGaz, ever get tired of seeking acknowledgment from those who pay you little-to-no heed?

  151. 151

    […] From the comments: […]

  152. 152
    JW says:

    One thing I have always found curious about the hard-core anti-evolution crowd is that their distaste for science and the scientific method stops at the hospital door. Why don’t these folks put their money where their mouth is ….. stop using modern medicine, sanitation, virtually all modern agriculture, etc.. After all, the Bible tells us disease is a punishment for sin (ours — or even our parents’) — so don’t bother your local neurologist if your kid has siezures — call your local shaman/minister/priest to cast out the demons. I don’t know which is worse, the stupidity or the hypocrisy.

  153. 153
    UNCoRRELATED says:

    Kerfuffle By Design

    Now its really going to hit the fan. President Bush, in a roundtable interview and this exchange: Q I wanted to ask you about the — what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are…

  154. 154
    Rome Again says:

    It is just a theory, that has no evidence, yet.

    I think you forgot what you were supposed to learn early on in your education, the word you’re forgetting is “HYPOTHESIS”.

    hypothesis

    n 1: a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations 2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory“; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices” [syn: possibility, theory] 3: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence [syn: guess, conjecture, supposition, surmise, surmisal, speculation]

    Source: Wordnet

    The scientific method consists of a hypothesis (idea) first, when a piece of verifying data is introduced it becomes a theory, until it is irrefutably proven which then becomes a proof or FACT. Very few hypotheses get to the point of becoming fact. This new idea that ID (or actually Creationism in a pretty costume) is a “theory” is utter bullshit, and will only create the following problem:

    Science teaches that for a hypothesis to become theory, it must have data (facts) to back it up. ID has no facts and never will, even if God Almighty decides to show up one day and trample the godless underfoot, that will not prove he created the world, just that he exists. So therefore, we now have all scientific hypotheses needing data to back up the hypotheses before they become theory, EXCEPT WHEN THAT HYPOTHESIS IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Go figure!

  155. 155
    Andrei says:

    RW, I was responding in large part to your earlier part in the thread:

    What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality exists? Is there some sort of CAT scan or blood test that denotes that Elton John is gay and Bill Clinton is not? If it doesn’t exist (and it doesn’t) why are we teaching it as scientific fact, again? [/devilsadvocate]”

    You seem to be confusing an aspect of your argument that there has to specific genetic science around homosexuality in order for there to be “scientic proof” homosexuality exists.

    That is simply incorrect. There are many forms of study that can be done in scientific manners. Science is “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.”

    For example, I could conduct a study that examined the behavior of humans over a 40 year period and note time and time again that there are certain subjects who not only exhibit sexual conduct with members of the same sex, but when interviewed, state their preference as such.

    That would be sufficient evidence for the “existence” of homosexuality, scientifically speaking.

    Your absurd devil’s argument comes from the fact you are implying some standard on what constitutes “scientific evidence” in order for homosexuality to “exist.” It’s just bullshit.

    Homosexuality exits. We have facutal evidence it exists all around no matter how many people want to bury it or turn a blind to eye to it, just like there was observable, facutal evidence that gravity exists long before we had the means to define it in the mathematical sense through Newtonian phyics. What we lack in our understanding of homosexuality scientifically is what causes humans to behave that way, and strong signals that sexual preference might be genetic, but that in no means homosexuality does not exist in the scientiifc sense.

    But to make some bizarre devil’s advocate claim that homosexuality doesn’t exist, in the scientific sense of the word, is just stupid.

  156. 156
    AlanDownunder says:

    Doug J,

    This Christian is not knocking your faith, he’s just noting that it is not scientific. Faith existed before science got going and needs no scientific validation.

    Science makes no claim to prove or disprove the supernatural. We’ll butt out of your faith if you butt out of our science. Deal?

    One question though: Why is it anti-republican to want to keep faith out of the lab? Do Creationism/ID and GOP come as an unsplittable package? Why is a scientific Republican a RINO?

  157. 157
    templedog says:

    Why do we even need scientific proof for Homosexiality. You are all missing the point. And the point is, you can do what ever you want to with another man or women, it doesn’t matter if your gay at birth or not.

  158. 158
    Rome Again says:

    The theory of evolution (and I suppose random chance) as the origin of life on earth has in no way been proven.

    Oh yeah? Explain to me then, please, why I have a tailbone, and don’t tell me I don’t have a tailbone because it hurt like hell when my ex-husband kicked it and smashed it in.

  159. 159
    ppGaz says:

    RW Says:

    Okay, I’m busy and have played around enough. The answer, folks, is that human behavior cannot be quantified as a scientific fact.

    Well, looks like you are a liar as well as a bonehead. You’re busy, but just keep posting.

    Human behavior cannot be “quantified” as a scientific fact?

    That’s not even a sentence, much less an idea.

    Human behavior will slowly be exposed through research, in the fullness of time, just like a lot of other things. The fact that right now, at this moment, you can’t find a “quantified” (whatever the hell that means) set of data for some particular behavior …. completely irrelevant. You lame attempt to troll up an exchange here on the “topic” will serve as an example.

    Having nothing to say, however, doesn’t seem to stop you from saying it over and over.

    You seem to be into “scientific” questions. Okay, please supply scientific proof that you are not a pedophile.

  160. 160
    Rome Again says:

    Why is a scientific Republican a RINO?

    Because the Republican party has been taken over by religious zealots and you’re not towing the party line.

    How does it feel?

  161. 161
    RW says:

    RW, I was responding in large part to your earlier part in the thread:

    That’s fine. It would be wise in the future to point to that section instead of quoting the part that I accurately cut n’ pasted, which was your refutation that there was no scientific evidence that Elton John was gay (which you later denied).

    It happens.

    But to make some bizarre devil’s advocate claim that homosexuality doesn’t exist…

    Oh, boy, here come the strawmen. Last refuge?
    I’ll be kind to you, wish you adieu and hope that you have a pleasant evening.

  162. 162
    Otto Man says:

    I can’t wait until we apply the same standard to other disciplines. Maybe in history classes we can teach that the North won the Civil War, then teach that the South won, and let the students decide for themselves. Sure, all the “experts” agree with the first version, but there are some who refuse to accept it. We should teach both versions, or we’ll be persecuting Christians. Again.

  163. 163
    Otto Man says:

    Why is a scientific Republican a RINO?

    Because “Republican” now apparently means “snake-charmer”? Take the RINO thing as a compliment.

  164. 164
    Andrei says:

    “I’ll be kind to you, wish you adieu and hope that you have a pleasant evening.”

    Way to duck and run.

  165. 165
    Rome Again says:

    I can’t wait until we apply the same standard to other disciplines. Maybe in history classes we can teach that the North won the Civil War, then teach that the South won, and let the students decide for themselves.

    they’re rewriting history, that’s nothing new. Why do you think the library in Alexandria was burned?

  166. 166
    Gary Farber says:

    “…the hazards of not blogging for a few hours….”

    A few hours? This happened on Monday; I posted on it at 11:47 p.m., Monday night.

    No biggy, or even smally, to get to it a day later; I just blinked to read that. (Besides, obviously you should check my blog 1/5th as often as I check yours. ;-))

  167. 167
    Andrei says:

    “Oh, boy, here come the strawmen. Last refuge?”

    And oh, so wait! Are you saying a study on human behavior over a 40 year period of time would NOT constitute a scientific study or provide evidence of homosexuality in humans?

    Honestly? Is that what you’re trying to tell me is a strawman argument here? In your world, do only CAT scans and genetic research constitute scientific studies for the existence of homosexuality?

    The existence?

    And I’m creating the strawman? LMAO.

  168. 168
    RW says:

    Andrei,
    I have had too much experience with these things and once someone is backed into a corner where they can’t get out and begin to make up strawmen to argue – in this case you claiming that I charge that homosexuality doesn’t exist – then I know I’m wasting my time.

    My time isn’t to be wasted and you’re wasting it and I’m having to scroll past ppGaz’s constant attempts to receive my acknowledgment. Not gonna happen.

    Until another day. Be safe and God bless.

  169. 169
    jg says:

    lighten up, Francis

    I love that movie LOL

  170. 170
    ppGaz says:

    My time isn’t to be wasted

    Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha! I think others will be the judge of that.

    Let’s start a pool: How many goodbyes will you post to one thread?

    I’ll start it off by saying: five

  171. 171
    Andrei says:

    “…in this case you claiming that I charge that homosexuality doesn’t exist…”

    You started this fiasco stating:

    “What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality exists?”

    There’s plenty of scientific proof that homosexuality EXISTS. (Google some related terms like “scientific +research +studies +homosexuality” and you’ll get hit ranges above the 200,000 mark.) Plenty of scientific studies on homosexuality, plenty of scientific research, and plenty of scientific evidence past your own lying eyes watching “Queer Eye” that yes indeed — wait for it — homosexuality ACTUALLY exists.

    Then you decided to move the goal posts:

    “I’m playing devil’s advocate with all the “if it’s not a scientific fact it shouldn’t be taught” crowd because there is no scientific evidence that proves SCIENTIFICALLY that, say, Elton John is gay.”

    Now you’ve strayed away from the idea of arguing about the very existence of homosexuality due to some lack of in scientific evidence to asking someone to prove Elton John is gay outside of Elton John telling us that he is. That’s a complete fork in the road that leads entirely away from your original “devil’ advocate” feignt of whether homosexuality can actually be proven to exist in the scientific sense.

    Then, you go a step further than moving the goal posts; you change the entire game:

    “I’m playing around, but unless you can point me to the genetic code that displays – with scientific proof – a preponderance to homosexuality within the human DNA, you’re fighting a similar battle that you’re claiming that the IDers are fighting.”

    Now you are longer content with plenty of scientific research in the field of human sexuality that — wait for it — homosexuality DOES INDEED EXIST, but now you want a specific form of scientific proof, that being genetics.

    Wait… I suppose only the hard sciences like medicine qualify now in this strawman you’ve been so carefully constructing.

    “I have a five year old son and I’d like to know – with scientific proof as a guide – whether he’s straight or gay. Please, enlighten us all with the source for this evidence that is “quite clear”.”

    And from there we’ve left the realm of whether homosexuality exists at all, to if we can’t scientifically prove your son is straight or gay (supposedly from some DNA test of some sort given the earlier exchange) that is somehow relevant to whether homosexuality ACTUALLY EXISTS or not.

    I’m backed into a corner? You’re passing idiocy and moving into the realm of moron.

  172. 172
    MisterPundit says:

    Oh brother, here we go. Short of how to make bombs, I think it’s idiotic to shield kids from information, however stupid it may be. I suppose you love the ban on “undesireable” web sites at libraries too, John Cole? Sure, ID makes no scientific sense, but whether you like it or not, it IS a theory many people believe in, so why shouldn’t students be told of it’s existance? Don’t you think that when a student leaves high school they should at least be able to answer the basic question “What theories regarding the creation of earth and the human species exists out there”? Come on now, get a grip, and let’s leave the decision of how clever or stupid ID is to the student, for fuck’s sake.

  173. 173
    Sinequanon says:

    John, I absolutely, positively 100% concur with everything you have said. Plus as a Texan, that Texas statute is just angering and just as much crao as the remainder of the legislative bills passed in this years legislature. Yet, they still haven’t figured out how to finance schools after giving themselves pay raises and cutting everyones taxes…sheesh!

  174. 174
    DougJ says:

    “Plus as a Texan, that Texas statute is just angering.”

    Would you liberals stop whining about the Ten Commandments statues? The court has settled the issue and those statues are staying put.

  175. 175
    Rome Again says:

    Would you liberals stop whining about the Ten Commandments statues? The court has settled the issue and those statues are staying put.

    Perhaps you’d like to read what Sinquanon wrote one more time before putting your idiotic thoughts into play?

    Statute, not statue…

    Feeling persecuted are you?

    Regarding the statue that you wan’t to talk about so much, can you please tell me how a statue of a 10 Commandments display is not itself a graven image that man shouldn’t make according to the 10 Commandments? Who are you (or any person) to decide whether God allows you to decide that this statue is exempt from his rule? But, forget it, we really shouldn’t change the subject in here; I was just making a point and I’ve already made it.

  176. 176
    Rome Again says:

    ID makes no scientific sense, but whether you like it or not, it IS a theory many people believe in, so why shouldn’t students be told of it’s existance?

