Genome Biology: "It is alive" by Gregory A Petsko

The war continues. McCain has just nominated the Creationist governor of Alaska as his running mate.

Doing your homework for you. Correct reference: Genome Biol. 2008; 9(6): 106
First Darwin quote box refers to "York minister", who seems to be "York Minster" in the second quote.

Jim do you have a link showing Palin's position? PT's search function wasn't giving me much

Jim Harrison said: McCain has just nominated the Creationist governor of Alaska as his running mate.

JGB

This link should help you http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/27/intelligent_design_and_the_ala/

Just when I thought it was safe to go to Alaska I find this news via Evolution Research - General Evolution News:

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'

The Anchorage Daily News has more:

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

*snip*

Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives.

"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in the interview. "They gain information just by being in a discussion."

That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.

"My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' "

Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator."

She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.

Doesn't like someone I would be much interested in voting for if I lived in Alaska...

JGB said: Jim do you have a link showing Palin's position? PT's search function wasn't giving me much

Once again the issue of local control is involved. Kenneth Miller addresses this issue in "Only A Theory". He says that according to a British friend, the locals in England would pretty much accept the expert authority of learned college professors. In the U.S., however, there is a more rebellious spirit, and locals feel free to ignore their counsel.

If your only aim is that evolution be taught properly, then a simple solution is to strictly mandate all details of education, including evolution, at the state or federal level. Would people here be happy with this solution?

I would, Wallyk. science is not a democracy

Most Christians who don't want to discuss their views on evolution say that they "believe in a Creator". That would be true of all Christians, would it not. I think Ken Miller would say that he believes in a Creator.

It's possible to be a conservative Christian and accept evolution, right? So, please don't jump to conclusions about Sarah Palin. Even her view that "teaching the controversy" is OK doesn't tell you much. Even if she accepts evolution, she still may want to respect the rights of local communities to make their own decisions. In fact, this is how I personally feel about the issue. I think the theory of evolution is solid and want it to be taught well, but I don't want local school boards to be completely powerless.

Draconiz said: I would, Wallyk. science is not a democracy

Draconiz said: "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

WallyK said: Even her view that "teaching the controversy" is OK doesn't tell you much.

WallyK said: Science

Draconiz said: I would, Wallyk. science is not a democracy

True, but PUBLIC education takes place within the context of a democracy.

WallyK said: If your only aim is that evolution be taught properly, then a simple solution is to strictly mandate all details of education, including evolution, at the state or federal level.

How can you make the right choice in a democracy if you don't know what the truth is?

What if a school board wants to teach that the trails of tears didn't happen or the holocaust was a lie? Public education may take place in a democracy but it still doesn't give you the power to decide what truth or science is. Creationism is always welcome in a comparative religion class.

They had no problem teaching real science when the Russians launched sputniks and scared the hell out of us, if the government doesn't act soon the U.S. will get some rude awakening when China or India overtake us in science.

And yet, I dread that on that day, people will still blame sins, evolution, homosexuals or liberals for our fall.

WallyK said: Most Christians who don't want to discuss their views on evolution say that they "believe in a Creator". That would be true of all Christians, would it not.

Draconiz said: And yet, I dread that on that day, people will still blame sins, evolution, homosexuals or liberals for our fall.

It was an "and", grammatical mistake on my part :p

And I agree, the world isn't really doing well with one superpower. However, if America is utterly crushed in science there will be no one left to challenge China in a friendly rivalry like the U.S. (India and Russia is too close for their comfort).

They had no problem teaching real science when the Russians launched sputniks and scared the hell out of us, if the government doesn’t act soon the U.S. will get some rude awakening when China or India overtake us in science.

Mike Elzinga said: I certainly wouldn’t trust any of them with governmental responsibilities. In a crunch, most of them would throw away civilization in order to keep their illusions.

I'm confident that the US won't be crushed in science anytime soon. Even if federal courts eventually rule that bogus "controversies" about evolution can be taught, I expect most urban school districts outside the South won't follow suit, plus we still have excellent universities which will continue to teach science regardless of what podunk creationist school boards do. Plus we'll keep importing good scientists from India and China. China isn't going to be a superpower anytime soon. Despite the Olympic Show they put on, China has a lot of ecological and demographic problems that make ours look like triflings in comparison (If you think not, try to imagine how you would deal with a billion impoverished people dropped into the U.S. countryside).

Thats not to say we shouldn't fight creationist efforts. Even students in rural and southern school districts deserve a quality education, and the 1st Amendment forbids transforming public school science classes into sunday school.

WallyK said: Most Christians who don't want to discuss their views on evolution say that they "believe in a Creator". That would be true of all Christians, would it not. I think Ken Miller would say that he believes in a Creator. It's possible to be a conservative Christian and accept evolution, right? So, please don't jump to conclusions about Sarah Palin. Even her view that "teaching the controversy" is OK doesn't tell you much. Even if she accepts evolution, she still may want to respect the rights of local communities to make their own decisions. In fact, this is how I personally feel about the issue. I think the theory of evolution is solid and want it to be taught well, but I don't want local school boards to be completely powerless.

I was wondering if that was an exaggeration, but it appears that from a TV debate in October 2006 that Sarah Palin has bought the “teach the controversy” game hook line and sinker, saying that she’s in favor of teaching “alternate theories”: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.” She evaded condemning evolutionary theory, however.

— iml8

Palin's line on evo science is what might be expected from
almost any Republican politician even if the politician
isn't particularly impressed by the various flavors
of creationism.

There is a major asymmetry on this issue between Democrats
and Republicans. Barack Obama can unequivocably come
out against ID -- see his website -- because it costs him
nothing, since in effect no Darwin-bashers are going to
vote for him.

A Republican politician is in a much more difficult
position. There is a conservative faction -- Derbyshire
and George F. Will -- that flatly condemns creationism
as bunkum (a minority to be sure, but it's still there), and there's also a division between classic
Goldwater-type small-government / free markets /
libertarian lite Republicans and the religious conservatives. The Goldwater Republicans do NOT
like mixing religion up with politics, while that's the primary agenda of the religious conservatives.

The result is that Republican politicians have a tendency
to try to waffle on this issue in a way that makes
nobody very happy. Whatever Palin's actual motives,
suggesting that scientific scams should be accepted at face value
certainly makes me unhappy.

McCain is a Goldwater Republican and the religious
conservatives do not trust him. Palin appears to be
another McCain sop to this group to shore up
electability -- comparable to the way Obama picked
Biden to shore up weak foreign-policy credentials.
Palin may be an attractive voting point for the
religious conservatives because the odds of McCain
dying in office are relatively high.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 said: Palin's line on evo science is what might be expected from almost any Republican politician even if the politician isn't particularly impressed by the various flavors of creationism. There is a major asymmetry on this issue between Democrats and Republicans. Barack Obama can unequivocably come out against ID -- see his website -- because it costs him nothing, since in effect no Darwin-bashers are going to vote for him. A Republican politician is in a much more difficult position. There is a conservative faction -- Derbyshire and George F. Will -- that flatly condemns creationism as bunkum (a minority to be sure, but it's still there), and there's also a division between classic Goldwater-type small-government / free markets / libertarian lite Republicans and the religious conservatives. The Goldwater Republicans do NOT like mixing religion up with politics, while that's the primary agenda of the religious conservatives. The result is that Republican politicians have a tendency to try to waffle on this issue in a way that makes nobody very happy. Whatever Palin's actual motives, suggesting that scientific scams should be accepted at face value certainly makes me unhappy. McCain is a Goldwater Republican and the religious conservatives do not trust him. Palin appears to be another McCain sop to this group to shore up electability -- comparable to the way Obama picked Biden to shore up weak foreign-policy credentials. Palin may be an attractive voting point for the religious conservatives because the odds of McCain dying in office are relatively high. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

John Kwok said: I think we should take McCain at his word that he wanted a maverick partner to help end "business as usual" in Washington, DC.

Aagcobb said: China isn't going to be a superpower anytime soon. Despite the Olympic Show they put on, China has a lot of ecological and demographic problems that make ours look like triflings in comparison (If you think not, try to imagine how you would deal with a billion impoverished people dropped into the U.S. countryside).

The Financial Times noted that "China has been the world’s largest economy for 18 of the past 20 centuries",[5][6] while according to The Economist, "China was not only the largest economy for much of recorded history, but until the 15th century, it also had the highest income per capita — and was the world’s technological leader."[5][7]

The People's Republic of China has the second largest economy in the world with a GDP of over $6.9 trillion (2007) when measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis. In November 2007, it became the third largest in the world after the US and Japan with a nominal GDP of US$3.42 trillion (2007) when measured in exchange-rate terms.[4] Since free market reforms in 1978 China's GDP has grown an average 9.9 percent a year.[5]

iml8 said:

John Kwok said: I think we should take McCain at his word that he wanted a maverick partner to help end "business as usual" in Washington, DC.

"What this WE business, Kimosabe?!" White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Actually, now that I checked up on possible definitions of "superpower", it doesn't seem like any nation will any longer apply; it is usually defined as dominant global influence (as opposed to economical mass). US may still marginally apply, for example when it turned its back on the Kyoto agreement, but it is arguable and anyway likely a temporary position.

John Kwok said: I would have preferred Giuliani or Lieberman to Palin. But McCain is a maverick and wanted one to work alongside him if he wins the election ...

Hi GG,

Wasn't sure what to make of Rudy until 9/11. Then he showed me and many other New Yorkers what he is really made of as a leader. Am sorry that he's not on McCain's ticket.

