The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Geological Society of America Meeting on ID/Creation.

Posted 19 October 2005 by Guest Contributor

by Joe Meert There were two days of talks given at the recent GSA meeting. Abstracts can be found at: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/session_16049.htm and http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/session_16171.htm. I'll report as best I can on these two days beginning with day 2. I'll try not to interject comments although it is hard to avoid. Point #1: A lot of time was spent talking about how not to offend the majority while still teaching evolution. These talks focused on topics related to earth science that could, for example, show deep time to folks on tours in National Parks (Miller) or help students understand that the use of relative time (Wagner) (looking at different age trees in a forest could help students understand that even if they believe the earth is 6000 years old, it still might look old to scientists). Thomas started off this same way discussing some anecdotes about hate mail and bad reviews he has received from fundamentalists. He was the one who most closely teetered on the divide between the "get along with them" group and the "confront them" group. I would say that these people would agree with the statement "teach the controversy". Point #2: Eugenie Scott spoke (rapidly because she though she was allotted twice the time she had) about "multiple levels" of creationism and made the point that ID was "creationism light". She also mentioned several of the ongoing court cases and battles and brought up that evolution was often blamed for a whole host of ills in society. Now, for those who know Eugenie and the NCSE, there was nothing really new in this talk, but I heard several gasps of amazement from the audience indicating that many in the room were not aware of how big of a problem this was. I was surprised she did not mention the "Academic Freedom" bills that were being introduced (but that meant I would have the chance to talk about it). Point #3: Don Wise stood up and the first slide was a photo of cow dung on the white-line of the road that had been run over by a car. He pointed out it's relevance for being able to decipher the relative sequence of events and also his attitude about Intelligent Design. The punch line is that we need to clean up the dung and make the white line pristine again. He then made usual points about incompetent design (using the back, the eye etc). What made it special was that he used a song "Incompetent Design" to make his point. He also noted that we should take our cues from politics. We live in an age of sound bites and using words like "incompetent design" can be more effective than trying to explain in scientific detail why it's bad science. Wise encourages geologists to take lessons from politics; (1) don't be defensive (2) keep your points simple and easy to remember (3) use humor to make your points (4) aim your points at the voters. Point #4: Lee Allison gave an excellent summary of how Kansas evolutionists boycotted the hearings but still got their message out. I thought this was important because some (myself included) were not pleased that scientists avoided the hearings even though they were rigged. He went through each of the "judges" career history to show just how rigged the hearings were. He then described the set-up by scientists outside the hearing room complete with press releases and "talking points" for each of the days hearings. I, for one, have changed my tune on this and feel that they did the right thing (oops an opinion slipped in). He then described the tactics that they will take in the next election cycle where 5 creationists on the board will be up. Allison also noted that Kansas is considered ground zero for the ID attack and the reason they have abandoned Dover is because the group there did not follow the political rules for getting ID into the schools. Point #5: The talks on both days were well attended and not just by educators, but also some of the world's top researchers and the point was driven home (hopefully) by Scott, Wise, Allison, Thomas, and myself that this is not just a small minority quietly operating behind the scenes at the local level. Collectively, we encouraged scientists to get out of their labs once in a while and talk to the public. In fact, I think that in addition to Eugenie's call for action, the session ended with myself, Wise, and Allison all making the same point that while educating young people on evolution is a good thing and will help scientific literacy, the battle is being waged by voters who are either out of school or never went to school. That is the battleground and the ID movement and creationism have accepted a somewhat "unholy alliance" to get their social reforms accepted by society and we're in trouble if we think it will just go away. Point #7: Kurt Wise. He appeared very nervous and probably this had to do with the fact that the previous speaker introduced him as a typical creationist who would believe the bible above any evidence. Basically he was not an effective speaker and gave a very poor talk. He spent much of his time talking about how many creationist books have been published in the last few years and the number of creationists with advanced degrees and Ph.D.'s. He said that we are not going to convince YEC students to adopt evolution so don't even try. Just teach the subject and try not to offend anyone. I thought he was capable of much more and was disappointed in his talk. I saw no point in doing a regression analysis on the number of creationist books published in the last 100+ years. Point #8: What to do? (1) Consider this a political campaign and use the same rough and tumble tactics that politicians use. (2) Get involved in the campaign by working up sound bites that are accurate, witty and easy to remember. (3) Don't slack off, Kansas is a proving ground for ID both legally and strategically. (4) Offer to do radio programs on ID and evolution. (5) Offer to give talks at local churches especially when you happen to see evolution bashing listed as the Sunday sermon topic. (6) Don't debate the science of ID (there isn't any), but do debate the problems with ID. (7) I realize this is somewhat contradictory to #6, but if ID wants to be called a science then point out that it is bad science. Point out bad design in nature and ask them to explain it. It may lead them back to a discussion of religion and then they lose. (8) Summary: Get out there with the public that matters right now, the voters. Or as Allison says "It's the politics, stupid". I'll post the powerpoint slides from my talk online in a day or so. Joe Meert is an Assistant Professor of Geology at the University of Florida.

67 Comments

ivy privy · 19 October 2005

Debate: Should we teach Intelligent Design in public schools as part of the science curriculum?

October 20, 2005 - 5:30PM to 6:30PM Goldwin Smith, Kaufman Auditorium Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA Open to Public, Alumni, Students, Faculty, and Staff. Cornell ACLU vs Intellingent Design Evolution Awareness Club

Ed Darrell · 19 October 2005

Do geologists ever invite former New Mexico Sen. Harrison Schmitt to these meetings?

I suspect he's still connected to the Republican political establishment, if not wired. As a geologist, he's a credentialed scientist. As a Republican, he's considered credence-worthy by many. As a former senator, he might be quite flattered were a national association of geologists to take him to dinner to seek his advice and put the crunch on him for support in lobbying for good science in high schools.