    Please show the data of such theory, if you don’t have data to back it up, there is no theory… and a book filled with unproveable stories is not data.

    It is NOT a theory, it is an idea, or what science would call a hypothesis. It will always be a hypothesis, you can’t test this hypothesis, so it will NEVER be a theory!

    Of course, you think “the theory of ID” should be introduced into science class, because you never understood much of science to begin with if you think ID is a theory. Get an education, then come talk to us.

  177. 177
    BlogReeder says:

    Ain’t nothing like evolution to fill up the comments board.

    Teaching evolution is hard. It sounds like it should be easy but it’s not. There are 4 parts to neo-Darwinism as I see it: Evolution, Natural Selection, Random genetic Mutation and Origin of Life. Each of these are separate pieces and in fact, get mixed up. A lot. Evolution means organisms have changed. Natural Selection is survival of the fittest. Fossils prove evolution but not Natural Selection. Random genetic Mutation tries to explain how changes occur. And Origin of Life is thrown in there just to keep the party going and explain how life can come from non-life. Darwin didn’t have any thing in his Origin of Species about Origin of Life. And on top of this make sure you don’t imply purpose.

    My point is that someone could agree with one part but not another. It can cause confusion if they’re not clear. Someone will say evolution when they mean natural selection.

  178. 178
    MisterPundit says:

    Of course, you think “the theory of ID” should be introduced into science class, because you never understood much of science to begin with if you think ID is a theory. Get an education, then come talk to us.

    Did I say “science” class? Learn to read you moron, then kiss my ass.

  179. 179
    Marq says:

    The interesting aspect of the greater ID scheme lies in the way that adoption of ID as a “science” would inevitably lead to economic decline in the USA. Science instruction in the US is already sub-par. Introducing ID as an “alternative” to evolution muddies the waters in students’ minds and allows them an easy out that frees them to discard the evolution teaching. They’ll largely retain only the ID stuff that supports their pre-existing beliefs. So, then, an ever smaller percentage of them will be qualified for careers in the bio-sciences. Meanwhile, proper science education will continue in Europe and Asia. When employers in the bio-sciences go looking for qualified employees, they increasingly won’t find them in the USA. With the qualified employees largely based in Europe and Asia, the laboratories will increasingly be located there as well. The American, scientifically illiterate students will find jobs at Wal-Mart, if they’re lucky enough to find any at all. The US, between the flight of top-notch jobs and soaring deficits will slide inexorably into third-world status.

  180. 180
    Lawrence says:

    If one believes in God at all it is implicit in that beleif that he or she also believe God created the universe as part of some intelligent design. Evolutionary theory is sound and not necessarily in conflict with Christianity, in my humble opinion, but the notion of an intelligent creator — as the author of a great recipe so to speak (i.e. The Big Bang) — is not outlandish.

    How can we reconcile the origin of the universe with what we know about thermodynamics? Who (or what) is, as St. Thomas Aquinas put it, the Unmoved Mover? Science can’t answer these questions. Indeed, everything we know about science tells us it isn’t possible. Unless. . .

    This is certainly a rich topic for a philosophy course.

  181. 181

    […] Anyway, here are reactions from John Cole, who won’t be winning today’s award for originality with his post, titled “The Coalition of the Stupid.” […]

  182. 182
    Randolph Fritz says:

    “My days of defending this President are over.”

    Good on you, John. I wonder what it is about W. Bush that makes him so persuasive to people with, well, any intellectual integrity. That W. Bush didn’t believe in scientific evidence has been clear from the very beginning; this is just an especially egregious example. But, somehow, he was able to persuade you, and a lot of other people, that he didn’t really mean it. I can only hope that enough people recognize his failings quickly enough so that we do not get more of his horrific policy-making.

  183. 183
    ploof says:

    1000 years ago the best available science had the earth being flat. We are STILL retards – we can’t even say what is a planet or isn’t, and we don’t even know how many we have in our sunny little corner of the galaxy.

    ID seems like a crock, but evolution is a snarky unproven thing in reality too. Science, as good as it SEEMS TO BE, is still likely in the phase of stone knives and bearskins in absolute terms.

  184. 184
    Mac says:

    A quick question and a shout out.

    What is a RINO? Forgive my lack of insight.

    ppGaz- I listen to you. For what that’s worth. Sounds to me like your detractors expect gold at every post or you lose. Keep up the insightful posts, although I don’t for a minute believe you or I will ever change many ID minds in this forum, or anywhere short of running for office. A shame that we have to use politics to teach science. I just hope that Newton’s Laws aren’t repealed by the Supreme Court. I don’t want to fly off into space…

  185. 185
    Rob Read says:

    Beware the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief is Nigh!

  186. 186
    Brett says:

    Holy shit! A politician said something kind of dumb? Say it ain’t so!

    More seriously, it does seem to me that mountains are being made of molehills, here. Unless you’re bringing a sack full of sharp, pointy assumptions to the table, there’s really not much in Bush’s statement aside from a general, “We ought to expose kids to different viewpoints,” sentiment. Okay, maybe you disagree that kids should be exposed to this particular viewpoint at all, and that’s a consistent and (vaguely) defensible position, but to listen to the host along with some of the other commenters here, you’d think Bush, while being fellated by Barney the White House dog on national television, was openly calling for the Discovery Institute to define the national K-12 science curriculum.

    And it’s in that vein that I’m sort of savoring the irony of lefty condescension about them closed-minded fundie whackjob Republicans. Lookit, fellas — I’m sure it gives you warm fuzzies to imagine you’re the party of steely-eyed empiricists, but while you might be on the side of angels here, there are plenty of other regions of inquiry where folk on your side of the Big Ditch are just as full of shit as creationists. It isn’t the right that’s been heavily invested in the guns-cause-crime thesis for the last forty years, for example. Spare me the sanctimony, please.

    Put me down for, “Rather disgusted if in fact the president meant ID should be taught as a creditable scientific theory, but reserving judgement until that’s clear, and in any case not chalking this up as a Harbinger Of The Impending Theocracy.”

  187. 187
    Rome Again says:

    Did I say “science” class? Learn to read you moron, then kiss my ass.

    Who said you were the one choosing where this is taught? That’s an idiotic idea. A “science” class is where this subject is being proposed to be taught, would you rather it be included in history or math? It is not you who decides where this subject is supposed to be introduced, that’s not up to you, unless you are a member of a school board with some influence to sway decisions. But you may be a parent who has a child that will be subjected to this whether you like it or not (of course it seems like you won’t mind, but many of us do).

    Your namecalling doesn’t change the fact that it is you who doesn’t understand what’s going on here.

  188. 188
    Rome Again says:

    More seriously, it does seem to me that mountains are being made of molehills, here. Unless you’re bringing a sack full of sharp, pointy assumptions to the table, there’s really not much in Bush’s statement aside from a general, “We ought to expose kids to different viewpoints,” sentiment.

    Somehow I don’t think he meant that children should be exposed to the liberal point of view. I wonder if we can make that argument stick now, since children outta be exposed… come to think of it, I wonder if we can use that for gay marriage too! (I’m joking about the gay marriage thing, I’m not one who thinks children ought to be exposed to anything of the sort, but having others decide what my child ought to be exposed to pisses me off royally).

    I do think that children ought to be exposed to alternatives for safe sex though, since they’re going to have sex whether Mom and Dad know about it or not. Do you think George Bush meant that?

  189. 189
    Rome Again says:

    but to listen to the host along with some of the other commenters here, you’d think Bush, while being fellated by Barney the White House dog on national television, was openly calling for the Discovery Institute to define the national K-12 science curriculum.

    Well, isn’t it interesting that while we’re debating this, there are science textbooks being stickered with messages about evolution not being a viable science. If you think this doesn’t involve science classes, you’re dreaming.

    Here is a great article from the National Science Board.

    For more information about evolution stickers on textbooks, go here (where a judge put a stop to it in Cobb County, GA), and here, and here as well.

    (Note: just because Georgia is no longer allowing these stickers on science textbooks doesn’t mean that all states have followed suit).

  190. 190
    RW says:

    The stickers in Cobb county pointed out that evolution – in the sense of the beginning of man/life – was a theory and not a fact (by the way, it’s a theory and not a fact…..and I believe in evolution). Follow your own links.

    When people rephrase things in order to suit their own interests it’s a red flag. When they do it incorrectly, it’s a swarm of red flags.

  191. 191
    Rome Again says:

    The stickers in Cobb county pointed out that evolution – in the sense of the beginning of man/life – was a theory and not a fact (by the way, it’s a theory and not a fact…..and I believe in evolution). Follow your own links.

    When people rephrase things in order to suit their own interests it’s a red flag. When they do it incorrectly, it’s a swarm of red flags.

    Ooooh, excuse me. Pray tell, what is the purpose of these stickers? To get students to not accept the knowledge they are given in the textbooks regarding evolution, of course. What I said and what you are saying is the exact same thing, they both lead to the exact same purpose, which is censoring the understanding of evolution as it is explained in the textbook. Big deal, a swarm of big red flags, huh?

    Perhaps if I was saying something that was the exact opposite of what I was trying to explain it would raise these big red flags, but I’m not and you’re either being disengenous, or dishonest.

    The root word for all descriptions of the word VIABLE (according to both Merriam Websters and The American Heritage Dictionary of hte English Language, Fourth Edition) is CAPABLE.

    The description of science is: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” (source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

    So what these two meanings actually say when put together is a capable observation, identification, description, experimental investigation or theoretical explanation of phenomena, and I’m saying creationists are saying it’s NOT that. Now, what you’re saying is “it’s only a theory”. We’re saying the exact same, both your example and mine say “don’t believe it”. Where are those flags?

  192. 192
    RW says:

    What I said and what you are saying is the exact same thing.

    Whatever makes you sleep better at night, dude.

  193. 193
    Rome Again says:

    Why would creationists put stickers on textbooks if not to try to drive them away from the knowledge in the evolution lesson? That is what they intend when they put warning stickers on textbooks. If you want to play semantics with words go for it, but please explain how what you said and what I said are different. Provide proof please, I’ve done that for you.

    By the way, I’m not a “dude”.

  194. 194

    The reaction to Bush’s statements

    In response to George W. Bush’s statement that he supports teaching Intelligent Design creationism in our public schools, I wrote my own reply, and also volunteered to collect links to other people’s criticisms. It was a little bit overwhelming. My…

  195. 195
    RW says:

    Why would creationists put stickers on textbooks if not to try to drive them away from the knowledge in the evolution lesson?

    Do you realize that you’ve asked and answered your own question? There’s no other reason? Maybe it could be, as is what actually happened (I live in a neighboring county): the citizens conveyed to the board members that they didn’t want the classes emphasizing that evolution – as the theory of life’s genesis – was a fact when it’s a theory because some felt that it went against what their beliefs. You may not like the answer, but please realize that more than one reason exists.

    That is what they intend…

    Quite the mind-meld. Can you even name one of the BOE members who voted for the measure as you attempt to detail what their INTENTIONS are? Is that any different than my presuming that your intention in mislabeling the stickers was to present the authorities in Cobb County in the worst possible manner and since presenting the truth – that it stated that evolution was a theory and not a fact (which is undeniable) – wouldn’t do that, you resorted to changing the text to suit your needs? Or would that be (as I think it is) quite unfair?

    Provide proof please, I’ve done that for you.

    You pretending to know the INTENTIONS of other human beings is proof? You know, what I’ve learned on this thread as to what others constitute as fact, scientific fact and now proof, has been truly entertaining.

    By the way, I’m not a “dude”.

    Sorry, “dudette”, but I meant it in a gender-neutral manner. Nothing untoward was INTENDED. :)

  196. 196
    Rome Again says:

    Quite the mind-meld. Can you even name one of the BOE members who voted for the measure as you attempt to detail what their INTENTIONS are? Is that any different than my presuming that your intention in mislabeling the stickers was to present the authorities in Cobb County in the worst possible manner and since presenting the truth – that it stated that evolution was a theory and not a fact (which is undeniable) – wouldn’t do that, you resorted to changing the text to suit your needs? Or would that be (as I think it is) quite unfair?

    To be fair, I don’t know the names of any of the board members, without looking them up, and I won’t. I don’t need to know their names, I know that they’re creationists trying to tear down the teaching of evolution. Why would people spend money to state that evolution was a theory unless they had some alternative plot? The textbooks state that evolution is a theory. Come now, you are being disingenuous after all.

