I'm from Ohio, which is not exactly a bastion of freethought, but Ive had the displeasure of living in Alabama for a year and Louisiana for a year. I swore I would never see the South again unless it was through the window of an airplane. That was long before I ever heard the term "flyover states."
Alex H · 11 May 2010
Politics: just when you thought it couldn't get any more cuckoo...
Brian Smith · 11 May 2010
Nope, it's real. I've seen it more than once on TV.
What's even scarier is it's not the dumbest campaign ad airing here... not by a long shot.
Demagogues will always do whatever appeals to the voters who will elect them. If 51% or more of voters in Alabama are against evolution, ads like this are inevitable. What's new?
Aagcobb · 11 May 2010
That's just half of the story. Byrne is outraged by the despicable attack on his creationist credentials. He says he has fought hard to ensure creationist is included in Alabama school textbooks!
Aagcobb · 11 May 2010
Aagcobb said:
That's just half of the story. Byrne is outraged by the despicable attack on his creationist credentials. He says he has fought hard to ensure creationist is included in Alabama school textbooks!
That is, creationism is included. PIMF
stevaroni · 11 May 2010
It gets worse.
Brad Byrne, having been caught in the compromising position of acknowledging reality, felt the need to release a response.
And what did this professional educator, a man who has served on the Alabama board of education since 1994, a man who until recently was the chief executive officer of Alabama’s two-year college system have to say in the face of the scurrilous accusation that the endorses teaching actual science in science classes?
Did he call it for the goofy nonsense it was?
Not exactly .
"As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God. As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state."
Go 'bama.
You now have gubernatorial candidates trying to get elected by out-stupiding each other.
As a resident of Texas I was sure we were going to keep the "Dumbest governor on the planet" award again this year.
I gladly relinquish the title.
Dave Luckett · 11 May 2010
I don't suppose it's worth remarking that, although we down here certainly do have a crop of arrant creationists, a campaign ad like that for any candidate would go over like a brick-and-tile glider, and it's absolutely certain that any of the parties with Parliamentary representation would send this guy the bowstring, with instructions on how to use it.
Sure, a tiny fringe of mouth-breathing rednecks would vote for him - we have those, too - but no politician in his right mind would identify with that demographic, not even in Queensland. Hell, not even in northern Queensland.
This is old hat and evolution/creationism is sort of boring.
How do these candidates stand on the really important issues such as the Flat Earth, Geocentrism, and Bigfoot. And are there any plans to deal with the UFO's piloted by demons from hell?
Alex H · 12 May 2010
George said:
We have Sue Lowden running for the Senate in Nevada ... "chickens for checkups" (just google it) so I don't see why anyone is surprised by this.
And in Oregon we have Arthur Robinson running for Senate. Yeah, the guy who started the Oregon Petition (and, according to Wikipedia, is also a signer on a Disco institute criticism of evolution).
Aagcobb · 12 May 2010
stevaroni said:
It gets worse.
Brad Byrne, having been caught in the compromising position of acknowledging reality, felt the need to release a response.
"As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God. As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state."
If Byrnes is elected Governor and gets ID or "teach the controversy" inserted into Alabama schools, we now have Exhibit A showing his true intent.
eric · 12 May 2010
After hearing everyone's "you think that guy's bad..." stories, I'm inclined to think that perhaps representative government's real value is in serving as a jobs program for the lowest 10%.
Jesse · 12 May 2010
George said:
We have Sue Lowden running for the Senate in Nevada ... "chickens for checkups" (just google it) so I don't see why anyone is surprised by this.
Wow. That video plus stuff like this is really starting to make NM look good this year. Us looking good is an odd occurrence. There are 5 gubernatorial candidates running in the Republican primary. One has campaigned on the fact that he is retired military plus the typical Republican taxes-small business platform. Another is a former DA who is married to a cop who wants to prosecute the crap out of anything that moves. Another is Pete Dominici's son. The other two seem to be more libertarian leaning. And none of them have said anything even approaching this level of wackiness. The same goes for my state representative race. The biggest mistake I've seen in that one is that one of the candidates does not know that telling people that he moved out here from CA 5 years ago is a bad idea.
John Kwok · 12 May 2010
As a registered Republican and a Conservative, I agree with Nick and everyone else who finds this advertisement not only depressing, and stupid and silly, but one that rings all too true. How? Why? For years I've seem similar "kinds" of political advertisements here in the Northeast, in which the "targets" of such advertisements are often mocked, like Byrne, from changing their political "stripes" whenever such changes best suited them (One noteworthy example is from New Jersey, last year, when current Governor Christie challenged his primary opponent and vice veras.). Regrettably, if these ads can work in New Jersey, then I am sure they'll influence voters in Alabama. How much we'll see should Byrne win his campaign.
Anyway, as we know full well, not even the Northeast is immune from acute attacks of evolution denialism (e. g. recent news from Hartford, CT about a creationist school board member meeting with secondary school science teachers merely to voice his concern about teaching evolution).