Especially now that news is leaking out (I regret any unintended puns) that the geology work done on the levees around New Orleans had identified problems that ultimately led to their collapse, we have some object lessons in why geology is important and why geologists who stick to the science should be listened to, and why we need to train new geologists. I mean, in addition to oil.

Salvador T. Cordova · 19 October 2005

joe wrote: (4) Offer to do radio programs on ID and evolution.

I think even television shows would be in order. I highly recommend video such as this exchange between Peter Folger of the American Geophysical Union and Attorney Mark Ryland, Vice President of the Discovery Institute. Geologist and ID Attorney It seems to me as Donald Wise indicated, the scientific community has been unsuccessful at detering the advance of intelligent design into the cultural mainstream. Scientists are coming to terms with the fact they are facing a formidable challenge they face in dealing with ID. It seems that this issue has become so critical that the GSA feels it appropriate to feature in it's big annual meeting. I support the airing of more television and radio programs bringing discussion of these topics. I hope the GSA will expand it's coverge of and inclusion of discussion of ID and YEC geology each and every year. I hope scientist will present papers and continue discussion of the challenges posed by YEC and ID. I applaud the GSA in elevating the importance of the ID issue and helping bring the discussion to the forefront. :-)

RBH · 19 October 2005

Joe Meert's Powerpoint slides from his presentation.

RBH

shiva · 19 October 2005

YEC geology

as in oxymoron

sir_toejam · 19 October 2005

slaveador -

you very well know that the only "challenge" ID presents scientists is in the scientist having to learn how to play politics. I think that was pretty much the point driven home at the conference.

unfortunately, you don't hold yourself or those you worship (dembski) to have to do the converse; that is learn how to do science instead of politics.

I feel the real scientists will meet this challenge (because they can). Fortunately, I am just as sure that you and your ilk will be equally UNABLE to do the converse.

you've had 2500 + years to do so, and failed miserably every time.

it's sad you seem incapable of learning from your mistakes.

please, feel free to keep playing poster boy for ID; you do us all a service by pointing out how obvious your bloviations are.

George Mason · 19 October 2005

Salvador, You wrote that non-Christians cannot serve as officers in IDEA clubs without that club being a "renegade":

if non Christians are elected to become [IDEA club] officers, the club can continue under it's constitution, but it can no longer be a recognized as sanctioned chapter by the IDEA center in San Diego, but rather would have to delcare itself a renegade ID chapter.

What scientific movement or organization demands in its charter that it be managed only by members from a particular religious sect? Are you now aware of the revelation in the Dover trial that the intelligent design book Of Pandas and People began as a creationist book, and that its authors replaced all instances of "creationism" with "intelligent design" immediately after the Supreme Court's 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision? Were you aware of these facts before the trial in Dover? What implications of these facts do you see for the debate you mention above: the appropriateness of teaching intelligent design creationism in public schools?

K.E. · 19 October 2005

As an interested bystander
I suggest to help you understand the
nature of the dragon you are dealing with.

Read the first and last chapters of
(This should be in your university library)

"Myths to Live by"
by Joesph Campbell

-Impact of Science on Myth
-No more horizons

The IDists are "Life Jim, but not as we Know it"

They don't care about science, they don't want to know anything that threatens their personal view, and they don't care how they achieve their aims the only language they understand is old time biblical ..lust, envy, pride, idolatry etc etc when they hear the word truth they think of the Grand Old Designer. Just about every word that science uses is demonized and they speak in a code that can only be described as Byzantine. They realize it is a battle for the hearts and minds of the children and they don't care how they achieve their aims.

In short they want to "Render unto God what is Caesar's and what is Caesar's unto God."

And they are not unfortunately to to go away anytime soon

oh and beware of hubris.

Alienward · 19 October 2005

Salvador T. Cordova wrote:

I hope scientist will present papers and continue discussion of the challenges posed by YEC and ID. I applaud the GSA in elevating the importance of the ID issue and helping bring the discussion to the forefront. :-)

From one of the abstracts:

One of the most significant contributions we can make as science educators is to proclaim anti-intellectual notions such as intelligent design to be the nonsense they so clearly are.

Good to see you're happy that scientists are getting involved in exposing YEC and ID as nothing but garbage.

CJ O'Brien · 19 October 2005

But I'm sure the lurkers at the conference supported Sal in e-mail.

sir_toejam · 19 October 2005

when they hear the word truth they think of the Grand Old Designer

at the moment, i have a notion that they think of GOP rather than GOD, whether they intend to or not.

Thomas Gillepsie · 19 October 2005

I have had the great pleasure to work with Don Wise on a course offered by the Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists (back when Don was still at Franklin & Marshall). He is nothing if not entertaining, and he carries unimpeachable credentials in the geologic community. I still use Don's course notes in a structural geology section of that same course (I am teaching it in March at the GSA regional meeting in Harrisburg) and his examples of geologic concepts are just as corny and humorous as the cow dung slide - oh, and just as memorable, which is his very point.

I think he is on to something there.

Tom

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 19 October 2005

Scientists are coming to terms with the fact they are facing a formidable challenge they face in dealing with ID.