John

John Kwok said: On a lighter note, I've been confused for being a Native American and have known Native Americans who were mistaken for Asian-Americans. Cheers, John

Dale Husband said: Not surprizing, since Orientals and Native Americans are more closely related to each other than either of them are to any other race, according to the scientific evidence. Some anthropologists even lump them together into the "Mongoloid" race.

someone wants to teach creationism in a science class, shouldn’t they have the right to do so? Certainly - if they want to get fired.

I have a few questions. I claim to be neither Evolutionist nor Christian, rather I would accept the title ‘interested’. I am writing a paper on it’s relationship and I need someone to answer a few questions I have.

Its not so much about the physical evidence, rather I have decided to go much deeper. I am confused on several subjects.

If there is a god, would you consider him unjust and unfair? Why or why not?

Laura said: If there is a god, would you consider him unjust and unfair? Why or why not?

Laura said: I have a few questions. I claim to be neither Evolutionist nor Christian, rather I would accept the title ‘interested’. I am writing a paper on it’s relationship and I need someone to answer a few questions I have. Its not so much about the physical evidence, rather I have decided to go much deeper. I am confused on several subjects.

Laura said: If there is a god, would you consider him unjust and unfair? Why or why not?

Laura said: If there is a god, would you consider him unjust and unfair? Why or why not?

I have a few questions. I claim to be neither Evolutionist nor Christian, rather I would accept the title ‘interested’. I am writing a paper on it’s relationship and I need someone to answer a few questions I have. Its not so much about the physical evidence, rather I have decided to go much deeper. I am confused on several subjects. If there is a god, would you consider him unjust and unfair? Why or why not?

But I do have a few questions. Not necessary on this essay but on evolution in general. They are quite simple really. I claim to be neither Evolutionist nor Christian, rather I would accept the statement ‘interested’. I am writing a paper on it’s relationship and I need someone to answer a few questions I have. You up for it mate?

Laura said: I claim to be neither Evolutionist nor Christian, If there is a god, would you consider him unjust and unfair? Why or why not?

Paul Burnett said: So to start with: Any particular god? Which one(s), and why?

Checks and balances are an important aspect of our governmental system. I think there are potentially some cases where the local school board should have the power to override standards from state authorities. Not really for biology, actually, but for other subjects. Suppose a commission for selecting history books gets headed by a couple of activists who think that the contributions of various ethnic groups are under-represented, and mandates history books that are more conforming. What if you as a parent think this is political correctness run amok, and want more traditional textbooks used?

In general, local authorities don't have the technical background to know the current state of knowledge in various fields, but some fields are subject to activism. And you may not know in advance where activism might creep in.

In general, local authorities don’t have the technical background to know the current state of knowledge in various fields, but some fields are subject to activism. And you may not know in advance where activism might creep in.

Mr Kwok's ability to distinguish fact from the propaganda he favors (the very idea of John McCain, or any of the Republican candidates, being better choices than Obama is bad-taste laughable) shows how big the tent of science is - about matters scientific.

I had a restrained respect for Mr. Kwok on things he clearly knows much more about than myself, but his comments on this matter prove he is unable to look objectively at his own prejudices.

There is no excuse for any thinking person to choose the Republican ticket this time, and there has been none for many years now. What was merely typical bad-conservatism in the 80's has become the irrational, greedy, ignorant, undemocratic and unAmerican "Republican" party of today.
Only the dishonest, the covertly racist, and the ignorant will vote for this absurd McCain ticket.

May you learn the massive, harmful error of your ways, Mr. Kwok.

I have a few questions. I claim to be neither Evolutionist nor Christian, rather I would accept the title ‘interested’.

— Laura

Laura said: I claim to be neither Evolutionist nor Christian, ...

Laura said: I have a few questions. I claim to be neither Evolutionist nor Christian, rather I would accept the title ‘interested’. I am writing a paper on it’s relationship and I need someone to answer a few questions I have. Its not so much about the physical evidence, rather I have decided to go much deeper. I am confused on several subjects. If there is a god, would you consider him unjust and unfair? Why or why not?

TomS said: Am I misunderstanding you?

iml8 said:

TomS said: Am I misunderstanding you?

The question asked was murky and the lack of response to requests for clarification suggests strongly that the question was indeed some sort of bizarre troll. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Mike Elzinga said: I suspect that Laura is a he.

I don't know about the sincerity of Laura, since the topic seems way too broad and framed incorrectly. But, people who are new to a subject often frame their questions in a form that we would consider "incorrect".

Really, these forums are not a good place for a beginner to find basic information. For that, talk to a local biology teacher (about evolution) or minister (about theology). However, the internet is very popular these days, and I imagine that some teachers suggest their students do "research" by visiting various internet forums. God, help us all. . .

When I was in high school, and a friend and I were arguing about Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, we finally decided to settle the matter by visiting a Physics Professor at a nearby college. I wish more kids would do that sort of thing. Maybe they think that the internet is the equivalent, but it's not, IMHO. There are just too many kooks on the internet to get reliable information. LOL!

tiredofthesos said: There is no excuse for any thinking person to choose the Republican ticket this time, and there has been none for many years now. What was merely typical bad-conservatism in the 80's has become the irrational, greedy, ignorant, undemocratic and unAmerican "Republican" party of today. Only the dishonest, the covertly racist, and the ignorant will vote for this absurd McCain ticket.

However, the internet is very popular these days, and I imagine that some teachers suggest their students do “research” by visiting various internet forums. God, help us all…

Science Avenger said: And spare us this nonsense about her not being in on the anti-evolution scam. She says exactly what all the rest of them say, and what no one who supports solid science education would say. Of course she's a creationist in the broad sense.

Dear GG,

I believe Laura was referring to the Klingon gods residing in Stov-I-Kor.

John

Science Avenger said:

tiredofthesos said: There is no excuse for any thinking person to choose the Republican ticket this time, and there has been none for many years now. What was merely typical bad-conservatism in the 80's has become the irrational, greedy, ignorant, undemocratic and unAmerican "Republican" party of today. Only the dishonest, the covertly racist, and the ignorant will vote for this absurd McCain ticket.

I'll second that, with the addition of those who have bought the Republican propoganda that they are the party of facts and the Democrats are the party of feelings, as I had for so many years. I urge anyone who has to dig deeper indeed into every claim the Republican machine makes, so you'll find what I found: they basically deny reality at every turn, and worship at the alter of tax cuts. They are the party of speculation and faith, not facts. Sarah Palin is not a Republican extremist, she is in the mainstream. All the worse for them, and us.

The only thing more boring than these "blah blah political party blah" commentfights are the "blah blah (a)theists blah" commentfights.

John Kwok said: I can think of several thoughtful critics of the Dishonesty Institute and its pathetic promotion of the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design creationism who will be (or may be) voting for this "absurd McCain ticket.

iml8 said: The only real issue is that she is on record as saying it's OK to drive down the street the wrong way. Whether this is out of a sincere conviction that it's OK; or because it appeals to a constituency; or simply out of indifference is of no great interest. I don't want this person in the driver's seat, or for that matter in the copilot's seat. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Science Avenger said:

John Kwok said: I can think of several thoughtful critics of the Dishonesty Institute and its pathetic promotion of the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design creationism who will be (or may be) voting for this "absurd McCain ticket.

So the fact that others made the same mistake proves the assertions against the Republican party are false? Quick John, name one issue where there is a clear divide between Republicans and Democrats where it is the Republicans that side with the overwhelming majority of the scientists in the relevant fields. Evolution? Nope. Global Warming. Ha! Stem cell research? Forget it. Abortion? Not a chance. Birth control? Pfffft! On issue after issue, it is the Republicans who say "to hell with the evidence, we have our ideology". There is no equivalent of Fox News on the left, nor of Ann Coulter, nor of James Dobson. It's not the party of Goldwater any more. It's the party of, as he himself put it, "a bunch of kooks". The world laughs at us, and it isn't because of the Democrats. I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.

about giuliani...

an interesting article that explores in more than average depth, the critiques of his 9/11 performance.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_20_59/ai_n25471814/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

does not touch much on his many other foibles, current and previous.

@John Kwok...

you shouldn't let a single issue define a person's worth as a politician, but at least, if you do, you should have some background info. on exactly what the details of that issue were.

For what it's worth, I agree with Sci Avenger 100%. I too was once a conservative; voted for Reagan for a second term (*shudders to think about it now*).

The neocon push to organize fundamentalist evangelical xians as a support base has Fubared the GoP. McCain himself recognized this, and tried to point it out during his election campaign in 2000.

do you recall what it got him?

not the nomination, that's for damn sure.

He learned his lesson well for this cycle, even unto changing his official religion to better fit with the fundies.

In short, SA is absolutely correct:

The GoP has abandoned it's core principles that attracted my parents to them during their prime.

They've done little more than damage the nationa, in some cases irreversibly, over the last 30 years.

OTOH, during Carter we had the first comprehensive plan to encourage alternative energy production.

during Clinton, we had the largest increase in economic prosperity (35% IIRC) since the 50's (some argue it was even larger than that).

Reagan/Bush neocon economics have pushed us to the brink of disaster. In CA, Arnold Schwarzenegger was brought into office through the back door on the coattails of the so cal necons, but after a year of seeing how "well" their policies fly, he has abandoned them completely and now talks more like the old FDR type politics he used to.

seriously, I've grown up with the GoP (was born in Orange County), and have seen firsthand the damage their "policies" cause.

It's time for the GoP to completely rethink the direction they are going, and the only way to force them to do that is to keep voting dem until they get the fucking message.