    Understanding the motive is not hard, creationists are doing this, and they are doing it for the simple reason that they want to discredit evolution and replace it with creationism (but they will settle for intelligent design if that’s the only way they can insert God into the science of the origin of life).

    It’s a no brainer, you really can’t expect me to believe that people who place stickers warning students about evolution being “only a theory” have no motive, can you?

  197. 197
    Rome Again says:

    Can you even name one of the BOE members who voted for the measure as you attempt to detail what their INTENTIONS are?

    Have you seen the Anti-Darwin fish symbols on the backs of cars? I’ve seen LOTS of them (I live in a heavily Republican district though). It is not difficult to understand their intentions at all. Besides, as I noted above, people don’t spend money on stickers without a motive.

  198. 198

    You started this fiasco stating

    Um, Andrei, not that Ricky can’t defend himself on this, but asking what scientific evidence exists for something doesn’t equate to stating that thing doesn’t exist.

  199. 199
    Tongueboy says:

    1.) Intelligent design is not a theory. There is no theoretical basis to it. It is not scientific theory, and it is not just bad scientific theory, it is simply not theory. It is ascientific. It is a flight of fancy. It is a call to discard mountains of evidence, throw up ones hands, and state: “This is all too confusing and complex, and science is hard, so some ‘intelligent designer’ must be behind all this.”

    Why use so many words? Just say, “Nothing to see here; just move along. Please, just move along. Without examining the evidence, of course.”

    2.) Intelligent design is creationism. It may not be quite as audaciously stupid as the nonsense peddled by the ‘young earth’ crowd, but it is creationism. Just who do you think this ‘intelligent designer’ is? One more time, let’s review who the candidates are for the title of ‘intelligent designer’ is:
    ……

    That “Big G” he was referring to isn’t Gaia, although injecting nonsensical druidic mysticism into science makes about as much sense as teaching intelligent design ‘alongside evolution.’ No, you can guess who the “Big G” might actually be.

    That link is pathetic. Mr. Lockitch quotes leading proponents of intelligent design declining to identify the force behind intelligent design and then calls them liars. Must be that new science they teach at the Ayn Rand Institute. I think Mark Hartwig put it nicely: Calling their work religious is just a cheap way to dodge the issues. The public–and our students–deserve better than that.

    3.) Teaching ‘intelligent design’ as science, or as a viable theory, or whatever you want to call it other than bullshit, is to assault science. Criticism of evolutionary theory is always welcome, but attempting to replace evolutionary theory with fanciful tales is to assault not only the senses, but to attack the very manner science itself is conducted.

    Strawman. Nobody is attempting to “replace” evolutionary theory. In fact, intelligent design theorists advocated for the retention of evolutionary theory in Ohio’s public school curriculum

    4.) People don’t want ‘intelligent design’ taught because it is a viable scientific theory, they want it taught because it is tailored to fit their pre-existing religious beliefs. The introduction of ‘intelligent design’ into the class room will be seen as a blow to the ‘evil secularists.’ It will be just another step in ‘taking back the culture.’

    If you can’t argue from the facts, argue to motive. Brilliant. Meanwhile, Darwinists refuse to publicly defend their “scientific theory.” The strategy is clear: make emotional, loaded accusations about your opponents motives and intelligence in order to avoid factually and publicly defending your own position.

  200. 200
    RW says:

    I don’t need to know their names, I know that they’re creationists trying to tear down the teaching of evolution.

    Well, then, who am I to question such “proof”? You say you “know” their intentions..and there we have it!

    Understanding the motive is not hard, creationists are doing this, and they are doing it for the simple reason that…

    Ah, it’s all so clear, now. Someone simply looks at a situation, declares that they “know” the true “intentions” of other people that they don’t even know, and then declare it as having provided “proof”. And, wouldn’t you know, the intentions are nefarious (they always are). The possibilities are almost endless.

    Have you seen the Anti-Darwin fish symbols on the backs of cars?

    I’ve also seen the fish symbols on the backs of cars that denote “Christian” because in olden days Christians were killed if they professed a belief in Christ, so when two people came upon each other and wanted to discuss their faith without harm of slaughter, one would drag their foot across the dirt/sand and make half the fish symbol and if the other person had not a clue as to what was going on, the person knew not to go further or risk death. If the other person drug their foot so as to complete the fish symbol, then both knew that they were in the presence of a fellow Christian and thus they could feel free to actually articulate their faith. Such were the times.

    I’ve also seen the Darwin fish symbols on the backs of cars, as well. I figured that that was the athiests’ way of mocking Christians in an ignorant fashion since they haven’t a clue as to the story of the fish symbol and how lives were actually lost. I also guessed that the anti-Darwin fish symbols were a response to the Darwin fish symbols, denoting that the driver is a believer. But, those are guesses, educated as they may be.

    Whereas you have given us all sorts of proof (in the form of “I say so” and “I know”).

  201. 201

    […] There has been a lot of hoop-de-do over President Bush’s remarks on Intelligent Design. I don’t like discussing “Intelligent Design” because people can’t seem to agree as to what it really means. So let’s just stick to evolution and God. […]

  202. 202
    Rome Again says:

    Maybe it could be, as is what actually happened (I live in a neighboring county): the citizens conveyed to the board members that they didn’t want the classes emphasizing that evolution – as the theory of life’s genesis – was a fact when it’s a theory because some felt that it went against what their beliefs.

    Which is the exact same thing I’m saying, you’re playing semantics here, and you’re coming to the same conclusions. If someone believes in something else (which most people except as a mutually exclusive idea, although not necessarily), it is highly probable that those who believe in the alternative belief want to see the teaching about evolution eradicated, and what do you know, that’s what many Christians who sport those Anti-Darwinian symbols on their car are communicating… an upside down fish with feet and Darwin written upside down inside the fish, indicating “Darwinism is Dead”.

    For someone to have a different belief (creationism) and not want evolution to be taken as fact (which it isn’t, because all science accepts it as a theory and says so) is to allow it to be shoved aside so that some other (non-theory) idea can be introduced. It’s a form of brainwashing, and you apparently agree with the idea.

    To be honest, I’m an agnostic, I’m not one who says God doesn’t exist, and personally I believe that evolution is a wonderful theory that explains quite a lot about how we got to be who we are, but the fact that I may also believe God exists one day doesn’t bar me from believing God used evolution in his process. I’m not sure I believe in God, but if I ever get to the point where I can say emphatically that I do, I’ll be sure to update my viewpoint so that God used evolution as a tool in his box of magic tricks.

  203. 203
    Rome Again says:

    Ah, it’s all so clear, now. Someone simply looks at a situation, declares that they “know” the true “intentions” of other people that they don’t even know, and then declare it as having provided “proof”. And, wouldn’t you know, the intentions are nefarious (they always are). The possibilities are almost endless.

    Look, I can spend the next hour culling a myriad of evolution-hating quotes from creationists who abhor evolution, would you like me to do that for you? It’s not as if the idea that creationists are against evolution is a new one, get real.

    You’re a real piece of work. It’s too bad that you didn’t use that semantic raising brain of yours to pick apart the truth from the lies about our president. I take back what I said about you being disingenuous, you’re not disingenuous, you’re dishonest.

  204. 204
    RW says:

    Which is the exact same thing I’m saying,

    In my opinion, you did it in quite the sloppy manner that raised a few flags, but okay. Fair enough.

    I’m not sure I believe in God, but if I ever get to the point where I can say emphatically that I do, I’ll be sure to update my viewpoint so that God used evolution as a tool in his box of magic tricks.

    I do and I do. Once more, we agree.

    ake back what I said about you being disingenuous, you’re not disingenuous, you’re dishonest.

    I stated not one thing that was dishonest and you know it. You may not like or agree but there was nothing factually incorrect or even hinted at in my commentary.

    There is no sense in you attacking my character when I did nothing but debate your COMMENTARY. This is not a contest, you know. There are no designated judges and no one will be declared the “winner”, so that was uncalled for. Be nice. Have I not been civil to you personally while debating your arguments? Is that not what we’re supposed to do? Why are you calling me dishonest?

    Be nice.

  205. 205
    Rome Again says:

    Why am I calling you dishonest? Because it’s a well-known fact that there are many God-believing Christians out there who want to eradicate evolution and replace it with creationism. They don’t want their children learning evolution at all.

    As an example, here’s a true story for you:

    I used to work with a young lady who is a creationist, she spent much of her time in the office talking very loudly to anyone who would listen about how “I didn’t come from no monkey”. Technically she was correct, humans didn’t come from monkeys, but we share common ancestors. Her church gave her this message that she didn’t come from monkeys, and she voiced her opinion often about how evolution was a lie. I know she’s not the only one, and while I don’t know the others like her personally, I am aware of their existence. Now, would you like me to cull those quotes to prove it or not?

  206. 206
    Rome Again says:

    And I apologize, I was not trying to attack your character, just to make you see that I know:

    1. You are aware of this debate having gone around and around between the religious and the non-religious for many moons

    2. You are also aware that most religious types who believe in creation believe that evolution cannot co-exist alongside it.

    3. You know that if many religious types believe #2, they probably do not have good intentions for keeping evolution as part of scientific curriculum.

    How do I know #3? Because it only makes sense that those who don’t like a thing want to get rid of it. A dentist doesn’t normally hand out candy after an exam, it’s the same thing.

    I’m not saying you believe that creationism and evolution can’t co-exist, but that many others do, and you know they do. For you not to admit that is dishonest.

  207. 207
    Andrei says:

    “Um, Andrei, not that Ricky can’t defend himself on this, but asking what scientific evidence exists for something doesn’t equate to stating that thing doesn’t exist.”

    Oh brother. Here, follow this link: scientific +research +homosexuality

    There’s some 300,000 results for it. I’m sure you’ll find plenty of scientific study on the subject of homosexuality in those results. There’s so much research and data around the subject because you know what, homosexuality does exist. What you want me to do is cite a specific scientific report that is focused solely on the exisitence of homosexuality, and I’m not going to comb all the science research and data in the world to find you a specific link that does so. (However, you might want to try Alfred Kinsey for starters.)

    RW was attempting to equate some hard science data point around his paper thin strawman in an attempt to equate a minor point about what we teach in school and how it might relate to ID. His opening salvo was absurd and useless to start.

    I don’t have to say RW was claiming homosexuality doesn’t exist when I’m actually calling bullshit on his origianl statement that there’s no scienticfic evidence it does. And I was calling him an idiot for an absurd devil’s advocate strawman based on an absurd point.

  208. 208
    stonicus says:

    When they 63% want Creationism taught in school, that is misleading. They want it at least mentioned that people believe in it, as someone said above, as a topic for one day in class, not teach it intensly and proclaim it a viable option. No different than teaching that people believe in Santa Claus.

  209. 209
    Rome Again says:

    I stated not one thing that was dishonest and you know it. You may not like or agree but there was nothing factually incorrect or even hinted at in my commentary.

    It isn’t in what you said, but how you beat so hard around the bushes to make a point in what you didn’t say. What you didn’t say is that there are many religious types (Christian or otherwise) who believe evolution is a lie. You know there are many who believe evolution is a lie and yet you beat around the bushes to not admit this well-known fact.

  210. 210
    RW says:

    Now, would you like me to cull those quotes to prove it or not?

    No need. I don’t dispute anecdotal evidence exists (for almost anything). I disputed the context that you presented the stickers and the reaches that you took in reading the minds/intentions of people while passing it along as ‘proof’. That is a dangerous thing to do, IMO. But, we’ve both said our piece. Have a good one.

    There’s so much research and data around the subject because you know what, homosexuality does exist.

    Sure it does.
    So does love.
    So does fear, despair and anger.

    There’s no scientific proof, though, because one is human behavior and the others are emotions (and Kinsey studied sexual BEHAVIOR. Perhaps you should spend less time attacking me from the comfort of your anonymity and notice that human behavior and scientific facts are separate entities?). Emotions are also a dangerous thing….they sometimes overtake people. Sometimes it’s best to keep them in check.

    You can stop linking. There’s nothing there but studies, Andrei. One day, maybe. Now, no. There is no scientific proof. None.

    Move on.

  211. 211
    RW says:

    What you didn’t say is that there are many religious types (Christian or otherwise) who believe evolution is a lie.