Hey Sal, your "formidable challenge" is about to die a quick death in Dover. (shrug) But hey, Sal, while you are here, maybe you'd like to take a stab at answering those questions I keep asking and you keep running away from. Forget them already? No problem, Sal -- I'll give the detailed version, so all the new people here who didn't see you run away the last time, will understand exactly what you are running away from: *ahem* (1) what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method? I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design. I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing---- the one you want taught in public school science classes, the one that creationists and intelligent design "theorists" testified under oath in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is NOT based on religious doctrine. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology does. Let's see this superior "science" of yours. Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today. Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did, (3) where can we see these mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective criteria can we use to determine what entities are "intelligently designed" and what entities aren't (please illustrate this by pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference). If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform, in principle, to answer these questions. Also, since one of the criteria of "science" is falsifiability, I'd like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can be falsified. What experimental results or observations would conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen. Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen. I want you to demonstrate "B" directly. So don't give me any "there are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is worng so creation must be right" baloney. I will repeat that I do NOT want a big long laundry list of "why evolution is wrong". I don't care why evolution is wrong. I want to know what your alternative is, and how it explains data better than evolution does. I'd also like to know two specific things about this "alternative scientific theory": How old does "intelligent design/creationism theory" determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or thousands of years old. And does 'intelligent design/creationism theory' determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or does it determine that they have not. I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories". Unless of course you don't HAVE any and are just lying to us when you claim to. (2) According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not? (3) What, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic" than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be as specific as possible. I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, "materialistic" and "naturalistic" ---- we don't want any judges to think ID's railing against "materialism" has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)? I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, "We can't explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit." I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that "this crash has no materialistic causes --- it must have been the Will of Allah". Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say "materialistic" and "naturalistic" --- we don't want any judges to know that it is "atheism" we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)? How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his "materialistic biases" and to investigate possible "supernatural" or "non-materialistic" causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs? Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation? Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture" ... . . ? (4) The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning. According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God. In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban. While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8). P>The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing). Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, "My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives." Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine). Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Howard Ahamnson, Jr sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute. Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself. However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was. So it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway? And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views. Oh, and your latest round of blithering about "anti-God" and "anti-religion" prompts yet another question, Sal (whcih, of course, you also will not answer). (5) Sal, you must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then your ID crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are just lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims. So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Are you really THAT stupid? Really and truly? Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible? Why are you **undercutting your own side**???????? I really truly want to know.

Krauze · 19 October 2005

Manual trackback:

"Advice to ID critics: Act like politicians" at Telic Thoughts

sir_toejam · 19 October 2005

In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban.

i'll lay even odds that the next "terrorist" attack in the US will come from a reconstructionist. any takers?

sir_toejam · 19 October 2005

He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie

btw, Arnie is now learning the folly of those who supported his supplanting the normal governance of CA with "edict by proposition" he has failed each and every one of the right-wing agendas he has tried to ram through the state legislature, and his approach has left the voters cold - he has one of the worst approval ratings of any recent governor; even worse than the guy he replaced (davis). i would find this funny if it wasn't so tragic that it happened to begin with. I examined Arnies politics a couple of years prior to his "ascension" and they don't really agree terribly much with the positions he has taken in the recall election and after. it was sad to see him sell out so completely. perhaps he was blackmailed into it? hmmm.

IAMB, FCD · 19 October 2005

i'll lay even odds that the next "terrorist" attack in the US will come from a reconstructionist. any takers?
Hovind did say in one of his videos that "If you're going to Heaven you should take someone with you" or some such line. That could be taken as an endorsement of suicide bombing by some...

IAMB, FCD · 19 October 2005

It seems to me as Donald Wise indicated, the scientific community has been unsuccessful at detering the advance of intelligent design into the cultural mainstream. (Emphasis mine)

— Sal
Why should a scientific concept have to advance into the cultural mainstream? Hmmmm...

