Replies

“No, the point of my argument was scientists are naturally inquisitive, as Edward Peltzer so nicely illustrates, and the conservative/creationists here on FR understand (singing to the choir) but when he is inquisitive, he gets smeared and called a religious kook by the evo-liberals here on FR and elsewhere.”

—ok, I did misread you. I wouldn’t be surprised if Peltzer was smeared for his remark, as I’ve seen a lot of unfortunate cases of smearing for odd things. Like some people being called “liberals”, “godless” or a “Temple of Darwin” follower because they happen to believe the earth is older than 6k years or believe in evolution.

If you really want to see some inquisitiveness, check out Stanley Miller. Just recently I was reading about some interesting experiments he was working on. Almost no one thought that really interesting chemistry occurs in ice, but Stanley was inquisitive and wondered what would happen if some common chemicals were put in ice in sealed test tubes. After 25 years he opened them up and found nucleobases, RNA, and amino acids. When he first tried to publish the results to journals he was rejected - they couldn’t believe the results and said that the molecules had to have formed during the thawing process (must have been from Creationist censors!). So he redid the tests on other test tubes that showed that they really had formed before the thawing. No “intervening and tweaking” going on. Just some common chemicals mixed with ice and let sit for 25 years.
After he died they found tubes tucked away in all kinds of places around his office and lab, all various experiments he was trying.
Miller found just the opposite of what Peltzer was claiming. Very interesting chemistry - the molecules of life - form under a wide variety of initial conditions and without the need of tweaking by grad students.

“SO do you really and truly think these scientists that actually work in the various fields of science they represent are really just of the modern day black helicopter crowd? I mean they just think there’s some made up sky is falling attack on them, their worldview and they don’t know what they’re talking about when they say “it deserves to be heard”? And this is muchado about nothing?”

—The statement they signed wouldn’t suggest that they are the equivalent of the black helicopter crowd, as the statement IS muchado about nothing, and represents no dissent from Darwinism. Such a statement could come from the mouth of Richard Dawkins, or Darwin, or me.
The scarcity of signers might lend support to the argument that they are analogous of the black helicopter crowd however. Create a statement saying “We are skeptical of the moon landings” and you’d probably get a similar number of signers.

“Some people say Ben Stein was just making money off of people in “No Intelligence Allowed”, like the various creation museums btw, and there really isn’t a banning of those that dissent. Does this include you?”

—I haven’t seen the film yet, but I was aware of most of the examples used in “expelled” before the film even came out, and those cases are little more than internet urban legends. To use one example, that of Caroline Crocker, the film said “After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt end.”
She didn’t “simply mention Intelligent Design”, she taught that common descent was false and showed slides with ludicrous claims like “Eohippus is found in the same layers as the modern horse”. Also, her “sterling academic career” didn’t come to an “abrupt end”, she finished teaching the course and was a temp that they simply didn’t rehire and she was subsequently hired by another university, and today is working as a researcher.

There are millions of scientists in the US and I have yet to see a single case of anyone being banned or fired for “dissension” to Darwinism. There may be some actual cases out there - in this sometimes screwy world, and with MILLIONS of scientists out there, I wouldn’t be surprised to find a case or two of someone being fired because others didn’t like his mustache, but I have yet to see one.

“I used to not pay too much attention like you, then I began to notice the various culture wars: Republican vs. democrat, liberal vs. conservative, secular vs. Judeo-Christian values, and the books and articles written by various people, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh’s brother, Ann Coulter, Franklin Graham, his sister and various other conservative folks...addressing these “culture wars”.”

—My story is a bit of the reverse... I used to watch Rush’s TV program and enjoyed it (I was said when it went off the air), and some other such programs. But the more I got into the real world, I began seeing how simplistic and false the worldview was that such commentations were describing. Innventing a “culture war”, “liberal vs conservative” or “christian vs secular”, is a good way to get viewers/listeners and sell books.

“Outside my immediate area I began to notice Christmas trees, indeed all things Christmas being banned in the name of tolerance.”