Dear Ichthyic,

Yeah but McCain isn't the Xian creo moron that Dubya is. He's much more of a maverick, which he demonstrated when he was my senator last decade (I lived in AZ from the mid 1980s to mid 1990s).

John

Yeah but McCain isn't the Xian creo moron that Dubya is.

I have news for you:

neither is dubya (you should check out the history of the Bushes sometime; it's fascinating, if Machiavellian).

he's playing a role, crafted for him primarily by Karl Rove.

Not that there is much difference, in the end, between someone who acts a role and someone who honestly plays it.

bottom line, until the GoP begins to publicly LEAD (and sadly, we have to say the same thing for the dems!) on the issue of xian fundamentalism, pointing out the problems with it at the risk of abandoning that base, nothing will change.

case in point, you said:

which he demonstrated when he was my senator last decade (I lived in AZ from the mid 1980s to mid 1990s)

have you looked at how he has changed his stance on things like gay marriage and abortion since he started this election cycle?

you really should pay closer attention, especially to how he has changed stances on legislation in Arizona.

as to other things he's changed position on, there are any number of places documenting it, like this one:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14763.html

the point is, as long as our politicians decide that to maintain a support base, they have to change their actual issue positions, then they AREN'T leading and as such are failing in the role most Americans think to apply to their elected representatives to begin with.

One of two things has to happen:

either Americans decide they no longer need leadership in their elected representatives, or our elected representatives actually decide to start taking risks in order TO lead.

frankly, I don't hold out much hope on either front, and given how the dems themselves appear to be wooing the religious right in this cycle, it certainly doesn't appear to be getting "better".

this is all rather OT for this thread, but since I don't post here often any more, I felt I should throw it out there.

best of luck to us all.

we need it.

John Kwok said: But as for me, I'm interested in taking my party back from the creo religious Fascists like Dembski and Luskin who've hijacked it.

It’s time for the GoP to completely rethink the direction they are going, and the only way to force them to do that is to keep voting dem until they get the fucking message.

It would be the ultimate irony if, McCain, after losing the nomination in 2000 in part for attacking the GoP on this very issue, ends up winning the Presidency in 2008 because of his about face.

Ichthyic said: It would be the ultimate irony if, McCain, after losing the nomination in 2000 in part for attacking the GoP on this very issue, ends up winning the Presidency in 2008 because of his about face.

They’ve perverted beyond any semblance of my recognition the ideals of my heros Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.

But is our side doing anything?

"our side" has been doing much to try and increase the level of communication between scientists and bureaucrats for decades.

I used to work for this organization, one of many dedicated to that endeavor:

http://ncseonline.org/

...back when it was called "The committee for the National Institute for the Environment".

bottom line:

getting re/elected makes everything else take a back seat, and by the time all the fake issues and acting stances get sorted out after any specific election, it's time for another cycle.

I gave up, frankly.

Maybe younger folks will have more luck beating their heads against that wall.

Mr. Kwok,

You misread me, but nonetheless your examples are laughable.

George Will sold whatever remaining shred of credibility he had long, long ago (maybe some remained early in the first Reagan Administration) and plainly writes his opinions to pander to easily self-deceived people such as you. He is not very interesting, not honest in presenting the conservative case (and there usually is one), and willing to praise the naked Emperor in the most fawning fashion - if he thinks that's what his benighted readers want of him. He's long been an unfunny, proven hack.

John Derbyshire! Give me a break! Never said an unvarnished, disinterested truth in his life.

Mr. Gross I only know through his book. If he actually plans to vote the McCain-Palin ticket it suggests he has the same limited approach to reason and truth as yourself.

Mr. Krauthammer I don't even have to dislike. He is now and has always been certifiably a crank and a clown. He wouldn't notice a dissenting fact if it gave him a noogie and poked him in the eyes. Raving, frothing stupidity, but evidently you've acquired a taste for it.

Judge Jones, well, I only know from his handling of the Kitzmiller case. Based on that, he's the kind of conservative I could likely disagree with, vehemently, and yet whom I believe would come around on nearly every issue, if a bit slowly. He also is an intelligent man (few enough of them in a party where 3 of 5 candidates publicly showed they supported creationism) who could on many, mostly practical, matters persuade me to take a different tact. However, he's a judge as well as a conservative and largely beyond the influence of the Party that represents no credible values whatsoever.

I certainly do not believe every Republican voter is a creationist, but that the entire Party - every single Party leader and politician of national stature I have read anything about or by in the last ten years, has taken the path of power for the end of their own selfish interests at any price.
They are not partners working to further the goals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all, but enemies of the very ideas of essential equality, fairness, reason. Hence they are the party where the worst anti-science faith-heads, the dominionists, the anti-environmentalists, the creationists, the racists, the uneducated and misinformed are located.

To say you intend to assist someone as hot-headed and unprincipled as this "new coke" McCain, the moreson when he panders to the worst of the right-wing with this ridiculous choice for VP (and this is a man who is the oldest candidate yet, with a history of cancer), is to say you only respect reason in matters of hard science.

I can have no respect for that (though I expect and hope knowing such a fact will not be the death of you!).

You do our nation and its principles harm, and no amount of sincerity can excuse that, given the clarity of the warning signs.

-- BC

Wheels said: The only thing more boring than these "blah blah political party blah" commentfights are the "blah blah (a)theists blah" commentfights.

John Kwok said: I'm interested in taking my party back from the creo religious Fascists like Dembski and Luskin who've hijacked it. They've perverted beyond any semblance of my recognition the ideals of my heros Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.

There is a huge, monolithic block of cultural conservatives in this country. It's not a majority, but it's so big and so committed that it will dominate whatever political coalition it belongs to. Which is why trying to reform the Republican party is so futile--the party is not going to give up all those whitebread votes even if pursuing 'em leads it into a historical dead end. Anyhow, if you look at American history over the long haul, the modern Democratic party has pretty much taken over the role formerly played by Lincoln's Republicans and John Quincy Adams Whigs. It is a vastly more natural place for Northeastern and Northwestern liberal and moderate Republicans than the current Republican party, whose center of gravity is pretty much South of the Mason/Dixon line. For good or ill, the last thing the current Dems are is a leftist party, even if you call social democracy leftism. Its radicalism pretty much consists in thinking of American nationality as a matter of ideas rather than blood or faith.

For good or ill, the last thing the current Dems are is a leftist party, even if you call social democracy leftism. Its radicalism pretty much consists in thinking of American nationality as a matter of ideas rather than blood or faith.

Science Avenger said: The big positive is that the demographics, slowly but surely, are going to eat away at the influence of the loony right.

…back when it was called “The committee for the National Institute for the Environment”. bottom line: getting re/elected makes everything else take a back seat, and by the time all the fake issues and acting stances get sorted out after any specific election, it’s time for another cycle.

— Ichthyic

I see the Dominionist movement as evidence that their influence is shrinking, thus motivating more extreme tactics.

Frank J said: I do share your frustration, though. And I see fundamentalism (especially a certain Islamic variety) as just a big a problem as anyone. But in the US at least I see it as just one part of a general anti-science culture that forces most politicians to pander to it one way or another. A reference in "Scientists Confront Creationism" confirms what I read elsewhere, namely that only ~1/4 of the population is hard-line fundamentalist (but politically active enough to be "like a majority"). Meanwhile almost 3/4 has bought into some anti-evolution nonsense, and 90+% has bought into some pseudoscience. And someone like me can expect to get, oh, about one vote with my platform: "If elected I will increase scientific R&D spending by a factor of 10, and fire 90% of the regulators, bureaucrats and 'safety nazis'."

Dear tiredofthesos:

You mean to tell me that John Derbyshire hasn't written eloquently about the "documentary" "Expelled", condemning it in the harshest terms possible? Or that both Charles Krauthammer and George Will didn't write persuasively as to why Judge Jones' decision in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial deserves ample praise, while Intelligent Design belongs on an intellectual trash heap?

Don't tell me too that both Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman are delusional for noting - as they did on "Face the Nation" this morning - that Obama is the least experienced person running for President in a century, and that our nation needs - and deserves - the experienced, quite capable, leadership which McCain can offer?

Experienced capable leadership that would not:

1) Urge a military strike on an ally, Pakistan, for harboring Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents
(Incidentally an ally which posses nuclear weapons and first strike missile launching capabilities against our soldiers stationed in the Middle East, friendly Gulf States like Dubai, and probably Israel too?).

2) Advise Russia to talk to Georgia via the UN Security Council, not realizing that Russia has a seat on that council with veto power.

3) Explain that he is for clean, reliable nuclear power without specifying which technologies are available for such cleanliness and reliability (Technology which exists apparently in France, since nuclear fission power has provided safe, reliable electricity - up to 40% of the country's needs - for decades.

As far as I am concerned, Obama is a phony. I've seen his kind before.

On a more personal note, I've worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater. Unfortunately he is still active in the NYC alumni club and is busy screwing things up. He tried running for office in the national alumni association, but thankfully, lost his electoral bid. Hopefully, with any luck, this will happen to the real Obama too, whom I regard as much a phony as the "Barack Obama" I know.

Respectfully yours,

John

Thus, the reason why the vast majority of the public regards the idea of rounding up Darwinists [sic] and stripping them of their unalienable rights as unmitigated crazy talk, but still considers Evolutionary Biology as a crank science along with Bigfoot Biology.

— Stanton

Frank J said: A far cry in words, that is, but with little difference in result.

I'm not sure how many people see "Bigfoot Biology" as crank science - sadly probably fewer than see EB as such - but if they do they might be interested in knowing that one of the most vocal Bigfoot advocates if DI Fellow and far-right radio host Michael Medved.

