All is not (yet) lost in Texas

For those interested, here is a link to my "Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine" site, as it appears that the link on Dr. Walker's campaign website is currently dead.

http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/

And yes, I have emailed Dr. Walker to let him know.

It is wonderfully written.

Now if only Rick Perry could read.

Dr. Walker, you have provided a clarity to this topic that I've always desired but have always found to be somewhat lacking. I'm a chemical engineer and may be woefully ignorant but please believe me when I say that I know brilliance when I see it. Thank you Dr. Walker. You've literally brought a tear to my eye.

Jeremy Mohn said: For those interested, here is a link to my "Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine" site, as it appears that the link on Dr. Walker's campaign website is currently dead. http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/ And yes, I have emailed Dr. Walker to let him know.

This may be old news, but McLeroy has apparently angered a few Senators in Texas.

Dr. Walker wrote:

"Imposing a false ambiguity on these facts makes mockery of the precious drops of knowledge which mankind has slowly wrung out of the natural world. It is pure scientific retreat, not progress."

Good science may lose in the court of public opinion and no one can stop the insincerely pious from perpetrating their falsehoods on an unsuspecting public. But this is how the debate must be framed. It is good science versus academic fraud. It is centuries of hard work and intellectual honesty versus deliberate lies and willful ignorance. It is progress versus stagnation and retreat into ultimate oblivion. This is NOT religion versus atheism, that is another fight for another day perhaps best left to other soldiers. Besides, if the charlatans are right and acceptance of evolution inevitably leads to atheism, then that is a battle that might never need to be fought anyway. We can survive in a world of differing religious ideologies. We might not be able to survive in a world where knowledge is not valued and science is outlawed.

DS said: Good science may lose in the court of public opinion and no one can stop the insincerely pious from perpetrating their falsehoods on an unsuspecting public. But this is how the debate must be framed. It is good science versus academic fraud. It is centuries of hard work and intellectual honesty versus deliberate lies and willful ignorance. It is progress versus stagnation and retreat into ultimate oblivion. This is NOT religion versus atheism, that is another fight for another day perhaps best left to other soldiers. Besides, if the charlatans are right and acceptance of evolution inevitably leads to atheism, then that is a battle that might never need to be fought anyway. We can survive in a world of differing religious ideologies. We might not be able to survive in a world where knowledge is not valued and science is outlawed.

DS said: We can survive in a world of differing religious ideologies. We might not be able to survive in a world where knowledge is not valued and science is outlawed.

Ken,

Thanks. But do you have to spell "arguement" correctly in order to win one?

Oh, I almost forgot: 1111111 7!

And in an attempt to reconcile our differences: 777777 42!

A man who will not fairly discern the printed word cannot be trusted to do better by the record written in the stars above us, in the Earth beneath us, or on the code of life within us.

Walker's piece was both intellectually and rhetorically brilliant. I'm sure voting for him -- oh, wait, you have to live in Texas. Never mind.

But this being Panda's Thumb, a little pedantry is never out of place. His time scale is slightly garbled. It's not the Cambrian that began around 600 million years ago, but the (known) history of metazoan life. The Cambrian didn't come along until 543 million years ago. And once he says "a hundred millennia" when he means "a few hundred million years". Trivial, but I had to mention it.

Dr. Walker is yet another example pointing to the existence of some intellectual sanity amongst our fellow Republicans. I hope he wins election to his local school board.

I'm a former Republican who left the party when it became dominated by anti-science religious nuts and politicians who pander to them. It is refreshing to see that pro-science Republicans -- perhaps cut from Goldwater's cloth -- are not yet extinct.

Legislators may strip education board of power Bipartisan criticism sidelines confirmation of chairman. By Kate Alexander AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Friday, May 01, 2009 The legislative session so far has not been kind to the State Board of Education. Senate confirmation of Board Chairman Don McLeroy, R-College Station, is dead in the water, the Nominations Committee chairman said Thursday...

DS said: But this is how the debate must be framed. It is good science versus academic fraud. It is centuries of hard work and intellectual honesty versus deliberate lies and willful ignorance. It is progress versus stagnation and retreat into ultimate oblivion. This is NOT religion versus atheism, that is another fight for another day perhaps best left to other soldiers.

A few weeks ago, while responding to comments claiming that the US public favors creationism, I predicted that McElroy would not hold power much longer.

I based my prediction on the straightforward observation that school board official advocating creationism have ALWAYS not only lost in court, but been democratically removed from office as well.

By the way, it is nice that a theoretical physicist who is also a Republican does not deny science. Undeniably, some distinguished scientists and well-informed lay people are Republican, and/or hold conservative views.

An alternate way of avoiding science-denying candidates is to vote for one of the candidates who is not Republican, whether they are theoretical physicists or not. Although not all Republicans deny science, of course, and not all creationist voters are Republican, of course, essentially all science-denying officials who currently hold office are Republican. That's just another straightforward observation. Prove me wrong by drawing my attention to a Democrat or third party candidate who advocates science denial in public schools.

Wow. That essay is a treasure, and so is Dr. Walker. May his voice be heard far beyond College Station, Texas. Thanks for posting that.

Mike Elzinga said: The “Christian” wrong are already copycat-framing the next war they are starting... One reads in fiction how “Evil” portrays itself as “Good” in their eternal metaphorical warfare within humans. There is no question that this framing will dominate the next round in the culture wars. These fundamentalists are now attempting to portray themselves as the “enlightenment”. Ironic.

harold said: A few weeks ago, while responding to comments claiming that the US public favors creationism, I predicted that McElroy would not hold power much longer. I based my prediction on the straightforward observation that school board official advocating creationism have ALWAYS not only lost in court, but been democratically removed from office as well. By the way, it is nice that a theoretical physicist who is also a Republican does not deny science. Undeniably, some distinguished scientists and well-informed lay people are Republican, and/or hold conservative views. An alternate way of avoiding science-denying candidates is to vote for one of the candidates who is not Republican, whether they are theoretical physicists or not. Although not all Republicans deny science, of course, and not all creationist voters are Republican, of course, essentially all science-denying officials who currently hold office are Republican. That's just another straightforward observation. Prove me wrong by drawing my attention to a Democrat or third party candidate who advocates science denial in public schools.

harold: Prove me wrong by drawing my attention to a Democrat or third party candidate who advocates science denial in public schools.

Consider the disturbing views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I don't know whether HIV conspiracy theorists tend to advocate for the teaching of their "theory" in public schools, but there's no good reason to doubt it. I think it's insane to believe that anti-science activity is vastly more common among Republicans. Anti-evolution activity? Probably. But anti-science? No way.

although not all Republicans deny science, of course, and not all creationist voters are Republican, of course, essentially all science-denying officials who currently hold office are Republican. That’s just another straightforward observation. Prove me wrong by drawing my attention to a Democrat or third party candidate who advocates science denial in public schools.

One of the best known examples of a Democrat who strongly believes in creationism is US Senator Mark Prior (Or is it Pryor?) from Arkansas.

Although not all Republicans deny science, of course, and not all creationist voters are Republican

Moreover, since two-thirds of Americans either reject or have serious doubts about evolution, then that means that there are substantially more Democrats and Independents who are Evolution Denialists than there are Republicans (which recent polls indicate that only 20% of Americans now declare themselves as such).

It is rather presumptuous of you to state that this:

Kenneth Bagalley writes.... There are three mutually supporting steps to defeating this posturing:...

Charles Johnson of LGF says Walker is a Lizardoid:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33512_Creationist_Opponent_and_Pro-Science_Lizard_Runs_for_Texas_School_Board

Not a good sign, since LGF is a bigoted blog (though not as bigoted as many other so-called "anti-jihad" blogs). Still, I wish Dr. Walker luck.

Steve Matheson -

Your own example - HIV denial - works against you; it is more associated with the political right.

Human contribution to climate change denial, condom/STD relationship denial, smoking/health risk denial, impact of nuclear war denial, exaggerated claims about gay pedophilia, evolution denial, HIV denial - all MORE CONCENTRATED on the political right

In fact, I add "denial of the association of the US political right wing with science denial" to the list of science denials. It certainly denies observable reality.

The straw-man reply is always "You said that every single right winger denies all science, therefore one example of one right winger who does not deny one aspect of science disproves your point".

Sorry, that is not what I said. Timothy Sandefur frequently links to right wing sources that "defend evolution"; invariably, the same sources deny some other major scientific finding, and invariably, the comments sections are filled with angry evolution-denying retorts from right wing readers (where comments are allowed).

I said there is an obvious ASSOCIATION of science denial with the US political right.

I understand that you, Timothy Sandefur, John Kwok, Mememic Bottleneck, and Frank J support the political right in one form or another, and don't deny science, or at least, not evolution (in the case of John Kwok and Frank J, I acknowledge strong understanding and articulate defense of mainstream science overall).

Nevertheless, there is an ASSOCIATION.

Using specific examples to deny a statistical association is literally the same as using examples of non-smokers with lung cancer and smokers without lung cancer to deny that relationship.