—As a huge fan of Christmas myself, it does really irk me to hear stories of businesses that stop having Christmas signs, or someone that’s offended by “Merry Christmas”. I’m even irked when where I work calls Christmas break the “holiday break” (or even worse, “winter break”). There has been some hypersensitivity by a few people (very very few - I’m never actually met such a person IRL), and a gross overreaction by some businesses, but the “War on Christmas” thing is silly hyperbole. Even calling it the “minor skirmish against Christmas” would seem an exaggeration. I haven’t seen anything close to what you’ve apparently seen - and I’m in an area that’s far more liberal and democrat than yours (I’m in the Pittsburgh area). I see Christmas signs and trees everywhere (usually starting about 2 weeks before Halloween lol).

My favorite example used as evidence of the “War on Christmas” is when people complain about “Xmas”, saying that it’s liberal or secular way to remove “Christ” from Christmas (even thought X is an ancient symbol for Christ). Ironically, the recent anti-Xmas fad started at a time when Xmas was probably less used than at any time in the past couple centuries. Particulary during the early 20th century it was quite popular. It was very popular when I was a kid and I used to see such signs everywhere, particularly on doors (I think people liked them because you could make the letters really big; if you try putting “Christmas” on a door the letters are rather small and hard to read from the street.) But the popularity of Xmas signs declined over the years (hmm, I just realized - I wonder if that’s why the popularity of wreaths has apparently grown so much, cause it’s so hard to fit “Christmas” on doors?), and then I pretty much stopped seeing them completely - and then some years go by - and THEN a big anti-Xmas campaign starts. lol I just think that’s pretty funny. If someone wants “Xmas” decorations, the best place (and very nearly the only place) to go now is some grandmother’s attic.

If what you are saying about the Georgia aclu forcing a school to remove Christmas from their calendar is true, than I’m completely against the aclu on that one. Being that it’s a national holiday there should be no problem having it on the calendar. Do you have a source for that? I’d like to see what the aclu’s take is on that one.

“Or the kneejerk liberal reaction of a kid allergic to peanuts getting an ice cream with peanuts...”

—I agree it’s a kneejerk reaction, but why is it a “liberal” kneejerk reaction? What has a school’s decision as to what to do about a student’s peanut allergy got to do with “liberal vs conservativism”?

“And of course we come to the subject here, creation vs. evolution, liberals calling anything that criticizes evolution a religious attack on science. Liberals have hijacked this theory and it’s not even debatable.”

—Well, (almost) every attack DOES originate from religious motives instead of good science. And such criticism doesn’t come from (just) “liberals”, just about any conservative christian scientist will say the same thing (e.g. Francis Collins).

“So the issue is, do American citizens deserve the right to teach their children as they see fit with public funds?
My position is allow creation taught alongside evolution.”

—I have some mixed feelings about the subject. I’m a strong state’s rights and local power advocate, and so it does make me uncomfortable to see a local school board set a school curriculum, and then see the gov step in and say “you can’t do that” (although in the Dover case, it was a judge from the local district that made the ruling, so it WAS handled locally). OTOH, I believe students should be given a decent science education that involves learning the scientific method and the leading scientific theories - and so I’m quite happy for the students of Dover and other places where Creationism/ID material has been ruled out, as it’s just really bad science and not advocated by the vast majority of scientists.

(me)“If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class”.
(you) It’s one thing to be misinformed but to spread around such blatant falsehoods like this needs to be addressed.”

—Which part of the statement isn’t common knowledge? That science calls for skepticism? That mutation and selection aren’t the sole means by which evolution occurs? Anyone that doesn’t know that stuff needs to open up an “Intro to Biology” textbook. Any such textbook from the past 80 years will do.

“Are you familiar with the Georgia school board (not mine btw) that placed stickers on the science texts explaining evolution was a theory and not a fact and these concerned parents were sued to have the stickers removed?”

—Why not put a sticker on every page that says “the stuff on this page could be wrong”? Why single out evolution? Personal religious beliefs is the only reason for doing so. I’m sure the textbook calls evolution “the theory of evolution”, and the book probably doesn’t call evolution a “fact”, and even if it does most scientists DO consider evolution a fact (although by “fact” scientists don’t mean “can’t be wrong”, but instead “beyond reasonable doubt”), and I’m sure that the book expresses that there’s still a lot to learn about evolution.

