My encounter with creationist/White House Spokesman Tony Snow

http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/beavis.html "Learn Logic from Beavis and Butthead"

That photo of the Good Mr Snow and our Illustrious President... Nah! the resemblance must be purely coincidental.

I can't find the recording on the Disco Institute site. Did they remove it?

Ah, how I love Faux News. They, uh, report, and you get to, like, decide! Nevermind that Faux News allows the side of the story they like the best to have a run at persuasion for a good long minute or two, while interrupting the "reporting" of the other side midway through the first sentence or two. It's fair and balanced, baby!

Gives a whole new meaning to the concept of "snow job", eh?

Worst. Administration. Ever.

Stephen Meyer The news --- the newspapers don't report what we tell them.

I understand that what I am asking is impossible because it is FAR FAR easier to just say this on a computer versus the scream sessions of cable news. The way I would have answered Tony's first question is as possible:

There are no major weaknesses in evolution. Evolution does not teach human life is a random accident or that the process of evolution is "undirected". Rather, it teaches that human life arose via common descent with modification. Belief in a creator is not necessarily in conflict with belief in evolution as a means how that creator brought about human life. Some evolutionists do not believe in a creator but others do. Ken Miller is such a person and is a practicing Roman Catholic.

This completely undercuts why "normal people" support ID. They support ID because a creator is possible -- not necessarily proven -- in such a system. It is not the proof part that is relevant. That's just an extra. What they hear you saying is the strawman that a creator is impossible if you believe evolution because that's what the ID proponents pound in their heads (cf. Meyer's comments above). They don't care if you personally believe in a creator or not. They just don't want their kids proselytized by atheism just like the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller didn't want their kids proselytized by crypto-creationism. If you say evolution is silent about the existence or non-existence of a creator and religion or irreligion should be taught by parents rather than the school system especially in a science class, then I predict people like Snow would listen. He was a teacher when he lived in Detroit. Because Ken Miller took this approach is one of the reasons why you were successful with a conservative judge in Kitzmiler IMHO. I predict a similar approach would work on Snow and it wouldn't surprise me if he read Kitzmiller that it would have a positive influence on him.

Oops.

The way I would have answered Tony's first question is as following:

Wow. A whole 90 seconds to discuss evolution vs. ID. Fox is quite generous with their airtime.

My colleagues and I have had similar experiences when a reporter would ask us to comment on dowsing (water witching). Although we might speak uninterupted for a while, what actually made it on air was usually a long interview with the water witch, and a brief, meaningless comment by a skeptical scientist. The media realize that their audiences prefer magic and shiny objects to rational explanations.

Lennie ,Matzke makes my point that the appearance of design is due to an undirected process ,namely natural selection[not to mention the neutral theory andd genectic]drift.Unlike the theistic evolutionist , I cannot posit a god doing ayn planning . [any]Lennie, you do us evlolutionists proud.

Hey Nicky did they need a wide angle lens to get all of your fat ass on the screen at one time?

Lennie ,Matzke makes my point that the appearance of design is due to an undirected process ,namely natural selection[not to mention the neutral theory andd genectic]drift.Unlike the theistic evolutionist , I cannot posit a god doing ayn planning . [any]Lennie, you do us evlolutionists proud.

Lennie ,Matzke makes my point that the appearance of design is due to an undirected process ,namely natural selection[not to mention the neutral theory andd genectic]drift.Unlike the theistic evolutionist , I cannot posit a god doing ayn planning . [any]Lennie, you do us evlolutionists proud.

Poor Lenny.

So Creationists ARE taking over the world as I have been hoping for a long time ...

Excellent.

Maybe ... just maybe that's because Evolutionists employ "Voodoo Science" MORE than Creationists do ... which would be directly OPPOSITE of what they say ...

Hmmm ... naaah ... I'm sure that couldn't be it ...

Anyway, I just posted a nice long piece called "AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis" here ...

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4451f34ec8bee957;act=ST;f=14;t=1952;st=0

Come on over ... maybe you can convert this poor, deluded engineer to be an Evolutionist! I'm told it happens all the time ... come on give it a try!

The media realize that their audiences prefer magic and shiny objects to rational explanations.

— mark

Looking at the photo I worry that hair gel is all that's holding anything together at the White House.

Remember back in the good old days when the job of a press secretary was to get the news out, instead of trying to keep it hidden?

Whenever I debate about flagellar evolution, the argument always shifts to something like "Matzke disproved flagellar IC - just look it up."

To which I respond "Wrong. Matzke came up with several guesses at how he thinks it might have happened, but by his own admission it would have required something 'radical' to pull it off."

All he did was take a couple of guesses, all unsubstantiated, all unproven, all unobserved, all unprecedented.

That's not disproving IC.

Don't let anybody ever tell you that flagellar IC has been disproven.

I know this is really superficial of me, but there is something deeply disturbing about this picture of Snow. I'm not a Fox News watcher, so this is one of the few cases in which I've seen him, so I don't if it's just this one picture.

Anyway, the top of his hair is freakishly high. There. I've said it. His skull has the proportions of a circa 1957 B-movie space alien. Either that, or he is concealing something under there (and I don't think it's a super-sized brain).

I thought the effect might be subjective, but go into an image editor and see for yourself. I took two vertical measures: chin-to-eye and eye-to-top. I get 40 pixels up to the eye and 45 pixels from the eye to the top of the hair. Bush, by contrast, comes in at a fair less disturbing 37/37 proportion (and it's a strange day when anything less disturbing about Bush).

It's also not just the effect of having kind of a long face. John Kerry was of course the target of many puerile attacks from wingnuts on the right (and I open myself up to charges to lowering the level of discourse to this level, which is probably true) but Kerry still has his eyes closer to the vertical center http://www.johnkerry.com/front/images_new/jk_debate1.jpg
This is a larger image, and though Kerry's hair is a little puffed up, he gets only 65 pixels up to the top contrasted with 70 down to the chin.

What is under there? A little satellite antenna maybe?

So Creationists ARE taking over the world as I have been hoping for a long time ...

Some chum wrote;
Posted by chunkdz on April 28, 2006 12:05 PM (e)

Whenever I debate about flagellar evolution, the argument always shifts to something like "Matzke disproved flagellar IC - just look it up."