...or think it’s nothing but a circus tent of conspiracies and malicious intrigue...

— Stanton

John Kwok said: Experienced capable leadership that would not: 1) Urge a military strike on an ally, Pakistan, for harboring Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents (Incidentally an ally which posses nuclear weapons and first strike missile launching capabilities against our soldiers stationed in the Middle East, friendly Gulf States like Dubai, and probably Israel too?). 2) Advise Russia to talk to Georgia via the UN Security Council, not realizing that Russia has a seat on that council with veto power.

3) Explain that he is for clean, reliable nuclear power without specifying which technologies are available for such cleanliness and reliability (Technology which exists apparently in France, since nuclear fission power has provided safe, reliable electricity - up to 40% of the country's needs - for decades.

On a more personal note, I've worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater. Unfortunately he is still active in the NYC alumni club and is busy screwing things up. He tried running for office in the national alumni association, but thankfully, lost his electoral bid. Hopefully, with any luck, this will happen to the real Obama too, whom I regard as much a phony as the "Barack Obama" I know.

John-

that Obama is the least experienced person running for President in a century

rigghhhhtttt.

because W was so damn experienced in politics before he was groomed for the presidency, or how about McCain's current VP pick?

you sure have a damn strange way of looking at things.

Experienced capable leadership that would not...

but WOULD prefer to turn Iraq into a US military base for the next 100 years.

pathetic.

Explain that he is for clean, reliable nuclear power...

while having voted against every legislative attempt to promote alternative energy before his current run?

It's laughable how little you know of the candidate you are currently supporting.

but then, that's been my experience with most in the US who support the republican party over the last 30 years.

As far as I am concerned, Obama is a phony. I've seen his kind before.

as far as I'm concerned, you've got your head up your ass. I've seen your kind before.

good luck with that.

Ichthyic said: John- that Obama is the least experienced person running for President in a century rigghhhhtttt. because W was so damn experienced in politics before he was groomed for the presidency, or how about McCain's current VP pick? you sure have a damn strange way of looking at things.

John Kwok said: Other, more experienced, governors have praised her intellectual abilities and leadership skills.

Dear Ichthyic,

Better express your complaints too to the likes of biologist Paul Gross, writers Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and John Derbyshire, and Federal Judge John E. Jones, all of whom have been harsh critics of creationism, especially ID creationism. I am sure their "logic" is wrong if they are found to be supporting the McCain/Palin ticket, right? Judging from what I have seen so far from Obama, I am certain he will go down in history as one of our least competent presidents if he is elected. I am also disappointed that the Democrats did not choose other, more capable, men as their Presidential nominee, most notably someone like Bill Bradley (whom I would have supported enthusiastically, even if he was running against McCain.).

John

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Other, more experienced, governors have praised her intellectual abilities and leadership skills.

We are talking about the same lady who supports the civilization cyanide pill better known as "Teach The Controversy," right?

Governor Palin is in charge of the most efficient state Office of Emergency Management anywhere in the United States.

John Kwok said: As far as I am concerned, Obama is a phony. I've seen his kind before. On a more personal note, I've worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater...

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Other, more experienced, governors have praised her intellectual abilities and leadership skills.

We are talking about the same lady who supports the civilization cyanide pill better known as "Teach The Controversy," right?

Dear Sylvilagus,

I should have added that their accomplishments - both the real Obama and the one I know - pale in comparison with the President of Brown University - whom I have met - as someone who is a dynamic, inspiring, and productive chief executive (who is an Afro-American Louisiana native). Neither "gentleman" will ever accomplish as much as Brown's president, even if the real Obama is elected President of the United States.

My apologies for leading you astray.

John

SteveAstro said:

Governor Palin is in charge of the most efficient state Office of Emergency Management anywhere in the United States.

Has her management of the OEM actually been tested ? Steve

Hi Steve,

There's this interesting development that I just saw here at MSNBC's website:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26486090/

I am also quoting from that article here (see below):

Responding to a question after his hurricane-related remarks, McCain made a ringing defense of Palin, who Democrats argue has less experience than their presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

“I think Sen. Obama, if they want to go down that route, in all candor, she has far, far more experience than Sen. Obama does,” McCain said.

He cited Palin’s stint as governor of a “state that produces 20 percent of America’s energy” as well as her previous membership in the PTA and her time spent on the city council and in the mayor’s office in Wasilla, a town of 7,000 people outside Anchorage.

By contrast, he said Obama “was a community organizer when she was in elected office. He was in the state Senate and voted 130 times present. He never took on his party on anything. She took on a party and the old bulls and the old boy network and she succeeded.”

Palin has frequently clashed with fellow Republicans in her state, and won office after denying an incumbent GOP governor renomination to a new term in office.

Since McCain is demonstrating his commitment to the country, not to his personal religious and political ideology (unlike Dubya), I am optimistic that he would be more responsive to pleas warning him of the inherent economic and educational dangers which would result if Intelligent Design and other flavors of creationism were inserted nationally in public science classrooms.

John

Palin is not merely a Creationist--most Republicans and many Democrats share that characteristic--but she apparently also opposes birth control. I don't wish to second-guess her decision to give birth to a Down's syndrome baby, but I do wonder why, as a 40+ year old woman, she conceived a fifth child in the first place. Maybe she wanted the child, but I wonder if it was just that she refuses to use birth control and lets God (and her husband) make those kind of decisions. If she gets her way, will birth control remain legal in the United States.

It's possible to accept evolutionary biology as good science, but still be sympathetic to local school boards who feel that modern biology (and the TOE) is hostile to their religious inclinations. I don't think many people HERE are sympathetic to such religious folk, and prefer to remain in attack mode.

As long as there is public resitance to evolution, we are going to lose in the long run. The creationists have lost in the courts so far, but they are adapting, and looking for legislative solutions that don't have constitutional problem.

At some point, you will have to bring to case for evolution to the public in a very effective way. Attacking people who disagree with you will not get results in the long run. It's possible to offer critical analysis of anti-evolution ideas without purposely insulting the people who hold them.

My Dad and I disagreed on evolution and religion for quite awhile. After some reflection, I finally realized that my primary goal had been to "win", and that it wasn't a worthwhile objective. I eventually decided that my Dad wasn't going to change his mind, but that did not make him my enemy.

At some point, you will have to bring to case for evolution to the public in a very effective way. Attacking people who disagree with you will not get results in the long run. It’s possible to offer critical analysis of anti-evolution ideas without purposely insulting the people who hold them.

WallyK,

"It’s possible to accept evolutionary biology as good science, but still be sympathetic to local school boards who feel that modern biology (and the TOE) is hostile to their religious inclinations. I don’t think many people HERE are sympathetic to such religious folk, and prefer to remain in attack mode."

That's exactly my beef with Professor Meyers, and for that matter with Professor Dawkins. I think they're probably right in what they say, but if their object is to advance the cause of science, their searing contempt for all religion is counterproductive for that object.

For all I can tell, there is no more ethical human being on the planet than Professor Meyers. Of course he was engaging in what he thought was humorous hyperbole when he stated a wish on Pharyngula that all clergy of all religions would attach bunches of balloons to their chairs and float away on them, and that he had an ultralight aircraft and a BB gun. I understand that - but if he thought he was having a joke with only his regulars, he was grievously mistaken. On the internet, everybody can hear you scream.

The biblical literalists, the dominionists, the IDiots, all those whackaloons and science-haters in the Big Tent of creationism - they'd all just love it to bits if it once became fixed in general opinion that evolution requires the abandonment of religion. Of course it doesn't, and we know that. But Professors Meyers and Dawkins aren't helping, on that score - to the contrary, in fact. So what these passionate, ethical, committed, knowledgeable gentlemen are doing is the very thing that the enemy most earnestly desires them to do.

I can't believe that represents good strategy.

But Professors Meyers and Dawkins aren’t helping, on that score - to the contrary, in fact. So what these passionate, ethical, committed, knowledgeable gentlemen are doing is the very thing that the enemy most earnestly desires them to do.

I'm not sure where you were going at the end of that, Mike. The fundamentalists are very sure they have the big picture all figured out, and they are the ones fighting and coercing to make sure that theirs is the only picture anyone ever sees, at home, at church, or in school.

People are always claiming that strident attacks on Fundamentalists alienate believers from science. I don't doubt that happens sometimes, but I perhaps the ridicule also motivates moderate Christians to disassociate themselves from the crazier denominations. Portraying a large group of people as ignorant hicks is not very pleasant, but it may actually work as a long-term strategy. Does anybody have empirical evidence on this point?