McLeroy Gets a Dressing Down May 1, 2009 By Lee Nichols "You've created a hornet's nest like I've never seen here." That was El Paso Sen. Eliot Shapleigh's none-too-subtle way of suggesting to State Board of Education Chair Don McLeroy that his renomination to the position may be in jeopardy. Shapleigh pointed out that there are at least 15 bills currently before the Legislature to strip the SBOE of some of its policy-making powers. And predictably, McLeroy – testifying before the Senate Nominations Committee last week – didn't take the hint. (the rest of the article is at http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A774689 )

Harold, you seem to think that the way to convince me of the truth of your claim is to RETYPE IT IN ALL CAPS, attack strawmen in responses to what you claim are -- this is really funny -- strawmen, and assert that I "support the political right." Amidst this avalanche of bovine excrement are some redirections of the original assertion but no evidence in its support. My friend, I don't believe that there is a vast difference between Republicans and Democrats in the abuse and denial of science. (A difference, perhaps, but not the huge one you assert.) If you want to marshal evidence in favor of this claim, I'll gladly consider it, but you are so cluelessly careless that I won't hold my breath.

stevaroni said:

Kenneth Bagalley writes.... There are three mutually supporting steps to defeating this posturing:...

I always try to add a 4th point. I cut right to the chase, and ask them to assume Darwin never existed. Now, how does their answer explain all the evidence? Exactly how does their model explain fossils of dinosaurs?

Harold, you seem to think that the way to convince me of the truth of your claim is to RETYPE IT IN ALL CAPS,

attack strawmen in responses to what you claim are – this is really funny – strawmen,

and assert that I “support the political right.”

Amidst this avalanche of bovine excrement are some redirections of the original assertion but no evidence in its support.

My friend,

I don’t believe that there is a vast difference between Republicans and Democrats in the abuse and denial of science. (A difference, perhaps, but not the huge one you assert.)

If you want to marshal evidence in favor of this claim, I’ll gladly consider it,

but you are so cluelessly careless that I won’t hold my breath.

Mike Elzinga said: Then, by chance, I flipped past one of the religion channels and stumbled onto a high-angst discussion with a Liberty Law School lawyer about all the horrible things that are going to happen to this country when Souter is replaced.

stevaroni said: I always try to add a 4th point. I cut right to the chase, and ask them to assume Darwin never existed. Now, how does their answer explain all the evidence? Exactly how does their model explain fossils of dinosaurs? Exactly how does their model explain the long dead half-ape half-man creatures that regularly get dug up all over Africa. They always try to to steer me back to complaining about evolution, but I can usually re-rail them with "No, just assume Darwin and evolution never existed. What does your explanation say about Archeopteryx, a half-bird, half-reptile found nowhere on earth today?" This usually works because creationists usually want to witness, and , really, this is a fair line of questioning - just give me your side of the story. But if you keep pressing for details (nobody in their flock ever does) the answers will never make sense. Eventually, they're explaining something totally absurd to me, like God allowed the Devil to bury the dinosaurs and cavemen, which never actually lived in the first place, specifically to decieve us. Which, at some point, will start sounding stupid, even to them. You can usually actually see the point where it starts to cross their mind that their explanation is starting to sound really dumb. At this point, they will invariably change the subject.

I don’t know how effective I am at this, but I tend to agree with your approach. .... I recognize that strict ID-advocates say that they have no responsibility to offer explanations for anything. But maybe others would at least wonder about this.

Steve Matheson -

Both of our posts got angry and insulting.

I'm going to make an offer here - let's tone down the insulting language.

I strongly stand by my basic point.

Plenty of rational people have conservative or right wing views on economic and social policy. I don't agree with those people, obviously, but that's fine. It's a free country.

I'm a political independent. I support one major party right now because it is close enough to my core opinions.

Although plenty of rational people support right wing or conservative policies without denying science, for one reason or another...

And although there are whacky science deniers across the political spectrum...

There is currently a strong association with science denial in general, and actual science denying public policy in particular, and the US political right.

I think that association is undeniable. I give hard evidence in my posts above.

I understand that, for example, ostensible liberals in Santa Fe believe in aliens and the healing power of crystals (I understand that well, because I lived in Albuquerque for two years), but I don't care much about that. It doesn't affect me. It's also, for what it's worth, not a direct denial of science. I can't disprove that aliens visit, for example.

Opposition to stem cell research, attempts to put creationism in public schools, opposition to active policy on human contribution to climate change, policy based on denial or censorship of basic facts about condoms and birth control, and so on - that does affect me, because it occurs at the level of public policy.

The association is there.

I happen to disagree with Bobby Jindal about evolution AND economics. If someone only disagrees with him about evolution, that may be uncomfortable. But uncomfortable or not, the association is there.

Stevaroni -

Your approach is a great one.

It does have to be combined with a traditional knowledge of creationist tactics and claims.

Remember, only the most honest, overtly YEC creationists will actually try to present and defend Biblical literalism in a direct way.

The more common tactic is the Dishonest Institute approved approach "I don't know what happened, but I know that it wasn't evolution, because (...straw man version of evolution followed by dishonest objections to evolution...). Therefore, since I just 'proved' that it 'wasn't evolution', it 'could have been anything', so creationist claims are as valid as any other claims".

So we need to constantly remind that -

1) We have an explanation that makes sense

2) Honestly asserted Biblical literalist explanations don't make sense, AND...

3) False claims to "disprove" the explanation that makes sense are irrelevant and dishonest.

harold said: Prove me wrong by drawing my attention to a Democrat or third party candidate who advocates science denial in public schools.

TomS said:

stevaroni said:

Kenneth Bagalley writes.... There are three mutually supporting steps to defeating this posturing:...

I always try to add a 4th point. I cut right to the chase, and ask them to assume Darwin never existed. Now, how does their answer explain all the evidence? Exactly how does their model explain fossils of dinosaurs?

I don't know how effective I am at this, but I tend to agree with your approach. In fact, I think that it is preferable to the first three mentioned by Kenneth... I recognize that strict ID-advocates say that they have no responsibility to offer explanations for anything. But maybe others would at least wonder about this.

Thanks for the advise. I’m always afraid that someone may throw some anti-evolution mumbo jumbo at me that I can’t immediately refute like, “Well Mr. Darwinist, how do you explain the fact that the flagella on a three toed hippo is indistinguishable from that of a platypus! There got you!”

— waynef

polloi said: Charles Johnson of LGF says Walker is a Lizardoid: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33512_Creationist_Opponent_and_Pro-Science_Lizard_Runs_for_Texas_School_Board Not a good sign, since LGF is a bigoted blog (though not as bigoted as many other so-called "anti-jihad" blogs). Still, I wish Dr. Walker luck.

polloi said: Charles Johnson of LGF says Walker is a Lizardoid: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33512_Creationist_Opponent_and_Pro-Science_Lizard_Runs_for_Texas_School_Board Not a good sign, since LGF is a bigoted blog (though not as bigoted as many other so-called "anti-jihad" blogs). Still, I wish Dr. Walker luck.

And don’t forget, always phrase it in the form of a specific question. “Prove that the Great Flood happened” is an attack.

— stevaroni

Wayne wrote:

"I’m always afraid that someone may throw some anti-evolution mumbo jumbo at me that I can’t immediately refute like, “Well Mr. Darwinist, how do you explain the fact that the flagella on a three toed hippo is indistinguishable from that of a platypus! There got you!”

In fact, that's exactly what they are usually hoping for when they pull this nonsense. However you usually have at least four advantages when they try to pull this routine:

1) They probably don't know what they are talking about.

All you have to do is ask a few pointed questions in order to reveal their ignorance. For example, if they say "The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex" just ask them, which one? Are they all IR, even the ones that are missing some parts? Are they different from eukaryotic flagella, are those IR as well? Usually all you will get in return are blank stares.

2) They probably aren't saying anything original.

Creationists haven't come up with any new arguments in nearly 150 years. They usually just trot all of the same old nonsense that has already been refuted dozens of times. It is relatively easy to have scientific references ready for most of the more common claims. Even if you don't know the answer, it's probably somewhere in the Talk Origins archive which has a search feature, so you can always refer them there. Because they don't bother to do any science they usually don't have anything new or original to talk about.

3) They probably aren't familiar with most of the evidence.

All you have to do is say that you aren't familiar with that particular issue but you are familiar with the scientific consensus. Ask them how they explain all of the other evidence, not just that one little piece of minutae. After all, if all it takes is one thing you can't explain in order for them to win, then the same thing must be true for you as well. Usually they don't bother to study any real biology, so it shouldn't be hard to stump them if that's supposed to be the name of the game.

Good luck.

Ben Nevers, Louisiana state senator and Democrat, introduced the “Louisiana Science Education” stealth creationism bill eventually signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal. Nevers was acting on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum (affiliated with Focus on the Family). Gary Siplin, Florida state senator and Democrat, voted for Florida’s academic freedom bill, helping it win the razor-thin margin it needed to pass (fortunately it was never signed into law).