    Well, I also didn’t say that Reagan was the 40th president, but that doesn’t mean that it never happened. If I’m being judged on all the things that I didn’t say, then I’m in worse trouble than I thought. :)

  212. 212
    Rome Again says:

    When they 63% want Creationism taught in school, that is misleading. They want it at least mentioned that people believe in it, as someone said above, as a topic for one day in class, not teach it intensly and proclaim it a viable option. No different than teaching that people believe in Santa Claus.

    I’m sure the defendents of creationism will be so happy knowing they get 1 day of attention.

    Somehow, I seem to think that they’ll scream “persecution” again, but that’s just my opinion. It’s not hard to see that creationism only takes a few minutes to grasp (if that) because “we don’t know how it was done, but many people believe an intelligent being that they call God made the world” is about all one needs to convey; meanwhile evolution has a great many theoretical hypotheses to consider. Their children will still be getting a whole lot more education in evolution, if they unplug their ears long enough to hear that message that Mom and Dad might not want them to hear.

    Once the religous types realize this (they may not have thought that far ahead yet), I can see them then trying to eradicate evolution altogether, or, if they are extreme, sending notes to class to make sure little Johnny doesn’t have to attend those lectures.

  213. 213
    Rome Again says:

    Well, I also didn’t say that Reagan was the 40th president, but that doesn’t mean that it never happened. If I’m being judged on all the things that I didn’t say, then I’m in worse trouble than I thought. :)

    Reagan being the 40th president has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation we were engaged in. The fact that many religious types believe in creationism exclusively was very much a subject of the topic, and since you didn’t counter what I said, it seems apparent that you’ve just admitted you also realize it is true as well.

  214. 214
    Rome Again says:

    I apologize for not blockquoting correctly sometimes, I should stop using the Mozilla-Kos HTML tool and just type out the HTML instead. Please don’t hate me for making mistakes, I’m only human.

  215. 215
    RW says:

    Sure. Already covered when I stated: “I don’t dispute anecdotal evidence exists (for almost anything).”

    1. I believe God is the creator.
    2. I believe that God may have used evolution to forward what he/she set in motion and all evidence points in that direction from what I can gather.
    3. Some Darwinists think that evolution explains the origin of life, which it doesn’t.
    4. I believe that many dispute points one, two and three.

  216. 216
    Rome Again says:

    Okay RW, since you’re going that far, how about telling me whether you agree with the following:

    Many places in the Old Testament (I have a bible available and can cite those for you if you want), it states that God “stretched out” the heavens. Do you believe this could be an analogy for the Big Bang theory?

  217. 217
    James L Kimble says:

    A couple of voices heard from:

    “One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all… The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based…

    To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself…What random process could produce the brains of man or the system of the human eye? … They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?…They say they cannot visualize a Designer.

    Well, can a physicist visualize an electron?… What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him?… It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.”

    -Dr. Wernher Von Braun (May 1974)

    Or as this little blurb from the World Tribune concerning the decline of Atheism states:

    As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: “It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”

    Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible. But he has embraced the intelligent design concept of scholars such as William Dembski who only four years ago claimed to have been mobbed by pro-evolutionist colleagues at – of all places – Baylor University, a highly respected Southern Baptist institution in Waco, Tex.

    If life can created from matter, demonstrate it. If all matter and life as we know it existed as a super compact form prior to the Big Bang… where did it come from? What caused such a release of power? I think we simply ascribe the creation of all that exists, the complexity and intricate design to an “eternal matter” in order to avoid the obvious implications of an “Eternal Creator.”

  218. 218
    capelza says:

    If folks want their kids “exposed” to Creationism and ID, maybe they should get their religious butts to church and get their kids in Sunday School. How many of these folks actually go to church anyway? 30%, 35%?

    I am someone who does go to church, my kids get their RELIGIOUS upbringing there secondarily and in the home first. I send them to school to learn about the world. In science classes they learn SCIENCE. They learn Religion at home.

  219. 219
    Rome Again says:

    “I don’t dispute anecdotal evidence exists (for almost anything).”

    Yes, but how much is the key. I’ll bet I can find you 25 direct sources in an hour (and I haven’t Googled it yet), wanna take me up on that?

  220. 220
    Rome Again says:

    Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible.

    Which one? There are at least three gods which I can count in the Bible.

  221. 221
    Larry says:

    No different than teaching that people believe in Santa Claus.

    BINGO!

  222. 222
    RW says:

    Do you believe this could be an analogy for the Big Bang theory?

    Sure.
    Who knows? If there was a ‘bang’, what (or who) caused it?

    Yes, but how much is the key. I’ll bet I can find you 25 direct sources in an hour (and I haven’t Googled it yet), wanna take me up on that?

    No need. Once more, I do not dispute anecdotal evidence exists. I’m a resident of Georgia, right in the buckle of the bible belt so I’m hip to it. Fill in your own number.

  223. 223
    DougJ says:

    The bottom line is that poll after poll shows more Americans supporting the Biblical account of creation than the evolutionary account. It’s time for schools to start reflecting the values and beliefs of the majority of Americans rather than the heavy-handed dogma of a handful of liberal scientists. It’s that simple.

  224. 224
    Lawrence says:

    Which one? There are at least three gods which I can count in the Bible.

    Can you expand on that for me?

  225. 225
    jenofiniquity says:

    DougJ, so if the majority believes that the the earth is flat, and monsters lurk at the dropoff, then that’s what should be taught in school? If the earth is round, it clearly means there is no god. Damn those liberal scientists!

  226. 226
    BumperStickerist says:

    for that matter, I think every public math class, from kindergarten through 12th grade, should begin with the statement:

    Remember: 3 equals 3 because God wills it.

    for later grades, that could be simplified to “X=X, God”

    If some mathematician type would care to a proof that “3=3” beyond the ‘well, d’uh, it works’ stage, I and Mr. Godel would be interested in hearing it.

  227. 227
    Rome Again says:

    I am someone who does go to church, my kids get their RELIGIOUS upbringing there secondarily and in the home first. I send them to school to learn about the world. In science classes they learn SCIENCE. They learn Religion at home.

    Which leads one to wonder about motive, doesn’t it? Do you think religous types consider it a proselytizying tool? A way to get at the children of godless parents and save them by introducing ID to schoolchildren who haven’t been to church?

    I think if I had someone in school influencing me and telling me as a child that there’s this big man in the sky who made the world, and he loves me, and I didn’t know about him, I’d be interested to find out all I could about him.

    This is in fact how I learned about God, but I didn’t hear about him in school, yet I still heard about God even though my parents didn’t take me to church, and I did try to learn all I could about him.

    One thing I learned is that children shouldn’t be exposed to the Bible (such as versus like Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” as an example of a verse I wouldn’t want to have read as a child).

    The other thing I learned is that the Bible is a very hard book to read, it has contradictions (yes, contradictions in the Bible do exist, if you want me to point them out, I’d be happy to send you in the direction of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible/Contradictions pages, and I’ve got a few of my own that I think Skeptics may not have even picked up on, but I’d rather not have the anti-fan mail of religous extremists so you’ll have to just wonder about those). :P

    The third thing I learned is that many people who think they understand the Bible really haven’t got a clue. Most Christians are under the impression that athiests haven’t read the Bible and said Christians are completely oblivious to the fact that many athiests became athiests by reading the Bible with an open mind. I know several athiests who know the Bible much better than many Christians.

    I’m not saying that a God doesn’t exist, but that if he does (and I don’t know one way or the other) I believe he is not who many people think he is. I will admit though that the verse in the New Testament about many being fooled, so much so that it might even fool “the very elect”, is quite possibly correct, that might even include myself (not that I’m one of the “elect”).

    As far as I’ve been able to determine, to find the real God of the Bible, one has to read backwards/forwards and then at least backwards one more time – the Old Testament, then the New Testament, and then the Old Testament again – while keeping in mind the clues one has already learned in the backwards and forwards phases… it may go deeper than that, it may go backwards/forwards/backwards/forwards/backwards… I’m still studying this idea (notice I didn’t call it a theory).

    I think it is irresponsible for anyone to wish to influence children with such complicated understanding. Did I say complicated? Yes, I did! For one to arrive at the idea that most of my peers accept, they have to believe that God has a son when it states in the Old Testament that God does not have a son, that the son sits at the right hand of the father while the Old Testament states there is none beside him, that a virgin gave birth to him (a throwback to pagan worship of many goddesses who gave birth virginally), that the first commandment states “thou shalt not have any gods before me” and yet Jesus is the preferred deity, and that God made a promise with Israel, but to be a Christian, I have to believe God took that promise back in order to make Christians his chosen ones with a new promise thereby making the old promise void (replacement theology).

    These are some very basic aspects of what I’ve come to surmise, I can’t tell you the rest, or you would hate me.

    Now, that doesn’t mean I want anyone to stop worshipping the “God” they believe in, but I don’t want anyone to force me into their belief system, which I feel personally is contorting the biblical message.

  228. 228
    Rome Again says:

    The bottom line is that poll after poll shows more Americans supporting the Biblical account of creation than the evolutionary account. It’s time for schools to start reflecting the values and beliefs of the majority of Americans rather than the heavy-handed dogma of a handful of liberal scientists. It’s that simple.

    You cite this, but you don’t offer proof, and yet it is not a well-known fact to me. Would you like to cite proof?

    And if you think that all God-believers are exclusively creationists, you are wrong.

  229. 229
    Shygetz says:

    Science does not work by popular accord, so polls do not matter at all as to what should be taught as science. ID should never come close to a science class, merely because it does not put forth any testable predictions. Abiogenesis (the hypothesis that life originated from non-living matter) does put forth testable predictions. For example, under certain conditions that could have existed on early Earth, it should be possible for simple molecules to spontaneously form polymers (proven fact). Similarly, it should be possible for polymers to catalyze their self-replication (proven fact). While abiogenesis does not have the amount of supporting data to promote it to the level of theory (unlike evolution, which has a staggering preponderance of evidence behind it), it does make testable predictions. Name one testable prediction made by ID, and then you’ll have an argument. Until then, all you have is a philosophy, not a scientific hypothesis.

  230. 230
    Davebo says:

    Spare me please.

    Bush has made it clear for years that he favors teaching Creationism, not just intelligent design, in public schools.

    And now, after supporting him but apparantly not actually listening to him you come up with this mock outrage?

    Give me a break.

  231. 231
    DougJ says:

    “Science does not work by popular accord, so polls do not matter at all as to what should be taught as science.”

    Last time I checked we were still a Democracy, ruled by majority vote, not by decree of elite scientists. I know that you liberals are so pleased with the iron-handed rule of the black-robed tyrants that maybe you would like to have some scientists-dictators calling the shots in public education. But it ain’t gonna fly. Not this time.

  232. 232
    Andrei says:

    “There’s no scientific proof, though, because one is human behavior and the others are emotions (and Kinsey studied sexual BEHAVIOR. Perhaps you should spend less time attacking me from the comfort of your anonymity and notice that human behavior and scientific facts are separate entities?). Emotions are also a dangerous thing….they sometimes overtake people. Sometimes it’s best to keep them in check.”

    What the fuck are you talking about? Now you’re equating homosexuality with “emotions” in some round about sort of idiotic way, while even admitting that homosexuality is about behavior and not about emotions.

    I suppose you are unaware colleges offer degrees in behavorial science. But I guess it isn’t really science in whatever absurd worldview you seem to have. Are you claiming the Kinsey studies were not scientific? That Kinsey’s studies are not “observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena” like homosexuality?

    Do you even understand what scientific methods are at their core? Not all science is hard science, like medicine or genetics. Do we need to cover the definition of science again?

    Keep digging that hole.

  233. 233
    DougJ says:

    “Are you claiming the Kinsey studies were not scientific?”

    I certainly am. Science should not concern itself with that kind of filth. Studies like Kinsey are part of what makes a lot of Americans like me doubt the value of science.

  234. 234
    Bernard Yomtov says:

    John,

    While I am glad to see this post, I do agree with Drum:

    Note to Bush supporters: You all knew what you were voting for when you put these guys in power. I’m happy to see you on the side of the angels here, but it’s a little late to pretend to be shocked that the Republican leadership feels this way.

  235. 235

    […] Although I should point out that I am in no position to judge cheap shots, since I called him a jackass for his remarks. But on to the more important reactions from Bush’s words: […]

  236. 236
    Davebo says:

    “Science should not concern itself with that kind of filth.”