To which I respond "Wrong. Matzke came up with several guesses at how he thinks it might have happened, but by his own admission it would have required something 'radical' to pull it off."

All he did was take a couple of guesses, all unsubstantiated, all unproven, all unobserved, all unprecedented.

Why are you whining? Is not that exactly the same strategy you Creos use to disprove evolution? I see you are judging by your own condition.... HE HE HE HE HE HE
Keep your snotty nose out of the fray unless you really like to get burned.

Oh, silly me. I forgot all that bad stuff was caused by Creationists ... you're right ... let's get rid of Bush/Snow

Posted by chunkdz on April 28, 2006 12:05 PM (e) Whenever I debate about flagellar evolution, the argument always shifts to something like "Matzke disproved flagellar IC - just look it up." To which I respond "Wrong. Matzke came up with several guesses at how he thinks it might have happened, but by his own admission it would have required something 'radical' to pull it off." All he did was take a couple of guesses, all unsubstantiated, all unproven, all unobserved, all unprecedented. That's not disproving IC. Don't let anybody ever tell you that flagellar IC has been disproven.

Stephen Meyer: That's wildly innaccurate. I was there when the theory was founded, that's wildly innaccurate.

Stephen Meyer: That's wildly innaccurate. I was there when the theory was founded, that's wildly innaccurate. That's just odd, I thought the latest line from the DI was that ID went back "to Socrates and Plato". Seriously, at least these guys should agree on what is the best spin to feed the media, and stick to it. Unless, of course, Meyer is carrying his 2500 years of age really well.

Come on over ... maybe you can convert this poor, deluded engineer to be an Evolutionist! I'm told it happens all the time ... come on give it a try!

Have a look at this to see how my most radical, unsubstantiated, unproven, unobserved, unprecedented hypothesis in that paper is doing.

— Nick

Wow, that deserves a posting by itself...

Have a look at this to see how my most radical, unsubstantiated, unproven, unobserved, unprecedented hypothesis in that paper is doing.

Maybe when you're officially agnostic on the age of the earth, the difference between 18 and 2500 years doesn't seem so important.

So now you only have to explain five subsystem cooption events, each requiring new binding sites, coupling the pre-existing subsystems (what subsystems? - are you sure TTSS is ancestral to the flagellum?), and simultaneous coevolutionary optimization of all other components. Oh, and where did FliG come from?

Oh, and where did FliG come from?

,Don't let anybody ever tell you that flagellar IC has been disproven.

— chunkdz

"Come on over ... maybe you can convert this poor, deluded engineer to be an Evolutionist! I'm told it happens all the time ... come on give it a try!"

Implicit in your revelation that you are an engineer, I suppose, is that you are a smart fellow capable of understanding complex things. I'm so impressed.

Sorry, afdave, but I'm content to allow you to remain a Bible-believing Christian; that's what you are, isn't it? I think you are happier that way.

If you really want to be convinced, go to an expert; visit the Smithsonian Museum of Natural history, read National Geographic's fine article, "Was Darwin Wrong?" from a year or two ago, or read a recent book on the subject.

That was, just by the way, a guy who also one day asked me how exactly fish which mimicked the appearence of dangerous fish knew how to evolve to look like that.

Assailing Nick on the basis that "all" he is doing is actual science is like railing at your auto mechanic when "all" he does is fix your broken car.

So now you only have to explain five subsystem cooption events, each requiring new binding sites, coupling the pre-existing subsystems (what subsystems? - are you sure TTSS is ancestral to the flagellum?),

and simultaneous coevolutionary optimization of all other components.

Oh, and where did FliG come from?

You know, using gradualism as the hypothesis, you could pretty much explain anything.

I would just like to take the time to note the cosmic hilarity in discussing flagellum evolution in a Tony Snow thread.

You know, using gradualism "Goddidit" as the hypothesis, you could pretty much explain anything absolutely everything.

Hey ChunkDZ, I fixed your statement to be more accurate.

and how all of this happened simultaneously.

Why would someone who was putatively defending "gradualism" be under the burden of having to explain why anything happened simultaneously with anything else? Help me out here.

I know this is really superficial of me, but there is something deeply disturbing about this picture of Snow. ... the top of his hair is freakishly high. There. I've said it. His skull has the proportions of a circa 1957 B-movie space alien.

— PaulC

There's a fellow I sometimes see on my daily train ride with a far more pronounced forehead. And yes, it is discomfiting.

ID is the dead parrot of science.

ID advocate: "No, it isn't."

QED

Another day at the ministry of truth.
Did Bush lean down to the microphone and say 'evil' when he smirked like he did in Againistan?
Should be interesting to have the 'news' suitably 'cleaned' by a true believer each day.
Just imagine.
ring ring
Tony: ah....yeah?
GWB: Tony, we need you to ...ah ..have a look at something here.
Tony:Sure Mr. P.
GWB: It's about all this flack were getting from those damn god botherers siding with with those damn global warmers.
Tony: I've heard many different descriptions of global warmers...give me a nutshell description of global warmers:
GWB: ah.....Tony cut the B.S. your not on Fox anymore I don't want a half ass-ed "I've no idea what your talking about, jerk off" I want a decent wedge so they get back on side.
Tony: I see ...so a press release on something?
GWB: That's it.
Tony: Have anything in mind?
GWB: Don't be stupid..what do you think I'm paying you for.
Tony: Oh..OK
GWB: Just Fix it.
Tony fixes his hair and practices his 'fair and balanced look' then his 'concerned look' followed by his 'serious look' in the mirror, checks his teeth are clean, practices his pointing at (Fox) reporters in the press room then .....blah blah

I understand now. It's like when Darwin hypothesized that bears turned into whales. 'First they started swimming with their mouths open, then their fur started to fall out, their skin became waterproof, their hind legs started to disappear, their front legs turned into flippers, and I'll get back to you about the blowhole.'
Yes, it's making perfect sense now. If someone SAYS it could happen, regardless of how it actually DID happen, then by Occam's Razor it must have happened!

Or not.