The difference being the creation scientists are merely trying to get their message heard in school, and I.D. which offers up a better explanation than evolution i.e. all we know happened "just because".

The liberal message is heard because if it's not crammed down throats and into mushy minds, liberals sue. Just that simple. They misrepresent and abuse the Constitution, law and everything else they can. And anything or anyone that threatens them or their twisted message is sued.

So, it's not this innocent "smearing of odd things", more often than not what you're experiencing is backlash, not smearing. And we all know liberals can't handle the heat in the kitchen or play by the same rules they set up for everyone else. Pretty much smear and then project about the smearing when they get caught.

It's how liberalism works. Don't vote for zerrhoid or you're a racist. Don't vote for the liberal racist Sotomayor, then you're a racist. They're doing the exact same thing when they hijack science and smear all those that don't buy into the cult of evolution. Conservatives and/or those without God hang-ups understand and recognize this.

Your "creationist censors" paragraph is quite entertaining fiction. That's a first for me, the censored censoring, what a hoot! This barrage of liberal projections has access to a limitless stockpile of ammo it appears! I've never heard of this Stanley Miller but since the media is in the liberal's back pocket, I know without a shadow of a doubt had his work been valid (and for that matter not so much) I'd have heard of him by now. I'll stick with Peltzer about life up and forming without intelligence and design is bunk, thanks. Unless you'd like to leave a link.

Create a statement saying “We are skeptical of the moon landings” and you’d probably get a similar number of signers.

OK you're on. Start a petition of scientists that don't believe we landed on the moon (40 years ago this Monday incidentally) and come back with your list and we'll compare it to dissentfromdarwin.org. And in your spare time you go and convince Dawkins and more evolutionary scientists to sign the dissentfromdarwin.org petition since it's no big deal and then you might have a coherent argument. Until that happens, errrrr frankly, not so much.

You need to see the film, there's much more to it than this and it sounds like you're simply not exposed to it more than anything else. And of course it helps to do your research from reputable sites, and not liberal mouthpieces.

Wow, that was a LOOOONG time ago and we obviously occupy two very different worlds. When I'm at work (downtown Atlanta), I hear and see and experience things that make it seem like I've left a different PLANET when I get home in the sane part of Georgia about 30 miles east. Blue to red, liberal to conservative, insane to sane. The more I noticed the clearer it became.

I must admit I'm a little surprised you hang on at FR too. It seems a better fit would be ... elsewhere. FR seems to me for instance to be a solid SOLID observation of my experience rather than yours. For instance the Herr Olbermeister attack on Jim Robinson for starters.

If your experience is just the opposite of what I've described to you and the "commentators" are eliciting a "false" "simplistic" "invention", as you put it, then it's obvious to me you're out of place here!

But having said that, perhaps here is what's saved you too, if you've stopped (listening) to Rush and the rest of the conservatives and their warnings/observations!

Yes it irks me too. But to say it's silly hypebole is completely disconnected from reality. Just because it hasn't fully penetrated your area doesn't mean it's not happening everywhere else, all around you. And as unaware as you are, I'm sure alot of what's going on immediately around you just isn't registering. Kind of the frog in boiling water effect.

I make it a point to say Merry Christmas, because I'm free enough to do so. For now. Not much has changed, because I've always said Merry Christmas and not "happy winter festival" or whatever liberal nonsense is politically correct these days.

Speaking of which, MUCH worse than the war on Christmas, and all things Christian in this country is political correctness.

Are you IN Pittsburgh? I have a friend in Connellsville and according to him people there simply won't tolerate this stuff, but this is the difference as with virtually ANY big U.S. city, like Atlanta, liberals congregate in the city, not so much outside city limits.

Interesting, how about the parental take? Does this not interest you? I first learned about it the way I described, but perhaps you'll find something on www.ThomasMore.org, if not google it, (Christmas, ban, calendar, ACLU, Georgia, school) but again, mind your sources...I would not exactly trust for instance the AJC, a known liberal rag in these parts.