    I suppose you would support the scientific study of masturbation though right?

    Just a guess…

  237. 237
    Halffasthero says:

    John, you made MSNBC website and that was how I came across your rant. I have not been to your site since the Steelers post. You need a permanent sports chat section since you are a magazine. Also asked about letters to the editor but I am guessing you quashed the idea.

    Anyway, that was a perfect tirade and I could not have put it better.

  238. 238
    Rome Again says:

    Lawrence said:

    Can you expand on that for me?

    I could, would you like to offer me an address to write to? Or else, you can gain some clues from a lengthy post that I just left for capelza, but it’s only clues, you’ll have to complete the puzzle yourself (and I’m not through completing the puzzle, but I’ve got a good chunk of it put togther).

    Here’s a hint, why do monotheists finish prayers with the name “Amen” when it is the name of an Egyptian god, which could arguably send their prayers to an Egyptian god? The Christian will tell you that the term Amen means “so let it be” or “so mote it be”; but in that context, the following scripture makes NO sense:

    Revelation 3:14

    And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

    So, if we were to use the term Christians say is the proper meaning of that term, it would say “these things saith the [so let it be], the faithful and true witness, the beginning and the end of creation of God”. Is that clear? How can a wish to let something be speak? Unless it is a name, and the name of a god who is the beginning of the creation. Who is the beginning of the creation? God made the angels before he made man. Lucifer fell before the creation of man, Angels were the first beings created by God. Lucifer has been known by many names, perhaps Amen is one of them and that knowledge is lost?

    Of course, many Christians will say “Jesus was created first” but if so, why does the Old Testament say that Jesus (who calls himself “the son of man” is a worm (Job 25:6); also the Old Testament states: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19). I could say much more about this, but think it best to refrain from it here. If you would like to communicate by email, I will share more.

    But back to the phrase, it seems more clear to me that if one substitutes the name of the god Amen in that phrase, it makes MUCH more sense.

    Also, Lucifer is the sun of the morning in the Old Testament, while Jesus is called the bright and morning star (is not a sun also called a star?) in the book of Revelation. There are many clues and hints like this. The most important however is “fear, the pit, and the snare” (Isaiah 24). Doesn’t that quite aptly describe what evangelists talk about when they say “you’ll go to hell if you don’t believe in Jesus”?

    More hints, why is it that an Egyptian pyramid is on our money just above where it states “In God We Trust”, and why is it that one of the biblical gods (probably the best candidate for a creator god from what I’ve been able to determine) said to never return to Egypt, for “ye shall henceforth no more return that way” (Deuteronomy 17:16).

    If you do a study of the concept of returning to Egypt, each time those who return are returning to iniquity, they are considered to be sinful, they are turning their back on “God”. Why? Because the culture of Egypt has many things in common with Babylon, which stems from the fact that both Babylonian and Egyptian cultures came from Sumer (which seems to be where the beginning of the biblical stories originated). This is not to say that they are exactly the same, they are not, but there is a lot of commonality. Sumer died out as a culture, but aspects of that culture were transported to Egypt and Babylon. Both are presented in the Old Testament as enemies of God’s principles.

    Here’s a link that may help you understand the Sumer/Babylon and Egypt connection:

    Legends of Babylonia and Egypt

    Note to Christians who read this: you are the one who chooses your own path, and I’m not going to tell you that you’re going to hell or have chosen wrong, please afford me the same respect. This is my beliefs, unpopular as they will most assuredly prove to be in this thread soon.

  239. 239
    Rome Again says:

    Sorry, messed up the link:

    Legends of Babylonia and Egypt

  240. 240
    Dan Beaulieu says:

    to all (DougJ in particular).

    I’m not one of the “Christian-bashers”, but I do believe in the principles on which peer-reviewed science is based. If ID is to be taken seriously, you must be able to explain it independently of other theories. The only argument that I hear for ID is that the world is too complex to be explained by evolution alone.

    For me to explain evolution to someone not familiar with it would take days, but I could do so without having to ignore physical evidence, and without referencing God or ID.

    1) Can you explain ID without it simply being a foil for Darwinism?

    2) Can anyone provide actual evidence of ID, rather that referring to a lack of indisputable, definitive proof for some other theory?

    3) Can you name some way that evidence in favor of ID can be peer-reviewed? Some testable evidence that points to ID as a reasonable theory?

    4) Can you name anything that would convince you that ID is incorrect (as a precambrian-era rabbit fossil would seriously undermine evolution) ?

    Dan from Winnipeg, Canada

  241. 241
    SeesThroughIt says:

    “Science should not concern itself with that kind of filth.”

    I suppose you would support the scientific study of masturbation though right?

    Just a guess…

    Foolish human! Masturbation is part of the Evil Liberal Plot To Destroy America and Bring About the Return of Saturnalia. Besides, every time you touch your pee-pee, it makes the li’l baby Jebus cry.

  242. 242
    Shawn says:

    Mac,

    RINO=Republican In Name Only

    Now back to the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Smackdown!

  243. 243
    Dan Beaulieu says:

    to RW,

    A previous post of yours confuses me. “Where is scientific evidence of homosexuality?” you asked. Now, there is no real evidence (that I’ve seen) concerning homosexual tendencies being genetic vs. environmental, but if you want “scientific evidence of homosexuality”, just walk through the beaded door at your local video store and look for a “Him/Him” section. you will find more indisputable evidence than you’ve ever wanted.

    Dan B from Winnipeg

  244. 244
    Slayer says:

    Hey, RW and DougJ, I think we should quit teaching gravity in physics classes. After all, it’s only a theory. I personally believe God’s will keeps us tethered to the earth.

    Man, the Indians and Chinese are going to eat us alive in the next century. It was a nice global power while it lasted.

  245. 245
    Lawrence says:

    To Rome Again:

    I think you’re reading a bit much into things. To be honest, I’m not sure I’m following you. I looked up Revelation 3:14 online and found this note written about it.

    “Jesus Christ calls Himself ‘the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness. . . .’ We say, ‘Amen,’ at the end of a prayer. What is ‘amen’? It affirms that the prayer is true and one agrees with it. Here Jesus is the Amen. Descriptive terms follow it to help us understand—He is a ‘Faithful and True Witness.’ Christ is the faithful and true witness of God—His example is an exact representation of what God would be like if He were a man.”

    I don’t believe it was a reference to another God. Frankly, I’ve never heard of anyone even making the suggestion before. But I thank you for taking the time to explain your position to me. If you want to email me further, my address is lawrencehaws-at-yahoo.com.

    By the way, I happen to agree that evolution is a sound theory. My support for ID is limited merely to questions regarding the origin of the universe (not evolution), which I believe can’t be explained with everything we know about motion and thermodynamics unless there is a God. (See my brief comment on this above.)

    I find it an interesting debate and I don’t pretend to be certain that I’m right. If you’d like to debate it with me, feel free to write.

  246. 246
    RW says:

    Now you’re equating homosexuality with “emotions” in some round about sort of idiotic way

    Er, no, I listed several items in order: homosexuality, love, fear, despair and anger. I followed that by stating that “one is human behavior and the others are emotions”. Since your reading comprehension appears to be as obtuse as your attitude, perhaps you should do some research and you’ll find that one is a human behavior and the others are emotions. After that, check up on what a comparison, equation and a list are.

    I suppose you are unaware colleges offer degrees in behavorial science. But I guess it isn’t really science in whatever absurd worldview you seem to have.

    Once more, we reach the part where you have trouble discerning what a scientific fact is and you continue to introduce outside arguments into the situation because the one at hand isn’t going the way you’d wish. Scientific fact. Learn it, love it, live it.

    Are you claiming the Kinsey studies were not scientific?

    Here come more strawmen, this time via a question. Kinsey did extensive studies.
    Studies are not scientific fact.
    Throwing mud against the wall and hoping that something sticks (first it was that you weren’t arguing that there was scientific evidence that proves that Elton John was gay – right after you argued just that, then it was that I was claiming that homosexuality didn’t exist – when I did nothing of the sort) this time it’s throwing out different aspects of the scientific method in hopes that you’ll get a “gotcha” moment in that I’ll deny some aspect of it.

    Mud. Wall. Not sticking.
    Get a grip on those emotions.
    Let it go.
    Move on.

  247. 247
    Cassidy says:

    “But that doesn’t mean we can’t acknowledge the possibility of something out there in the universe besides blind, random materialism.”

    Duh! It was the mice. :)

    “we cannot use science to show how people will act.”

    That’s not entirely true. On an individual level, sure, but as a species, thier are plenty of studies that show how the human animal will react most of the time to most situations. While not an exact science, based on those studies, we can predict fairly accurately how many people in this particular thread drink coffee, wear jeans, drive SUV’s, etc. Take profiling for example, in its simplest form, it is applying the sciences of the mind to the motivations and actions of a single individual based on the evidence collected. It’s usually pretty accurate.

  248. 248
    Andrei says:

    “Here come more strawmen, this time via a question. Kinsey did extensive studies. Studies are not scientific fact.”

    OK. Obviously, this won’t go anywhere, but just for shits and giggles, what do you think constitutes a “scientific fact?” Why don’t you educate us.

  249. 249
    Stentor says:

    DougJ, you have definitively proven my theory that Bush’s whole following is a cult of personality. You bash anyone not in line with your beliefs as being a Republican In Name Only, to that I say, Fuck You, and the monkeys you were descended from.

    “Cult (totalist type): a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethical, manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, suspension of individuality and critical judgment, etc.), designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the possible or actual detriment of members, their families, or the community.” (DJ West, 1989)

    RightWingSparkle, you are also engaged in name-calling of people you think don’t toe the line, hence your usage of RINO, again, Fuck You too.

    I may disagree with someone but unless they display a majority of beliefs that conflict with their political, etc. party’s beliefs, then they may be an X In Name Only, hereforth referred to as XINO, but not on just one belief or argument! That’s just another example of the type of exclusionary rhetoric that the Republican Cult has been engaging in since the McCarthy Era. Cut that shit out!

    And I have to agree with Albedo, if you do not believe in evolution, then you are an idiot, and rightly deserve whatever ridicule is heaped upon you. What exactly would you do to someone who posited, (with a straight face, and honest demeanor), that the Earth was flat? Regardless of how nice that person was, if they insisted on pushing their belief in a flat Earth on everyone, they would be ridiculed. So spare me the false equivalencies of giving evolution and intelligent design equal time, because that is just bullshit, fallacious bovine scatology! It’s about time we stopped respecting people with stupid beliefs, and started bringing back some good old-fashioned derision, jibing, japing, scoffing, sneering, and tell those people to come back when they’ve grown a few more brain cells.

    Remember Folks, the average IQ is 100, by definition.

  250. 250
    Stentor says:

    DougJ, science is not partisan, there are no such things as ‘liberal scientists’ you fucking hack.

  251. 251
    mrpuckhead says:

    I’ll start out by saying that I have yet to take a side on this issue. I’ve actually spent most of the night reading through the various posts trying to decide what I believe in regard to the whole debate. One thing that jumped out at me during my reading was this quote from h0mi:

    Here’s my attempt to turn ID into falsified theory- an intelligent designer would not design the human body in such a way as to confer benefits (malarial resistence) with significant disadvantages (hemolytic anemia or sickle cell anemia). It’s not “intelligent design” to evolve people into having these conditions that offer some benefits with significant drawbacks.

    As an engineer I spend my day designing various machinery components, and I must point out that an integral part of design is the balancing of constraints. I can design a turbine to weigh less than 8 kgs and deflect no more than 0.45 mm under maximum loading, but in so doing I must accept that the turbine will be subjected to 253 MPa of stress. If I want to lower the stress, I must increase either the weight or the deflection. There is only so much a designer can do within a given set of constraints. (S)he must evaluate which will confer the greatest benefit with the fewest drawbacks and select that design. This isn’t intended to refute the analogy, but rather to demonstrate why the design may have been selected – assuming humans actually were designed (using whatever means) and that we haven’t arrived here through random chance occurances.

    Regarding the whole ID debate, I would love some dialogue from anyone willing to take the time to discuss it with me (either here or through e-mail, whichever is more convenient – my email is mrpuckhead-at-hotmail.com). The only conclusion I have come to so far is that the universe came from some kind of supernatural force (I say supernatural because natural forces couldn’t exist before the universe came into existence and therefore could not have caused said existence). As far as I’m concerned, this “force” might have never given our planet a second thought after creating it, allowing us to develop at random – or it could have steered our evolution all the way down to me typing on this page. I really have no idea, but as I stated before I am very eager to learn all I can about this.