John Kwok said: Dear tiredofthesos: You mean to tell me that John Derbyshire hasn't written eloquently about the "documentary" "Expelled", condemning it in the harshest terms possible? Or that both Charles Krauthammer and George Will didn't write persuasively as to why Judge Jones' decision in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial deserves ample praise, while Intelligent Design belongs on an intellectual trash heap? Don't tell me too that both Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman are delusional for noting - as they did on "Face the Nation" this morning - that Obama is the least experienced person running for President in a century, and that our nation needs - and deserves - the experienced, quite capable, leadership which McCain can offer? Experienced capable leadership that would not: 1) Urge a military strike on an ally, Pakistan, for harboring Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents (Incidentally an ally which posses nuclear weapons and first strike missile launching capabilities against our soldiers stationed in the Middle East, friendly Gulf States like Dubai, and probably Israel too?). 2) Advise Russia to talk to Georgia via the UN Security Council, not realizing that Russia has a seat on that council with veto power. 3) Explain that he is for clean, reliable nuclear power without specifying which technologies are available for such cleanliness and reliability (Technology which exists apparently in France, since nuclear fission power has provided safe, reliable electricity - up to 40% of the country's needs - for decades. As far as I am concerned, Obama is a phony. I've seen his kind before. On a more personal note, I've worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater. Unfortunately he is still active in the NYC alumni club and is busy screwing things up. He tried running for office in the national alumni association, but thankfully, lost his electoral bid. Hopefully, with any luck, this will happen to the real Obama too, whom I regard as much a phony as the "Barack Obama" I know. Respectfully yours, John

John Kwok said: Dear Sylvilagus, I should have added that their accomplishments - both the real Obama and the one I know - pale in comparison with the President of Brown University - whom I have met - as someone who is a dynamic, inspiring, and productive chief executive (who is an Afro-American Louisiana native). Neither "gentleman" will ever accomplish as much as Brown's president, even if the real Obama is elected President of the United States. My apologies for leading you astray. John

WallyK said: There are just too many kooks on the internet to get reliable information.

Mike Elzinga said: There are a lot of difficult questions that arise for theistic evolutionists from the critiques of both Dawkins and Meyers, but in the broader picture, it really seems to be the case that no humans have any real insight into the mind of any deity. I don’t believe that this means people should stop being open to the idea of some kind of deity. Who knows what might turn up if the traditional bureaucracies of organized religion were less restrictive about dogma?

I have read a lot of Dawkins, and it seems to me that most of his intensity about the matter derives from the abuses of religion he has seen. On the other hand, I don’t have a dog in that fight, so perhaps my perspective is not worth much to someone who is a theist. There are certainly a lot of good people who derive their values and goals from religion. And it is certainly possible they have better intuitions than those of us who are basically indifferent to whatever characteristics deities might have.

Not everyone starts with the same information and background, and we only have a finite amount of time to figure out the big picture. It’s quite likely that most of us won’t; but here we are. Why waste time fighting and coersing?

Dave Luckett said: For all I can tell, there is no more ethical human being on the planet than Professor Meyers. Of course he was engaging in what he thought was humorous hyperbole when he stated a wish on Pharyngula that all clergy of all religions would attach bunches of balloons to their chairs and float away on them, and that he had an ultralight aircraft and a BB gun.

Dave Luckett said: I can't believe that represents good strategy.

Jim Harrison said: People are always claiming that strident attacks on Fundamentalists alienate believers from science. I don't doubt that happens sometimes, but I perhaps the ridicule also motivates moderate Christians to disassociate themselves from the crazier denominations. Portraying a large group of people as ignorant hicks is not very pleasant, but it may actually work as a long-term strategy. Does anybody have empirical evidence on this point?

sylvilagus said:

John Kwok said: Dear Sylvilagus, I should have added that their accomplishments - both the real Obama and the one I know - pale in comparison with the President of Brown University - whom I have met - as someone who is a dynamic, inspiring, and productive chief executive (who is an Afro-American Louisiana native). Neither "gentleman" will ever accomplish as much as Brown's president, even if the real Obama is elected President of the United States. My apologies for leading you astray. John

OK, even though I don't really understand you're point here. Telling us that you admire another African American man doesn't change the racist nature of your previous remark. You seem to have sidestepped this, or not understood my point. Strangely familiar to the responses of creationists when challenged. As I explained, I'm not accusing you of being "bigoted," so demonstrating your positive feelings towards one man doesn't address the nature of the statement. My point was not about your "feelings" but about in-grained habits of thought and speech that we might even be unaware of. Ultimately these are far more important than our conscious attitudes.

Mr Larssen: I regret that, not knowing how to type o with an umlaut, I can't reproduce your full name. Please take the attempt for the deed. I also regret and apologise for misspelling Prof. Myers' name. Please forgive an error.

However, I don't see how my point is invalidated by my error, grievous as it is. I am surprised to see you imply that those present would think so, though no doubt you know this community better than I. (You are clearly sufficiently confident of the general view to use the first person plural.) I submit with respect that the spelling of the name is irrelevant to the point, which is whether Professors Myers and Dawkins advance the cause of science by attacking religion. To do so is indeed conflation of different issues, and you are right to say that it is the bane of strategy.

I therefore wonder why you think it is good for them to employ a strategy of attacking all religion - if, that is, they are primarily interested in advancing science, specifically the Theory of Evolution. (I take this to be the primary objective of most people here. No doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong.) If the destruction of religion is the primary objective of the learned gentlemen in question, but the advancement of science education is the primary objective of most people here, I wonder to what extent the objectives actually coincide.

Science Avenger: Scientists who accept, use and teach the Theory of Evolution are an "oppressed group"? Really?

John Kwok,

In this context, using the idiom "calling a spade a spade" would be, to some minds, an own goal of prodigious effect.

I take it rather as a sign of hope that the very language of racism is retreating into the murk of its appalling history, to the extent that it is no longer even understood, while the robust nature of the English language's rich stock of aphorisms is retained.

Kind of off target, but it's pretty funny to complain that Obama only released a single page medical report while John McCain released hundreds of pages. In fact, McCain never released his medical report at all. He allowed reporters to look at some of his massive medical records for a brief period of time. Obama did release his health report. It was one page long because he's a young, extremely healthy man. McCain is very old and has many health problems. This is obviously a plus for McCain.

John Kwok's approach to advocacy seems to reflect the old saying that every brick is a weapon in a riot. Boy does he reach. I'm also amused by the "I've seen his kind before" line. Really? I'm 63 I can't remember a phenomenon quite like Obama--maybe he would be a disaster for the country, but it certainly wouldn't be because he's exemplifies a generic political type. Exactly how many half white/half Nigerian, self-made, super-eloquent Harvard Law grads has Kwok encountered?

One last point, it is really pretty odd to call Obama an African-American, though nobody seems to notice. Black Americans are descendants of slaves, and the experience of slavery, much more than anything else, has forged their identity. Recent black immigrants who came to this country freely have a notably different outlook. Obama's father, of course, was a free Nigerian.

John Kwok said: 1) Why hasn't he discussed his Indonesian childhood?

2) If he finds Reverend Wright's remarks offensive, then why did he remain a loyal member of Wright's congregation for nearly two decades?

3) Why has he released only one page of his medical history, while his principal opponent, John McCain, has released hundreds?

4) Why did he run unopposed in his first electoral campaign as an Illinois State Senator, allowing others to challenge successfully the rights of others to run against him?

In conclusion, Caesar Barack Obamaus is a potential emperor without clothes.

John Kwok said: Dear Sylvilagus, How can I possibly be a bigot when I greatly admire these great [black] Americans:

Science Avenger said:

John Kwok said: Dear Sylvilagus, How can I possibly be a bigot when I greatly admire these great [black] Americans:

The same way you can be a bigot and dig black chicks. Ask Jefferson. You think Hitler admired no Jews?

Kwok:

I understand your point exactly. Some of my best friends are niggers too! Some of them have actually accomplished worthy things, astounding as it may sound to the unaided ear. But, like you, I'm also capable of looking at a man's skin and knowing beyond any possibility of doubt in my mind that he'll never amount to shit, even as President. Those kinds of people are just like that. Personal experience, you know.

Jim Harrison said: I'm also amused by the "I've seen his kind before" line. Really? I'm 63 I can't remember a phenomenon quite like Obama...

Obama's father, of course, was a free Nigerian.

Kenyan of course. That's the trouble with us old guys. Bad memories. Hair triggers. We'll just have to hope that any emergencies that occur during the McCain presidency take place before sundown.

I’m 66. I can remember the way that John Kennedy mobilized the youth of this country with his energy.

— Paul Burnett

fnxtr said: I'm not sure where you were going at the end of that, Mike. The fundamentalists are very sure they have the big picture all figured out, and they are the ones fighting and coercing to make sure that theirs is the only picture anyone ever sees, at home, at church, or in school.

John Kwok said: Dear Sylvilagus, How can I possibly be a bigot when I greatly admire these great Americans: Ruth Simmons Colin Powell Condoleeza Rice Shelby Steele Thelonius Monk Thomas Sowell Thelonius Monk Roy Innis

(The last three are distinguished fellow alumni of my high school. I've met Innis, helping organize an alumni event held in his - and Dick Morris' (another notable alumnus) - honor for our high school alumni association back in 2002. Dr. Simmons - whom I have met twice - is the president of my undergraduate alma mater, Brown University.). I don't see them as great Afro-Americans, but as great Americans of Afro-American ancestry.

So I beg to differ strongly with what you have said here:

sylvilagus said: OK, even though I don't really understand you're point here. Telling us that you admire another African American man doesn't change the racist nature of your previous remark. You seem to have sidestepped this, or not understood my point. Strangely familiar to the responses of creationists when challenged. As I explained, I'm not accusing you of being "bigoted," so demonstrating your positive feelings towards one man doesn't address the nature of the statement. My point was not about your "feelings" but about in-grained habits of thought and speech that we might even be unaware of. Ultimately these are far more important than our conscious attitudes.

I believe I am entitled to call a spade a spade, and both the "Barack Obama" I know and the real one are charismatic empty suits who haven't accomplished anything substantial period.