When I look at the photo of George II and Snow I can not help "reading" a thought bubble above shrub's head, "Look who I got to take my exams this time!"

chunkdz
It only took 50,000 years (note that is long before any oral mythology was written by a few scribes including the creation myths of the Levant) for Man to go from drawing Bison on walls in Caves to the Moon, with the same biological hardware, to some people that may seem like magic, to whales it would seem impossible.
Why instead of your pathetic drivel don't you try to find out some more information on something you are plainly ignorant of...oh don't bother your biological hardware is incapable.

Somewhere in the UD thread at AtBC there is a quoted UD quote by a fellow named doug about the IC/flagellum issue. It was a gem but darnit, I didn't save it so now I can't find it. it's been yanked by Dave scott.

stevestory Posts: 885 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: April 23 2006,16:16 Doug--presumably DougMoron--has this to say about "The Flagellum Challenge": Quote I'm curious as to why this argument is used. This comment is not a good response so Dave should remove it but I hope for a reply. The way I see it, in terms of credibility, even if this argument turns out to work, it is pointing out the overwhelming number of times where it doesn't. Why would God choose do design a machine to allow a bacterium some advantage and yet leave humans to the vicissitudes of fate and evolution? I can't get past the most obvious way we can know about the designer: our innate sense of connection. We can literally feel our creator. So how is that not evidence? Now, I have one set of religious practices to enhance that feeling but others have different practices and all do feel it. We feel it when we are elated, ashamed, in awe; we feel abandoned by it when we are sad and strengthened by it when we strengthen our resolve; tibetan monks chant to it, hindu yogis express it as a word ohm, south american indians mutilate their bodies in homage to it. And on and on. So why the flagellum? Why not the soul? Comment by Doug --- April 23, 2006 @ 3:01 pm I'm grinning so hard I'm going to sprain a muscle.

ID is the dead parrot of science. ID advocate: "No, it isn't."

ChunkDZ said "I understand now. It's like when Darwin hypothesized that bears turned into whales. 'First they started swimming with their mouths open, then their fur started to fall out, their skin became waterproof, their hind legs started to disappear, their front legs turned into flippers, and I'll get back to you about the blowhole.'
Yes, it's making perfect sense now. If someone SAYS it could happen, regardless of how it actually DID happen, then by Occam's Razor it must have happened!"

Using Darwin's bear-whale hypothesis in this way is like making fun of the Wright brothers for thinking flight was possible. We've got an excellent series of fossils covering the entire transition of whales from land dwelling to sea dwelling creatures. The prediction that whales were once land dwelling carnivores is one of Darwin's great successes, and is all the more amazing considering the paucity of data he was working with. Evolutionary theory correctly predicted that whales were once land dwelling before there was any other reason to think so. This was an idea that creationists of all types derided for years (because it was inconsistent with their biblical "theories") until they had to eat crow big time once the transitional fossils that showed it was correct were found in the mid 1990s. By the way ChunkDZ, these fossils show the gradual reduction of the legs and gradual movement of the nostrils to the top of the head to form a blowhole, etc.
Or was your comment a parody of creationists? I can't tell anymore.

I don't know if Chunkdz is writing in good faith or not, but there are plenty of folks who haven't gotten the news that the evidence for decent with modification is rather more convincing than a couple of just-so stories.

Evolutionary biology has the disadvantage of being overwhelmingly supported by libraries full of peer-reviewed papers and museums full of fossils. It's pretty hard to summarize what fills up warehouses. The accumulated scientific knowledge that supports evolution is an enormous but invisible monument to our civilization. Too bad it isn't as easy to put on a postcard as a pyramid or a cathedral.

I know the point has been made many times, many ways in these parts: In a competition between a few simple, easily communicated, and dead wrong arguments and a vast and complicated body of solid evidence and sound reasoning, simple and wrong wins every time, at least with a large proportion of the people.

stevestory Posts: 885 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: April 23 2006,16:16 Doug---presumably DougMoron---has this to say about "The Flagellum Challenge": I'm curious as to why this argument is used. This comment is not a good response so Dave should remove it but I hope for a reply. The way I see it, in terms of credibility, even if this argument turns out to work, it is pointing out the overwhelming number of times where it doesn't. Why would God choose do design a machine to allow a bacterium some advantage and yet leave humans to the vicissitudes of fate and evolution? I can't get past the most obvious way we can know about the designer: our innate sense of connection. We can literally feel our creator. So how is that not evidence? Now, I have one set of religious practices to enhance that feeling but others have different practices and all do feel it. We feel it when we are elated, ashamed, in awe; we feel abandoned by it when we are sad and strengthened by it when we strengthen our resolve; tibetan monks chant to it, hindu yogis express it as a word ohm, south american indians mutilate their bodies in homage to it. And on and on. So why the flagellum? Why not the soul? Comment by Doug --- April 23, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

It is just funny to me. The White House is beset by calls and complaints for changes, reversals in direction, a fresh start.

They respond by... hiring a new press secretary.

And the funniest part is, an awful lot of the press seems to actually be accepting this as the Bush Administration taking a step toward turning things around. Even though the only thing that's changed is the PR spokesperson.

This is, to me, the greatest similarity to me between Intelligent Design and the Bush Administration. Both are entirely creatures of public perception. Both spend all of their time concerned only with how the press represents what they are doing-- neither ever seem to spend any thought on what they actually are (or should be) doing. All the wins are PR wins. All the losses are PR losses.

"It's pining for the Dark Ages."

I can't resist:

Luskin: Well of course it's censored by the Darwinists. Otherwise it would muscle up to the lab and voom!
Matzske: Look matey, this movement wouldn't voom! if you put four thousand volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!

Nick M --- Centaurus, pl. centauri. Pegasos, pl. pegasii. Thought you needed to know for your next conversation with Mr. Snow. Or afdave.

Tony Snow writes: "Evolutionary theory, like ID, isn't verifiable or testable. It's pure hypothesis -- like ID -- although very popular in the scientific community. Its limits help illuminate the fact that hypotheses are only as durable as the evidence that supports them."

So he apparently thinks that hypotheses aren't verifiable or testable, and yet can be supported by evidence.

He should fare well in the non-reality-based Bush administration.

"Evolutionary links between FliH/YscL-like proteins..."

Oh man, I'm way out of my depth here. I can read all the words, but they're just jiberish. I can't make much sense of the *title*, let alone the summary or the full article. I *think* it's saying that they've found more similarities between how the flagelum is put together and how the Type III secretory system is built.