    As a sidenote, I am also very intrigued by Rome Again’s views on the Bible, so if you would be willing to discuss them further with me I would be very grateful.

    In closing, I would just like both sides to be aware how frustrating it can be for people like myself who simply want to hear the evidence from each side to have to sift through all the name-calling and cursing to get to good discussions. Perhaps this is due to being raised to treat everyone with respect, even those who disagree with me. Or perhaps it is simply due to my newness to this debate and I will eventually join in calling the opposition “idiots” and such, but hopefully I never get to that point.

    I apologize for the lengthy post, especially from a newbie who has contributed little to the overall discussion. Thanks for your patience and help.

  252. 252
    Demosophist says:

    I feel like they ought to teach kids that the only reason “evolution” is coherent is that it exists “in the Mind of God.” After all, it’d be pretty stupid if horses gave birth to mice and frogs. Well, come to think of it that sounds a little like Marxism.

    Anyway, presenting 12-year-olds with an alternative is one way to get them to remember the stuff. If it’s not a contest then everything just goes in one ear and out the other. You guys need to talk to a few more 12-year-olds.

  253. 253
    Demosophist says:

    mrpuckheard:

    It’s not “intelligent design” to evolve people into having these conditions that offer some benefits with significant drawbacks.

    Stupid design, I’m afraid, doesn’t establish Evolutionary Theory. It’s just a subset of Intelligent Design (i.e. “minimally intelligent design”).

    Here’s what bothers me a bit. Suppose there is a God, and He has some sort of non-obvious hand in the evolution of the universe or of humanity that we’ve just failed to apprehend so far? Shouldn’t we have some sort of science that at least accounts for that possibility? If not, then isn’t science, by definition, potentially disastrously inadequate?

  254. 254

    […] First and foremost, it just doesn’t work that way. In a democracy, anything that is controlled by the government is ipso facto going to be a matter of contention among people with differing beliefs about how it should be managed. Period. And unfortunately, as this CBS poll from last year shows (hat tip to John Cole), most Americans — 65% of them, including 56% of Kerry voters! — do believe that Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools. You can mitigate the extent to which public opinion can influence curricula with well-crafted institutional barriers, but at bottom if people’s taxes are paying for it then they’re going to feel entitled to having a say in it, and this problem is simply not going to go away as long as that’s the case. […]

  255. 255
    Mac says:

    It kind of saddens me to see what has become of our once great nation. It has become a pep rally for my team and your team, what ever the team. Too much contention about everything.

    Science should not be politicized. Period.

    Change the curricula in philosophy classes or history(see revisonism), Social Studies would be an ideal place to introduce the controversy, but not Science. Alchemy is not taught in Chemistry class, Astology in Astromomy, nor Levitation(self induced) in Physics, Flat Earth in Geography.
    Why teach Stories(ID/Creationism)in Biology?
    For political expediency?

    The world needs a healthy dose of skeptical thinking, and especially the USA. I have yet to meet a hindu who has a fit that Evolutionary therory Does not conform to his own beliefs. Not saying there aren’t any but Only that I haven’t met them. When was the last time a native american stood up and demanded that his creation stories be taught in science class?

    I say if its that important to the ID/C folks out there to teach it, they support, nay demand, full funding for education with extra money and time to have an additional class that explores ALL creation stories. If it is the will of the majority of voters that this be taught, the vote should be conclusive. Extend the school day 50 minutes so that children can be indoctrinated in all possible creation myths, if its so important to teach. Each voter will be asked to part with more tax dollars to teach this class. Should pass by 63% to 37%. You know that the kids are going to be totally receptive to this idea. A graduation reqirement would be to write a term paper comparing Myths to Science.

    We would then have a good handle on what to teach or drop.

  256. 256
    Kathy Cole says:

    The appropriate use of ID in science classes is to help students understand how to recognize what constitutes science and what does not. Can’t see that being a particularly popular way to ‘teach the controversy’, though.

  257. 257
    Uncle Mikey says:

    So far in these comments, those who declare themselves logical and scientific are furiously emotional, anyone who diverges from their worldview is an idiot or a cult member, and just about everyone seems to have forgotten that the major lesson of science is that being dead sure you know everything about a subject today is the one perfect way to be found intellectually wanting in the future.

    Bush didn’t said he believed in ID, he just refused to piss on those who do. This is what was actually said, from the original article:

    “Asked whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Bush replied that he did, ‘so people can understand what the debate is about.’

    ‘I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,’ Bush responded. ‘And I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.’

    The remarks tracked with what Bush has said in the past. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush or his aides said several times that local school boards should decide questions about teaching evolution and alternatives; at times, they said that both evolution and creationism should be taught.”

    He didn’t say he believed in ID, he didn’t bring it up, he said what he has always said: local school boards should teach what they want to teach. You all managed to figure out that evolution is a real thing, and so did I. If you don’t trust kids today to figure it out, I suppose you should try to banish all mention of it. But I think that’s a waste of everyone’s time, and a ridiculous thing to get worked up over. Furthermore, halting your support for Bush because he didn’t take this opportunity to lash out at people who believe in ID is illogical. There’s nothing scientific about an emotional reaction.

  258. 258

    Where to Hold the ID Debate

    Snippets from blogs on Bush’s “Intelligent Design should be taught in school” remark. Spot the repeating thread. Protein Wisdom – “Similarly, I have no problem with Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution in the context of questions con…

  259. 259
    Doug Payton says:

    Question now is, where do we hold the ID debate? Religion or philosophy class? Do high schools even have those (and in the case of religion, are they even allowed to, in the current climate)?

  260. 260

    Hold your debate in Sunday School and leave the rest of us out of it. ID needs to pass muster with the science establishment and publish a significant number of peer-reviewed papers before it has a place in our public schools.

  261. 261
    Kathy Cole says:

    Uncle Mikey said:

    The remarks tracked with what Bush has said in the past. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush or his aides said several times that local school boards should decide questions about teaching evolution and alternatives; at times, they said that both evolution and creationism should be taught.

    The fundamental problem with that perspective is the assumption that ID and evolution are on an equivalent basis with respect to their scientific validity. No amount of wanting that to be so, or claims that it is so, makes that assumption valid.

    Each individual’s opinion is just not as valid as some other individual’s opinion when you’re talking about topics with a factual element. There are statements that are either accurate or not. There are statements that are well-supported with careful research and statements that are not. My understanding of current best practices in shunt placement should not be relied on; talk to my son’s neurosurgeon and review current scientific papers if you want more up to date, thorough and accurate information.

    It is a tremendous disservice to students for their teachers to lie to them in a classroom, whatever the lie. ID proponents misrepresent the degree of scientific unanimity on much of evolutionary theory, and misrepresent the ability to fit ID into a scientific framework. Scientific theories must be falsifiable; ID is not; ID is not science.

    We are not talking about purely opinion discussions. My husband and I can vigorously disagree about whether some book or movie is great or awful; neither of us will be objectively right or wrong.

    That’s why you are seeing hostility. Philosophy, current events, history, world religions: no problem. Not biology class.

  262. 262
    Matthew says:

    Where would one teach Philosophy of Science?

  263. 263
    RW says:

    That’s why you are seeing hostility. Philosophy, current events, history, world religions: no problem. Not biology class.

    No problemo. I agree.
    Of course, there is no scientific or biological evidence that evolution is the origin for life, either.

    Interesting, no?

  264. 264

    Nobody ever said evolution was the origin of life, RW, in fact scientists have said until they’re blue in the face that it only begins to operate when you have a living creature capable of reproduction. How we get to that point – abiogenesis – is another field of study entirely. Evolution also doesn’t explain the sunrise, the tides, black holes, or gravity.

    Godism, however, explains everything. Not especially well, mind you, but completely. Except for that business about how there came to be a God, but it’s best not to dwell on that for fear of a lightning bolt.

  265. 265
    Mac says:

    Personally, I liked it better when there was a different God for every little thing.

    So much easier to discredit a insignificant small God than an everything type.

    Thor went quietly as did Demeter. Not a whimper from Posidion or Apollo. We iced Isis, zapped Zeus, never heard of Hera.

    Change the Gods name- you still end up with the old bugaboo, faith. All of the above gods and all of the rest had hordes of devoted followers. Until they lost faith. And the Gods died. Current Gods are just that, current. They will change, they will pass. Will Science become the new God? I don’t know, but don’t think so. Science does not require faith only proof of varying degrees. Not many absolutes in Science, but only one absolute in Faith, absolute faith and the willingness to defend the faith against all comers no matter how silly the defense seems. Laughing at the faithful only hardens their resolve. The reason I believe that they are so desparate to get a toe hold on our youth is to indoctrinate them into blind faith, anything less is an affront to their faith.

    Blind unreasoning faith has caused more misery and death in the world than anything that can be caused by Evolutionary teachings. Who would go to war to defend the T-Rex eating habits? Even the leading paleontologists on the subject might get into some nasty name calling but that would be about it. When two Different Faiths go at it about whose invisible guy in the sky is stronger, smarter, better, look out- someone’s gonna die.

  266. 266
    The Raven says:

    When Demosophist says: Suppose there is a God, and He has some sort of non-obvious hand in the evolution of the universe or of humanity that we’ve just failed to apprehend so far? Shouldn’t we have some sort of science that at least accounts for that possibility?

    I think we see the problem in a nutshell.

    The rationalists simply have an insurmountable difficulty with making the jump from “I don’t understand this,” to “there must be an all-powerful superbeing.” One does not follow from the other. ID suggests the opposite. A young girl I know is attending an extremely rigid Baptist school, a private academy. And she has said that “man and dinosaurs existed at the same time.”

    It’s incredibly saddening.

  267. 267
    Mac says:

    Think that’s sad? Read in talkorigins.org all about how Noah took all the dinosaurs with him about 4000 years ago. I once heard this crap on talk radio a few years ago, and was ashamed for humanity. Only reason I listened was that it started out as introducing a fellow paleontologist on discussing is latest discoveries. I couldn’t resist. How Often do you get Paleotologists on the radio? But when the question came up,”how many Dinosaurs did Noah carry on the ark?” I actually spit out the coffee I was drinking, just like a cartoon. That I can’t forgive. Then entered a scholarly phase wherein the average size of dinosaurs was computed ( avg about the size of a dog). Average? What about the Brontosaurs or diplos? They tend to take up considerably more room than a dog. And the Ark was limited in size…
    I digress. But as an aside, can you imagine the stench of that place? Roses it ain’t…
    A Private Baptist Education leaves quite a bit unfinished, I would say.

  268. 268
    Mac says:

    Just came upon this gem…

    You can’t use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn’t use logic to get himself into.

  269. 269
    Sean says:

    Didn’t we already do this with Galileo?
    Hey, I would just be happy if I thought he could explain what evolution is… but honestly, what do you think are the odds that he could!

  270. 270

    Yes, I’m appalled by “intelligent design” too

    …just as lots of other folks on the net are. While I have a long post brewing on this and related subjects, as a stopgap I refer you to Richard Dawkins’s Ignorance Is No Crime: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not …

  271. 271
    peachfish says:

    Am I the only one who is a little more concerned about the non=separation of church and state? It seems to me that this President is attempting, in a not so subtle manner, to blend them every chance he gets. My suggestion is that everyone of you who have posted a response to the artivle in reference call your state and local representatives and raise holy hell over this issue!!

  272. 272
    peachfish says:

    I must apologize about the spelling errors in my statement. I do know how to spell and am just incredulous that “intelligent design” is an issue which is being given credence in any way, shape, or form, by any thinking person, anywhere. The fact that it is being discussed on any level and not laughed right out of the media just stuns me.