Pierce R. Butler · 19 October 2005

I'm surprised and a little worried that the geologists' talks weren't reported as including material about the "academic freedom" schtick that seems to be the creationists' new fallback position:
CMA Doctors Decry 'Scientific Inquisition' Against Intelligent Design To: National Desk Contact: Margie Shealy of the Christian Medical Association, 423-844-1047, margie.shealy@cmda.org WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Criticizing a "Scientific Inquisition" aimed at squelching debate over exclusively teaching the theory of evolution, the Christian Medical Association (www.cmda.org) today called for fair and open consideration of the scientific merits of intelligent design theory. Dr. David Stevens, Executive Director of the 17,000-member CMA, noted, "It's hard to reconcile the scientific principles of freedom of exploration, testing hypotheses and evaluating evidence with the tyrannical rhetoric coming from some scientific elites who want to squelch the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolutionary theory." As an example, Dr. Stevens cited a recent editorial in this month's New England Journal of Medicine entitled "Faith Healers and Physicians--Teaching Pseudoscience by Mandate," by deputy editor Robert S. Schwartz, M.D. In the editorial, Schwartz compared a religious leader, who expressed opposition to the theory of evolution, to the Russian tyrant Joseph Stalin. He also warned that "acquiescing to this anti-science movement would have far-reaching consequences for the development of future generations of physicians, for the likelihood of discovering new therapies, and for understanding health and disease." Dr. Stevens rejoined, "Dr. Schwartz's betrayal of his ignorance of the history of science suggests that maybe instead of debating teaching intelligent design, we should be debating teaching history in medical school. Some of the greatest pioneers of science saw God's fingerprints in the natural order they investigated. Scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle, Paré, Ambriose and Newton produced tremendous scientific breakthroughs as a result of and consistent with their religious faith and belief in the God who ordered the universe. "Instead of an open and systematic consideration of the evidence, a small but powerful scientific elite have launched the equivalent of a "Scientific Inquisition" against any scientist who dares to break ranks to consider the claims of intelligent design. Besides persecuting any scientist who dares consider the evidence for intelligent design, the ruling elite would also excommunicate any scientist who sees God behind that design." CMA Associate Executive Director Dr. Gene Rudd added, "Physicians who treat patients don't labor under a false dichotomy of faith and science. In a survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine. Despites Dr. Schwartz's efforts to deny a transcendent influence in our world and in our lives, the majority of his readers do not agree with him." To schedule an interview please contact Margie Shealy at (423) 844-1047 or by e-mail: Margie.Shealy@cmda.org. # # # ______________________________________________ The preceding was forwarded to you by the Christian Communication Network. ...
Scientific Inquiry on Trial in Pennsylvania To: National List Contact: Hilary Clay Hicks, Media Relations for Christian Educators Association International, 626-821-9532, hillyboy@altrionet.com PASADENA, Ca., Oct. 13 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Eleven parents from the Dover School District in south central Pennsylvania, represented by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, are asking the courts to halt schools from teaching students the Theory of Intelligent Design, claiming that the board is trying to bring religion into the classroom and that Intelligent Design is not valid science. "The ACLU and its minions have a full court press underway to misrepresent Intelligent Design Theory, not to mention misrepresenting the Theory of Evolution," says Finn Laursen, Executive Director of Christian Educators Association International. "They are in fact attempting to stifle scientific inquiry because of their misplaced hostility toward religion." "The case against the Dover School District is the first case to test the constitutionality of teaching Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution in public school classrooms," says Laursen. About a year ago the district revised its science curriculum to make students aware of some of the problems in the Theory of Evolution and be introduced to the Theory of Intelligent Design. The trial began September 26. "They claim the policy violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," says Laursen. "Armed with a 1987 Supreme Court decision declaring that teaching 'Creationism' in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause, the ACLU argued that Intelligent Design is Creationism repackaged. However, some experts contend that understanding of the facts has changed, since many recent scientific discoveries do not support Darwin's ideas, conceived over 150 years ago. A new breed of scientists now respect a theory that suggests a master designer at work in the universe due in part to the irreducible complexity of the universe. "I applaud the board for having the courage to expose its students to this issue," says Laursen. "A well-rounded education should include more than one theory. A theory is by its very nature conjecture and should not be enshrined as orthodoxy. Those married to the Theory of Evolution are simply closed to genuine scientific inquiry and disingenuous about their agenda." "I find it refreshing that this board encourages critical thinking rather than insist on reflexive allegiance to a theory. Teaching the controversy is good education. I am not shocked to again see the ACLU and its allies, self proclaimed defenders of freedom, opposing academic freedom and promoting censorship. We at CEAI encourage teachers to teach both theories. We also believe that Intelligent Design will ultimately prevail in the marketplace of ideas." The Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor Michigan is defending the District on the basis that the case is about freedom of education and is not a religious issue. Finn Laursen is the Executive Director of the Christian Educators Association International, est. 1953. To interview Mr. Laursen, call Hilary Clay Hicks at 626-821-9532. # # # ______________________________________________ The preceding was forwarded to you by the Christian Communication Network. You can always find the latest press releases at www.ChristianWireService.com

Joe Meert · 19 October 2005

That's not true, I mentioned that the academic freedom crap was part of my talk. See my notes

http://gondwanaresearch.com/design/id.htm

Cheers

Joe Meert

PvM · 19 October 2005

Thank you Sal for showing once again why ID is scientifically vacuous.

SEF · 19 October 2005

What happened to Point #6? Did it get eaten by the beast? Or is it hiding somewhere because it is shy about being too perfect?

Steve S · 19 October 2005

I hope scientist will present papers and continue discussion of the challenges posed by YEC and ID.

Any numbnut can--and does--come here to argue for ID. But Sal, why go over that tired ground? Why don't you instead spend a while arguing for the Young Earth, instead? We don't get so much of that. It'll be novel.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 19 October 2005

The solution to the politico-religious imbroglio with which some people entertain themselves, lies at their own fingertips. It's called objective observation, and when married to logic, produces valuable outcomes. It brought us a solar-centric solar system, modern medicine, genetics, relativity, quantum physics..... . All these advances were ultimately widely accepted, and today have few politico-religious connotations. Was anyone at the conference concerned at all with basic, glaring, unanswered questions of Science? E.g., The history of life and the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian? How species transform? Moon Origin? Quantum-category Information Systems & DNA? Teaching the geologic record in the framework of a technically self-harmonious model? Or how about just reading the latest literature on Origins, and ceasing the ostrich-like burying of the head?
Does it occur to those present that no other field of modern science has politico-religious connotations in Western Culture, other than Neo-Darwinism? Could it be strange that the same people who are so hot regarding the politico-religion, are so cold when it comes to finding answers to the questions? Have we a bunch of people who are afraid to look through Galileo's telescope? Let's hear from some origins geologists who will do their duty. As Lord Kelvin said, Science is honour bound to investigate every question fairly placed before it. (Not an exact quote.)
Most people are not into dragging religion (as distinct from christian law and conduct)into schools, and religious bigotry terrifies them. But, for the record, since some contributors will tamper with matters that are Above us - the Bible, the same Authority that tells us the earth is old and that species actuated through pre-programmed information transfer, also tells us there was seeming empty pointlessness (vanity) built into nature. E.g.,Romans 8:20-22 and elsewhere. It also tells us that nature and the earth itself have in some measure risen against Man. E.g., Genesis 3:17-19. So it is a vacuous exercise, trying to prove the christian Religion through "intelligent design", and it is an endless and impossible undertaking to discount it through evidences of imperfect design. Thank Heaven! But let the question be put to those conference attendees: are they up to Lord Kelvin's measure of true scientists?
Sincerely, P.H..
P.S., To perhaps save someone the trouble - yes, there are pencil-dots with bilateral symmetry in what is currently classified uppermost Precambrian, in Mainland China. No, this does not demonstrate that nothing major occurred to end the Pre-Cambrian. Yes, simple life did advance significantly in some way during the latest Pre-Cambrian. There are theoretical mechanisms to explain this advance. NO mechanism other than that proposed at www.CreationTheory.com currently provides an actual mechanism to account for the sudden appearance of abundant complex life, earliest Cambrian. (Tell me of any other models that do so, and don't say it was by dogs giving birth to cats, for crying out loud!) This explanation, along with Updated Moon Capture and various other models, is deliberately ignored by modern "science" bodies, presumably on religious grounds. Even Einstein - not to mention such complete fools as Lord Kelvin - was too deviant in his views for them! Or am I imagining things? P.H..