I like to think I'm educated, but I'm a software/hardware kinda guy. Can someone with more wetware experience translate this into English the rest of us can understand? A quick summary would do, though any details would be appreciated. Thanks.

Scott
-----

ChunkDZ said "I understand now. It's like when Darwin hypothesized that bears turned into whales.

Don't let anybody ever tell you that flagellar IC has been disproven.

This kind of 4-year-old's-logic pervades discussions with creationists. I had a discussion with a catholic friend one time that this reminded me of. It went something like this: Him: where did fish come from? Me: some kind of primitive multicellular aquatic organism perhaps? Him: Where did that come from? Me: maybe like a, you know, kind of algae which had some group behavior? (yes, yes, I know this is incorrect, that's not the point here) Him: Where'd the algae come from? Me: Some kind of single-cell amoebas? Him: Where'd that come from? Me: Some kind of replicator which took to hiding in phospholipid bilayers? Him: Where'd the replicator come from? Me: Maybe a self-catalysing protein in aquatic pools of amino acids? Him: Where'd the protein come from? Me: well, proteins are amino acids strung together Him: where'd the amino acids come from? Me: Well, they can form spontaneously from elements Him: Where'd the elements come from? Me: Well, stars make them in supernovae, from hydrogen and helium. Him: Where'd hydrogen and helium come from? Me: The big bang Him: Where'd the big bang come from? Me: nobody knows. Him: AAAAA-HAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! So you admit nobody knows how all this came about!

— steve s

The accumulated scientific knowledge that supports evolution is an enormous but invisible monument to our civilization.

It really is kindergarten logic.

Who was that?
It was Kelli.
Where'd Kelli come from?
Her mom Barb and her dad Chuck.
Where'd Barb and Chuck come from?
Barb came from Herb and Janice, Chuck came from Leroy and Sally.
Where'd Herb and Janice and Leroy and Sally come from?
Herb came from Mark and Carol, Janice came from Phil and Susan, Leroy came from Trey and Charmane, and Sally came from Rufus and Angelina.
Where did Mark come from?
I don't know.
AAAAA-HAAAAAAAA! You don't know who Kelli is, do you!

Silly Darwin, everyone knows bears turned into walruses, elephant seals and sea lions. Except for those successful bears- they are still bears.

Harrison,

chunkdz sincere?

No way! 100%, pure, Grade A, FDA approved Troll.

One stupid statement after another.

And the amazing thing is that he/she evolved that way! Go figger.

Doc Bill's rude attempt at humor reminded me of another rude attempt at humor. Except this one is funny.

Michael Behe - "Doc Bill, don't you think it's unnatural for a bacteria to evolve a flagellum?"

Doc Bill - "Hey, who hasn't had a big motorized whip sticking out of of his ass at one time or another."

Just because he has a certain veiw on a debate show does'nt make him a bad or evil person does it? I mean the guy invited you on his show,offering another percpective and even invited you back for another time? Give the guy at least some credit...jeesh!

Todd Ryen

Question. When did Snow ever stop being a spokeman for the shrub? Seems rather redundant to me.

I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.C. Darwin, p.184, Chapter 6, Origin of Species, 1st Ed. 1859

Stephen Meyer: That's wildly inaccurate. I was there when the theory was founded, that's wildly innaccurate.

I'm not happy about Tony Snow's scientific ignorance, but it seems the concerns expressed here are a bit overblown. He's just going to be the whitehouse spokesman, not a science advisor. He's not going to hold a post that gives him any input on policy.

Also, I'm quite disappointed with a lot of the partisan rhetoric here. I thought this was supposed to be a site dedicated to advancing evolutionary science, not a particular political party. There are a lot of Republicans on the same side as you on this issue. Hyperbole like "worst administration ever" doesn't help our common cause.

I'm not happy about Tony Snow's scientific ignorance, but it seems the concerns expressed here are a bit overblown. He's just going to be the whitehouse spokesman, not a science advisor. He's not going to hold a post that gives him any input on policy.

The real problem, though, revolves around the assumption that Snow is indeed creationist/IDist. More important is that we don't know that he is committed to the nonsense.

— Glen davidson

I didn't disagree with you, Adam, as I'm sure you recognize, just added my bit.

However, I would look at the spokesman bit somewhat differently than you did in your posts, as a potential symbol. Were Snow to be a committed IDist, naming him to be White House spokesman would be the wrong signal to be sent to a public all too often enamored with pseudosciences/New Age/Da Vince Code.

True, Snow wouldn't be influencing policy much, if at all, but he is the substitute face for the president. I would not be pleased if Bush chose a committed IDist/creationist to represent his ideas to the public. After all, we're fighting a public relations war as much as any other.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Glen,

I see your point. I think you're right. Having a committed creationist be the face of the Whitehouse would indeed undermine the Bush administration, which would cause me considerable concern as a (somewaht reluctant) Bush supporter.

Re-reading my second post, I can see that it comes accross as more argumentative than I intended. Sorry about that.

Best,
Adam

I see your point. I think you're right. Having a committed creationist be the face of the Whitehouse would indeed undermine the Bush administration,

There are a lot of Republicans on the same side as you on this issue. Hyperbole like "worst administration ever" doesn't help our common cause.

The great majority of Republicans I see decrying this kind of anti-science stance usually end up admitting that next election they're just going to plug their noses and vote Republican again anyway.

The White House knows they won't lose any more support by having people like this around, since all they need is 50.1% of the populace anyway.

The good Reverend Flank is correct that this administration is beholden to the fundamentalist movement, but its anti-science agenda is only partially connected to that. Their approach to women's reproductive health (the Plan B fiasco, where the FDA keeps ignoring the scientific evidence), and HIV prevention/sex education (ignoring social scientific data on condom use and different prevention strategies). The recent administration report on marijuana use is another example of their abuse of scientific data. Where they part from the fundie agenda, though, while retaining their anti-science approach is on the issue of global warming. Anyone who cares about actual science should have real concerns about this administration, because the administration doesn't take it seriously.

Anyone who cares about actual science should have real concerns about this administration, because the administration doesn't take it seriously.