  273. 273

    […] This whole debate has gotten overblown to the point of innate stupidity. Both sides have become so dogmatic in their ideas about how the human race came to be what it is today that even broaching the idea that their theories might not be alone in their validity is enough to make them go into paroxysms of self-righteous indignation. Heck, if the President even mentions the fact that it might not be a bad idea to expose our children to “different ideas” as to how humans came to be people fly off the handle even to the point of claiming that their time of support for President Bush is through. […]

  274. 274

    […] ProtienWisom.com noted that there has been lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of negative backlash even from people who normally support the president, to this story about Bush supporting the teaching of Intelligent Design (the belief that all living things came into being not by chance–as Darwinism maintains– but as the result of an "intelligent design.") in public schools.  From Yahoo News: […]

  275. 275

    […] President Bush jumped right into the “Intelligent Design” fray today by suggesting it should be taught in schools alongside evolution. From the comments here, I see we have a mixed opinion on the validity of the idea, but let me tell you, the RINOs aren’t happy: see the Commissar, Right Wing Nut House, and John Cole for more… […]

  276. 276
    goonie bird says:

    Strange how some evolutionay crack-pot can find a few bone fragment a measely little fossel and claim that this is the remans of a apeman this is proof of DARWINS theory i mean its rediclous i mean they put feathers on a lizard and claim its the ancestor of all birds phooie evolution is a whole lot of poppycock BS nonsense

  277. 277
    goonie bird says:

    Dont forget that many were calling PILTDOWN MAN as the absolute proof of darwins theroy until it was proven to be a fake

  278. 278
    Believer says:

    The question of young earth creation versus evolution is a no-brainer if you have a good physics back ground. If we are to use “empirical science” (things that we can test, view and demonstrate) and if you are going to pull down the laws physics to attempt to prove evolution, then the laws must be applied and not set a side so you can hold on to your lust and not feel guilt.
    So for those of us who wish to use science let us do so. First if evolution is true than all forms of evolution are true. One, cosmic evolution “space, time, mater” must evolve at the same time. Two, elemental evolution “neno-quarks to quarks to hydrogen to all 116 elements, (you can’t get past iron with fusion!). Three, Stellar evolution, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and planetary bodies (with this in mind you should analyze the conservation of angular momentum). Four, Biological evolution the evolution of life.
    Note the laws of physics can not be violated so let us review. The first Law of thermodynamics, energy, mater can not be created or destroyed it can only be changed in state. The Second Law of thermodynamics, entropy, all thing brake down to there base units. Boils gas law, as density increases heat increases and the molecules push them selves apart. With only three laws I ask you to answer one simple question. How did stars form? If you can use the scientific method and prove and demonstrate how stars form, your name would go down in history as the greatest mind of all time. So are you up for it?
    “In the words of Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?”
    So? Can those that proclaim them selves to be wise explain to me the wonder of the heavens? Or do those that proclaiming them selves to be wise became fools.
    If you use science to prove your view than if the theory dose not square with the facts than the facts remain and you make a new theory.

  279. 279

    […] It is why every two years the GOP embarks on a campaign of gay-bashing, despite the fact that Republican elites have no problem with gays in their midst. It is why the GOP chose to attempt to shred the Constitution and suspend years of alleged fealty to the concepts of states rights and federalism and intervene in the lost cause that was Terri Schiavo. It is why, in large part, Bush backtracked on his nomination of Harriet Miers (although the fact that she was supremely unqualified for the position in the eyes of everyone but Hugh Hewitt played a role in her dismissal as candidate). It is why the FBI, despite being tasked to track down terrorists in this ‘fight for civilization’ is sending agents to porn shops and raiding Tommy Chong. It is why religious leaders were given more say on the FDA’s decisions regarding Plan B than the medical community. It is why Bush favors allowing intelligent design to be taught in schools (although in Bush’s ‘defense,’ he may actually be that stupid). It is why pundits and pols favor allowing outright proselytization in the military. It is why 24 year-old punks are given authority over the work done by accomplished veteran scientists. […]

  280. 280
    Krista says:

    Whoever said religion and politics aren’t involved is the real idiot. If you said they SHOULDN’T be involved, fine, yes. But they are practically fucking. Who’s uneducated now?

  281. 281

    […] Balloon Juice Just who do you think this … journal, to several conservative Web … that evolution is a Vast Liberal Conspiracy. That does not give much credence to your position. And yes, it does make you … http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=5130 […]

  282. 282
    Borg_R_US says:

    The Church of the Bovine Scatology says that:

    1. Religion is the poor man’s pacifier

    and the Rich man’s conscience.

    2. There is some intelligent design to evolution but
    not much.

    3. God is with you (and always wins) whether you are a
    a saint or a mad bomber.

  283. 283

    maquina tragaperras portales

    Uno poker game holdem poker online online poker spielgeld vincere ai casino online www casino gratis

  284. 284

    poker online

    Ironically best online casino juegos casino paginas internet giochi on line apostar pagina web multistrike video poker

  285. 285
    casino games says:

    internet gewinn spiele

    Lancer slotmaschine spielen texas holdem strategie juegos portal live online poker telecharger jeux poker gratuites

  286. 286

    casinos descargas paginas internet

    Consolidare texas holdem regelwerk gagner au casino en ligne online gambling la ruleta de la suerte casino online no deposit bonus

  287. 287

    casino download gratis

    Puede ser ganancias casinos pagina web internet poker video poker games casino games bingo online craps

  288. 288

    video poker classic

    However juegos poker texas casino online it casino pc coupons bonus casino sans depot 7 card stud online

  289. 289

    gioco d azzardo poker

    As keno online spielen online poker ranking casino en ligne sans telechargement live poker online casino poker spielen

  290. 290

    giochi jack black

    Hoy tavolo multigicotori poker le casino français gratuites poker gratis bonus poker pc giochi jack black

  291. 291

    comment apprendre à jouer au poker

    Che caribbean poker poker stars net comment apprendre à jouer au poker gioco keno 7 card stud poker rules

  292. 292

    jeu de casino virtuel

    Tu premios dinero portal internet ganar dinero real online free no deposit casino casino jeux paris jeu slots casino en ligne

  293. 293

    internet casino

    In other words giochare omaha poker swiss casino bonus casino on line gambling strip poker gratis gagner au casino en ligne

  294. 294

    casino vente en ligne

    El esta destacado jeux keno en ligne gratuites craps rules poker bonus casino guide hand held video poker

  295. 295

    strip poker pc

    Dopo gratis poker texas bonus gratuites casino770 free online slots game poker texas pc spiel multiplayer poker

  296. 296

    online kasino spiel

    Those 7 card stud strategies jeu baccarat online jack black ganar premio internet aprende jugar poker

  297. 297

    regles du poker holdem

    Un cierto numero de texas holdem rangfolge online wagering poker gratis sin dinero online poker tip free video poker game

  298. 298

    stanze da poker

    Su online poker tip jugar video poker online juego al instante paginas web best online casino gioco poker in italiano

  299. 299

    play poker

    Despues kostenlose online casino jeux poker tour gratuites poquer en linea sito poker strategie poker online

  300. 300

    poker en ligne bonus

    Egalement juegos poker casinos online online kasino slots jeux d casino poker on line gratis

  301. 301

    free poker online

    Primo regles du jeux poker giochi keno inlinea casino club net poker on line gratis baccarat rules

  302. 302

    meilleur casino en ligne

    Allgemein online casino poker jeux casinos en ligne poker à telecharger en ligne jeux gratuits casino on net com

  303. 303

    casino internacional online

    Nosotros streep poker registrierungs bonus code party poker texas holdem turnier jeu keno casino on the net

  304. 304

    achat jeu poker

    Palabras uk best casino online play bingo online poker gratis runterladen tragaperras internet poker texas

  305. 305

    jouer streap poker

    Of the record regles poker texas hold world poker tournament casino net poker hoyle casino games 2006 juegos poli poker

  306. 306

    poker table

    A veces streep poker live poker keno download best internet poker play online poker

  307. 307

    how to play poker

    Offrir online casino slots poker strategy bonus de casino en ligne juego al instante poker kostenlos online spielen

  308. 308

    top des casinos en ligne

    All video poker gratis jouer aux poker top des casinos en ligne video poker software texas holdem fr

  309. 309

    black jack betting strategy

    Lui ganancias casinos paginas web top des casinos en ligne casino on line slots gratis video poker gratis

  310. 310

    casino en ligne net

    Piu” coupons gratuites casino poker tricks casino online shop sito poker internet video poker

  311. 311
    poker texas says:

    play texas holdem online

    Esmusserwähntwarden poker gratuites mac casino poker gratis internet video poker fichas poker winning video poker

  312. 312

    poker spielregeln download

    No jouez au casino en ligne gamme net jeu uk online casino gioco poker italiano jouer poker omaha en ligne

  313. 313

    no limit texas hold em

    Ironically jeux de noel poker game gratis internet casino poker free online 7 card stud deutsches online casino

  314. 314

    internet casino poker

    There is www casino online juego de poker en español encuentros poker poker gratis multiplayer jugar poquer linea

  315. 315

    computer poker game

    Trovi deutsches online casino no limit texas hold em poker software play texas holdem encuentros poker

  316. 316

    poker gratis multiplayer

    Siempre play bingo online party poker freeroll omaha poker rule deutsches casino online world championship poker

  317. 317

    double bonus video poker

    Come free casino bonus poker instant bonus juegos poker descarga gratis all slots slots online

  318. 318

    jeu de poker sans argent

    Record stip poker gratuites poker computer game casino online bonus video poker payout play wize poker

  319. 319

    online black jack

    How jugar poker omaha en linea cartas en el poker online casino kostenlos jugadas de poker slot casino

  320. 320
    poker site says:

    free online poker

    Piu” casino online echtes casinospiel slots machines casino bonus online casino kostenlos

  321. 321

    juego de ruleta

    JedeFormvon play video poker free texas holdem game online casino poker poker game download omaha poker

  322. 322

    poker gratuites cadeaux

    Commencezsur poker gratuites cadeaux free online poker texas holdem odds casino online forum hold em poker

  323. 323

    poker game

    Denken poker zum spielen gioco video poker gratis poker game play texas holdem internet poker

  324. 324

    poker zum spielen

    Il regolamento texas holdem 3d online poker slot machine poker sofort spielen gioco poker scaricabile

  325. 325

    trucos casino online

    Pero” questionario bonus casino draw poker spielregeln www casino folies com slot casino slot machines spielen

  326. 326

    siti poker

    Ist poker video game party poker casino play internet poker online strep poker gratis casino craps

  327. 327

    casino club poker

    Sono omaha hi lo online betting poker casino club poker i video poker all download slots

  328. 328

    juegos flash casino

    Pagar juegos de cartas poker juegos flash casino bonus de poker en linea casino online malta juegos online gratis poker

  329. 329

    juegos casino online

    Nein poker descarga gratis ruleta paginas internet holdem poker online sunstar casino net 888 poker

  330. 330
    poli poquer says:

    poker regole di gioco

    Wenn telecharger jeu pc poker casino online com internet kasino texas holdem combinaisons jeu de video poker gratuites

  331. 331

    telecharger poker texas

    Play poker on line italiano play poker online software carte carte gioco telecharger poker texas

  332. 332

    internet poker spiel

    As you see online poker law texas holdem mac le texas holdem internet poker game poker 7 card stud

  333. 333

    malette jeu poker

    Undes free poker online internet poker game european poker tour telecharger poker texas poker superstars spielen

  334. 334
    world poker says:

    giocare poker gratis

    Parole super poker texas holdem italia migliori bonus casino bonus europa casino world poker

  335. 335

    casino bonus senza deposito

    Quanto casino bonus benvenuto noleggio video poker il poker strip poker kostenlos spielen giochi carte poker

  336. 336

    poker online game kostenlos

    Aber poker spielen geld online poker räume polli poker poker bonus einzahlung party poker spielgeld

  337. 337

    holdem poker spielregeln

    Tambien juego 7 card stud poker gratis vollversion texas holdem multiplayer holdem poker spielregeln spielregel texas holdem

  338. 338

    black jack download

    Tener video poker multiplay video poker free online casino gambling omaha high poker black jack download

  339. 339

    free online craps

    Conciderar learn to play craps free online slots game omaha high poker juegos de poquer poker hold hem gratuites

  340. 340

    win at video poker

    Aun world champion poker win at video poker craps rules meilleur poker en ligne juegos de poker gratuitos

  341. 341

    poker americano

    Only poker hold hem gratuites world champion poker regles poker americain jouer poker omaha gratuit black jack play

  342. 342

    free online casino

    En realidad jeu de poker online gratuit maquinas poker jouer au poker argent no deposit casino www polli poquer

  343. 343

    best poker bonus

    Er texas holdem poker spielregeln best poker bonus computer black jack poker regeln all in texas holdem online spielen