Philip Bruce Heywood · 19 October 2005

The solution to the politico-religious imbroglio with which some people entertain themselves, lies at their own fingertips. It's called objective observation, and when married to logic, produces valuable outcomes. It brought us a solar-centric solar system, modern medicine, genetics, relativity, quantum physics..... . All these advances were ultimately widely accepted, and today have few politico-religious connotations. Was anyone at the conference concerned at all with basic, glaring, unanswered questions of Science? E.g., The history of life and the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian? How species transform? Moon Origin? Quantum-category Information Systems & DNA? Teaching the geologic record in the framework of a technically self-harmonious model? Or how about just reading the latest literature on Origins, and ceasing the ostrich-like burying of the head?
Does it occur to those present that no other field of modern science has politico-religious connotations in Western Culture, other than Neo-Darwinism? Could it be strange that the same people who are so hot regarding the politico-religion, are so cold when it comes to finding answers to the questions? Have we a bunch of people who are afraid to look through Galileo's telescope? Let's hear from some origins geologists who will do their duty. As Lord Kelvin said, Science is honour bound to investigate every question fairly placed before it. (Not an exact quote.)
Most people are not into dragging religion (as distinct from christian law and conduct)into schools, and religious bigotry terrifies them. But, for the record, since some contributors will tamper with matters that are Above us - the Bible, the same Authority that tells us the earth is old and that species actuated through pre-programmed information transfer, also tells us there was seeming empty pointlessness (vanity) built into nature. E.g.,Romans 8:20-22 and elsewhere. It also tells us that nature and the earth itself have in some measure risen against Man. E.g., Genesis 3:17-19. So it is a vacuous exercise, trying to prove the christian Religion through "intelligent design", and it is an endless and impossible undertaking to discount it through evidences of imperfect design. Thank Heaven! But let the question be put to those conference attendees: are they up to Lord Kelvin's measure of true scientists?
Sincerely, P.H..
P.S., To perhaps save someone the trouble - yes, there are pencil-dots with bilateral symmetry in what is currently classified uppermost Precambrian, in Mainland China. No, this does not demonstrate that nothing major occurred to end the Pre-Cambrian. Yes, simple life did advance significantly in some way during the latest Pre-Cambrian. There are theoretical mechanisms to explain this advance. NO mechanism other than that proposed at www.CreationTheory.com currently provides an actual mechanism to account for the sudden appearance of abundant complex life, earliest Cambrian. (Tell me of any other models that do so, and don't say it was by dogs giving birth to cats, for crying out loud!) This explanation, along with Updated Moon Capture and various other models, is deliberately ignored by modern "science" bodies, presumably on religious grounds. Even Einstein - not to mention such complete fools as Lord Kelvin - was too deviant in his views for them! Or am I imagining things? P.H..

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 19 October 2005

Does it occur to those present that no other field of modern science has politico-religious connotations in Western Culture, other than Neo-Darwinism?

Reeeaaallllyyyyyy. Um, then what was that whole "Galileo" thing all about?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 19 October 2005

NO mechanism other than that proposed at www.CreationTheory.com currently provides an actual mechanism to account for the sudden appearance of abundant complex life, earliest Cambrian.

BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sir_toejam · 19 October 2005

*sigh* if you would stop preaching and read more, you would have found the answers to your questions HAVE been fairly addressed, many times. As is usual with most creationists, you project your own ignorance outwards and assume there is NO other mechanism than that which you put your "faith" in from "logical observation".

why don't you actually do some research BEYOND the creationist sites and see what science HAS offered to answer your questions before claiming it hasn't, eh?

why don't you try attending a scientific conference yourself, and see what gets discussed at most of them, and how scientists debate, rather than assuming we all "hide our heads in holes".

you could start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

if you actually WANT to see how science has actually addressed your "questions".

please do come back when you can indicate you have an actual grasp of what's really out there, rather than hiding your head in a hole like you accuse us of doing.

the pro from dover · 19 October 2005

I just can't understand why Lenny has so much trouble with basic science. Lenny what part of "at an unknown and unknowable time in the past an unknown and unknowable designer or designers did using unknown and unknowable methods that are neither testable nor evident anywhere currently in the observable universe design everything in the universe for no apparrent purpose and which cannot be distinguished from anything that wasn't designed if just in case something wasn't designed" don't you understand? If this basic scientific truth is widely taught in science classes across America the technological advances that will surely follow will be staggering! And all the souls that will be saved to boot!! Lenny ask your pizza delivery boy (whose religious opinions equal those of the pope) about applying the "Ellerbee test" to his deliveries. This may help you see clearly to ****THE TRUTH**** of Intelligent Design and finally bring peace to your troubled soul. TPFD.

sir_toejam · 19 October 2005

lol.

now if you could make the part you quoted into an acronym of some kind, that would really make my day.

Joe Meert · 19 October 2005

What happened to Point #6? Did it get eaten by the beast? Or is it hiding somewhere because it is shy about being too perfect?

Hmm, the answer is 42. 42 was the sum total of everything contained in point #6. Cheers Joe Meert

Reed A. Cartwright · 19 October 2005

Six is the devil's number.

sir_toejam · 19 October 2005

Six is the devil's number.

nahnahnahnah I'm not listening, you evil, evil man nahnahnahnah... :p

Ed Darrell · 19 October 2005

6.0 is the devil's software version.
110 is the devil's binary number.