Where they part from the fundie agenda, though, while retaining their anti-science approach is on the issue of global warming.

Nah, the first time around, they didn't even get THAT. All they REALLY need is four Supreme Court Justices.

In Serbia in 2000, when Milosevic claimed victory in an election where the other guy got more votes then he did, the population took to the streets and threw him out. In Peru in 2000, when Fujimori claimed victory in an election where the other guy got more votes then he did, the population took to the streets and threw him out. In the United States in 2000, when Bush claimed victory in an election where the other guy got more votes than he did, everyone yawned and went back to watching "Survivor".

Lenny, your over-the-top rhetoric doesn't help things any. It really doesn't.

When you spout nonsense like, "worst administration ever," or "the fundies are in power," you're turing off just about everyone except the Michael Moore fans.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who like much of the Bush agenda (or at least like it better than the Democrats' alternative) who don't much like the creationism. You know, people like small business owners, executives, professionals other than laywers (dentists, physicians, financial experts, military officers, etc), conservative economists (like me), and the like. If you belittle their policy preferences in these other areas, which you're implicitly doing with your hyperbole, you reduce our their willingness to work together with you on the issues to which PT is devoted.

Besides, the teaching of creationism isn't much of a Federal issue, since our school system is run at the state and local level. Thus Bush's half-hearted embrace of it doesn't really have much of an impact.

Oh, and FYI, I suggest you curb your enthusiasm about McCain. Besides being way too far to the left on economics and other issues people like me care about, he's an even more ardent supporter of ID than is Bush. Being for or against creationism really isn't all that highly correlated with the extent to which a Republican is "moderate" or "convservative."

Also, I'm quite disappointed with a lot of the partisan rhetoric here. I thought this was supposed to be a site dedicated to advancing evolutionary science, not a particular political party. There are a lot of Republicans on the same side as you on this issue. Hyperbole like "worst administration ever" doesn't help our common cause.

Waaaaah!!!! Waaaaahhh!!!

The liberals are making fun of Uncle Chimpy again!

Mommy, mommy, make 'em stop!!!!!! If you bad liberals don't stop bashing Republicans I'm going to stop supporting science and start being a creationist apologist!!! Waaaaah!!!! Waaaahhh!!!!

There isn't kleenexi in the world for all the Republican whining we're going to have to listen to as Bush Co. slowly swirls down the drain.

Let me debunk a myth I've heard repeated here many times: there are no Republicans on the "same side as me" on any issue.

The Republican Party and its registered members are in no small way responsible for the current state of affairs.

Go ahead and try to argue otherwise without lying.

Make my day.

When you spout nonsense like, "worst administration ever," or "the fundies are in power," you're turing off just about everyone except the Michael Moore fans.

Shut up with the stupid Republican scripts, Adam.

You don't have to be a "Michael Moore fan" to think that Bush is a fundie idiot and a terrible president with the current support presently of only the most moronic 1/3 of the U.S. population.

And why bring Michael Moore up at all?

Oh yeah, that's what a Good Republicans are supposed to do when smearing liberals.

Guess what, Adam: if I need to kiss Republican ass or pretend to in order to have the support of Republicans like you in the effort to keep fundies from corrupting science education in this country, then take your support and shove off. Obviously you don't care much anyway or you wouldn't be whining like you are now.

I'm not happy about Tony Snow's scientific ignorance, but it seems the concerns expressed here are a bit overblown. He's just going to be the whitehouse spokesman, not a science advisor.

Guess what, Adam: if I need to kiss Republican ass or pretend to in order to have the support of Republicans like you in the effort to keep fundies from corrupting science education in this country, then take your support and shove off. Obviously you don't care much anyway or you wouldn't be whining like you are now.

— Registered User

Looks like someone here cares more about ideology than science education.

— Adam

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who like much of the Bush agenda (or at least like it better than the Democrats' alternative) who don't much like the creationism.

If you belittle their policy preferences in these other areas, which you're implicitly doing with your hyperbole, you reduce our their willingness to work together with you on the issues to which PT is devoted.

Besides, the teaching of creationism isn't much of a Federal issue, since our school system is run at the state and local level.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who like much of the Bush agenda (or at least like it better than the Democrats' alternative) who don't much like the creationism. You know, people like small business owners, executives, professionals other than laywers (dentists, physicians, financial experts, military officers, etc), conservative economists (like me), and the like. If you belittle their policy preferences in these other areas, which you're implicitly doing with your hyperbole, you reduce our their willingness to work together with you on the issues to which PT is devoted.

Looks like someone here cares more about ideology than science education.

Because of people like you, the GOP knows they can move as far to the right as they want and nothing will happen. If you vote for them, you express your approval of the fundie agenda. So as long as you vote that way, don't complain. You helped make the bed we all now lie in.

If you belittle their policy preferences in these other areas, which you're implicitly doing with your hyperbole, you reduce our their willingness to work together with you on the issues to which PT is devoted.

When you spout nonsense like, "worst administration ever," or "the fundies are in power," you're turing off just about everyone except the Michael Moore fans.

Adam

Looks like someone here cares more about ideology than science education.

Huh? Oh, so my concluding that the Bush admnistration is incompetent is an "ideology"?

Gosh, that sort of "argument" has a familiar ring to it.

There isn't kleenexi in the world for all the Republican whining we're going to have to listen to as Bush Co. slowly swirls down the drain.

fnxtr - LOL! ;)

I agree with your grammatical analysis.

I meant to say "enough kleenex in the world". I have no idea how that ended up as "kleenexi".

But I'm glad it did because we all just learned something new, I think. ;)

Um, teaching creationism is a church/state issue. That's, ya know, sort of Federal. Which is, I suppose, why it gets decided in, well, Federal courts and all.

— Lenny

Have you by any chance happened to notice that every ID bill that gets introduced, gets introduced by people with a little "R" after their names?

— Lenny

The only way the Republicrats will finally repudiate the fundies is if it starts COSTING THEM ELECTIONS.

— Lenny

Oh, so my concluding that the Bush administration is incompetent is an "ideology"?

— Registered User

there are no Republicans on the "same side as me" on any issue.

— Registered User

You claim to care about science education, and you still vote for the GOP? You must not care much.