Moreover, in the case of the real Barack Obama, I still have many questions such as: 1) Why hasn't he discussed his Indonesian childhood? 2) If he finds Reverend Wright's remarks offensive, then why did he remain a loyal member of Wright's congregation for nearly two decades? 3) Why has he released only one page of his medical history, while his principal opponent, John McCain, has released hundreds? 4) Why did he run unopposed in his first electoral campaign as an Illinois State Senator, allowing others to challenge successfully the rights of others to run against him? In conclusion, Caesar Barack Obamaus is a potential emperor without clothes. Respectfully yours, John

I guess we can chalk it up to sampling bias, Mike. At the risk of mirroring what some see as bigotry on this thread, I know some very nice Christians too. PT seems to attract the loons, though.

fnxtr said: I guess we can chalk it up to sampling bias, Mike. At the risk of mirroring what some see as bigotry on this thread, I know some very nice Christians too. PT seems to attract the loons, though.

Does anyone else think that politics is an inappropriate subject here?

Discussing Palin's support for creationism is fair game. Discussing off-topic concerns about McCain, Obama, Biden, or Palin will only cause dissension among people who agree about the danger creationism/ID poses for our society. There are other places to discuss Obama's inexperience or McCain's probability of dropping dead during the inaugural ball.

@Rward:

Yes.

Discussing Palin’s support for creationism is fair game.

RWard said: Does anyone else think that politics is an inappropriate subject here?

Palin nut job on many subjects in addition to "teach the controversy", things such as Alaskan secession. That is going to become pretty clear soon enough.

Dear Flint:

If I am indeed guilty of this, then so are fellow harsh critics of Intelligent Design creationism like journalists Charles Krauthammer and George Will, conservative commentator John Derbyshire, biologist Paul Gross and Federal Judge John Jones:

"As John Kwok has showed us, politics is much like creationism - it not only forces the mind to twist and distort beyond any recognition to ignore the obvious and fabricate the unlikely as required, it blinds the mind to any possibility of noticing it's doing that - even when pointed out by everyone else."

I have ample regard for McCain since he was my US senator for almost ten years. He may express interest in ID creationism, but he's certainly been far more pragmatic than - for example, fellow Brown alumnus Bobby Jindal (who concentrated in Biology and should know better, but, as recent events have shown, has been a strident advocate of ID creationism). I also sense a similar degree of pragmatism too from Palin.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

RWard said: Does anyone else think that politics is an inappropriate subject here?

Dear GvlGeologist, FCD,

Not only me, but Federal Judge John Jones would endorse completely your observation:

"Unfortunately (and I think Mr. Kwok would agree with this), the Republicans, to a greater degree than Democrats, have been hijacked by the anti-science activists, and thus a discussion of their attitudes towards science (as well as any Democrats for whom this might be true) is warranted."

Speaking for myself, I want to take back the Republican Party from the Xian creo fascists who are currently controlling it.

Appreciatively yours,

John

John Kwok said: I have ample regard for McCain since he was my US senator for almost ten years. He may express interest in ID creationism, but he's certainly been far more pragmatic than - for example, fellow Brown alumnus Bobby Jindal (who concentrated in Biology and should know better, but, as recent events have shown, has been a strident advocate of ID creationism). I also sense a similar degree of pragmatism too from Palin.

Dear GvlGeologist, FCD,

By "pragmatism" I have said not once, but several times on this thread, that unlike Bobby Jindal - a fellow Brown alumnus who concentrated in Biology - neither McCain nor Palin have sought to ram their religious views down the throats of others. Jindal campaigned on a gubernatorial platform pledging to insert ID creationism into Louisiana public school science curricula, and, unfortunately, has succeeded.

I intend to remind McCain of excellent research being done in evolutionary biology at both the University of Arizona - where I earned a MS degree in Geosciences - and Arizona State University.

John

John Kwok said: Dear GvlGeologist, FCD, By "pragmatism" I have said not once, but several times on this thread, that unlike Bobby Jindal - a fellow Brown alumnus who concentrated in Biology - neither McCain nor Palin have sought to ram their religious views down the throats of others. Jindal campaigned on a gubernatorial platform pledging to insert ID creationism into Louisiana public school science curricula, and, unfortunately, has succeeded. I intend to remind McCain of excellent research being done in evolutionary biology at both the University of Arizona - where I earned a MS degree in Geosciences - and Arizona State University. John

Back during the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the public health folks warned us that we were going to bed with everybody our potential sexual partners had ever been to bed with. John Krok should consider who McCain has been in bed with over the last decade. I doubt if McCain gives a damn one way or the other about the teaching of Creationism, but his record shows that he will drop support for science as quickly as an inconvenient wife if it furthers his political fortunes.

The politics of the Palin affair show what support for McCain means in real-world terms. In order to get elected and even more in order to govern should he be elected, McCain must subordinate himself to the Christian right. His record shows that he will kiss any ass, pick up any bar of soap if it is necessary to win. Thus McCain, who is economically very right wing, but not particularly conservative on social issues, wanted to pick somebody like Lieberman or Romney but had his armed twisted to go for a VP choice dictated by the craziest religious elements in his party. McCain is not a proud eagle: he is a bird in a golden cage.

How ill gray hairs become a fool and jester.

Dear Jim:

I have seen McCain at his best and worst, remembering his involvement in the Keating Five scandal. However, since then, I have seen him emerge as among the most bipartisan of all the senators in the US Senate, who has worked closely with the likes of Russ Feingold, and even, Ted Kennedy. He has many friends in the Senate, including, of course, Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden. So I have the utmost confidence in his ability to govern effectively, to demonstrate pragmatic leadership, and, when necessary, be a maverick too; for these reasons he reminds me most of my hero Theodore Roosevelt.

John

Dear Stanton,

I am optimistic that if one were to make an effective, persuasive case explaining how and why creationism endangers the USA's future economic and intellectual welfare, then McCain would listen. He has not sought public service merely to impose his set of religious and ethics values on others, but to serve to the best of his abilities, both the people of my former state, and indeed, all of his fellow Americans. His attitude is one that stands in stark contrast with someone like Jindal, who made no secret of his religious values and his intentions for incorporating them into his style of governance.

John

John Kwok said: By "pragmatism" I have said not once, but several times on this thread, that unlike Bobby Jindal - a fellow Brown alumnus who concentrated in Biology - neither McCain nor Palin have sought to ram their religious views down the throats of others. Jindal campaigned on a gubernatorial platform pledging to insert ID creationism into Louisiana public school science curricula, and, unfortunately, has succeeded. ... John

John Kwok said: His attitude is one that stands in stark contrast with someone like Jindal, who made no secret of his religious values and his intentions for incorporating them into his style of governance.

Jim Harrison said: John Krok should consider who McCain has been in bed with over the last decade.

I have seen McCain at his best and worst, remembering his involvement in the Keating Five scandal. However, since then, I have seen him emerge as among the most bipartisan of all the senators in the US Senate

He has not sought public service merely to impose his set of religious and ethics values on others, but to serve to the best of his abilities, both the people of my former state, and indeed, all of his fellow Americans. His attitude is one that stands in stark contrast with someone like Jindal, who made no secret of his religious values and his intentions for incorporating them into his style of governance.

I just sent this to Senator McCain:

Dear Senator McCain:

As a former resident of the great state of Arizona, I am delighted with your candidacy for President of the United States, recognizing that you, Senator John McCain, are the sole person who puts “Country First” among our current presidential candidates. Having been one of your constituents for a decade, I also know you possess both the great character and wisdom to become one of our great Presidents. In recognition of these admirable traits of yours, I am writing to warn you of the dangers posed by renewed advocacy of Intelligent Design and other kinds of creationism, since they represent threats to both the intellectual and economic well-being of our great nation, threatening American preeminence in science and technology, and the chance that the 21st Century will become yet another “American Century”. I am urging you to put “Country First” by rejecting demands to have creationism – especially Intelligent Design creationism – taught in American science classrooms alongside modern evolutionary theory.

It is no accident that creationism, including Intelligent Design, is repudiated by the mainstream scientific community. It is a collection of outdated ideas that were rejected soundly by science more than a century and a half ago. Creationism’s current proponents have asserted that they are persecuted by mainstream science for their beliefs, but theirs are claims that are not borne out by the real, honest truth. None have sought to present their work in the valid market of ideas known as peer-reviewed science. No papers of theirs in support of creationism have been presented in scientific meetings, and none have been submitted for publication in notable scientific journals like Nature, Science, Evolution, Ecology, Paleobiology, and Cladistics, among others, demonstrating how and why creationism is a valid scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory. In private e-mail correspondence with two leading advocates of Intelligent Design creationism, mathematician and philosopher William Dembski and biochemist Michael Dembski, I have challenged them to explain how Intelligent Design is a better scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory in explaining the history and structure of Planet Earth’s biodiversity. Neither one has given me an answer. Why? Because they know that Intelligent Design isn’t scientific, and therefore, that it is incapable of being such an alternative.

Back in 1973, the great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky – one of the architects of modern evolutionary theory – observed, “Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” His accurate comment is confirmed daily by thousands of scientists across the globe, and especially, by many great scientists who are biology professors at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona; the latter my graduate school alma mater. For example, at the University of Arizona, Regents Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Nancy Moran uses techniques from molecular biology and classical entomology to understand the evolution of symbiotic microorganisms in insects; many of those insects that she studies – such as aphids – are economically important agricultural pests. Her colleague Dr. William Schaeffer is noted for his mathematical models of the origin and spread of epidemics, relying on key principles in evolutionary biology for better understanding of public health issues. Their colleague Dr. Michael L. Rosenzweig – my graduate school mentor – is one of the most important evolutionary ecologists of our time, whose research interests have ranged from paleobiology to community ecology, and now, most recently, conservation biology. Their excellent research would be impossible if Intelligent Design or some other kind of creationism was indeed a “scientific theory”; only modern evolutionary theory has enabled them to pose the interesting questions that have led to their successful work. If we are to conquer the 21st Century challenges posed by the spread of virulent disease like HIV/AIDS, the invasions of alien species of animals and plants in North American ecosystems, and the economic damage caused by agricultural pests like aphids, then we can do so only via the science of evolutionary biology, not by invoking creationism’s scientifically discredited ideas dating from the 18th Century and before.