Although the influence of the Religious Right - and its advocacy of science denial in public schools - is primarily within the GOP, it’s not exclusive, especially at the state and local level; one must always be vigilant in learning a candidate’s positions.

In other words, I see the root cause as an underlying influence like the RR rather than party affiliation per se.

DS said: All you have to do is ask a few pointed questions in order to reveal their ignorance. For example, if they say "The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex" just ask them, which one? Are they all IR, even the ones that are missing some parts? Are they different from eukaryotic flagella, are those IR as well? Usually all you will get in return are blank stares. Good luck.

harold said: Little Green Footballs is a climate change denial site. Be sure to read the comments section. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/24760_The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle/comments/#ctop Praise for Walker may be premature. I have never in my life denied well-documented, evidence-supported scientific reality, regardless of my subjective political beliefs. I consider doing so a sign of poor character. We have at least some conservatives here who don't arbitrarily deny well-documented scientific evidence.

Wayne,

Sorry if I was obtuse. The only point I was trying to make was that there is no such thing as "the bacterial flagellum", there are actually thousands of different types. Some of them are missing parts and none has the same structure as a flagelllum from a non-bacterial cell. Creationists never seem to be aware of these simple facts.

If you go to talkorigins.org and serarch the archive using the term "bacterial flagellum" the first hit is an excellent article that explains all of this. Of course you can always come here and find experts lurking at just about any time of the day or night. There are many here who would gladly help in your fight against the forces of ignorance.

Here are some commonly used sound bites you might want to be prepared for:

The second law of thermodynamics means evolution is impossible
There are no transitional fossils
Mutations cannot be beneficial
Natural selection cannot create new information
Speciation has never been observed
Microevolution is OK but macroevolution is not
Dinosaurs coexisted with humans

Once again, good luck.

Charles -

If the webmaster of LGF has belatedly come to his senses on this issue, I'm glad to hear it.

I couldn't really deduce what he was saying from the links I was able to wade through.

I'm delighted to modify my original statement to "LGF was a climate change denial site that eventually accepted the evidence", if that is indeed the case. Could someone please clarify that with a single link in which he voices his own opinion?

I'll note that the lovers of the site themselves promote it as a novelty "right wing site that doesn't deny science". That speaks volumes.

I would never support any political candidate who attempted to put science-denying policy into place. There are plenty of choices.

But of course, "not trying to put policy that denies scientific reality into place" is a pretty minimal standard. It's not as if anyone is obliged to support some party they disagree with, because that very minimal standard of sanity is met. That's just a basic standard for sanity. If you don't meet it, you're ruled out.

waynef:

You might try these books to supplement your PT blog immersion:

Monkey Girl - Edward Humes

Only A Theory - Kenneth Miller

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design - Barbara Forrest/Paul Gross

The Devil in Dover - Lauri Lebo

Amazon's got 'em all, as would any respectable library.

@harold
"I would never support any political candidate who attempted to put science-denying policy into place. There are plenty of choices."

Are there? In Texas? Opposing Don McLeroy?

LGFers above claim that since Charles Johnson condemns explicitly pro-fascist blogs that must mean that he himself and his blog are not bigoted. Well, well, well, where have I heard this logic before? Perhaps when those hate-bloggers whom Johnson condemns were justifying their association with Trifkovic by pointing to his anti-Milosevic articles?

The simple fact is that:

1. LGF is racist. If people who use the term "Jew York" (esp. in negative context) are antisemitic, then people who use the term "Eurabia" (esp. in negative context) are anti-Arabic.

2. LGF has (or at least had) a filter which replaces "raghead" with "Arab" in comments in order to limit the exposure of the commenters' racism. Kinda shows what sort of trash goes to comment there.

And the comments are very vile, sometimes genocidal, some examples here.

And, of course, the classic:

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/

And yes, Johnson is responsible. Censorship at LGF is notoriously strict and Johnson is quick to delete messages which piss him off.

Anyway, while Johnson is racist (see below), we're talking specifically about the community of commenters ("Lizards") here, since one of them is Dr. Walker.

3. A little exercise. In the following please replace "Arab" with "Jew" and see if you can still honestly claim that LGF is not racist (these are not comments, these are Johnson's posts):

I thought Pahlavi was hated in those circles; but I guess they wouldn’t be Arabs without the ability to hold dozens of contradictory opinions simultaneously.

Arab Child Abuse

George Galloway, the pro-Arab, pro-Saddam, pro-terrorist British MP

4. Care to tell me how this is any different from this?

Don't go around telling this "LGF is not bigoted" BS until you address this.

My 10 year old son is being enrolled in a strict Christian School next year (not my choice but that’s a different and very long story) and I have chosen to educate myself so that I can provide an effective counter balance for him.

— waynef

polloi said: LGFers above claim that since Charles Johnson condemns explicitly pro-fascist blogs that must mean that he himself and his blog are not bigoted. Well, well, well, where have I heard this logic before? Perhaps when those hate-bloggers whom Johnson condemns were justifying their association with Trifkovic by pointing to his anti-Milosevic articles? The simple fact is that: 1. LGF is racist. If people who use the term "Jew York" (esp. in negative context) are antisemitic, then people who use the term "Eurabia" (esp. in negative context) are anti-Arabic. 2. LGF has (or at least had) a filter which replaces "raghead" with "Arab" in comments in order to limit the exposure of the commenters' racism. Kinda shows what sort of trash goes to comment there. And the comments are very vile, sometimes genocidal, some examples here. And, of course, the classic: http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/ And yes, Johnson is responsible. Censorship at LGF is notoriously strict and Johnson is quick to delete messages which piss him off. Anyway, while Johnson is racist (see below), we're talking specifically about the community of commenters ("Lizards") here, since one of them is Dr. Walker. 3. A little exercise. In the following please replace "Arab" with "Jew" and see if you can still honestly claim that LGF is not racist (these are not comments, these are Johnson's posts): I thought Pahlavi was hated in those circles; but I guess they wouldn’t be Arabs without the ability to hold dozens of contradictory opinions simultaneously. Arab Child Abuse George Galloway, the pro-Arab, pro-Saddam, pro-terrorist British MP 4. Care to tell me how this is any different from this? Don't go around telling this "LGF is not bigoted" BS until you address this.

polloi said: LGFers above claim that since Charles Johnson condemns explicitly pro-fascist blogs that must mean that he himself and his blog are not bigoted. Well, well, well, where have I heard this logic before? Perhaps when those hate-bloggers whom Johnson condemns were justifying their association with Trifkovic by pointing to his anti-Milosevic articles? The simple fact is that: 1. LGF is racist. If people who use the term "Jew York" (esp. in negative context) are antisemitic, then people who use the term "Eurabia" (esp. in negative context) are anti-Arabic. 2. LGF has (or at least had) a filter which replaces "raghead" with "Arab" in comments in order to limit the exposure of the commenters' racism. Kinda shows what sort of trash goes to comment there. And the comments are very vile, sometimes genocidal, some examples here. And, of course, the classic: http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/ And yes, Johnson is responsible. Censorship at LGF is notoriously strict and Johnson is quick to delete messages which piss him off. Anyway, while Johnson is racist (see below), we're talking specifically about the community of commenters ("Lizards") here, since one of them is Dr. Walker. 3. A little exercise. In the following please replace "Arab" with "Jew" and see if you can still honestly claim that LGF is not racist (these are not comments, these are Johnson's posts): I thought Pahlavi was hated in those circles; but I guess they wouldn’t be Arabs without the ability to hold dozens of contradictory opinions simultaneously. Arab Child Abuse George Galloway, the pro-Arab, pro-Saddam, pro-terrorist British MP 4. Care to tell me how this is any different from this? Don't go around telling this "LGF is not bigoted" BS until you address this.

Frank J said: * Does anyone else find it odd that IDers, who claim that ID is not creationism, always demand "supplemental resources" for classes that teach evolution, but never for classes that teach creationism??

I have been reading the LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS site for years. Charles Johnson does an excellent job of providing a site where very important, controversial issues can be discussed and crazy people are quickly banished. Topics include everything from politics, religion, immigration, economics, culture, to food recipes and wine ratings.

LGF is a very relevant site and it is closely monitored for hate speech. Remarks that promote the banning of certain religion, mass exportation or extermination of certain ethnic or religious groups, or any kind of violence or immediately scrubbed.

Issues are examined. It is impossible to do this without expressing opinions. Just because your opinion is different from mine does not mean that you are bigot.

Some say that Mr. Johnson is a censor. It is true that he monitors his site in order to prevent hijacking by crazy people promoting violence or the abolition of American values. Mr. Johnson intends to preserver LGF as a relevant blog, not a fringe blog for maniacs.

If Mr. Johnson is a bigot then I am a two-headed alien from Mars.

harold said: James F -

Ben Nevers, Louisiana state senator and Democrat, introduced the “Louisiana Science Education” stealth creationism bill eventually signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal. Nevers was acting on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum (affiliated with Focus on the Family). Gary Siplin, Florida state senator and Democrat, voted for Florida’s academic freedom bill, helping it win the razor-thin margin it needed to pass (fortunately it was never signed into law).