— Arden Chatfield

You seem to think only a wild lunatic fringe disapproves of Bush.

— Arden Chatfield

If you're more interested in self-gratification than winning, carry on and have fun.

most leftists I know

And if you're more interested in lowered taxes than science education and a secular state, keep voting Republican.

— Arden Chatfield

It may make you feel morally superior (which seems to be what primarily motivates most leftists I know), but it won't do our cause any good.

If you want to keep dumbing down high school math and science standards, teachers more interested in making students feel good about themselves than learning anything useful, and math teaching fads that don't work, keep voting Democrat.

Gee Adam, I hate to say this but that last one seems to be exactly the MO of the creationists, top it up with abstinence and we'll all go to Fundy heaven if the big cheese doesn't show up before hand to burn all the sinners and 'rapturize' the faithful in the Holy Land (after first purging it of the er....ethnics). In fact we don't have to wait for HIM to show up the Fundamentalists have taken over the Army just to make sure it still happens even if HE doesn't show up.
Never mind tho' I'm with you, its a pity GWB still isn't half way thru his first term, theres so many more counties crying out to invaded, e.g. Hawaii they're trying to push up the price of pineapples just think what that could do to the US economy, slow growth and slow down carbon emissions, could be disastrous.

Stop Press Dateline W.H Washington
Tony Snow calls press conference.
Announces new policy to fix everything.
1.Huge areas of Alaska's coastline to be subdivided for beach-side resorts exiting new "Florida"
2.Privatize the Pentagon and outsource all 'peace initiatives'.... new organization to be called Haliblitzkreig to be run by soon to be retired W.H. staffer Rumsfeld. All operations to be 'death free' i.e. no body bags on TV.
3.Invade Annex new ice free unclaimed land north of Canada for its huge oil reserves.
4.Privatize W.H. press office...uh oh strike that.... already done.

Registered User wrote: there are no Republicans on the "same side as me" on any issue.

The Worst President Ever (see rollingstone.com blog by Princeton historian Sean Wilentz) has, I believe, muttered words in support of IDiocy in the classroom, thus making him fair game here on PT. Yes?

are all journalists/pundits. Are there any ELECTED Republican officials who are anti-creationism, anti-ID?

Are there any ELECTED Republican officials who are anti-creationism, anti-ID?

Re "his [Nixon's] visiting of China became a Vulcan proverb."

ROFL

(Live long and prosper),

Henry

I don't know who is governor of Kansas now, but when creationists on that state's Board of Education made its first bid for world's leading laughingstock in 1999, the Republican governor was outspoken in his disapproval. Also, here in Ohio, 3 out of 3 of the most forceful anti-ID state BoE members are bona fide Republicans.

Democrats do all that, eh?

Lenny's right, you're watching too much Fox news and absorbing all their cliches.

You don't sound like you have the slightest firsthand experience in what's going on in any real public school

— Arden Chatfield

Just what havoc No Child Left Behind has caused.

— Arden Chatfield

But part of your package deal from now on is that the Christian right calls the shots with your political party. YOUR party is largely run by creationists and people who hate science.

— Arden Chatfield

Both parties occupy the moral and ethical low ground.

— laser

LOL. You don't know the first thing about the Republican party, or politics for that matter. You should do some research on your opposition before spouting off ignorant statements like that. The Christian right is influential, yes, but to say they run the show is patently absurd.

I'm, uh, a little puzzled why Adam would think that I should defend Democans, or even WANT to to so.

As I mentioned before, I am not a Democan. Nor am I a Republicrat. I can barely tell them apart, and I wish a curse on BOTH their houses. (shrug)

So spare me your sermons, Adam.

Adam, GOP lover:

If you want to keep dumbing down high school math and science standards, teachers more interested in making students feel good about themselves than learning anything useful, and math teaching fads that don't work, keep voting Democrat.

Hahahah. That's funny.

Elsewhere:

refrain from engaging in gratuitous partisanship not relevant to the cause to which this site is supposed to be dedicated. You will notice, the only purpose of my posts on this thread has been to advise against engaging in such behavior.

Nice lie, Adam. Geez, it's almost as if you forgot that your comments are, um, stored upthread.

As others have pointed out, the list of prominent Republican politicians who have publically advocated the teaching of creationist garbage is significantly longer than the list of Democratic politicians who have done so.

I am unaware of any outraged response from anti-creationism Republican politicians.

I, too, think that most politicians are reprehensible creatures. As conservative as both major parties are, however, they are not the same. One party, the Republican party, plays strongly to religious fundamentalists.

If you are a registered Republican, you're part of The Problem as far as I'm concerned.

Period.

Now, please stop whining and crying because your GOP is losing credibility. As we all know, the Republicans will do their best to get the fundies worked up again before the 2006 elections by raising the spectre of The Evil Gay secularist coming to get their children and turn the country into a socialist gulag or something.

I want to remind folks again of the danger of playing games and elevating strange notions of "civility" above honesty and plain-speaking.

Consider the following exchange, noted recently by Bob Somerby (www.dailyhowler.com):

POWERS (4/27/06): I'm worried about the press, but I don't think it's ideological. I think it's more a corporate agenda or a salacious agenda. There are other things that drive them.

O'REILLY: You don't think the New York Times is ideological?

POWERS: The mainstream media was behind the Bush administration, locked up 100 percent, up until the war. They're not liberal. That's not liberal.

O'REILLY: But that's because of the war on terror.

POWERS: No, it's not.

O'REILLY: That's what skewed it out. In 2000, when he won the election, come on! You're telling me that the mainstream media was happy about that?

POWERS (continuing directly): I worked in the Clinton administration, and I don't remember the press being that nice to Bill Clinton. And I've worked on Democratic campaigns, and really think there is a problem with the media. I don't think that the problem is that they are pushing for an ideology. I just don't think they are invested in that.

O'REILLY: All right. And I know---Michelle, I'm going to give you 15 seconds, because I know you disagree with that. You wrote a book about it.

MALKIN: I certainly did. I think it's dealing in unreality to deny liberal bias in the media.

O'REILLY: Ladies, always a pleasure.

Somerby notes an obvious fact: Republican shills (like Malkin) keep saying things which are false. So-called liberal pundits refuse to say what is true (i.e., Gore was smeared relentlessly by the mainstream press in the months leading up to the 2000 election).