Heck, there were a bunch more, once upon a time.

sir_toejam · 19 October 2005

getting back on topic...

A lot of time was spent talking about how not to offend the majority while still teaching evolution.

man, i keep thinking this will be our future, just like it was with the PETA folks and the development of new standards for animal testing (and the resultant paperwork). more and more time will be devoted to things that simply AREN'T science, and the end result will be so little time spent on actual science teaching that our kids will fall farther and farther behind. *sigh* I have vacillated over the years between the "confront them" crowd, and the "get along" crowd, but have drifted more and more towards the "confront them" position as this crap has gotten more and more common. However, even i can see how futile that is as well. there is a fundamental divide that has been deliberately fostered by the ignorant in this country for so long, the sheer numbers dictate that it will have to be dealt with. the courts can desegregate schools, but they can't stop racists from being racists, nor can they make the ignorant not so. so winning in court is only a superficial victory; what created the problem to begin with still remains. I for one steadfastly refuse to believe it would EVER be a good idea to make a general statement in a science class of ANY kind regarding religious beliefs and potential conflicts with science. with that in mind, i can't see a better solution than "staying the course" and simply refusing to discuss religion in science class, period. if a student asks, PRIVATELY (ie, after class) point them to more relevant faculty (you might want to ask the social studies teacher about that) or resources (er, like a library) for their interests in religion, or their parents, and that's it. otherwise, it's just a waste of time far better spent on more relevant issues. If they refuse to grasp concepts in science because it conflicts with their "religion", then they would have the same problem as someone who refuses to learn about african american history because they are racist, eh? Teachers can't be expected to deal with issues like that. it would be totally unfair. learn the science or don't. it's in the end the student's/parent's decision, and they must accept the consequences of it, even if that also means that all of the rest of us must accept the consequences of yet another ignorant dolt being released on the world. in fact, ANY questions in ANY class not directly relating to the subject material at hand should be dealt with privately outside of the classroom, and students interests directed towards a general resource that could best answer their non-topical questions.

NDT · 20 October 2005

If they refuse to grasp concepts in science because it conflicts with their "religion", then they would have the same problem as someone who refuses to learn about african american history because they are racist, eh?

— sir_toejam
I'm pretty sure there are school districts in the US where parents are allowed to pull their kids out of Black History Month activities.

sir_toejam · 20 October 2005

interesting, but I'm not sure it would be considered the same thing, since those activities are likely more outside of the standard school curricula (like a field trip or somesuch) and could be considered "optional". now if they pulled their kids out of school when they were studying african american historical achievements in history class.... that would be most interesting.

in any case, I would like to get confirmation on what you mentioned if you find references to it.

cheers

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 October 2005

I just can't understand why Lenny has so much trouble with basic science. Lenny what part of "at an unknown and unknowable time in the past an unknown and unknowable designer or designers did using unknown and unknowable methods that are neither testable nor evident anywhere currently in the observable universe design everything in the universe for no apparrent purpose and which cannot be distinguished from anything that wasn't designed if just in case something wasn't designed" don't you understand? If this basic scientific truth is widely taught in science classes across America the technological advances that will surely follow will be staggering! And all the souls that will be saved to boot!! Lenny ask your pizza delivery boy (whose religious opinions equal those of the pope) about applying the "Ellerbee test" to his deliveries. This may help you see clearly to ****THE TRUTH**** of Intelligent Design and finally bring peace to your troubled soul. TPFD.

The most ironic thing of all, for me, is that a few years ago, I wrote to Behe directly and said to him that, as far as it looked to me, Behe's argument for teaching ID consisted solely of: "(1) I think there is a designer, (2) I don't know what it is (wink, wink), (3) I don't know what it does, (4) I don't know how it does it, and (5) I don't know how to go ab out answering any of these questions, but (6) I want you to teach about it anyway." Behe responded by saying that "your characterization is unfair". Then what does he do? He goes into a courtroom and says exactly the same thing I said to him. These idiots *deserve* to lose.

Red Mann · 20 October 2005

RE: Comment #52708 from Krauze From Telic Thoughts
Ah yes, the politicized scientist. Who better to perform an objective and openminded investigation? We've already heard the sound bites "pseudo-science" and "God of the gaps". Now, get ready for the refrain (pun intended) of "incompetent design".
Comment from Mike Gene
Ah yes, the voice of "peer review."
Gee, the people who are forcing scientists into getting politically involved complaining about scientists getting politically involved. Anybody got a new irony meter?

Philip Bruce Heywood · 20 October 2005

I don't know whether to feel honoured or stupid, having my previous entry double - entered.
I may be imagining it, and please take no offence, but I got a feeling (this may be misguided) that there could be an idea abroad, to the effect that if a religion has technical kudos, this technical authority will have good personal outcomes. Mixing a religion with technical authority can be a two-edged sword. The Scriptures go to great lengths to segregate personal outcomes from technical facts. I am confident we have assurance of the benign teachings of Christ in this regard. The technical aspect of the Bible is totally peripheral and deliberately down-played.
A failure of Science occurs if it becomes "religious" as aspects of it obviously now have; and vice-versa for Religion. P.H..

Joe Meert · 20 October 2005

I for one steadfastly refuse to believe it would EVER be a good idea to make a general statement in a science class of ANY kind regarding religious beliefs and potential conflicts with science.

— toejam
The problem with that approach (which in a perfect world would be a good approach) is that ID-creationists are lobbying to force you to introduce religion into science class. That simply cannot be allowed to happen and the action that we need to take is to make this a political battle and put ID-creationism on the defensive. Heck, when was the last time you heard the word 'liberal' NOT used in the pejorative? We can stop ID because it has nothing of substance to offer. We just need to make that point clear to the media. Cheers Joe Meert

yellowfattybean · 20 October 2005

110 is the devil's binary number." >

666 = file permission of teh Beast!