Maybe Byrne needs to have a friendly folksy chat, with another native son from Alabama, one E. O. Wilson, before spewing any more creationist nonsense.
t_p_hamilton · 12 May 2010
Worse, this campaign ad is funded by the democrat (Paul Hubbert) who is the head of the Alabama Teacher's Union (AEA). How is that for standing up for education?
eric · 12 May 2010
t_p_hamilton said:
Worse, this campaign ad is funded by the democrat (Paul Hubbert) who is the head of the Alabama Teacher's Union (AEA). How is that for standing up for education?
Democrats who fund ads in Republican primaries (or vice versa) typically attack the most moderate candidate; the goal is to get the opposing party to run the candidate no undecided voter would choose. So, this could mean that the Democrats think Byrne is the most moderate/most electable candidate. Scary.
You will notice many ellipses (...) in the quotes cited in the video. A distinct mark of creationists/id'ers who quote out of context. What did the many really say, anyone know?
Ben · 12 May 2010
It only makes sense for Democrats to fund this ad ... and any other ad by whacky neocons with off-the-chart positions. It makes the whole conservative movement look like a bunch of ignorant, backwater hicks. And I'm still just barely patriotic enough to believe that ignorant, backwater hickism hasn't yet become a sought-after leadership quality in the minds of most voting Americans.
tomh · 12 May 2010
Alex H said:
And in Oregon we have Arthur Robinson running for Senate. Yeah, the guy who started the Oregon Petition (and, according to Wikipedia, is also a signer on a Disco institute criticism of evolution).
Actually, he's in the Republican primary for U.S. House District 4, a seat held by Democrat Peter DeFazio since 1987.
DaleP · 12 May 2010
Actually, this ad is funded by TEACHERS! It is not funded by any current or possible opponent. When Byrne was on the school board, he did something to make them mad, so through a second level, they decided to attack Byrne. From Talking Points Memo:
"The group behind the ad and others attacking Byrne's conservative credentials is called the True Republican PAC. Interestingly, as the Montgomery Advertiser reported last month, the PAC has gotten most of its money from the teachers' union -- or, more accurately, from a collection of other PACs heavily funded by the union.
"According to the Advertiser, members of the Alabama Education Association have a beef with Byrne for his past attempts to ban the employees of two-year colleges from serving in the state legislature."
Paul Burnett · 12 May 2010
Ben said: It makes the whole conservative movement look like a bunch of ignorant, backwater hicks.
Luckily they don't need much help doing this - they're doing a fine job proving it all by themselves.
(...with the exception of John Kwok, who is a gentleman and a scholar, in spite of being on the Genghis Khan side of the spectrum.)
(Nobody's mentioned John McCain, who used to brag about being a maverick but now denies he ever was one. Some of us just attribute that to memory issues some older folks get...)
John Kwok · 12 May 2010
Paul, thanks, I got a hearty chuckle reading that:
Paul Burnett said:
(...with the exception of John Kwok, who is a gentleman and a scholar, in spite of being on the Genghis Khan side of the spectrum.)
(
However, on a more serious note, one of the most prominent critics of Intelligent Design cretinism is, of course, a fellow conservative, biologist Paul R. Gross, the co-author, with philosopher Barbara Forrest, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" (And then too, there is also Federal Judge John Jones, who presided over the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, and, on December 20, 2005, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against the creationist-leaning Dover school board.). But they're not the only noteworthy conservatives. I wish, however, that there were a lot more of us around.
John, stop deliberately conflating Creationism with Cretinism: it's insulting and demeaning to cretins and Cretans alike.
Eric Houg · 12 May 2010
What's really sad is both that he has already publicly stated that he only supports teaching creationism in Schools and that this ad will likely garner a large number of votes for his opponent.
eric · 12 May 2010
DaleP said:
"According to the Advertiser, members of the Alabama Education Association have a beef with Byrne for his past attempts to ban the employees of two-year colleges from serving in the state legislature."
Wow, creationism AND job-based limits on who can serve in government. Its like the 1800s down there. What's his position on poll taxes? Does he support giving women the vote?
GSmith · 12 May 2010
Ben said:
It only makes sense for Democrats to fund this ad ... and any other ad by whacky neocons with off-the-chart positions. It makes the whole conservative movement look like a bunch of ignorant, backwater hicks. And I'm still just barely patriotic enough to believe that ignorant, backwater hickism hasn't yet become a sought-after leadership quality in the minds of most voting Americans.
You obviously do not live in Alabama.
I do, and I can assure you that this ad will be highly effective. That is why he has already put out a response assuring Alabama voters of his adherence to biblical literalism and support for teaching creationism in schools.
Natman · 12 May 2010
Justfinethanks said:
"Brad Byrne makes a modest effort to base some his beliefs regarding the natural world on publicly verifiable evidence.
Would you trust such a man with your children's future?"
I'm told that in some other countries, not accepting evolution is a political liability. Do such magical lands actually exist?
Yup, the UK, where the only party standing in the recent General Election for more than a single seat that endorses the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools (The Christian Party) got... less than 0.1%.
For a politician in the UK to admit to more than a passing acceptance of religion in general is writing themselves off being elected. In fact, our new Deputy PM, Nick Clegg is a self-confessed atheist.