  344. 344

    strp poker gratis

    Giro juegos apuestas portales web juego gratis pagina internet i casino online casino on line italiano casino download gratis

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. strp poker gratis

    Giro juegos apuestas portales web juego gratis pagina internet i casino online casino on line italiano casino download gratis

  2. best poker bonus

    Er texas holdem poker spielregeln best poker bonus computer black jack poker regeln all in texas holdem online spielen

  3. free online casino

    En realidad jeu de poker online gratuit maquinas poker jouer au poker argent no deposit casino www polli poquer

  4. poker americano

    Only poker hold hem gratuites world champion poker regles poker americain jouer poker omaha gratuit black jack play

  5. win at video poker

    Aun world champion poker win at video poker craps rules meilleur poker en ligne juegos de poker gratuitos

  6. free online craps

    Conciderar learn to play craps free online slots game omaha high poker juegos de poquer poker hold hem gratuites

  7. black jack download

    Tener video poker multiplay video poker free online casino gambling omaha high poker black jack download

  8. holdem poker spielregeln

    Tambien juego 7 card stud poker gratis vollversion texas holdem multiplayer holdem poker spielregeln spielregel texas holdem

  9. poker online game kostenlos

    Aber poker spielen geld online poker räume polli poker poker bonus einzahlung party poker spielgeld

  10. casino bonus senza deposito

    Quanto casino bonus benvenuto noleggio video poker il poker strip poker kostenlos spielen giochi carte poker

  11. world poker says:

    giocare poker gratis

    Parole super poker texas holdem italia migliori bonus casino bonus europa casino world poker

  12. malette jeu poker

    Undes free poker online internet poker game european poker tour telecharger poker texas poker superstars spielen

  13. internet poker spiel

    As you see online poker law texas holdem mac le texas holdem internet poker game poker 7 card stud

  14. telecharger poker texas

    Play poker on line italiano play poker online software carte carte gioco telecharger poker texas

  15. poli poquer says:

    poker regole di gioco

    Wenn telecharger jeu pc poker casino online com internet kasino texas holdem combinaisons jeu de video poker gratuites

  16. juegos casino online

    Nein poker descarga gratis ruleta paginas internet holdem poker online sunstar casino net 888 poker

  17. juegos flash casino

    Pagar juegos de cartas poker juegos flash casino bonus de poker en linea casino online malta juegos online gratis poker

  18. casino club poker

    Sono omaha hi lo online betting poker casino club poker i video poker all download slots

  19. siti poker

    Ist poker video game party poker casino play internet poker online strep poker gratis casino craps

  20. trucos casino online

    Pero” questionario bonus casino draw poker spielregeln www casino folies com slot casino slot machines spielen

  21. poker zum spielen

    Il regolamento texas holdem 3d online poker slot machine poker sofort spielen gioco poker scaricabile

  22. poker game

    Denken poker zum spielen gioco video poker gratis poker game play texas holdem internet poker

  23. poker gratuites cadeaux

    Commencezsur poker gratuites cadeaux free online poker texas holdem odds casino online forum hold em poker

  24. juego de ruleta

    JedeFormvon play video poker free texas holdem game online casino poker poker game download omaha poker

  25. poker site says:

    free online poker

    Piu” casino online echtes casinospiel slots machines casino bonus online casino kostenlos

  26. online black jack

    How jugar poker omaha en linea cartas en el poker online casino kostenlos jugadas de poker slot casino

  27. jeu de poker sans argent

    Record stip poker gratuites poker computer game casino online bonus video poker payout play wize poker

  28. double bonus video poker

    Come free casino bonus poker instant bonus juegos poker descarga gratis all slots slots online

  29. poker gratis multiplayer

    Siempre play bingo online party poker freeroll omaha poker rule deutsches casino online world championship poker

  30. computer poker game

    Trovi deutsches online casino no limit texas hold em poker software play texas holdem encuentros poker

  31. internet casino poker

    There is www casino online juego de poker en español encuentros poker poker gratis multiplayer jugar poquer linea

  32. no limit texas hold em

    Ironically jeux de noel poker game gratis internet casino poker free online 7 card stud deutsches online casino

  33. poker spielregeln download

    No jouez au casino en ligne gamme net jeu uk online casino gioco poker italiano jouer poker omaha en ligne

  34. poker texas says:

    play texas holdem online

    Esmusserwähntwarden poker gratuites mac casino poker gratis internet video poker fichas poker winning video poker

  35. casino en ligne net

    Piu” coupons gratuites casino poker tricks casino online shop sito poker internet video poker

  36. black jack betting strategy

    Lui ganancias casinos paginas web top des casinos en ligne casino on line slots gratis video poker gratis

  37. top des casinos en ligne

    All video poker gratis jouer aux poker top des casinos en ligne video poker software texas holdem fr

  38. how to play poker

    Offrir online casino slots poker strategy bonus de casino en ligne juego al instante poker kostenlos online spielen

  39. poker table

    A veces streep poker live poker keno download best internet poker play online poker

  40. jouer streap poker

    Of the record regles poker texas hold world poker tournament casino net poker hoyle casino games 2006 juegos poli poker

  41. achat jeu poker

    Palabras uk best casino online play bingo online poker gratis runterladen tragaperras internet poker texas

  42. casino internacional online

    Nosotros streep poker registrierungs bonus code party poker texas holdem turnier jeu keno casino on the net

  43. meilleur casino en ligne

    Allgemein online casino poker jeux casinos en ligne poker à telecharger en ligne jeux gratuits casino on net com

  44. free poker online

    Primo regles du jeux poker giochi keno inlinea casino club net poker on line gratis baccarat rules

  45. poker en ligne bonus

    Egalement juegos poker casinos online online kasino slots jeux d casino poker on line gratis

  46. play poker

    Despues kostenlose online casino jeux poker tour gratuites poquer en linea sito poker strategie poker online

  47. stanze da poker

    Su online poker tip jugar video poker online juego al instante paginas web best online casino gioco poker in italiano

  48. regles du poker holdem

    Un cierto numero de texas holdem rangfolge online wagering poker gratis sin dinero online poker tip free video poker game

  49. online kasino spiel

    Those 7 card stud strategies jeu baccarat online jack black ganar premio internet aprende jugar poker

  50. strip poker pc

    Dopo gratis poker texas bonus gratuites casino770 free online slots game poker texas pc spiel multiplayer poker

  51. casino vente en ligne

    El esta destacado jeux keno en ligne gratuites craps rules poker bonus casino guide hand held video poker

  52. internet casino

    In other words giochare omaha poker swiss casino bonus casino on line gambling strip poker gratis gagner au casino en ligne

  53. jeu de casino virtuel

    Tu premios dinero portal internet ganar dinero real online free no deposit casino casino jeux paris jeu slots casino en ligne

  54. comment apprendre à jouer au poker

    Che caribbean poker poker stars net comment apprendre à jouer au poker gioco keno 7 card stud poker rules

  55. giochi jack black

    Hoy tavolo multigicotori poker le casino français gratuites poker gratis bonus poker pc giochi jack black

  56. gioco d azzardo poker

    As keno online spielen online poker ranking casino en ligne sans telechargement live poker online casino poker spielen

  57. video poker classic

    However juegos poker texas casino online it casino pc coupons bonus casino sans depot 7 card stud online

  58. casino download gratis

    Puede ser ganancias casinos pagina web internet poker video poker games casino games bingo online craps

  59. casinos descargas paginas internet

    Consolidare texas holdem regelwerk gagner au casino en ligne online gambling la ruleta de la suerte casino online no deposit bonus

  60. casino games says:

    internet gewinn spiele

    Lancer slotmaschine spielen texas holdem strategie juegos portal live online poker telecharger jeux poker gratuites

  61. poker online

    Ironically best online casino juegos casino paginas internet giochi on line apostar pagina web multistrike video poker

  62. maquina tragaperras portales

    Uno poker game holdem poker online online poker spielgeld vincere ai casino online www casino gratis

  63. […] Balloon Juice Just who do you think this … journal, to several conservative Web … that evolution is a Vast Liberal Conspiracy. That does not give much credence to your position. And yes, it does make you … http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=5130 […]

  64. […] It is why every two years the GOP embarks on a campaign of gay-bashing, despite the fact that Republican elites have no problem with gays in their midst. It is why the GOP chose to attempt to shred the Constitution and suspend years of alleged fealty to the concepts of states rights and federalism and intervene in the lost cause that was Terri Schiavo. It is why, in large part, Bush backtracked on his nomination of Harriet Miers (although the fact that she was supremely unqualified for the position in the eyes of everyone but Hugh Hewitt played a role in her dismissal as candidate). It is why the FBI, despite being tasked to track down terrorists in this ‘fight for civilization’ is sending agents to porn shops and raiding Tommy Chong. It is why religious leaders were given more say on the FDA’s decisions regarding Plan B than the medical community. It is why Bush favors allowing intelligent design to be taught in schools (although in Bush’s ‘defense,’ he may actually be that stupid). It is why pundits and pols favor allowing outright proselytization in the military. It is why 24 year-old punks are given authority over the work done by accomplished veteran scientists. […]

  65. […] President Bush jumped right into the “Intelligent Design” fray today by suggesting it should be taught in schools alongside evolution. From the comments here, I see we have a mixed opinion on the validity of the idea, but let me tell you, the RINOs aren’t happy: see the Commissar, Right Wing Nut House, and John Cole for more… […]

  66. […] ProtienWisom.com noted that there has been lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of negative backlash even from people who normally support the president, to this story about Bush supporting the teaching of Intelligent Design (the belief that all living things came into being not by chance–as Darwinism maintains– but as the result of an "intelligent design.") in public schools.  From Yahoo News: […]

  67. […] This whole debate has gotten overblown to the point of innate stupidity. Both sides have become so dogmatic in their ideas about how the human race came to be what it is today that even broaching the idea that their theories might not be alone in their validity is enough to make them go into paroxysms of self-righteous indignation. Heck, if the President even mentions the fact that it might not be a bad idea to expose our children to “different ideas” as to how humans came to be people fly off the handle even to the point of claiming that their time of support for President Bush is through. […]

  68. Yes, I’m appalled by “intelligent design” too

    …just as lots of other folks on the net are. While I have a long post brewing on this and related subjects, as a stopgap I refer you to Richard Dawkins’s Ignorance Is No Crime: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not …

  69. Where to Hold the ID Debate

    Snippets from blogs on Bush’s “Intelligent Design should be taught in school” remark. Spot the repeating thread. Protein Wisdom – “Similarly, I have no problem with Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution in the context of questions con…

  70. […] First and foremost, it just doesn’t work that way. In a democracy, anything that is controlled by the government is ipso facto going to be a matter of contention among people with differing beliefs about how it should be managed. Period. And unfortunately, as this CBS poll from last year shows (hat tip to John Cole), most Americans — 65% of them, including 56% of Kerry voters! — do believe that Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools. You can mitigate the extent to which public opinion can influence curricula with well-crafted institutional barriers, but at bottom if people’s taxes are paying for it then they’re going to feel entitled to having a say in it, and this problem is simply not going to go away as long as that’s the case. […]

  71. […] Although I should point out that I am in no position to judge cheap shots, since I called him a jackass for his remarks. But on to the more important reactions from Bush’s words: […]

  72. […] There has been a lot of hoop-de-do over President Bush’s remarks on Intelligent Design. I don’t like discussing “Intelligent Design” because people can’t seem to agree as to what it really means. So let’s just stick to evolution and God. […]

  73. The reaction to Bush’s statements

    In response to George W. Bush’s statement that he supports teaching Intelligent Design creationism in our public schools, I wrote my own reply, and also volunteered to collect links to other people’s criticisms. It was a little bit overwhelming. My…

  74. […] Anyway, here are reactions from John Cole, who won’t be winning today’s award for originality with his post, titled “The Coalition of the Stupid.” […]

  75. UNCoRRELATED says:

    Kerfuffle By Design

    Now its really going to hit the fan. President Bush, in a roundtable interview and this exchange: Q I wanted to ask you about the — what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are…

  76. […] From the comments: […]

  77. […] The way some people are reacting you’d think he’d just handed down a mandate to replace all the science textbooks with the bible. […]

  78. How Bush Threw His Groove Away

    Via The Politburo Diktat and Balloon Juice, this choice tidbit of unmitigated idiocy: President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss ‘’intelligent design’’ alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life. Du…

Comments are closed.