Flash Gordon · 20 October 2005

It's certain that ID is not science. But it's not much of a religion either if the primary reason for its existence is to stop the advancement of science education. What a difference from Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Gallileo, etc. who believed that each new discovery of the natural world served the greater glory of God.

K.E. · 20 October 2005

Thats because the the DI is THE LUNATIC FRINGE

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
Bertrand Russell

and mine TM

As soon as you try to find answers to crackpots you find.... more crackpots which proves once people start believing they stop thinking

do a google on

pathology of belief

This site poped up with some useful stuff

http://www.islandnet.com/~pjhughes/path.htm#kato

Best collection of quotes I've seen in a while

Evidence of Intelligence if not Design.

AR · 20 October 2005

In comment 52832 Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

I don't know whether to feel honoured or stupid, having my previous entry double - entered.

Don't worry, Philip, the readers of PT have figured it out - and it certainly has nothing to do with being "honoured." You just joined the roster of such commenters as Heddle, or Cordova.

rdog29 · 20 October 2005

And just what aspects of science have become "religious"?

Is it the fault of science that facts don't mesh with some people's myopic, uncritical acceptance Biblical literalism? It's the fundamentalists who have "politicized" and "religified" (is that a word?) evolutionary theory.

As Lenny and others have pointed out, the germ theory of disease and the science of meteorolgy are also potentially in conflict with some religious beliefs. You know, beliefs like disease is a judgement brought by sinful behavior and not a "mindless, unguided" mechanism like germs, or that hurricanes are punishments brought down by God on the sinful, not the "mindless, unguided" mechanism of self-organizing storm systems.

Why don't we "teach the controversy" with these subjects as well? Do we "teach the controversy" about the reality of the Holocaust in History class? Or "teach the controversy" over whether the Earth is flat?

Gary Hurd · 20 October 2005

Thanks, Joe, for your efforts. I look forward to the next instalment. I am not sure why Philip Bruce Heywood latched onto this post for a deposit of "moonbeams."

Bruce Thompson GQ · 20 October 2005

Ed Darnell states: 6.0 is the devil's software version. 110 is the devil's binary number. Heck, there were a bunch more, once upon a time.

Satan eurystomus - Widemouth blindcat is the devils favorite fish. Something for when the devil want's to take a little time off and go fishin, underground of course. Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 October 2005

A failure of Science occurs if it becomes "religious"

Um, which aspect of science is "religious". And what "religion". And whatever "religion" it is, how do practtioners of so may OTHER "religions" still manage to do science?

Joseph O'Donnell · 20 October 2005

Red Mann: It's best to ignore the general mewling that appears on Telic Thoughts. Although they love their buzzwords, they have a few of their own like "wedge-centrism" and the like they repeat ad-nauseum like it actually makes their arguments scientifically useful suddenly. Of course, I wonder if Mike Gene would comment on the "peer review" that Michael Behes black box had that has been commented on as of late. After all, I wonder if Mike Gene would regard 10 minutes on the phone with someone who has never read the book in question as "Peer review". Oh well, only their mysterious designer which they refuse to produce any evidence or mechanism for would know.

Red Mann · 21 October 2005

Joseph
I do ignore the nonsense on Telic Thoughts. Actually my point was that scientists are being forced, mostly unwillingly, to play politics by the anti-evos, who have only a political agenda, and then get criticized for doing so. The amount of time and effort that is being wasted on fighting off this political assault could be put to much better use doing actual science. Its like being pestered by little kids when you're trying to do your taxes.

sir_toejam · 21 October 2005

when was the last time you heard the word 'liberal' NOT used in the pejorative?

just before the marketing of Ronald Reagan for president. there is nothing in conflict between our two statments. I feel a line in the sand needs to be drawn wrt saying any "statements" in any class not directly related to the subject material, and you also further think WHY this line needs to be drawn should be made clear to the media. sounds good to me; it's exactly what I have been doing for years now.

Jim Batka · 21 October 2005

All of this reminds me of a lecture I attended as an under grad Aeronautical Engineering student.

The discussion was about optimization and sail design for the America's Cup sailing competition. The lecturer had participated in performing analysis and design for the sail used in one of the competitions (back in the '80s).

He stated at the time they performed their design, no one had actually designed a sail using Aerodynamic design methods to design an optimal sail design.

He described his excitement as they were awaiting the results of their design code, stating something along the lines of "up until that point sails had been created by performing slight modifications (evolution) to what had been created before to see if they could improve on the performance. Their sail would be the first 'designed' sail since humans started using them 5000 years (or more) ago." He was astonished to see that their "optimal" sail looked very similar to those already used in the America's Cup competition.

The moral of the story was that constructs created through selective pressures rarely achieve an "optimal" design but are typically quite close. Presumably the selective pressures keep evolutionary changes in design from straying too far from a good solution.

Also another note for your readers:
Quit with the political snobbery. Many Republicans, conservatives, and religious types are totally opposed to ID, Creationism, and Fundamentalism. You hurt this case. Part of treating this as a political issue is to not alienate potential allies.

sir_toejam · 21 October 2005

I personally have nothing against true republicans; voted for a few myself over the years. I do have quite a lot against the neocon philosophies embraced by many calling themselves "republicans" that have achieved such apparent success in political office over the last 25 years.

the push for ID is intextricably linked to the politics surround the neocon philosophy.

this is entirely demonstrable by simply examining the writings of necon founders like Srauss and others.

anybody that considers themselves a neocon that doesn't recognize this and is potentially offended by it should do a bit more research.