The result (Somerby notes) is that the script keeps working.

As long as people refuse to tell the truth about religious fundamentalists in this country and their habit of telling lies and the habit of Republicans defending the telling of those lies, the scripts will keep working. When I say "people" I refer primarily to "people" who are being listened to, i.e., prominent journalists, media personalities, and prominent bloggers. But the rest of us can lead by example.

As I mentioned before, I am not a Democan. Nor am I a Republicrat. I can barely tell them apart.

McCain is a Republican, Lenny. Try to remember that much. ;)

You don't know the first thing about the Republican party, or politics for that matter. You should do some research on your opposition before spouting off ignorant statements like that.

From CNN

David Parker was jailed last year after he refused to leave a school when officials declined to exclude his 6-year-old son from discussions of gay parents. Parker initially complained after his son brought home a "diversity book bag" with a book that depicted a gay family.

Their attorney, Jeffrey Denner, said Lexington violated the rights of privacy and freedom of religion of his clients -- all identified as devout Christians in the lawsuit -- by unilaterally deciding how and when lessons about gay marriage will be taught.

Tim Sandefur could tell us all how clueless these parents are.

Anyone want to bet that David Parker doesn't vote Republican? I didn't think so.

But the issue I want to focus on is how these parents identified themselves in the lawsuit: "devout Christians."

Is David Parker a "devout Christian" when he harbors bizarre mystical "beliefs" about the "morality" of being gay, beliefs based on writings by some anonymous scribe on some ancient scrolls?

I have no idea. Moreoever, I could care less. David Parker is nothing more than an ignorant bigot as far as I'm concerned. That he calls himself a "devout Christian" is simply par for the course.

But here is what else is par for the course: nobody important will question David Parker on his bizarre bigoted beliefs. Nobody important will call David Parker an ignorant bigot and point out that whatever redeeming features remain of Christianity, David Parker is squandering them. Nobody important will point out that encouraging David Parker's desire to instill his bigotry in his children is a Republican pasttime and worthy of all our contempt. And nobody important will point out the relationship between bigots like David Parker and the professional liars at the Discovery Institute and other Christian think tanks.

And that, my friends, is why the script will continue to work.

Adam has a point, you should do some research on your opposition. ~snip~ list of refererences ~snip~

or perhaps visit the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and find out why they rate this adminsitration as the most hostile towards science in recent memory.

By the way, nothing personal against anyone here ... I just vigorously disagree with you about Evolution.

By the way, nothing personal against anyone here ... I just vigorously disagree with you about Evolution.

None taken.

It's just that the evidence vigorously disagrees with you, too.

afdave
just a quick question
were adam and eve real people and if so where is your evidence?

Some historical perspective here.

I came of age in the science wars of the late 80s. I remember vividly attending a faculty party in 1988 where virtually the entire body present declared allegiance to Jesse Jackson, for a variety of vapid idiotic reasons. I couldn't believe it. I'd lived in Massachusetts under Dukakis's governorship, and while I didn't agree with him 100%, I respected him as a competent governor of unimpeachable integrity, and a competitive centrist candidate for the presidency (this was beforee the campaign self-destructed in late summer). But then, one of the faculty present assured me that the very idea of scientific objectivity was racist, sexist and heterosexist, and the others nodded solemnly in agreement.

Fast forward to the nineties, where one feminist scholar proclaimed that phsyicists had neglected hydrodynamics because of fear of menstrual flow; where other scholars on the left were promoting 'ethnomathematics'; where Roberta Achtenberg, Clinton's appointee at HUD, was giving merit raises for membership in ethnic and leftist organizations; where in schools we were getting 'whole math' and 'whole language' and huge dollops of multicultural twaddle. Postmodernism ruled the academic left, and was being pushed on public schools.

Ten years later, the boot is on the other foot. The Religious Right has discovered and embraced some parts of postmodernism. The same kooky ideas used to attack science from the left in the 90's are now being used to attack it from the right this decade. Yes, far more Republicans are pro-creationism/ID. But a substantial part of the left still rejects science as a privileged, white male heterosexist discourse. They're just out of power, and quiet for the moment. So you'll pardon me if I don't run leftwards to look for support against the fundies.

This country badly needs secular conservatism, because if the right/left split becomes a Christian/secularist split, elections become religious wars, and religious wars are far nastier than arguments over taxes and the deficit. Bashing secular conservatives because you're liberal is no smarter than bashing Christian evolutionists because you're atheist. You may not agree with them, but you need them.

The GOP has been far smarter than the Dems, except perhaps Bill Clinton, in building coalitions. They are currently splintering, mostly because of the hubris of religious right. This will be a useful reversal for the GOP and will lead to a temporary advantage for the Democrats. While your adversary is in the process of self-destructing, why would you want to intervene?

As a secular conservative, this thread reminds me why I'm conservative. It would be far better to remind me why I'm secular.

Thanks especially to Aureola and Norm for their good input! (Not being sarcastic here ... I really mean it)

These theories taken jointly suggested that the whole history of the universe could be told as a seamless, or nearly seamless, unfolding of the potentiality of matter and energy. Thus, science seemed to support, if it could be said to support anything, a materialistic or naturalistic worldview, not a theistic one. Science no longer needed to invoke a pre-existent mind to shape matter in order to explain the evidence of nature. Matter had always existed and could in effect arrange itself without a pre-existent designer or Creator. Thus, by the close of the nineteenth century, both the evidential and philosophical basis of theistic arguments from nature had seemingly evaporated. Neither science nor philosophy had need of the God hypothesis.

normdoering learns about the Republican party by reading Mooney and Dean. LOL. Yes, that's the ticket. The best way to learn about a movement is by reading characatures by its opponents. That tactic reminds me of a certain group that opposes what this site is supposed to stand for...

Yes, Sir_Toejam, I am aware of what the Union of Concerned Scientists (more accurately labeled, union of lefties who also happen to be scientists) says about the Bush administration. Some of it is valid, a lot of it is hysterical. Of course, the Bush adminstration isn't the only one to be generating politically motivated reports. Have you looked at some of the stuff that's been put out about Yucca Mountain under the influence of certain NIMBY Nevada politicians (who shall remain nameless)?