I acknowledge these counter-examples; in fact one was already pointed out to me. As I noted above, these are deep south conservative Democrats. The Democrats most similar to Republicans. That doesn't change the reality of the examples, but it is a point worth noting.

Although the influence of the Religious Right - and its advocacy of science denial in public schools - is primarily within the GOP, it’s not exclusive, especially at the state and local level; one must always be vigilant in learning a candidate’s positions.

I could not agree more strongly.

In other words, I see the root cause as an underlying influence like the RR rather than party affiliation per se.

That is certainly the case where creationism, stem cell research opposition, HIV denial, and science-denying stances related to contraception are concerned. Human contribution to climate change denial seems to come from different sources; mainly short-sighted business interests. (For the record I am an entrepreneur and investor, I am not "anti-business" by any means.) However, it seems to influence mainly the same political party. Little Green Footballs is a climate change denial site. Be sure to read the comments section. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/24760_The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle/comments/#ctop Praise for Walker may be premature. I have never in my life denied well-documented, evidence-supported scientific reality, regardless of my subjective political beliefs. I consider doing so a sign of poor character. We have at least some conservatives here who don't arbitrarily deny well-documented scientific evidence.

stevaroni said:

I don’t know how effective I am at this, but I tend to agree with your approach. .... I recognize that strict ID-advocates say that they have no responsibility to offer explanations for anything. But maybe others would at least wonder about this.

And don't forget, always phrase it in the form of a specific question. "Prove that the Great Flood happened" is an attack. But if you ask "Now, here's the problem I have - Noah lands on Ararat in 2000BC, right? So how did people get to the New World in big enough numbers to create huge empires in Central America only 300 years later? There's no evidence people could sail those distances before the Vikings, and even if they did sail why didn't they bring their middle eastern cultures with them like the Polynesians did in the Pacific? Heck, for that matter, why do recent relatives just plain look so different anyhow?"

That is a simple question. Heck - in a world where the Bible is correct, it's not even a "gotcha". There should be a simple answer, easy enough for a layman to understand. If there isn't, that says a lot. Oh - and you're going to hear weasel words like "Well, it could have been ...". Hold up a hand and immediately cut it off with a polite "But there's no evidence for that". I, um, use that phrase a lot down here in Texas.

There are credible scientists who don’t accept the evidence for global warming (I think it’s sound data, but there’s one former professor of mine from my undergraduate geology department who strongly disagrees, and he is also a noted paleoclimatologist.), starting with physicist Freeman Dyson.

There are also many moderates and liberals who are Evolution Denialists.

Here’s the link to the conversation that physicist Lisa Randall had with the liberal Obama supporter who rejects the evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens:

Toidel Mahoney said:

Actually, it was 2348 BC according to Ussher's chronology, so you are merely beating up on a straw man--they had 348 more years to make the trek. How do you know what sort of technologies they had? Even in ancient Egypt the pyramids had to be constructed with some sort of advanced machinery beyond what was thought to exist at that time, not to mention the Nazca lines in Peru that could not have been drawn without aerial oversight. Finally, you assume based on the question-begging assumptions of evolutionism that Meso-American civilizations existed in 1700 BC. All we really know is that they were there when the Spanish explorers found them. Everything that happened before then is mere speculation.

Try spelling out the population growth of the world from 8 people in 2348 BCE up to the times of various ancient civilzations - Mesoamerica, Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, Nile Valley. Give us numbers and dates. Not just some vague talk about imagined technologies and claims about what you think is impossible. Let's not talk about what you think is impossible, let's hear what you think happened and when. How many descendants of Noah set off for China, for Australia, for Sub-Saharan Africa, and everywhere else? That's what we're talking about - the creationists don't have anything substantive to offer. If you want to invoke magic technologies, don't pull a creationist on us by telling us that magic technologies can do anything, so that anything is possible. Tell us what these magic technologies did do, how they did it, where and when they did it, and who used them.

Frank J said: AIUI, most "Strict Christian Schools" teach only evolution (& probably better than public schools). But if you mean "fundamentalist" school, be sure to find out if they teach Biblical creationism - and if so which of the mutually contradictory versions - or the "don't ask, don't tell" approach that merely promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution, and lets the student infer his own alternative.

TomS meant to say:

Toidel Mahoney said:

Actually, it was 2348 BC according to Ussher's chronology, so you are merely beating up on a straw man--they had 348 more years to make the trek. How do you know what sort of technologies they had? Even in ancient Egypt the pyramids had to be constructed with some sort of advanced machinery beyond what was thought to exist at that time, not to mention the Nazca lines in Peru that could not have been drawn without aerial oversight. Finally, you assume based on the question-begging assumptions of evolutionism that Meso-American civilizations existed in 1700 BC. All we really know is that they were there when the Spanish explorers found them. Everything that happened before then is mere speculation.

Try spelling out the population growth of the world from 8 people in 2348 BCE up to the times of various ancient civilzations - Mesoamerica, Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, Nile Valley. Give us numbers and dates. Not just some vague talk about imagined technologies and claims about what you think is impossible. Let's not talk about what you think is impossible, let's hear what you think happened and when. How many descendants of Noah set off for China, for Australia, for Sub-Saharan Africa, and everywhere else? That's what we're talking about - the creationists don't have anything substantive to offer. If you want to invoke magic technologies, don't pull a creationist on us by telling us that magic technologies can do anything, so that anything is possible. Tell us what these magic technologies did do, how they did it, where and when they did it, and who used them.

One might be “Calculation of the Maximum Useful Capacity of the Ark”. Sounds innocent enough until you factor the total number of animals that have to be housed and present data that shows that each animal (as a guess) is allocated 0.1 cubic mm. Should lead to an “interesting” conclusion.

— waynef

waynef said: So, as you can see, I'm not particularly optimistic. I am though already coming up with some insidious and "fun" science fair projects that will ruffle some feathers. One might be "Calculation of the Maximum Useful Capacity of the Ark". Sounds innocent enough until you factor the total number of animals that have to be housed and present data that shows that each animal (as a guess) is allocated 0.1 cubic mm. Should lead to an "interesting" conclusion. Anyway, I'm rambling. Thanks again for the help.

Frank J said: Does anyone else think that this quote from Dr. Walker will become famous?:

A man who will not fairly discern the printed word cannot be trusted to do better by the record written in the stars above us, in the Earth beneath us, or on the code of life within us.

Sadly, Walker himself will undoubtedly be quote-mined, but that will only provide us with another example of how the anti-evolution activists operate. You might notice that I didn't say "creationists", even though they all are by some definition. Here's why I avoid the C-word as much as possible: A recent thread discussed YECs Kurt Wise and Todd Wood, who essentially admit that they cannot, and ought not, be trusted to read the record written in the stars, Earth and life, etc., because they admit that their "revelation" from the printed word overrules it. The contrast between them and activists like McLeroy is startling. As wrong and misguided as Wise and Wood are, it makes no sense whatever use same term for them as for the likes of McLeroy. Or for the rank-and-file followers of both who simply don't know how science is done, and are unaware of the multiple lines of independent evidence that support evolution, and completely discredit YEC and all versions of OEC. McLeroy and Michael Behe apparently disagree with each other on every "what, when and how" of life's history other than "'Darwinism' didn't do it." But their prior commitment to discrediting "Darwinism" - which both seem to be aware is only a caricature of evolution - forces them to abandon any pretense that there is a better scientific explanation out there, and join forces under a political, pseudoscience "big tent". Real scientists would never think of covering up their irreconcilable differences and demanding that students be taught only to unreasonable doubt some other explanation that they find emotionally unpalatable. Even "honest" creationists like Wise, Wood, Hugh Ross, etc. at least sometimes openly confront their disagreements and the difficulties in supporting their claims. McLeroy, Behe, William Dembski, etc. are another "kind" of "animal" altogether.

John Kwok said: There are credible scientists who don't accept the evidence for global warming (I think it's sound data, but there's one former professor of mine from my undergraduate geology department who strongly disagrees, and he is also a noted paleoclimatologist.), starting with physicist Freeman Dyson.

Stages in the climate change debate There have been several stages in the climate change debate among scientists. 1.The first stage was over what direction the Earth would be going in, warming or cooling. This was in the 1970s and was over by the late 1980s with the warming side winning. 2.The second stage was what was causing the warming being observed, natural forces or man-made ones. By the year 2000, that was largely settled with man-made causes being identified and natural ones being ruled out. 3.The third stage is the one we have been in since the 1990s, attempting to make the climate change models as accurate as possible. How fast are we warming and how severe will be the consequences of that warming? Because this is far more detailed and uncertain, the debates among scientists at this stage will be fiercer and last much longer, but are no less important. Unfortunately, those who remain denialists about global warming will attempt to portray issues related to the third state of the climate change debate as if it somehow relates to the second stage (they can no longer deny that stage one has been settled, however). Then they misrepresent the issue in popular publications, including newspapers and blogs. This sort of deceptive advocancy should not be tolerated by anyone who knows the actual facts, as well as how science and debates within it are actually done.