I'd be happy to start an off-topic thread in the After the Bar Closes area to provide resources, if anyone should so wish.

IMO, alienating those who refuse to see how the neocons have been utilizing evangelical fundamentalists as a power base is of little concern. anyone "hurt" by seeing facts should re-examine what they find "hurtful" to begin with. I find it highly amusing when you can see even GW on one hand publically announcing his "support" for ID, and on the other hand making sure that no new laws actually supporting legal changes to educational infrastructure get passed, and selecting a Science Advisor for himself that rejects ID and fully supports evolutionary theory.

you will find almost all congressional "supporters" of evangelical fundamentalists and their agendas to similarly backhanded (certain exceptions aside). However, the connections are still there, and the end result is still damaging, regardless of the true motivations behind the actions.

I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself in saying the above, but it all is readily apparent with just a little legwork.

The current Republican party is being controlled by folks whose ideology is not anything like that of what my father would have called a republican in his day. Moreover, the failure of the "contract with america" suggests that most americans don't actually agree with most of their ideology either, when they get a chance to think about it.

Steve S · 21 October 2005

One weird thing about the current republican dogma is the "Protecting Traditional Families" line. Contrary to popular belief, the nuclear family is not the traditional one. The nuclear family is a fairly recent phenomenon. The extended family is the traditional family. A more accurate representation of the GOP position is "Encouraging Straight Families".

Basically, it became unpopular to attack gay people qua gay people, so they attack them qua Family Destroyers. Coincidentally, the mechanism of how exactly gay people are supposed to destroy families, is elucidated about as clearly as the mechanism of Intelligent Design.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 October 2005

Many Republicans, conservatives, and religious types are totally opposed to ID, Creationism, and Fundamentalism.

How many of them voted against the ID, creationist, fundamentalist-supporter Dubya. Want to really help the Republicrat Party? First, vote against them and force them to lose a few elections. Then make it clear that they will KEEP losing elections until they end their coddling of the lunatic fringe. Nothing else will make them get the message. And no, I am not a Democan.

Henry J · 21 October 2005

Re "when was the last time you heard the word 'liberal' NOT used in the pejorative?"

When it's used by a self proclaimed liberal.

For some reason, quite often professed liberals use "conservative" as an insult, and similarly, professed conservations use "liberal" as an insult. Or so I've noticed on another BB.

Henry

Sir_Toejam · 21 October 2005

I personally never use the term "conservative" as an insult when i mean far-right-wing nutters, or when speaking of tub-thumpers.

but, that's just me.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 October 2005

I personally never use the term "conservative" as an insult when i mean far-right-wing nutters, or when speaking of tub-thumpers. but, that's just me.

Me too. I always put "conservative" in quotes when referring to them. After all, they are not "conservative". They do not want to "conserve" existing social orders. They are "radicals"; they want to completely remake society according to their own ideological precepts. Or, as they themselves put it so eloquently, they want to "renew our science and culture".

Philip Bruce Heywood · 22 October 2005

I wonder if some contributors to this page (NOT the genuine science/education/religion contributors) ever could possibly read what they write? Keep it up, laughter is medicinal. We have a page dedicated to a geologists' conference, which is where the geology more-or-less began and ended. We have a vitriolic diatribe against something called "I.D.",with the assertion that it doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it. Someone then produces the America's Cup sail, in which no intelligent design was involved and which wove, cut, hoisted itself and won the race thanks to selective pressure. This contribution at least was an attempt to explain the witness of the geologic record, and in default of any other proposal must be taken as the model by which things almost infinitely more complex than a racing yacht came to exist. Long live selective pressure! The supposed geologically-minded reporter on the conference didn't see fit to contribute overmuch geology (but then it mightn't be his place); our learned Doctor, when confronted with a real, testable model to explain said geologic column, made such a prolonged attempt at a sneeze, I was tempted to call for a handkerchief; so the explanation of a random process which happens without intelligent design was left to a boat-designer. Meanwhile, we had contributions from moonbeams; a rationalist (who doesn't believe and is therefore highly intelligent, in contrast to people like Einstein and Planck, who had some personal beliefs and were therefore dolts); and even some creepy stuff from someone who seemed to keep mumbling something about the devil.
I retract my statement that weido science gets (in one sense) "religious". It gets hilarious!!

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 October 2005

It gets hilarious!!

That's nice. Did you, uh, actually have something to say?

Gary Hurd · 22 October 2005

Oddly enough, I had just written a short item about the origin of the Moon. I only point this out to draw Mr. Heywood away from wasting any more electrons on Dr. Meert's thread.

Bob Maurus · 23 October 2005

Hi Lenny,

Way back in #52707 you asked, "I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic..."

I do remember Pat Robertson once claiming to have waded out into the surf at Virginia Beach and, through the power of Prayer, turning an approaching hurricane around and sending it back where it came from. I've always thought there might be some real possibilities there as far as missile shields and Homeland Security were concerned.

qetzal · 23 October 2005

Great idea, Bob! Any defense that involves putting Pat Robertson in front of approaching missles has got my vote!

Sir_Toejam · 23 October 2005

i dunno, even Robertson might not be full of enough hot air to deflect a missile after all.

We better test it in a remote area first.

If it works, would we clone him, or just assume his followers are as full of hot air as he is?

Bob Maurus · 24 October 2005

Yeah, but look at it this way - If we put them all up on skyscraper roofs and charge them with keeping the good old USofA safe from all them non-Christian evildoers, they'll be too busy scanning the sky to bother the rest of us on the ground. Even if the rest of it didn't work out, that'd be a distinct improvement in our quality of life.

Sir_Toejam · 24 October 2005

sounds like there are multiple benefits all around.

now all we have to do is get a DOD contract to test it.