Jim Ramsey · 12 May 2010
I would like to throw out this idea.
I know that if you base your world on young earth creationism, you have to trash geology, chemistry, biology, and physics -- for starters.
I have often wondered what essential parts of our current world you would have to deny, e.g. computers or airplanes or electricity, to maintain a consistent world view.
For a simple example, consider oil. Young earth creationism and petroleum geology don't mix real well.
So what do you think?
Natman · 12 May 2010
Jim Ramsey said:
For a simple example, consider oil. Young earth creationism and petroleum geology don't mix real well.
So what do you think?
God did it.
Where's your faith?! You don't need a rational explanation for things if you stick to your dogmatic mantra.
OgreMkV · 12 May 2010
Does it really matter in the end? And thinking about it, wouldn't this be best for our side?
This clown gets elected and tries to ram through some pro-ID/Creationism. Everyone would be clamoring for a piece of that lawsuit. Since he's a state official, it has to a federal court.
So then there would be two federal rulings that ID and creationism are illegal. That should pretty much take care of it right? Two different circuit judges ruling against teaching ID/creationism in public schools... right?
John Kwok · 12 May 2010
Yes, an excellent point, especially when the Dishonesty Institute IDiots contend that Judge Jones's ruling was that of an "activist court" (which he most emphatically denied in that ruling):
OgreMkV said:
Does it really matter in the end? And thinking about it, wouldn't this be best for our side?
This clown gets elected and tries to ram through some pro-ID/Creationism. Everyone would be clamoring for a piece of that lawsuit. Since he's a state official, it has to a federal court.
So then there would be two federal rulings that ID and creationism are illegal. That should pretty much take care of it right? Two different circuit judges ruling against teaching ID/creationism in public schools... right?
Jim Ramsey · 12 May 2010
Jim Ramsey said:
I would like to throw out this idea.
I know that if you base your world on young earth creationism, you have to trash geology, chemistry, biology, and physics -- for starters.
I have often wondered what essential parts of our current world you would have to deny, e.g. computers or airplanes or electricity, to maintain a consistent world view.
For a simple example, consider oil. Young earth creationism and petroleum geology don't mix real well.
So what do you think?
I've seen several of the replies here. My point is more like this.
I want to say to a creationist. If you want to honestly live in a world that is consistent with your beliefs, then...
1. You can get last year's flu vaccine since the flu virus can't possibly evolve.
2. Don't worry about drug resistant diseases. That can't possibly happen.
Those are just two simple examples. Given how young earth creationism conflicts with physics, there must be more fundamental ones.
Yes, I'm aware that honesty and young earth creationism are strangers, but I want to hang them with exactly that point and expose that gross dishonesty.
Just Bob · 12 May 2010
No, here's how it works in the mind of a creationist (and I've had many in my classes).
The world TODAY is however science says it is (except there's no global warming and they're wrong about how old stuff is).
But YESTERDAY, or a few thousand years ago, things, including the laws of nature, were different--as different as they needed to be at the time to make Genesis true. Oil could form in a couple of years. Sedimentary rocks were made in a couple of months (right, Byers?). The speed of light was way faster. The properties of light didn't allow rainbows to form. And evolution was WAY faster, so that a few "kinds" aboard the Ark could speciate overnight into hundreds of millions of species (most of which went extinct right away). Oh, and you can't call that "evolution".
They really do, in their minds, have "no problem with modern science" so long as it's describing the world as it is now--and making neat things like refrigerators and The Bible on DVD read by Charlton Heston. But science just happens to be wrong about everything more than about 3,000 YBP.
They can even reconcile the disparity between the genius that gives us induction cooktops and vaccines, and how utterly wrong such geniuses can be about the past: scientists have been tricked by Satan, or are his willing agents.
eric · 12 May 2010
Jim Ramsey said:
I want to say to a creationist. If you want to honestly live in a world that is consistent with your beliefs, then...
1. You can get last year's flu vaccine since the flu virus can't possibly evolve.
2. Don't worry about drug resistant diseases. That can't possibly happen.
When YECers put together a cogent response, it tends to run something like this: 'the biological changes you're talking about are in-kind, so we accept that they happen.'
And I don't think the rank and file are lying, they just don't have the educational background that would make the contradictions obvious. YOU are asking us to describe the physics/chemistry contradictions, which kind of implies that they aren't obvious to you. So why assume they're obvious to a YECer? Why assume they are dishonestly ignoring some factoid that you yourself don't know? Maybe they just don't know it too.
A second "honest" possibility is that some YECers may believe the inconsistencies are merely currently unexplainable. One might accept that radioisotope dating empirically supports an old earth, yet hope that some future YECer reseracher will harmonize a young earth with radioisotope dating. This seems to be the approach of Dr. Wood (Woods?), a YECer who has been discussed here in a number of posts.
I think you have to be careful with calling people dishonest and wanting to 'hang them' on some scientific point. Uneducated is not the same as willfully devious, and I think a lot of YECers are merely mis-, poorly- or un-educated.