Anyway. It's been an interesting discussion. In closing I'll note that much of the substance that I've posted here, especaily about Democrats undermining science education by dumbing down standards and Bush appointing Judge Jones have gone unrefuted. I'll also note that Russel's exmaples of forceful anti-ID Republicans have also gone unnocited by the leftist partisans here. And finally, I'll note that no one has had a reply to Gerry's point about the anti-intellectualism of much the academic left, that sees racism/sexism/homophobia behind every rock.

As is typical of all ideologues, those on this thread ignore evidence and keep spouting their dogma. Does that remind you of anyone?

Like other very highly educated groups, the scientists tend to be liberals; but they have also been a very cautious bunch who were very reluctant to get involved in politics. The Bush Administration is changing that. In the face of a Republican obscurantism that threatens both the practice and the prerogatives of the scientists, that's changing. Bush and company are making these folks into an active political block.

How sad. What we are witnessing folks, is nothing less than the end of the era of enlightenmet. This country is inevitably being flushed down the toilet by people who value their religious convictions more than rational thought and reason. Take a good look at Iran and you will see your future.

normdoering learns about the Republican party by reading Mooney and Dean. LOL. Yes, that's the ticket. The best way to learn about a movement is by reading characatures by its opponents.

Of course, if what they write is ACCURATE, then what? Are you dealing with their evidence, or dismissing it, sight unseen?

More guts and evidence, please.

normdoering learns about the Republican party by reading Mooney and Dean. LOL.

normdoering learns about the Republican party by reading Mooney and Dean. LOL. Yes, that's the ticket. The best way to learn about a movement is by reading characatures [sic] by its opponents.

In closing I'll note that much of the substance that I've posted here, especaily about Democrats undermining science education by dumbing down standards and Bush appointing Judge Jones have gone unrefuted.

I'll also note that Russel's exmaples of forceful anti-ID Republicans have also gone unnocited by the leftist partisans here.

And finally, I'll note that no one has had a reply to Gerry's point about the anti-intellectualism of much the academic left, that sees racism/sexism/homophobia behind every rock.

As is typical of all ideologues, those on this thread ignore evidence and keep spouting their dogma. Does that remind you of anyone?

Good lord, Republicans have gotten whiny these days. A simple observational statement of fact about anything Bush does gets them howling like scalded cats.

Oh well, it's not like they have anything *good* to show for the last 5 years. Best for them to change the subject, I guess.

A simple observational statement of fact about anything Bush does gets them howling like scalded cats.

I'd like to see your evidence that not a single leftist

who reads this blog noticed that some republicans are anti-ID.

Lenny, you need to catch up. McCain is showing signs of getting into bed with the fundies. He endorsed the "teach the controversy" crap and is giving the graduation speech at Falwell's Liberty U. this year. McCain is moving toward appeasing the religious right, not taking his party back from them.

Lenny, you need to catch up. McCain is showing signs of getting into bed with the fundies. He endorsed the "teach the controversy" crap and is giving the graduation speech at Falwell's Liberty U. this year. McCain is moving toward appeasing the religious right, not taking his party back from them.

Lenny(he who only takes porter)...Indeed "God's Own Party" (hallelujah) "Hezbollah" (which means the same thing).
Why think when you can get votes for nothing (and chicks for free).
The libruls need to start a Revolution ...uh ...oh ...wasn't that the thing with the GOP.
One planet and one water =life.
No B.S. the fundiez want a desert devoid of life but hey they got the goats and grazin is their prerogative since "god is on our side".... geez slack jawed yokels get my goat.
News flash ...for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.
Q. How many B52's did it take to conquer 'nam?
Cod almighty
arseholes

Lets see, it was Republicans who introduced New Math.

Lets see, it was Republicans who introduced New Math.

It is kind of funny that Republicans have to reach all they way back to the 1960's to find an example of Democrats doing something harmful to American public education.

As for No Child Left Behind, GOPers like to cite Ted Kennedy's support of that bill as proof that it was bipartisan, but Kennedy has since described it as an 'unfunded mandate' that he was essentially conned into supporting, and that if he had to do it again, he wouldn't support it.

My wife is in education, and she doesn't know anyone in her field who thinks that NCLB has been anything more than a complete fiasco that never should have been implemented.

As for No Child Left Behind, GOPers like to cite Ted Kennedy's support of that bill as proof that it was bipartisan, but Kennedy has since described it as an 'unfunded mandate' that he was essentially conned into supporting, and that if he had to do it again, he wouldn't support it.

As someone who has been involved in mathematics education in the past, allow me to step in here: Both parties have failed abjectly and miserably in instituting any degree of meaningful mathematics. My evidence for this would be the widespread inability of American citizens of any ethnic group to understand even basic mathematics.... There's no liberal or conservative bias here. There's just crap from both sides.

Sorry, but I just can't resist...

Sometimes I wonder how much attention these guys pay to what they're (supposed to be) doing.

— Russell

A politician's first priority is getting re-elected, which usually means raising enough money to run his next campaign (and for a U.S. senate race, that means over a thousand dollars a day for each and every day in office). A politician's second priority is achieving and maintaining power and status within the party.

Serving constituents and legislating intelligently are too far down the list to have any effect.

Lenny, you need to catch up. McCain is showing signs of getting into bed with the fundies.

Surprisingly not off-topic...

If you enjoyed Stephen Colbert's bit in Washington Saturday, you can voice your appreciation at www.thankyoustephencolbert/.org

Wow,....the blue bloods gritted their teeth through that one, a lot of chin stroking. I was expecting a couple of secret service guys to drag him off.
And the press did what? Oh nothing....well that is going to bite their asses.
Reminds me of when Kruzchev visited Washington in the '50's and all the Russian Press corps couldn't believe every single paper they read and every single TV news all agreed.
"How do you do that?" they asked, "in our country we have to send them to the gulags to keep them all in line...." I smell fear.

Talk about wiping that smug look off his face.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/EarlG/52

Well THAT won't happen again, the Washington press will be vetted and 'embedded' next time...uh ...oh..all the Fox reporters will be issued flak jackets and have a Marine assigned to them. They will be only able to move around in armoured vehicles and everything will have to go via the war room.