I have found the term Biblical literalist zealot (BLZ) to be useful in getting a fairly accurate bead on those with which we have our biggest differences. Here in Texas, the BLZ bubbas are really trying to undermine public education with their derivatives of Intelligent Design, of which you are all aware. An ad hoc group has formed to combat the insanity. No meetings, no dues, just commitment to fight the insanity. The working name of the group is “No Intelligent Design in Our Texas Schools”. That, of course, has been shortened to No IDIOTS.

— Rocket Mike

Let me guess. That “noted paleoclimatologist” beleives that since global warming occured naturally in the distant past, we can also dismiss the current warming trend now as having been man-made. WRONG!

If our civilization didn’t exist, would there even be warming now? No, instead the Sun going quiet would already be sending us into another Little Ice Age. Mass extinctions also occured naturally, but we would be fools to blindly assume that the current mass extinction is natural. We can SEE our own activities destroying the habitats of the species going extinct, just as we can detect directly the CO2 pollution we constantly emit.

waynef wrote: So, as you can see, I’m not particularly optimistic. I am though already coming up with some insidious and “fun” science fair projects that will ruffle some feathers. One might be “Calculation of the Maximum Useful Capacity of the Ark”. Sounds innocent enough until you factor the total number of animals that have to be housed and present data that shows that each animal (as a guess) is allocated 0.1 cubic mm.

Dale Husband said:

John Kwok said: There are credible scientists who don't accept the evidence for global warming (I think it's sound data, but there's one former professor of mine from my undergraduate geology department who strongly disagrees, and he is also a noted paleoclimatologist.), starting with physicist Freeman Dyson.

I wrote something about that issue long ago: http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/1003003

Stages in the climate change debate There have been several stages in the climate change debate among scientists. 1.The first stage was over what direction the Earth would be going in, warming or cooling. This was in the 1970s and was over by the late 1980s with the warming side winning. 2.The second stage was what was causing the warming being observed, natural forces or man-made ones. By the year 2000, that was largely settled with man-made causes being identified and natural ones being ruled out. 3.The third stage is the one we have been in since the 1990s, attempting to make the climate change models as accurate as possible. How fast are we warming and how severe will be the consequences of that warming? Because this is far more detailed and uncertain, the debates among scientists at this stage will be fiercer and last much longer, but are no less important. Unfortunately, those who remain denialists about global warming will attempt to portray issues related to the third state of the climate change debate as if it somehow relates to the second stage (they can no longer deny that stage one has been settled, however). Then they misrepresent the issue in popular publications, including newspapers and blogs. This sort of deceptive advocancy should not be tolerated by anyone who knows the actual facts, as well as how science and debates within it are actually done.

After I wrote that, I learned that some armchair denialists have been attempting to restart the debate at stage one by noting that the Sun has gone quiet, and therefore we have entered a period of global COOLING. Well, 2008 was cooler than any previous year since 2000.....but WARMER than any year in the 1970s. Freeman Dyson is indeed a great physicist, but every scientist fails at something. And geologists are more likely to be denialists because the fossil fuel companies depend on them for their livelihood, and vice versa. Let me guess. That "noted paleoclimatologist" beleives that since global warming occured naturally in the distant past, we can also dismiss the current warming trend now as having been man-made. WRONG! If our civilization didn't exist, would there even be warming now? No, instead the Sun going quiet would already be sending us into another Little Ice Age. Mass extinctions also occured naturally, but we would be fools to blindly assume that the current mass extinction is natural. We can SEE our own activities destroying the habitats of the species going extinct, just as we can detect directly the CO2 pollution we constantly emit.

harold said: John Kwok - I am not jumping to conclusions, and you are repeating yourself.

There are credible scientists who don’t accept the evidence for global warming (I think it’s sound data, but there’s one former professor of mine from my undergraduate geology department who strongly disagrees, and he is also a noted paleoclimatologist.), starting with physicist Freeman Dyson.

They are thus not credible on this particular topic. Again, again, again, although I can say this a million times, use a million clear analogies, and not have this simple logic acknowledged. There is an association between the Republican party, the American right wing in general, and human contribution to climate change denial. You are a Republican who doesn't deny it. Some smokers don't get lung cancer. Some Swedes are not blond. But Republicans are more likely to be climate change denialists, and vice versa.

There are also many moderates and liberals who are Evolution Denialists.

I've agreed to that patently obvious point multiple times now, and never said anything that suggested that I thought otherwise in the first place. There is an association between being Republican, being right wing in general, and being an evolution denier. You are a Republican who doesn't deny it. Some smokers don't get lung cancer. Some Swedes are not blond. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/C[…]-Expand.aspx

Here’s the link to the conversation that physicist Lisa Randall had with the liberal Obama supporter who rejects the evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens:

I believe that this is the third time you've mentioned that anecdotal incident. I gladly accept it as accurate. And I'm a liberal who accepts evolution. But conservative McCain supporters are more likely to deny evolution. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx I understand your discomfort. A party whose economic and military policies you agree with is statistically associated with science denial.

John Kwok said: harold, Unless you provide me with polling data that shows that more Republicans than Democrats are global warming denialists (and this is data from a poll that samples equally, the same numbers of Republicans and Democrats in the current population, so therefore, approximately twenty and forty percent respectively), then I must take your assertion with a large grain of salt:

harold said: John Kwok - I am not jumping to conclusions, and you are repeating yourself.

There are credible scientists who don’t accept the evidence for global warming (I think it’s sound data, but there’s one former professor of mine from my undergraduate geology department who strongly disagrees, and he is also a noted paleoclimatologist.), starting with physicist Freeman Dyson.

They are thus not credible on this particular topic. Again, again, again, although I can say this a million times, use a million clear analogies, and not have this simple logic acknowledged. There is an association between the Republican party, the American right wing in general, and human contribution to climate change denial. You are a Republican who doesn't deny it. Some smokers don't get lung cancer. Some Swedes are not blond. But Republicans are more likely to be climate change denialists, and vice versa.

There are also many moderates and liberals who are Evolution Denialists.

I've agreed to that patently obvious point multiple times now, and never said anything that suggested that I thought otherwise in the first place. There is an association between being Republican, being right wing in general, and being an evolution denier. You are a Republican who doesn't deny it. Some smokers don't get lung cancer. Some Swedes are not blond. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/C[…]-Expand.aspx

Here’s the link to the conversation that physicist Lisa Randall had with the liberal Obama supporter who rejects the evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens:

I believe that this is the third time you've mentioned that anecdotal incident. I gladly accept it as accurate. And I'm a liberal who accepts evolution. But conservative McCain supporters are more likely to deny evolution. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx I understand your discomfort. A party whose economic and military policies you agree with is statistically associated with science denial.

Regards, John P. S. Republicans aren't immune to the problem of "science denial". In his book on the global warming and climate change, science journalist Chris Mooney has observed that Democrats were far more prone to exaggerate the possibility of global warming back in the late 1980s and 1990s. By assuming that Republicans are primarily "guilty", you are allowing your preconceived political biases to show through your otherwise reasonable rhetoric.

You want a poll that asks people both how they feel about global warming, and what party they tend to vote for most of the time? What would that tell you, exactly?

However, we can notice that the Bush administration strongly resisted any recognition of AGW (despite their own scientists saying otherwise). The Obama administration recognizes it and is trying to shape policy with it in mind. So it's not really the sheer number of voters and their party affiliations that matter here, it's what the party leaders with the keys to power are saying and doing. And here, there is a very clear and obvious party difference in policy direction, to the point where asking for a poll is a useless distraction.

John Kwok and Flint -

One of those links DOES show exactly what John asked for.

Sorry, John, I mixed up the position of the link.

Here it is again - http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/ClimateChange-Views-RepublicanDemocratic-Gaps-Expand.aspx

Human contribution to climate change in the direction of warming was very well established by the 1990's and very well supported in the 1980's. So it's hard for Democrats to have "exaggerated" the probability too much.

One obvious possibility strikes me. At this point, the Democrats are a pragmatic, flexible party. Their own supporters are always annoyed by their ability to compromise and negotiate. For example, my personal policy preferences are with the Green party on some issues, with the Democrats on others, and with the Republicans, yes, on a rare few.

But the most logical overall choice in recent years has been the Democrats (from my position).

The Republican power base has become rigidly ideological. It's extremely easy to predict exactly how the current Republican party will react to any issue, and frankly, that's the way the leadership and the "base" want it. It also incorporates the vast majority of the authoritarian religious right, a demographic with a predisposition for denying scientific reality to begin with. And there are some other science-denying demographics that may slant Republican as well. I hesitate to mention them because I don't want to create the false impression that I accuse most Republican supporters of belonging to them, which I most certainly do NOT.

When an ideology can't bend, perhaps, the truth must sometimes be bent to accommodate it. That was certainly true of Soviet communism.

I was thinking about the dispersal-from-the-ark problem. I think the BLZ (thanks Rocket Mike) has an easy out, if he wants to take it. Noah didn't gather two of every animal. He could not possibly have traveled to every corner of the world to gather all the creatures. God did that, and brought them to Noah. So, if God could bring to Noah every animal, he shouldn't have any problem re-dispersing them to their pre-flood habitats, as well as re-populate all the land plants in those habitats.