Diogenes · 12 May 2010
eric said:
I think you have to be careful with calling people dishonest and wanting to 'hang them' on some scientific point. Uneducated is not the same as willfully devious, and I think a lot of YECers are merely mis-, poorly- or un-educated.
Yeah, you can't blame the rank-and-file who go to Church and see a smooth Powerpoint presentation on a digital projector by some sharpie in a suit. The rank-and-file people I understand.
It's the Powerpoint guy I want to figure out. What makes *him* do it?
At any rate, the YECs distinguish between "real science" (airplanes, Ipods, the computers they use to secretly download gay porn-- like that "scientist" George Rekers) and "origin science" (philosophy, basically all origin theories are religions.)
Look, technology is "how can we arrange some causes to get a desired effect?"
Science is, "Given some observed effects, what were their causes?"
If you detect a click in your high-altitude gamma ray observatory, you can track that back to a distant star or galaxy where the gamma ray was created. But... how distant?
Is the star four light-years away-- so the gamma ray was created four years ago? That's "real science"!
Is the star one thousand light-years away-- so the gamma ray was created one thousand years ago? That's "real science"!
Is the star fifty thousand light-years away-- so the gamma ray was created fifty thousand years ago? That's "origin science"-- THAT'S YOUR RELIGION! How dare you teach that in public schools!
Is the star six thousand light-years away-- so the gamma ray was created six thousand years ago? That's... uh... wait a minute... Is this a trick question?
Diogenes · 12 May 2010
Oh, I almost forgot...
So THIS explains the Tea Party!
(This will be my universal response to all posts from now on.)
JohnK · 12 May 2010
OgreMkV said:
wouldn't this be best for our side? ...there would be two federal rulings that ID and creationism are illegal. That should pretty much take care of it right? Two different circuit judges ruling against teaching ID/creationism in public schools... right?
There are hundreds of federal judges in that circuit, typically originally proposed to the executive by its largely rightwing senators. Your confidence shouldn't be 100%. After all, if they were the circuit judge, 2 Supremes (possibly even 4, thank stealth) would certainly disappoint you.
Anon · 12 May 2010
I wonder what his position on the round-earth "theory" is? Or would calling him a round-earther be distorting and twisting and spewing utter lies as well?
Dave Luckett · 12 May 2010
Re places where creationism is an actual electoral liability, add this one, Australia. Some right wing loon on the Liberal (read Conservative) backbench spoke favourably about "teaching both sides" before the last election, and has now, like Cincinnatus, returned to his plough. (Mind you, so has the then Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard. He became the second Prime Minister ever to lose his own seat in Parliament, and hence was not put to the trouble of resigning.)
The current Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott (aka "The Mad Monk") is viewed with a certain amount of suspicion because he's religious (RC). By our standards he's an intense conservative - hates taxation, wants smaller government, dislikes regulation, the market should rule, yada yada yada - but even he's not crazy enough to actually endorse creationism.
Mike of Oz · 13 May 2010
Yep, agreed. In fact I don't think I've ever heard creationism come up in election talk down under. It just wouldn't interest the voters at all, on either side. Most antipodean creationist dingbats find it a far more comfortable environment in the USA. ;)
Mr Abbott (our conservative party leader) is considered deeply religious by Oz standards and has caused controversy with some of his comments, to his detriment even among some conservative voters I know. I suspect his advisors will be desperately trying to tell him to keep his trap shut on religious/evolutionary views.
Contrast that with the US!
Richard · 13 May 2010
Tony Abbott is Catholic, isn't he? I doubt he'd have any problems with evolution.
Dave Luckett · 13 May 2010
Yes, he is RC, as I indicated. But he's a particularly conservative Catholic layman with no scientific training, and it does not follow that he'd have no problems with evolution.
The Pope has only gone so far as to say that the Roman Catholic Church has no problems with the Theory of Evolution (theistic flavour), and that Catholics may accept it. It is still up to the individual conscience and scientific understanding of the individual Catholic as to whether it is actually accepted.
I don't know what Abbott's private views are. He is, in my opinion, not the sharpest pencil in the box, but he's a savvy enough politician to know that in Australia at least, a public avowal of creationism would result in a polite message from the party room. He's far more likely to try to restrict access to termination of pregnancy in some way - that, at least, would be more in line with his known beliefs.
henry · 13 May 2010
John Kwok said:
As a registered Republican and a Conservative, I agree with Nick and everyone else who finds this advertisement not only depressing, and stupid and silly, but one that rings all too true. How? Why? For years I've seem similar "kinds" of political advertisements here in the Northeast, in which the "targets" of such advertisements are often mocked, like Byrne, from changing their political "stripes" whenever such changes best suited them (One noteworthy example is from New Jersey, last year, when current Governor Christie challenged his primary opponent and vice veras.). Regrettably, if these ads can work in New Jersey, then I am sure they'll influence voters in Alabama. How much we'll see should Byrne win his campaign.
Anyway, as we know full well, not even the Northeast is immune from acute attacks of evolution denialism (e. g. recent news from Hartford, CT about a creationist school board member meeting with secondary school science teachers merely to voice his concern about teaching evolution).
Maybe Byrne needs to have a friendly folksy chat, with another native son from Alabama, one E. O. Wilson, before spewing any more creationist nonsense.