From a religious perspective, as a Deist, I can sympathize with your – and Governor Palin’s - difficulties in accepting modern evolutionary theory. However, great religions like Roman Catholic Christianity see no conflict between modern evolutionary theory and a belief in God. There are many religiously devout scientists, such as eminent ecologist Dr. Michael L. Rosenzweig, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, noted cell biologist Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University, and distinguished molecular biologist Dr. Francis Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, who see no contradiction whatsoever between their own personal devoutly held religious beliefs and their commitment to excellence in scientific research (A distinction that eludes still those like Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski.). We should render to science, that which is science, and to religion, that which is religion, without confusing these two distinct, but important, parts of our thought. This doesn’t mean that you should sacrifice your own personal, deeply held, religious beliefs for the sake of science. Distinguished vertebrate paleobiologist Michael Novacek, Vice President and Provost, American Museum of Natural History, has stated that it is not his museum’s mission to change people’s religious views, but rather, to educate them on valid mainstream science, of which modern evolutionary theory is a most essential part.

We are engaged in a titanic struggle for America's soul, according to Brown cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller's new book, 'Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul'. Sadly, I must concur with my friend Ken’s dire warning that we are in danger of losing our preeminence in science and technology – and thus our excellent economy – if creationist advocates succeed in inserting outmoded, religiously-derived ideas like Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism into American science classrooms. Our children must be taught valid mainstream science so we can meet successfully the scientific and technological challenges of the 21st Century, so we can ensure that we are “Country First” with regards to American preeminence in science and technology. I strongly encourage you and your staff to talk to distinguished evolutionary biologists like those I have cited, and to read and to reflect upon Ken Miller’s terse book and Republican Federal Judge Jones’ historic landmark ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, in which Jones recognized that Intelligent Design is not science, but instead, a religiously derived idea promoted by those seeking to insert their religious beliefs and values into science classrooms. Again, in closing, please recognize that we must keep “Country First” by rejecting any and all attempts to inject religion into science classrooms, of which the most blatant examples are the many, still ongoing, attempts to teach Intelligent Design and other kinds of creationism.

Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

Darwin said: Savages like York minister who consider thunder and lightning the direct will of God were scarcely less primitive than the miracle mongering philosopher who says the innate knowledge of a Creator has been implanted in us … by a separate act of God, rather than evolving according to His most magnificent laws.

mathematician and philosopher William Dembski and biochemist Michael Dembski,...

GuyeFaux said: Hi John, I'm afraid you made a typo:

mathematician and philosopher William Dembski and biochemist Michael Dembski,...

Perhaps i should clarify myself.

Either I came from a bowl of soup or Jesus died for my sins. Both take something a little more than 'physical evidence' to believe in. No one living today witnessed the big bang. Also, there is no ape-men walking around this very day, or anything in the middle process of 'evolutionizing'. Neither have they seen Jesus die on the cross yet people have the Bible to prove such. Evolution may have plenty of physical evidence to support it and yet so does the Bible. Besides, if Christianity weren't true, who the heck would take such a long time to create such an elaborate book - not like any of you have ever studied one, so please don't give me any crap.

So, I decided to take the journey for myself, to find which is truth. I particularly do not put much weight in any of your comments that do not give me a straight answer because of your bias. Not just because you are evolutionists but I find Christians do it all the same. You and they claim all they want that their belief is solid and true. Yet how is one to see they are living in darkness unless they have seen light. For all darkness is, is the absence of light. Let me clarify... as a child I swore over my life that green beans were the most horrid thing on earth. As I grew into maturity, I eventually tried them and decided they weren't all that bad. A child says this is right or wrong over his own limited perception. That is why I put so much weight in Lee Strobel's work. He tried and tested both sides of the equation and found one to be truth for him. He is man of true wisdom.

Until any of you get over your bias and answer me straightly, all the physical evidence in the world i can sincerely care less about.

The question isn't general. It can relate to both of your 'religions'; Christianity and evolution. I simply wanted a viewpoint. Not to be bombarded with more questions. You may also email me if this conversation is desired to continue.

On another note, after reading the last third of your comments, I am fully a woman. lol. I don't know how that came up.

The question was over thought. Like I said in the note above, I need a viewpoint; specifically your viewpoint on "god". If there is one. The question on 'which one?' confuses me with your beliefs. Evolution claims that no god exists and the asking of that question really hurts my head. Please explain to me what you mean.

On another note, after reading the last third of your comments, I am fully a woman. lol. I don't know how that came up.

The question was over thought. Like I said in the note above, I need a viewpoint; specifically your viewpoint on "god". If there is one. The question on 'which one?' confuses me with your beliefs. Evolution claims that no god exists and the asking of that question really hurts my head. Please explain to me what you mean.

Sorry if I was at all brash in my last comment. I have been frustated over last couple days. I am getting hit with HANNA now, right after I got hit with GUSTAV. My sinus' are crazy.

Either I came from a bowl of soup or Jesus died for my sins.

Evolution claims that no god exists

Dear Science Avenger,

I can't answer this hypothetical question only because I honestly don't know. If Huckabee picked Gingerich as his Veep, then I might support the ticket since Gingerich is seriously interested in scientific excellence. However, if he was running against a Democratic ticket comprised of Bradley and someone like Bill Richardson, Jon Corzine, Sam Nunn or Joe Lieberman, then I'd probably vote Democratic.

John

Either I came from a bowl of soup or Jesus died for my sins.

Dear GvlGeologist:

I don't agree with your assessment of Palin, only because she ran as a reform-minded candidate and started "cleaning house" as soon as she was sworn in:

"I'm not sure that I agree with your use of the word 'pragmatic', but thanks for clearing that up. Do you think that, as Stanton says, she supports 'Teach the Controversy.'? Others in this thread have also pointed to supposed dominionist sympathies, if you check back. This suggests that she might in fact 'ram' her religious beliefs, or possibly that of her supporters, 'down the throats of others'.

I do consider this to be of great concern for those of us interested in good science and rule of law in this country. You may say that Palin is only the VP candidate, not the presidential candidate, but the choice of someone with such extreme ideologies does in fact reflect poorly on the candidate. If you argue that McCain selected her for the votes (a pragmatic choice?) and does not intend to listen to her, then he has certainly made a poor choice, not to mention deceiving those to whom he is trying to get to vote for him. And of course, no matter what, if elected, she would be a heartbeat from the presidency."

If Palin was quite serious in "Teach the Controversy" then she would have pursued it as vigorously as Jindal has done with his advocacy of ID creationism.

McCain picked her because she is, like him, a maverick reformer. If he wanted a hardcore Xian creo candidate, then there are others, like Huckabee, whom he could have chosen instead.

John

Perhaps i should clarify myself. Either I came from a bowl of soup or Jesus died for my sins.

Both take something a little more than ‘physical evidence’ to believe in.

No one living today witnessed the big bang.

Also, there is no ape-men walking around this very day, or anything in the middle process of ‘evolutionizing’.

Neither have they seen Jesus die on the cross yet people have the Bible to prove such.

Evolution may have plenty of physical evidence to support it and yet so does the Bible.

Besides, if Christianity weren’t true, who the heck would take such a long time to create such an elaborate book - not like any of you have ever studied one, so please don’t give me any crap.

So, I decided to take the journey for myself, to find which is truth. I particularly do not put much weight in any of your comments that do not give me a straight answer because of your bias.

Not just because you are evolutionists but I find Christians do it all the same. You and they claim all they want that their belief is solid and true. Yet how is one to see they are living in darkness unless they have seen light. For all darkness is, is the absence of light. Let me clarify… as a child I swore over my life that green beans were the most horrid thing on earth. As I grew into maturity, I eventually tried them and decided they weren’t all that bad. A child says this is right or wrong over his own limited perception.

That is why I put so much weight in Lee Strobel’s work. He tried and tested both sides of the equation and found one to be truth for him. He is man of true wisdom.

Until any of you get over your bias and answer me straightly, all the physical evidence in the world i can sincerely care less about.

The question isn’t general. It can relate to both of your ‘religions’; Christianity and evolution. I simply wanted a viewpoint. Not to be bombarded with more questions. You may also email me if this conversation is desired to continue.

Laura, you remind me of a Christian friend who once told me "You don't believe in God? That's okay. He believes in you."

If you want to have a serious discussion here about the evidence for evolution and what it really means for religion, and in particular Christianity, you need to raise the level of discourse a little. Not to mention maybe do a little homework first.

I just thought I'd warn you before the dog-pile really starts...

Laura I simply wanted a viewpoint. Not to be bombarded with more questions. You may also email me if this conversation is desired to continue.

Laura said: Perhaps i should clarify myself. Either I came from a bowl of soup or Jesus died for my sins.

Both take something a little more than 'physical evidence' to believe in.

No one living today witnessed the big bang.

Also, there is no ape-men walking around this very day, or anything in the middle process of 'evolutionizing'.

So, the short of it is that yes, we do see things in the process of "evolutionizing," indisputably and all the time.

Neither have they seen Jesus die on the cross yet people have the Bible to prove such.

Evolution may have plenty of physical evidence to support it and yet so does the Bible. Besides, if Christianity weren't true, who the heck would take such a long time to create such an elaborate book - not like any of you have ever studied one, so please don't give me any crap.