Of course, if God could do that, why did he have to use a global flood in the first place simply to kill all the people? Why didn't God just create Man, version 2.0, and stop issuing Service Packs for Man, v1.0? No, wait, wasn't that what he did with the Neandertals? :-)

Formatting Note

Folks, it isn't necessary to quote 5 embedded comments occupying three screens full of embeds just to add one or two sentences. Edit!

RBH said: Formatting Note Folks, it isn't necessary to quote 5 embedded comments occupying three screens full of embeds just to add one or two sentences. Edit!

Frank J said: As for the ID scam artists, they are anything but idiots. They're smart like lawyers and politicians, and probably know more science than most people give them credit for. All the better to misrepresent it.

There is no reason to let up on these people who want to undermined America and other countries understanding of science. Everyone has a right to believe what they want to, but when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge they need to have a solid argument.

Flint said: Guaranteed salvation beats the tar out of dubious, tentative earthly knowledge, right? In fact, it beats the tar out of anything you can name. So we need to get our priorities understood here.

Sharmuta

Wow- cherry picking articles, some of which are 6 years old.

Not "cherrypicking" - pointing out LGF's racism. I haven't seen an apology for those racist comments, so whether they were made 6 years ago or 1 hour ago doesn't matter.

Sorry if you think it’s racist for people to consider it child abuse to use children as human shields.

I never said that, but like any good cornered fascist you just have to put words in people's mouths.

And your comment on the filter shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

Oh no, it doesn't.

If LGF and Mr. Johnson were racist, that filter would not exist.

You lack logic like any good fascist. Johnson and lots of commenters are racist but he tries to hide at least some of this. Not all racists are proud racists, you know. He tries to be somewhat mainstream.

It is to Mr. Johnson’s credit that such comments are deleted and not tolerated at his site.

They're not deleted. The word "raghead" is automatically converted to "Arab". I gave a prooflink for this. So either you're ignorant or you're a liar.

But you would rather smear him as a racist than admit keeping his site free of such bigoted statements is the opposite of what you claim.

See above. And I didn't "smear" him, I provided facts which you have yet to address.

A blog owner is not responsible for the comments of others- only for allowing them to remain on their site- which Mr. Johnson doesn’t allow.

Yes he does allow them, examples have been given. An owner is not responsible only if the same standard is applied to _all_ hateful comments. Johnsons deletes some (e.g. antisemitic comments, or "pro-fascist blog" comments), but not others (like those calling to killing of all Muslims or comments with anti-Arab and anti-Muslim slurs). Therefore he actually supports the latter.

I is likewise not racist to criticize oppressive dictators and those that enable them to be a threat to peaceful people around the world.

Nobody said otherwise. See above about putting words in people's mouths.

Frankly- I think perhaps it is you that is bigoted here-

By pointing out LGF's racism? How so?

unwilling to criticize the regimes that keep many in the arab world oppressed.

How am I unwilling? I consider those regimes fascist. This doesn't change the established fact of LGF's racism, as explained here:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/05/all-is-not-yet.html#comment-185505

BigPapa

What is it with this LGF obsession?

Where do you find any obsession? I merely commented on the bigotry at LGF and received ignorant responses, thus the extended comment.

Your logic is faulty

Maybe so. Care to point out the alleged faults?

and supporting ‘facts’ are lacking or don’t support your premise all.

Maybe so. Care to show that the facts are lacking or don't support my conclusion?

Constantly comparing LGF to the 3rd Reich is usually a sign of intellectual laziness.

I understand that you don't like the fact that 3rd Reich's rhetoric and LGF's rhetoric are comparable. But what can one do if that's simple reality?

Don’t go around telling this “LGF is bigoted” until you address this!

I just did.

Odds are you’re an ex-Lizard that got banned for saying the same crap that you’re using to prove ‘LGF is a racist site.’

Never even registered there.

countrygurl from LGF

LGF is a very relevant site and it is closely monitored for hate speech.

Yeah, sure. I've already shown above how closely it is "monitored".

Just because your opinion is different from mine does not mean that you are bigot.

Sure, but if your opinion is bigoted that does mean that you're a bigot.

If Mr. Johnson is a bigot then I am a two-headed alien from Mars.

Well hello there, alien.

Frequently readers post comments with racial slurs such as “raghead” and “mooselimbs,” racist anecdotes, castration, charges of a low intellect, wiping their rear with the Koran, calls for a new crusade, violence towards and mass murder of all Muslims, the destruction of Islam and white supremacist-esque language like “It’s time we asserted our culture” and “moral and cultural superiority.” It seems that liberals are now by definition terrorists and labeled as such. They speak of Arabs and Muslims in much the same ways that a racist southerner would speak of blacks in the 1950s.

Some time in 2005, LGF employed a word filter that altered certain words of readers’ comments as soon as they submitted their post. The last “raghead” comment was in January 2005 just prior to a post where Charles received an e-mail from a British Muslim that was offended with the racist cesspool. Charles only offered a sarcastic remark in response, obviously because he does not care if people post racist comments, probably because he endorses such sentiment. That would be true if the search results for the word “raghead” ceased as well. They do not. Rather they continue to this day, numbering in the hundreds by now. The search results show the pre-edited comments. The word “raghead” is automatically changed to “Arab” by the filter. In fact, on several occasions, readers complained about their inability to use the word “raghead,” test out other slurs, have fun with it and give each other pointers on how to get around the filter.

Polloi -

Of course you are right that LGF is a transparently racist site.

In typical right wing/racist fashion, the webmaster uses somewhat weasely language himself, but the comments section reveals the identity and mentality of the readers he seeks.

The existence of a filter that changes an ethnic slur into a more neutral word would be uproarious if it were not so repugnant.

Can you imagine if someone was running a site which had many comments with hard core ethnic slurs coming in, and which, instead of telling such bigots what to do with themselves, employed filters to change slurs into terms like "African-American", "Jew", "Catholic", or "Asian-American"? With the winking understanding that the readers actually know that the filter is at work?

Anyone who thinks that a logical response to evil actions by some Muslims, or even many Muslims, is to engage in racist hate language that is directed toward all Muslims and Arabic-speaking people, is an idiot bigot.

All of the people you responded to are probably bigots.

The site is for bigots.

There could be a few non-bigots who approve of it, but I can't see why they would, as anything about it that is not bigoted is easily available in other forums.

Someone is confused. I have it on good authority this person is running for the local school board, not against McLeroy for the Texas State Board of Education.

Someone is confused. I have it on good authority this person is running for the local school board, not against McLeroy for the Texas State Board of Education.

Stevearoni -

So if I understand correctly, although Walker is a physicist who accepts evolution, he is also a fan of a bigot web site which has been associated with climate change denial (but may have changed on that one).

And he isn't even running against McLeroy.

His own web site makes him look like a nice guy and is filled with very sensible comments.

http://www.joelwalker.net/

His physics credentials appear to be genuine - he has a PhD from Texas A and M and is an assistant professor at Sam Houston State University.

Honestly, he looks like an ideal school board candidate in many ways.

However, an association with a bigoted web site needs to be taken into consideration.

Who is he running against?

Quite plausibly, his opponent is equally pro-science.

There is no reason to let up on these people who want to undermined America and other countries understanding of science.

— Anthony

Note -

Richard Hoppe's piece makes it very clear that Walker if running for the College Station Board of Trustees, a local school board, and is in no way directly opposing McLeroy.

In retrospect, I challenge the logic, and possibly the appropriateness, of Richard Hoppe's post.

No-one ever said that there were no pro-science local school board candidates or members in Texas.

University communities there probably abound in them.

The problem in Texas is that McLeroy is ensconced at a high level in the state bureaucracy.

Is the College Station Board of Trustees infested with creationists at this time?

Does Walker have a clean record with regard to other major scientific issues?

Is Walker's opponent a science denier?

If not, why are you plugging one particular candidate?

A PhD in physics is impressive, and Walker shows many ideal characteristics.

Yet a potential association with anti-Muslim bigotry is a very grave issue for a school board candidate.

Toidel Mahoney writes... stevaroni said: But if you ask “Now, here’s the problem I have - Noah lands on Ararat in 2000BC, right? So how did people get to the New World in big enough numbers to create huge empires in Central America only 300 years later?...

Finally, you assume based on the question-begging assumptions of evolutionism that Meso-American civilizations existed in 1700 BC. All we really know is that they were there when the Spanish explorers found them. Everything that happened before then is mere speculation.

Richard Hoppe -

As far as I can tell, there are three candidates for a single seat on the College Station Board of Trustees -

Joel Walker, Desiree Marek, and Carol Barrett

http://www.theeagle.com/schools/Three-newbies-vie-for-CS-school-board-spot

Desiree Marek has a small blog about herself. She is a high school graduate who emphasizes the importance of English and math. I agree with those points, if the speaker emphasizes the value of the mastery of English, rather than denigration bi- or multi-lingualism, which we should also be encouraging. The value of math is obvious. However, her remarks on science are vague and perhaps weasely.

http://desireemarek.blogspot.com/

Carol Barrett is some sort of health care professional, according to LinkedIn, but her profile is hidden for some reason.