Be thankful you'll be part of the majority party in November.
John Kwok · 13 May 2010
I won't be if the election results in more of the same nonsense documented so well by Chris Mooney in his "The Republican War on Science":
henry said:
Be thankful you'll be part of the majority party in November.
However, on the other hand, maybe they might be more appreciative of NASA than the POTUS seems to be. Who knows? Am grateful that there are some in Congress now ready to challenged our beloved "Messiah" over his proposals to cancel the manned United States space program.
henry · 14 May 2010
John Kwok said:
I won't be if the election results in more of the same nonsense documented so well by Chris Mooney in his "The Republican War on Science":
henry said:
Be thankful you'll be part of the majority party in November.
However, on the other hand, maybe they might be more appreciative of NASA than the POTUS seems to be. Who knows? Am grateful that there are some in Congress now ready to challenged our beloved "Messiah" over his proposals to cancel the manned United States space program.
It might be a good idea to scrap the current space program since it uses rocket technology.
Delta Clipper was used in SDI back in the 80's and costs were ten or hundred times less than using rocket technology, because using airplane technology greatly reduced turnaround time and labor costs.
Just Bob · 14 May 2010
henry said:
It might be a good idea to scrap the current space program since it uses rocket technology.
Delta Clipper was used in SDI back in the 80's and costs were ten or hundred times less than using rocket technology, because using airplane technology greatly reduced turnaround time and labor costs.
Uhh, Henry, the Delta Clipper IS a rocket!
It seems your spaceflight technology knowledge is no deeper than your biology--or, for that matter, Bible--knowledge.
What DO you know anything about?
John Kwok · 14 May 2010
POTUS has received ample pleas from Neil Armstrong and other notable astronauts to stop eviscerating our US manned space program. Unfortunately POTUS isn't bright enough to realize that we need to have a substantial manned presence in Earth orbit and on the Moon if we have any hope to develop crucial technologies and experience necessary for a successful round trip voyage to Mars:
henry said:
John Kwok said:
I won't be if the election results in more of the same nonsense documented so well by Chris Mooney in his "The Republican War on Science":
henry said:
Be thankful you'll be part of the majority party in November.
However, on the other hand, maybe they might be more appreciative of NASA than the POTUS seems to be. Who knows? Am grateful that there are some in Congress now ready to challenged our beloved "Messiah" over his proposals to cancel the manned United States space program.
It might be a good idea to scrap the current space program since it uses rocket technology.
Delta Clipper was used in SDI back in the 80's and costs were ten or hundred times less than using rocket technology, because using airplane technology greatly reduced turnaround time and labor costs.
RWard · 14 May 2010
John, why do you insist on turn Panda's Thumb in a forum on politics? You never come off looking very bright when you do.
RWard · 14 May 2010
please read "Panda's Thumb in a forum on politics" as ""Panda's Thumb into a forum on politics."
It is especially bad to make such a mistake in a post on someone else's 'brightness.'
John Kwok · 14 May 2010
When you opt to criticize others for doing exactly what you accuse me of, then your complaint has validity:
RWard said:
John, why do you insist on turn Panda's Thumb in a forum on politics? You never come off looking very bright when you do.
As for my criticism of POTUS, it is not meant to be political. Am merely noting what has happened and how eminent astronauts like Neil Armstrong have reacted. As for my inference that POTUS isn't "bright" with respect to the space program, let me note that his administration is the first I can recall in which he made a point to tap truly first rate scientists as advisors. Am sure that they recognized the need for the USA to have a continued, quite viable, manned presence in space, and POTUS has ignored such advice apparently. Either he isn't bright or he is acting on his own leftist political agenda (or both) which believes that money should be spent here on Earth instead of on space (Ignoring the well-established fact that the space program is responsible for substantial technological leaps that have not only raised the standard of living of ordinary Americans, but has led to important progress, for example, with respect to new technologies for providing healthcare, improved information storage and transmission, to name but a few.).
fnxtr · 14 May 2010
Hey, John, let's move this to bw, okay?
John Kwok · 14 May 2010
Sure, but ask the same of RWard please. Wasn't my intent to discuss politics here, period:
fnxtr said:
Hey, John, let's move this to bw, okay?
RWard said:
John, why do you insist on turn Panda's Thumb in a forum on politics? You never come off looking very bright when you do.
Uh, did you read the original subject of that blog entry above? It's POLITICS!
henry · 15 May 2010
Just Bob said:
henry said:
It might be a good idea to scrap the current space program since it uses rocket technology.
Delta Clipper was used in SDI back in the 80's and costs were ten or hundred times less than using rocket technology, because using airplane technology greatly reduced turnaround time and labor costs.
Uhh, Henry, the Delta Clipper IS a rocket!
It seems your spaceflight technology knowledge is no deeper than your biology--or, for that matter, Bible--knowledge.
What DO you know anything about?
I stand corrected--it is a rocket.
It was a single stage to orbit launch vehicle which was designed to reduce turnaround time and costs.