I agree it’s a kneejerk reaction, but why is it a “liberal” kneejerk reaction? What has a school’s decision as to what to do about a student’s peanut allergy got to do with “liberal vs conservativism”?

Are you this unobservant? Surely you've heard of the NEA? They have very specific liberal guidelines, and surely you must realize this nonsense rubs off on principals...and I hear about these kooky things outside our school district, nationwide....like everyone gets a trophy so no one feels bad, or can't keep score because everyone's a(n)(Al Franken) winner, blah blah, blah. CLASSSIC liberalism! Don't hold the child/family accountable but everyone else and punish the colletcive. You're not pretending these are conservative values are you?

Well, (almost) every attack DOES originate from religious motives instead of good science. And such criticism doesn’t come from (just) “liberals”, just about any conservative christian scientist will say the same thing (e.g. Francis Collins).

Show me the religious motives then in Peltzer's observations. I would argue the same exists for liberals that have hijacked evolution turning it into a cult, for very anti-religious motives.

I also reject the hypersensitive lexicon "attack" overexaggeration too. Every little examination is often criticized as an "attack" on science, an auto-response really, rather it's something like Peltzer's work or something else. Just looking around here is all the proof you'll ever need.

and so I’m quite happy for the students of Dover and other places where Creationism/ID material has been ruled out, as it’s just really bad science and not advocated by the vast majority of scientists.

Oh, I bet you are quite happy the majority normal folks are squashed ala 1930's style...but it's not "bad science" (debunked here too many times to rehash) and the parents that sued think their views are somehow more important than the vast majority of normal parents. The scientists, (we've all been over this too) are in no position to dictate or do anything more than make recommendations, and actually it's the administration that embraces the anti-Christian cult of evolution and dictates what will or will not be taught, parents be damned. AND how is it some so-called "bad science" is OK to ban while any "bad science" that just somehow coincidentally has not so much to do with God, for instance algores' hot air cult of manmade global warming as science....is OK? Also about a million times more destructive to kids, science etc. btw!

Why not allow these so-called concerned parents to opt out of ID/creation? Why do the minority insane/multiple God hang-up families dictate to the majority normal people and often force the moral people to go to home or private school AND pay for their kids AND the loonies kids failed public screwels too? (I included wintertime and metmom here because they understand what your dangerous advocations mean to our culture.) And frankly, yours is an incoherent position.

Yes, that's the textbook theory, but in practice a very very different thing occurs in the real world. And not isolated incidents either, and across the board, K through grad school. I have a nurse friend, LPN that's going back to school to get her RN. About 5 days ago we were talking about how school was going for her and she described an instructor she has at a local community college and how this lunatic bullied and went off on anyone that dared question his godless scientific model/worldview, not just evolution but ANY question that threatend his worldview was answered with insults and threats. She said several students were making formal complaints and she'd keep me posted. It's not what's in the textbooks that's at issue here, it's more about the insidious liberal godless worldvirew that's pervasive that's at issue. There's no education going on here, but indoctrination. Or a profound attempt to do so.

Is this how you think science should be taught, at any and every level?

Sheesh, it's not only NOT done for personnal religious beliefs but I think I told you the reason it was "singled out" as you put it was because the cultists have hijacked this theory in particular and for their OWN religious beliefs taught it not as theory but fact, and noooo the textbooks or the content aren't even what's at issue, it's the way the material in the textbook is dishonestly presented. As there is NOT so much to belearned, because thee's no debate, or it's settled science, like liberals often parrot. Much like the liberal lunatic instructor presented the material in the aforementioned example I gave you earlier.

If there's soooo much to be known then why is it they're so insecure they need to present it as fact in the first place? Why do they sue people when all the sticker said was it's not fact, but theory? And if there's literally no "reasonable doubt" as you put it, shouldn't it be strong enough therefore to stand up beside ID/creationism or pretty much anything? I know liberals count on their indoctrinations not to allow any critical thinking, and this is exactly why they have to stomp out any and all debate as religious attacks on science before the actual debate even gets off the ground. NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED!

BTW, this merits further investigation on your part too obviously; and try getting some non-liberal, non-secular input for a change. It need not be a Christian source, but try for instance getting a conservative one (or more)!