She makes a lot of rather confused political contributions. The majority went to John McCain and Club for Growth, but there were substantial contributions to Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton as well.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Barrett&fname=Carol

At this point, it's clear that Walker is the most qualified looking, but I still have questions about him.

Most importantly, does he condemn anti-Muslim bigotry?

Also, how the hell does an assistant professor have time to serve on a school board?

Richard Hoppe -

Some other obvious questions for Walker -

"Fiscally conservative" - I take it for granted that his fiscal conservatism does not go to the level of objecting to good funding for, or indeed the existence of, public schools, but I'd like that fully clarified. I'd like to be sure that he supports well-funded public schools, and would never be ideologically motivated to undermine College Station public schools. Granted, that seems obvious, but given the prevalence of weasel words in today's culture, I'd like to hear it flat out.

"Socially conservative" - This can be a code for anti-gay bigotry. Again, I assume it isn't, but I'd like to hear him state outright that he would very strongly oppose homophobia or anti-gay bigotry of any sort in College Station public schools. This could be important for the taxpayers of College Park, whatever their private views.

"LGF Lizard" - Although the other candidates look weak, Desiree Marek looks as if, with further clarifications, she may be acceptable. Yes, she's a high school graduate and he's a PhD, but if it's a question of keeping out bigotry (which could end up costing taxpayers a great deal if it provokes an anti-discrimination lawsuit), it might be necessary to consider one of the other candidates. Does Walker strongly condemn anti-Muslim bigotry and vow to oppose any trace of it in the College Station public schools?

waynef said: So, as you can see, I'm not particularly optimistic. I am though already coming up with some insidious and "fun" science fair projects that will ruffle some feathers. One might be “Calculation of the Maximum Useful Capacity of the Ark”...

harold said: At this point, it's clear that Walker is the most qualified looking, but I still have questions about him. Most importantly, does he condemn anti-Muslim bigotry? Also, how the hell does an assistant professor have time to serve on a school board?

eric said:

waynef said: So, as you can see, I'm not particularly optimistic. I am though already coming up with some insidious and "fun" science fair projects that will ruffle some feathers. One might be “Calculation of the Maximum Useful Capacity of the Ark”...

Waynef, I would resist the temptation of insidious science fair projects. While it may be appealing to point out the ridiculousness of creationist claims, frankly speaking there is not much your kid is going to learn about modern science from studying how many animals can fit on a boat. What does that teach him about the power of modern genetics to explain the world? Chemistry? Quantum mechanics? I think there must be plenty of resources out there for far more interesting 4th/5th grade science fair project ideas. Creationism is boring and irrelevant to science. Let him associate boring and irrelevant with his religious schoolwork - when you get a chance to do an open project with him, take that opportunity to show him how science has something exciting and relevant to say about how the world actually works. Anyway, that's my two cents on it.

I’m not sure you noticed that there was no endorsement of a candidacy up there in the OP, but rather approving words about an articulate piece written to rebut Don McLeroy and the recognition that there are some rays of light in Texas.

waynef said: The point I wanted to make was that even a 10 year old's science fair project could take down one of Christianity's great pillars.

eric said:

waynef said: So, as you can see, I'm not particularly optimistic. I am though already coming up with some insidious and "fun" science fair projects that will ruffle some feathers. One might be “Calculation of the Maximum Useful Capacity of the Ark”...

Waynef, I would resist the temptation of insidious science fair projects. While it may be appealing to point out the ridiculousness of creationist claims, frankly speaking there is not much your kid is going to learn about modern science from studying how many animals can fit on a boat. What does that teach him about the power of modern genetics to explain the world? Chemistry? Quantum mechanics? I think there must be plenty of resources out there for far more interesting 4th/5th grade science fair project ideas. Creationism is boring and irrelevant to science. Let him associate boring and irrelevant with his religious schoolwork - when you get a chance to do an open project with him, take that opportunity to show him how science has something exciting and relevant to say about how the world actually works. Anyway, that's my two cents on it.

Senate confirmation of Board Chairman Don McLeroy, R-College Station, is dead in the water, the Nominations Committee chairman said Thursday…

The Texas legislature is now considering whether or not to retain the TBE head in his job (McLeroy).

http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn/austin/stories/042309kvue_McLeroy_Senate-cb.10410c011.html

Article:
http://blog.au.org/2009/05/04/targeting-texas-social-studies-panel-may-include-rightwing-ideologues/

DavidK said: The Texas legislature is now considering whether or not to retain the TBE head in his job (McLeroy). http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn/austin/stories/042309kvue_McLeroy_Senate-cb.10410c011.html Article: http://blog.au.org/2009/05/04/targeting-texas-social-studies-panel-may-include-rightwing-ideologues/

harold said: This particular ray of light was chosen because he is running for a school board position. I'd like to see the answers to those questions, for completeness.

T%his ray of light was chosen mainly because of the cogency and novelty (pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses) of his statement and its plain rejection of Don McLeroy. That’s my main interest. His rejection of McLeroy is far and away the best I’ve read, including those of TFN and TCfS. That it comes from a candidate for a board of education is a bonus.

Frank J said: Not sure if he'd agree with this, though, but I think it might be fun to discuss geologic ages, and how they are determined.

Dear Richard and Panda's Thumb,

Thanks so much for linking to my article and for your support. It is a great encouragement, and I am overwhelmed and delighted by such a positive response.

A Note to Harold:

With friends like these ...

It's worth mentioning that I chose to begin my essay with political and religious associations as a direct counter to the opening salvo of Dr. McLeroy's piece in the Statesman: "The controversy exists because evolutionists, led by academia's far-left, along with the secular elite opinion-makers, have decreed that questioning of evolution is not allowed". It is not code language, and you will find no other reference to my political party on my campaign site.

I strongly affirm that our public schools are a place for students of all nationalities, races, religions and sexual orientations, and that no religion should be promoted or diminished by any of our public institutions.

I'm not about to speak badly of Charles or LGF in order to win allies elsewhere.

I will not argue against the assertion that the political right bears culpability for promoting "intelligent design". However, Charles has been an avid defender of rational thought and scientific inquiry, and if for no other reason he at least deserves your support on this point.

It was his advocacy that initially brought the immediate Texas science curriculum battle to my attention. Although I was already greatly interested in the broader issue, I developed a focus on my own backyard, and that focus grew into a commitment to invest short reserves of my time, and some not inconsiderable amount of personal funds, to pursuing an unpaid position of service to our local schools. He was kind enough to support me in this effort by opening up his wide and generous audience to my cause. It was his thread that lead directly to an immediate and much broader visibility on the web, and most likely, also to the Panda's Thumb posting itself.

Posts at LGF on the topic of global warming are, as far as I have noticed, fairly rare. If they have accelerated in recent times, I suspect that it is because Charles sees an opportunity to inform his audience. If his own position has indeed shifted with time, study and information, then this is no shame.

I understand that carbon-dioxide, along with water vapor and methane gas, are ultraviolet transparent and infrared opaque, i.e. that they are greenhouse gases. I understand that the chemistry of very early rocks shows low oxygen concentration even during periods of early widespread algal deposition, indicating that carbon sequestration involved a long slow process of not only photosynthesis, but also the vulcanization and geological upheaval required to bury remnant biomass. I understand that the retrieval and burning of fossil fuel is the undoing of that process. I understand that Venus is hotter than Mercury because of a thick, heavy blanket of carbon dioxide, and that heat can vaporize ocean water, recursively generating greenhouse warming. I understand that this vapor may become subject to the high atmosphere bombardment of ultraviolet rays where Hydrogen bonds are broken, easily allowing element number one to thermally achieve escape velocity, and damning the planet to eternal dryness.

I do not believe that mankind is an intruder on this Earth, but I recognize the essential responsibility of a tenant to wisely use and preserve. I am leery of the brand of environmental politicization which demonizes industry and the energy companies which play an essential role in our civilization. I consider cap-and-trade to be an epic money grab. I am put off by cataclysmic end-of-the-world scenarios and deceptive associations of global warming with tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina. I recognize the sovereign right of nations such as China and India to pull themselves up by their bootstraps with industrialization, and to become productive, prosperous and peaceful peers of the modern world. I love to see the massive windmills while driving to visit my family in far west Texas. I support carbon neutral nuclear energy that leverages the 100,000 fold increase in energy scale which is experienced as one descends through a comparable down scaling of distance from the atomic to the nuclear diameter. It is the political left which has historically spread irresponsible and irrational fear of this power source.

I was not raised to believe in evolution, nor was I taught about it in attendance at church affiliated schools. It is a topic on which I have educated myself only for love of truth. My understanding of global warming is incomplete, but I am open to learning more. To suggest, with the evidence of my prior writing in front of you, that I would knowingly and dishonestly subvert science education to politics was an insult undeserved.