Alex H · 15 May 2010
tomh said:
Alex H said:
And in Oregon we have Arthur Robinson running for Senate. Yeah, the guy who started the Oregon Petition (and, according to Wikipedia, is also a signer on a Disco institute criticism of evolution).
Actually, he's in the Republican primary for U.S. House District 4, a seat held by Democrat Peter DeFazio since 1987.
Yeah, realized I'd confused "Senate" and "House of Representatives about 3 minutes after clicking the Submit button.
“He said that the Earth rotates on an axis!” “Whuh?” “He believes that tiny invisible animals cause disease!
(warning: a bit of cussing)
Henry J · 16 May 2010
Diseases caused by tiny animals? Sometimes (e.g., some parasites, and I think malaria would fit that description), but aren't way more diseases caused by bacteria (prokaryotes), and sometimes by yeast, or other single celled eukaryotes? Those aren't animals.
Henry
James F · 16 May 2010
Henry J said:
Diseases caused by tiny animals? Sometimes (e.g., some parasites, and I think malaria would fit that description), but aren't way more diseases caused by bacteria (prokaryotes), and sometimes by yeast, or other single celled eukaryotes? Those aren't animals.
Henry
Hey, they were in character! You think the people in the ad are supposed to know about prokaryotes and eukaryotes? That's book learnin' - work with me here. ;-D
Henry J · 16 May 2010
Oh. Wonder if they went to the same elementary school I did? In the general science class there, life was composed of two kingdoms (plant and animal), and everything alive was shoved into one or the other, whether it fit or not. (Of course, back then I didn't know a lot of it didn't fit in those two "kingdoms". LOL )
Henry J
tbob · 24 May 2010
In January, 1966 I was invited to attend a three-year camp program hosted by the US Armed Forces. I took a train ride down to Ft. Benning, GA for basic campground training, then transported across another state line into an alternate universe known as Alabama. Weekend Bible tents, dry counties, dilapidated infrastructure, separate rosters for white and colored war dead, swimmin' pools...movies stars. Wait a minute, scratch those last two...that was a TV show.
By 1967 I was compelled to volunteer for duty in the Republic of Viet Nam to get out of Alabama...best move I ever made. In the 80s I drove through the "A" state on my way to Florida to see the folks. Bear Bryant was gone...seemed to be more pavement and traffic lights...and the population had regressed even further into their evolutionary (whether they knew it, or not) dead-end.
Don't even bother raisin' a ruckus about this post, as I'm very unlikely to ever return (although there will always be the temptation to fly the family down to your sandy whitish beaches and roll around in the tar balls that promise to be washing up for, at least, the remainder of this century).
65 Comments
Pierce R. Butler · 11 May 2010
Y'all not fum down heah, are ye?
Justfinethanks · 11 May 2010
"Brad Byrne makes a modest effort to base some his beliefs regarding the natural world on publicly verifiable evidence.
Would you trust such a man with your children's future?"
I'm told that in some other countries, not accepting evolution is a political liability. Do such magical lands actually exist?
Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle · 11 May 2010
I'm from Ohio, which is not exactly a bastion of freethought, but Ive had the displeasure of living in Alabama for a year and Louisiana for a year. I swore I would never see the South again unless it was through the window of an airplane. That was long before I ever heard the term "flyover states."
Alex H · 11 May 2010
Politics: just when you thought it couldn't get any more cuckoo...
Brian Smith · 11 May 2010
Nope, it's real. I've seen it more than once on TV.
What's even scarier is it's not the dumbest campaign ad airing here... not by a long shot.
Paul · 11 May 2010
I'm guessing it was done by his opponent Tim "English-only" James?
George · 11 May 2010
We have Sue Lowden running for the Senate in Nevada ... "chickens for checkups" (just google it) so I don't see why anyone is surprised by this.
Paul Burnett · 11 May 2010
Demagogues will always do whatever appeals to the voters who will elect them. If 51% or more of voters in Alabama are against evolution, ads like this are inevitable. What's new?
Aagcobb · 11 May 2010
That's just half of the story. Byrne is outraged by the despicable attack on his creationist credentials. He says he has fought hard to ensure creationist is included in Alabama school textbooks!
Aagcobb · 11 May 2010
stevaroni · 11 May 2010
Dave Luckett · 11 May 2010
I don't suppose it's worth remarking that, although we down here certainly do have a crop of arrant creationists, a campaign ad like that for any candidate would go over like a brick-and-tile glider, and it's absolutely certain that any of the parties with Parliamentary representation would send this guy the bowstring, with instructions on how to use it.
Sure, a tiny fringe of mouth-breathing rednecks would vote for him - we have those, too - but no politician in his right mind would identify with that demographic, not even in Queensland. Hell, not even in northern Queensland.
Dale Husband · 11 May 2010
Oh, John Kwok, we need you.................
raven · 11 May 2010
This is old hat and evolution/creationism is sort of boring.
How do these candidates stand on the really important issues such as the Flat Earth, Geocentrism, and Bigfoot. And are there any plans to deal with the UFO's piloted by demons from hell?
Alex H · 12 May 2010
Aagcobb · 12 May 2010
eric · 12 May 2010
After hearing everyone's "you think that guy's bad..." stories, I'm inclined to think that perhaps representative government's real value is in serving as a jobs program for the lowest 10%.