A child says this is right or wrong over his own limited perception.

That is why I put so much weight in Lee Strobel's work. He tried and tested both sides of the equation and found one to be truth for him. He is man of true wisdom.

Until any of you get over your bias and answer me straightly, all the physical evidence in the world i can sincerely care less about.

The question isn't general. It can relate to both of your 'religions'; Christianity and evolution.

Either I came from a bowl of soup or Jesus died for my sins.

— Laura

Laura said: Evolution claims that no god exists and the asking of that question really hurts my head. Please explain to me what you mean.

Laura said: Perhaps i should clarify myself. Either I came from a bowl of soup or Jesus died for my sins.

Both take something a little more than 'physical evidence' to believe in.

No one living today witnessed the big bang.

Also, there is no ape-men walking around this very day, or anything in the middle process of 'evolutionizing'.

So, I decided to take the journey for myself, to find which is truth. I particularly do not put much weight in any of your comments that do not give me a straight answer because of your bias. Not just because you are evolutionists but I find Christians do it all the same. You and they claim all they want that their belief is solid and true. Yet how is one to see they are living in darkness unless they have seen light.

For all darkness is, is the absence of light. Let me clarify... as a child I swore over my life that green beans were the most horrid thing on earth. As I grew into maturity, I eventually tried them and decided they weren't all that bad. A child says this is right or wrong over his own limited perception. That is why I put so much weight in Lee Strobel's work. He tried and tested both sides of the equation and found one to be truth for him. He is man of true wisdom.

Until any of you get over your bias and answer me straightly, all the physical evidence in the world i can sincerely care less about.

The question isn't general. It can relate to both of your 'religions'; Christianity and evolution. I simply wanted a viewpoint. Not to be bombarded with more questions. You may also email me if this conversation is desired to continue.

Laura said: On another note, after reading the last third of your comments, I am fully a woman. lol. I don't know how that came up.

Evolution claims that no god exists and the asking of that question really hurts my head. Please explain to me what you mean.

Laura,

If you want an honest viewpoint I'll give you two:

(1) Either the earth goes around the sun or Jesus died for your sins

(2) If you are not familiar with the evidence then you don't have the right to an opinion

By the way, do you by chance know a guy named Bobby? You two would get along famously.

Stanton said: If you actually took the time to look in a book about animals, you would know that HUMANS ARE APES.

Stanton said: Furthermore, if "'evolutionizing'" does not occur, then please explain how antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been able to spontaneously appear.

Bobert: Only the minority of experts who prefer to use the paraphyletic classification scheme. And none of them dispute that humans are primates, closely related to other modern primates (especially other apes). Only an unreasonable or uninformed person could dispute that.

Wheels said: Bobert: Only the minority of experts who prefer to use the paraphyletic classification scheme. And none of them dispute that humans are primates, closely related to other modern primates (especially other apes). Only an unreasonable or uninformed person could dispute that.

Well, you're so picky about what you will and will not accept from science that it's hard to tell sometimes.

Robert O'Brien said:

Stanton said: If you actually took the time to look in a book about animals, you would know that HUMANS ARE APES.

If you took the time to survey the literature, you would know that classification is NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED.

Stanton said: Furthermore, if "'evolutionizing'" does not occur, then please explain how antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been able to spontaneously appear.

If by "evolution" you are only referring to a change in allele frequencies over time, then, yes, evolution is readily observable. However, antibiotic-resistant bacteria != common descent.

Stanton said: Literature by who says that the classification isn't universally accepted? And how are humans not apes when they share 99% DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos, and are placed in the family Hominidae, which happens to be the same biological family all the great apes, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and bonobo, are placed in?

Stanton said: Oh, wait, you're talking about the Creationists. Tell me again how the Creationists have a say in Biology and why do they have a say in Biology when they don't do any science whatsoever?

Stanton said: I wasn't using antibiotic-resistant bacteria as an example of common descent: I was using antibiotic-resistant bacteria as an example of evolution that is easily observed, and that is occurring right now.

Robert O'Brien said:

Stanton said: Literature by who says that the classification isn't universally accepted? And how are humans not apes when they share 99% DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos, and are placed in the family Hominidae, which happens to be the same biological family all the great apes, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and bonobo, are placed in?

Actually, I think it is 95%, which is impressive until you learn that we share ~90% of our DNA with rats.

Stanton said: Oh, wait, you're talking about the Creationists. Tell me again how the Creationists have a say in Biology and why do they have a say in Biology when they don't do any science whatsoever?

It's not only creationists who object to that classification.

Stanton said: I wasn't using antibiotic-resistant bacteria as an example of common descent: I was using antibiotic-resistant bacteria as an example of evolution that is easily observed, and that is occurring right now.

That's good, but you know as well as I do that people who object to "evolution" actually object to common descent, especially the alleged common descent of apes and humans.

We are about 96% genetically identical with chimpanzees.

Do you have a source for the rat comparison? Because it would be very weird for humans to be so similar to rats when the difference between rats and mice is about ten times larger than then difference between humans and chimps.

Wheels said: We are about 96% genetically identical with chimpanzees. Do you have a source for the rat comparison? Because it would be very weird for humans to be so similar to rats when the difference between rats and mice is about ten times larger than then difference between humans and chimps.

It appears I stated it incorrectly:

Man has 2.9 billion bases, the chemical 'rungs' that make up the code, while the rat has 2.75 billion. The rat's cousin, the mouse, has 2.6 billion. Each species has about 30,000 genes.

In all three species, about 40% of the genome is inherited from a common ancestor, a creature that millions of years ago that was the ancestor of all mammals today.

Because of this legacy, almost all human genes that are associated with diseases have counterparts in the rat genome, and as many 90% of rat genes have a human counterpart.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/04/01/1078726.htm?site=science&topic=health

Bobert: So you realize that this is significantly different from what you claimed?

One thing that my Molecular Biology teacher told the class was that the human genes that correspond with chimpanzee genes were, for the most part, identical, and that the only difference between these genes was that each species excised different introns during post-transcription.

Robert wrote:

"In all three species, about 40% of the genome is inherited from a common ancestor, a creature that millions of years ago that was the ancestor of all mammals today."

"Because of this legacy, almost all human genes that are associated with diseases have counterparts in the rat genome, and as many 90% of rat genes have a human counterpart."

OK. So much for people who don't believe in common descent. Also, so much for prople who think that evolution is not important for medicine. Perhaps those people should acquaint themselves with these facts. Unless of course they have a better explanation for the observed pattern.

Laura said: ...I need a viewpoint; specifically your viewpoint on "god". If there is one. The question on 'which one?' confuses me with your beliefs. Evolution claims that no god exists and the asking of that question really hurts my head. Please explain to me what you mean.

Paul Burnett said: And when you say "Evolution claims that no god exists" exactly what definition of "evolution" are you using?

Surely you can understand that we cannot answer your questions until we know what the terms you are using mean.

jobbyTroll said: If the term evolution has many definitions should not better terms be used by biologists to describe these concepts?

jobby said"If the term evolution has many definitions should not better terms be used by biologists to describe these concepts? "

But the only thing that went throught the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was "Oh, no, not again."

jobby said:

Paul Burnett said:

jobby said"If the term evolution has many definitions should not better terms be used by biologists to describe these concepts? "

The person asking the question purports to be an innocent pilgrim - not a biologist - and we are trying to get a definition out of "her." For that matter, "jobby," what is your definition of the term?

OK what is the correct definition of evolution?? You complain that the 'creationists' use improper defs. Clear this all up and tell everyone what the correct def is.

jobbyTroll said:

Paul Burnett said:

jobbyTroll said:"If the term evolution has many definitions should not better terms be used by biologists to describe these concepts? "

The person asking the question purports to be an innocent pilgrim - not a biologist - and we are trying to get a definition out of "her." For that matter, "jobby," what is your definition of the term?

OK what is the correct definition of evolution?? You complain that the 'creationists' use improper defs. Clear this all up and tell everyone what the correct def is.

This is getting obnoxious.

I thought "jobby" was banned. Can't someone at least move his/her posts, and any that feed them, to the BW?

Even Talk.Origins is getting infested with that troll from Alt.Talk.Creationism (the "trailer park" version of TO).

BTW, apologies for insulting trailer parks.

Fuck you and your perpetual cranial rectal inversion Jobby. Go report us as a pron site if you like, but just go. Your understanding of science is stuck at a kindergarten level, and will clearly never change no matter what anyone says.

Frank J said: This is getting obnoxious. I thought "jobby" was banned. Can't someone at least move his/her posts, and any that feed them, to the BW? Even Talk.Origins is getting infested with that troll from Alt.Talk.Creationism (the "trailer park" version of TO).

Frank J said: I thought "jobby" was banned.

PT is totally ineffectual at bans.

Henry J said: It's as if all the experts in that area work for the opposition...

It's also as if the admins here don't like the idea of banning, but have to do something when the blog gets a poster who has nothing to say but posts lots of replies saying it. Of course, the problem with saying nothing is figuring out when one is done.

Henry

iml8 said: Heh! From what I hear of UNCOMMON DESCENT, when you get banned -- you are HISTORY, period!

jobby said: Its because they are smarter and UD.

first strike missile launching capabilities against our soldiers stationed in the Middle East

'First strike' is short for first strike capabilities. It refers to a nuclear power's ability to strike first at another nuclear power with sufficient success so that the losses from the counterattack are "acceptable". First strike is non-sensical when refering to tactical situations. Live and learn, John.