Finally, there has indeed been some confusion here regarding the nature of my candidacy. My website is quite clear that I am a local candidate for our city school board. In this race, and if elected, in this position, I do have opportunity to voice my concern about the state- and nation-wide course of science education. It is in this spirit, and toward this goal, that my response to SBOE Chairman McLeroy was publicized.

My opponents in the race are both gracious, qualified, and intelligent women. There is no incumbent, and I do not consider that I am running against either of them, so much as that we each are running in parallel for the same position. Neither has made science curriculum a center platform of their campaign, and I will not presume to speak for them on this issue.

Joel

Joel Walker said: Dear Richard and Panda's Thumb, Thanks so much for linking to my article and for your support. It is a great encouragement, and I am overwhelmed and delighted by such a positive response.

Dale Husband said:

John Kwok said: There are credible scientists who don't accept the evidence for global warming (I think it's sound data, but there's one former professor of mine from my undergraduate geology department who strongly disagrees, and he is also a noted paleoclimatologist.), starting with physicist Freeman Dyson.

I wrote something about that issue long ago: http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/1003003

Stages in the climate change debate There have been several stages in the climate change debate among scientists. 1.The first stage was over what direction the Earth would be going in, warming or cooling. This was in the 1970s and was over by the late 1980s with the warming side winning. 2.The second stage was what was causing the warming being observed, natural forces or man-made ones. By the year 2000, that was largely settled with man-made causes being identified and natural ones being ruled out. 3.The third stage is the one we have been in since the 1990s, attempting to make the climate change models as accurate as possible. How fast are we warming and how severe will be the consequences of that warming? Because this is far more detailed and uncertain, the debates among scientists at this stage will be fiercer and last much longer, but are no less important. Unfortunately, those who remain denialists about global warming will attempt to portray issues related to the third state of the climate change debate as if it somehow relates to the second stage (they can no longer deny that stage one has been settled, however). Then they misrepresent the issue in popular publications, including newspapers and blogs. This sort of deceptive advocancy should not be tolerated by anyone who knows the actual facts, as well as how science and debates within it are actually done.

After I wrote that, I learned that some armchair denialists have been attempting to restart the debate at stage one by noting that the Sun has gone quiet, and therefore we have entered a period of global COOLING. Well, 2008 was cooler than any previous year since 2000.....but WARMER than any year in the 1970s. Freeman Dyson is indeed a great physicist, but every scientist fails at something. And geologists are more likely to be denialists because the fossil fuel companies depend on them for their livelihood, and vice versa. Let me guess. That "noted paleoclimatologist" beleives that since global warming occured naturally in the distant past, we can also dismiss the current warming trend now as having been man-made. WRONG! If our civilization didn't exist, would there even be warming now? No, instead the Sun going quiet would already be sending us into another Little Ice Age. Mass extinctions also occured naturally, but we would be fools to blindly assume that the current mass extinction is natural. We can SEE our own activities destroying the habitats of the species going extinct, just as we can detect directly the CO2 pollution we constantly emit.

Thank you, Dr. Walker. Although I do find your LGF association to be somewhat troubling (and I don't take back anything I wrote here), I understand that some honest and honorable people can in principle be participants there, and it seems that you're one of them. You're welcome!

Just a tweak, if you're still reading, Dr. Walker, I think you meant "volcanism", not "vulcanization", which is the rubber-hardening process.

Thanks Richard - I'm sure it was indirect. Support for the sentiments of the article is perfectly sufficient for me.

Thanks polloi. Of course the examples you gave are troubling. An argument on the merits of LGF is completely unproductive to my current purpose, and I have no interest in getting into it here. I'll only submit that honorable and honest is the rule, not the exception.

Thanks fnxtr ;-)

I have only been reading LGF for a short time but I was surprised to see it refered to as a fascist site here. One of the most common subjects lately is criticism of people attending openly racist meetings in Germany. And he seems to be taking a great deal of shit for it.

I often disagree with what is posted at LGF. Sometimes strongly. But fascist? I really can't parse that.

Joel Walker -

Thanks very much for that extremely thoughtful reply, and good luck in the election.

Joel,

I am especially grateful to you for a most gracious, and thoughtful, series of posts here at PT, starting with your thank you note to RBH and all of us here. Your thoughtful remarks give me some hope that eventually some semblance of sanity will be restored within the Republican Party.

My best wishes to you, and I hope you will be elected easily to your local school board.

Appreciatively yours,

John

But fascist? I really can’t parse that

I am especially grateful to you for a most gracious, and thoughtful, series of posts here at PT, starting with your thank you note to RBH and all of us here.

Your thoughtful remarks give me some hope that eventually some semblance of sanity will be restored within the Republican Party.

Also kudos to Dr. W. for a very cogent and articulate original posting. I just wonder if it may be too articulate for the average voter.

harold -

I may be misremembering the use of the word fascist. But bigoted will serve as well.

My impression is that LGF often uses politically incorrect language. This is often (rightly) seen as code used by bigots. But you do have to be careful. At LGF I seen much time spent on condemning bigots. I also see a lot of time spent condemning political correctness.

I read conservative blogs looking for signs that sanity is returning to the republican party. At LGF I at least see flashes of sanity. But recovering from the Bush years is going to take time.

Thanks John & fnxtr.

Thanks Harold - Peace.

Joel

ppnl, I think I didn't use the term "fascist" to describe the whole blog either. Only "racist" and "bigoted".

A very US-centric note, but if anybody's interested, this afternoon (Wednesday) on MSNBC's "Hardball" Tom Tancredo (a republican bigwig and former presidential candidate) and Chris Mathews are arguing evolution versus intelligent design.

Mathews has been probing the Republican war on science for two days, since he opened up the can of worms with climate change denial on Monday.

Tancredo is spinning furiously for ID, slinging the usual bull-pookey about ID being a reasonable alternative supported by large groups of scientists.

Though unconvincing, Tancredo is, however, doing somewhat better than Mathew's guest last night, some congressman who, when asked point-blank "do you believe in evolution" spun like a freakin' turbine for 6 minutes to avoid directly answering the question.

Mathews, who once in a while gets fed up with evasive and vacuous answers, just kept asking the question. The congressman kept spinning, and spinning, and spinning. It were ugly. And hilarious.

If anybody wants to catch it, Hardball will be rebroadcast tonight at 7pm and midnight EDT, and, likely, about a zillion places online.

Creationism and intelligent design are not making much headway - nor will they. Belief systems have no place in science as science can not support belief system be it "I believe there is no God", or its opposite.

The real problem today does not hinge upon the creationist and Bible thumper, but in fact in a different belief system. To see it, take the words posted above:

"An entrenched mindset bordering on reflexive antipathy to the opinions of our most distinguished scholars has no place on our State Board of Education."

and apply them to the words of a very distinguished scholar in biology, Lynn Margulis

--- '"'Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk'"' ---

or

----- Neo-Darwinism is '"'a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology.'"' ---

Now pull out a high school biology text book and see if it teaches exactly what such a top level distinguished scholar in biology is stating about the theory, or if it is teaching against what the top scholar is claim by acting as though Darwin and his followers have a credible theory. Even look at replies to even pointing this out - do they reflect a "entrenched mindset bordering on reflexive antipathy to the opinions of our most distinguished scholars"?????

One can even take it a step farther and see what the distinguished scholars of sociology have to say about Darwinism (go to: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html). Do we honor such scientific findings by pointing out in our high school biology text books just how infected biology has been by this religious belief system, or do we act as though all is solid when it comes to the Darwinst religion being supported by science???

The real enemy is not intllegant design, but instead is a very pointed belief system which clearly supports its religion with the incorrect elevation of an athiestic theory as though science supports it - and its doing so in the text books of our public school system.

Troy said: Creationism and intelligent design are not making much headway - nor will they. Belief systems have no place in science as science can not support belief system be it "I believe there is no God", or its opposite. The real problem today does not hinge upon the creationist and Bible thumper, but in fact in a different belief system. To see it, take the words posted above: "An entrenched mindset bordering on reflexive antipathy to the opinions of our most distinguished scholars has no place on our State Board of Education." and apply them to the words of a very distinguished scholar in biology, Lynn Margulis --- '"'Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk'"' --- or ----- Neo-Darwinism is '"'a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology.'"' --- Now pull out a high school biology text book and see if it teaches exactly what such a top level distinguished scholar in biology is stating about the theory, or if it is teaching against what the top scholar is claim by acting as though Darwin and his followers have a credible theory. Even look at replies to even pointing this out - do they reflect a "entrenched mindset bordering on reflexive antipathy to the opinions of our most distinguished scholars"????? One can even take it a step farther and see what the distinguished scholars of sociology have to say about Darwinism (go to: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html). Do we honor such scientific findings by pointing out in our high school biology text books just how infected biology has been by this religious belief system, or do we act as though all is solid when it comes to the Darwinst religion being supported by science??? The real enemy is not intllegant design, but instead is a very pointed belief system which clearly supports its religion with the incorrect elevation of an athiestic theory as though science supports it - and its doing so in the text books of our public school system.