Jesse · 12 May 2010
John Kwok · 12 May 2010
As a registered Republican and a Conservative, I agree with Nick and everyone else who finds this advertisement not only depressing, and stupid and silly, but one that rings all too true. How? Why? For years I've seem similar "kinds" of political advertisements here in the Northeast, in which the "targets" of such advertisements are often mocked, like Byrne, from changing their political "stripes" whenever such changes best suited them (One noteworthy example is from New Jersey, last year, when current Governor Christie challenged his primary opponent and vice veras.). Regrettably, if these ads can work in New Jersey, then I am sure they'll influence voters in Alabama. How much we'll see should Byrne win his campaign.
Anyway, as we know full well, not even the Northeast is immune from acute attacks of evolution denialism (e. g. recent news from Hartford, CT about a creationist school board member meeting with secondary school science teachers merely to voice his concern about teaching evolution).
Maybe Byrne needs to have a friendly folksy chat, with another native son from Alabama, one E. O. Wilson, before spewing any more creationist nonsense.
t_p_hamilton · 12 May 2010
Worse, this campaign ad is funded by the democrat (Paul Hubbert) who is the head of the Alabama Teacher's Union (AEA). How is that for standing up for education?
eric · 12 May 2010
DavidK · 12 May 2010
You will notice many ellipses (...) in the quotes cited in the video. A distinct mark of creationists/id'ers who quote out of context. What did the many really say, anyone know?
Ben · 12 May 2010
It only makes sense for Democrats to fund this ad ... and any other ad by whacky neocons with off-the-chart positions. It makes the whole conservative movement look like a bunch of ignorant, backwater hicks. And I'm still just barely patriotic enough to believe that ignorant, backwater hickism hasn't yet become a sought-after leadership quality in the minds of most voting Americans.
tomh · 12 May 2010
DaleP · 12 May 2010
Actually, this ad is funded by TEACHERS! It is not funded by any current or possible opponent. When Byrne was on the school board, he did something to make them mad, so through a second level, they decided to attack Byrne.
From Talking Points Memo:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/al-gov-candidate-responds-to-ad-i-do-too-believe-in-creationism-video.php?ref=fpa
"The group behind the ad and others attacking Byrne's conservative credentials is called the True Republican PAC. Interestingly, as the Montgomery Advertiser reported last month, the PAC has gotten most of its money from the teachers' union -- or, more accurately, from a collection of other PACs heavily funded by the union.
"According to the Advertiser, members of the Alabama Education Association have a beef with Byrne for his past attempts to ban the employees of two-year colleges from serving in the state legislature."
Paul Burnett · 12 May 2010
John Kwok · 12 May 2010
Stanton · 12 May 2010
John, stop deliberately conflating Creationism with Cretinism: it's insulting and demeaning to cretins and Cretans alike.
Eric Houg · 12 May 2010
What's really sad is both that he has already publicly stated that he only supports teaching creationism in Schools and that this ad will likely garner a large number of votes for his opponent.
eric · 12 May 2010
GSmith · 12 May 2010
Natman · 12 May 2010
Jim Ramsey · 12 May 2010
I would like to throw out this idea.
I know that if you base your world on young earth creationism, you have to trash geology, chemistry, biology, and physics -- for starters.
I have often wondered what essential parts of our current world you would have to deny, e.g. computers or airplanes or electricity, to maintain a consistent world view.
For a simple example, consider oil. Young earth creationism and petroleum geology don't mix real well.
So what do you think?
Natman · 12 May 2010
OgreMkV · 12 May 2010
Does it really matter in the end? And thinking about it, wouldn't this be best for our side?
This clown gets elected and tries to ram through some pro-ID/Creationism. Everyone would be clamoring for a piece of that lawsuit. Since he's a state official, it has to a federal court.
So then there would be two federal rulings that ID and creationism are illegal. That should pretty much take care of it right? Two different circuit judges ruling against teaching ID/creationism in public schools... right?
John Kwok · 12 May 2010
Jim Ramsey · 12 May 2010
Just Bob · 12 May 2010
No, here's how it works in the mind of a creationist (and I've had many in my classes).
The world TODAY is however science says it is (except there's no global warming and they're wrong about how old stuff is).
But YESTERDAY, or a few thousand years ago, things, including the laws of nature, were different--as different as they needed to be at the time to make Genesis true. Oil could form in a couple of years. Sedimentary rocks were made in a couple of months (right, Byers?). The speed of light was way faster. The properties of light didn't allow rainbows to form. And evolution was WAY faster, so that a few "kinds" aboard the Ark could speciate overnight into hundreds of millions of species (most of which went extinct right away). Oh, and you can't call that "evolution".
They really do, in their minds, have "no problem with modern science" so long as it's describing the world as it is now--and making neat things like refrigerators and The Bible on DVD read by Charlton Heston. But science just happens to be wrong about everything more than about 3,000 YBP.
They can even reconcile the disparity between the genius that gives us induction cooktops and vaccines, and how utterly wrong such geniuses can be about the past: scientists have been tricked by Satan, or are his willing agents.
eric · 12 May 2010
Diogenes · 12 May 2010
Diogenes · 12 May 2010
Oh, I almost forgot...
So THIS explains the Tea Party!
(This will be my universal response to all posts from now on.)
JohnK · 12 May 2010
Anon · 12 May 2010
I wonder what his position on the round-earth "theory" is? Or would calling him a round-earther be distorting and twisting and spewing utter lies as well?
Dave Luckett · 12 May 2010
Re places where creationism is an actual electoral liability, add this one, Australia. Some right wing loon on the Liberal (read Conservative) backbench spoke favourably about "teaching both sides" before the last election, and has now, like Cincinnatus, returned to his plough. (Mind you, so has the then Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard. He became the second Prime Minister ever to lose his own seat in Parliament, and hence was not put to the trouble of resigning.)
The current Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott (aka "The Mad Monk") is viewed with a certain amount of suspicion because he's religious (RC). By our standards he's an intense conservative - hates taxation, wants smaller government, dislikes regulation, the market should rule, yada yada yada - but even he's not crazy enough to actually endorse creationism.
Mike of Oz · 13 May 2010
Yep, agreed. In fact I don't think I've ever heard creationism come up in election talk down under. It just wouldn't interest the voters at all, on either side. Most antipodean creationist dingbats find it a far more comfortable environment in the USA. ;)
Mr Abbott (our conservative party leader) is considered deeply religious by Oz standards and has caused controversy with some of his comments, to his detriment even among some conservative voters I know. I suspect his advisors will be desperately trying to tell him to keep his trap shut on religious/evolutionary views.
Contrast that with the US!
Richard · 13 May 2010
Tony Abbott is Catholic, isn't he? I doubt he'd have any problems with evolution.
Dave Luckett · 13 May 2010
Yes, he is RC, as I indicated. But he's a particularly conservative Catholic layman with no scientific training, and it does not follow that he'd have no problems with evolution.
The Pope has only gone so far as to say that the Roman Catholic Church has no problems with the Theory of Evolution (theistic flavour), and that Catholics may accept it. It is still up to the individual conscience and scientific understanding of the individual Catholic as to whether it is actually accepted.
I don't know what Abbott's private views are. He is, in my opinion, not the sharpest pencil in the box, but he's a savvy enough politician to know that in Australia at least, a public avowal of creationism would result in a polite message from the party room. He's far more likely to try to restrict access to termination of pregnancy in some way - that, at least, would be more in line with his known beliefs.
henry · 13 May 2010
John Kwok · 13 May 2010
henry · 14 May 2010
Just Bob · 14 May 2010
John Kwok · 14 May 2010
RWard · 14 May 2010
John, why do you insist on turn Panda's Thumb in a forum on politics? You never come off looking very bright when you do.
RWard · 14 May 2010
please read "Panda's Thumb in a forum on politics" as ""Panda's Thumb into a forum on politics."
It is especially bad to make such a mistake in a post on someone else's 'brightness.'
John Kwok · 14 May 2010
fnxtr · 14 May 2010
Hey, John, let's move this to bw, okay?
John Kwok · 14 May 2010
Dale Husband · 14 May 2010
henry · 15 May 2010
Alex H · 15 May 2010
James F · 15 May 2010
If you're in need of some humor after that ad, here are Bill Maher's parodies.
“He said that the Earth rotates on an axis!” “Whuh?”
“He believes that tiny invisible animals cause disease!
(warning: a bit of cussing)
Henry J · 16 May 2010
Diseases caused by tiny animals? Sometimes (e.g., some parasites, and I think malaria would fit that description), but aren't way more diseases caused by bacteria (prokaryotes), and sometimes by yeast, or other single celled eukaryotes? Those aren't animals.
Henry
James F · 16 May 2010
Henry J · 16 May 2010
Oh. Wonder if they went to the same elementary school I did? In the general science class there, life was composed of two kingdoms (plant and animal), and everything alive was shoved into one or the other, whether it fit or not. (Of course, back then I didn't know a lot of it didn't fit in those two "kingdoms". LOL )
Henry J
tbob · 24 May 2010
In January, 1966 I was invited to attend a three-year camp program hosted by the US Armed Forces. I took a train ride down to Ft. Benning, GA for basic campground training, then transported across another state line into an alternate universe known as Alabama. Weekend Bible tents, dry counties, dilapidated infrastructure, separate rosters for white and colored war dead, swimmin' pools...movies stars. Wait a minute, scratch those last two...that was a TV show.
By 1967 I was compelled to volunteer for duty in the Republic of Viet Nam to get out of Alabama...best move I ever made. In the 80s I drove through the "A" state on my way to Florida to see the folks. Bear Bryant was gone...seemed to be more pavement and traffic lights...and the population had regressed even further into their evolutionary (whether they knew it, or not) dead-end.
Don't even bother raisin' a ruckus about this post, as I'm very unlikely to ever return (although there will always be the temptation to fly the family down to your sandy whitish beaches and roll around in the tar balls that promise to be washing up for, at least, the remainder of this century).