Scientists in the Kansas intelligent design hearings make their case public

AP ^ | 5/9/05 | John Hanna

[Doctor Stochastic]

That depends on what the definition of equals equals.

[Tungenchek]

The Alliance party in Canada was a grass roots conservative party that became the major challenge to the Liberal establisment.
Back in 2000 they elected Stockwell Day as leader.

The problem with this choice was it alienated most of the Canadians who wanted a change and had hither to supported the Alliance as a viable conservative group. There was great hope that the Liberal's would finally be unseated..

However the Alliance elected Stockwell Day...those who were not social conservatives or 'retro-christian/ creationists' believed in my view correctly that he was more theocrat than conservative and simply opted to not vote or to vote the known parties...

The Liberals were returned with a majority.

thats the long and short of it....

[JeffAtlanta]

The idea that traditional conservatives are trying to impose a "theocracy" is nonsense.

Then explain the situation in Kansas.

We hear this nonsense all the time. "Gee, the Republicans are gonna lose voters unless they move to the left on [abortion, evolution, gay issues, school prayer, guns....just fill in the blank]."

The republican party has already moved to the left on all fiscal issues. How many spending bills has Bush vetoed?

The GOP is now a fiscal liberal/social conservative party. Fiscal liberal meaning spending money on every program in sight - social conservative meaning "morality police" and establishing a theocracy.

Without the war on terror, I doubt the GOP would get more than 45% of the national vote.

[crail]

I am not that familiar with Canadian politics. Could you elaborate?

We used to have two conservative parties. Progressive conservative, which were what is now called paleo-con on FR. Fiscally conservative, but no real firm stand on social issues. The other went by various names, but was the religious group. The PCs were down and out. Stockwell Day was the leader of the religious conservatives. We also have two left wing parties, center left, and way out in left field. A conservative effort from what was essentially one party, the other was down and out remember, could defeat them. But the center left party managed to put the religious nutjob label on Stockwell, mostly Stockwell's fault. They lost. Now we are about to go at it again with a corrupt center left government, a single united right wing party that would probably be called center-left by an American, and still a way out in left field party. If the center left party paints the new leader as a creationist religious nut, a la the old Stockwell party, the people who planned to vote for the way out in left field party will vote for the center left corrupt party to prevent the right wing religious nut party from gaining power. You know, this is kind of depressing! Anyways, the new conservative leader is being very careful to avoid the creationist/too religious label.

[doc30]

Stockwell Dat lead the Alliance (a conservative, federal party based in the western provinces). The Liberal party used his Christianity against him by basically scare mongering Canadians into thinking he was going to evangelize Canada to his form of Christianity. It worked. Canadians reject mixing religion with politics and it is a strike against anyoine running on the 'morals' platform there.

[mlc9852]

As for fossils, how many scientists have actually personally examined and tested them? Overall, there have not been as many fossils found as science would lead us to believe. Fossilization doesn't always occur, which I'm sure you know. So science (evolution) is actually passed on to others by very few who have actual evidence that they have examined and studied. A lot of what science purports to "know" isn't readily verifiable by others.

[donh]

Are you under the impression that pure math hasn't got it's byways and alleys where we deal with failures, natural limits of analysis, and groping around in the dark, unaided by provably formal demonstrations?

Not in pure mathematics. It is not the same as an experimental science. Axiom, definition, theorem -- if it's proven, it's right. No muss, no fuss.

You don't know what you are talking about. Much of "pure" mathematics has not been assailed by formal systems of proof, and some never can be, provably. You opinions about biology are as uninformed as your opinions about formal mathematics.

[crail]

Canadians reject mixing religion with politics

Very true. We Canadians refuse to let our religious leaders become corrupted by our politics.

[daysailor]

Let me see if I get it...

Biology is a "soft" science because it's not, well math.

And until biology actually *becomes* math, it is only something to sneer at.

Did I miss anything?

[puroresu]

#####The GOP is now a fiscal liberal/social conservative party. Fiscal liberal meaning spending money on every program in sight - social conservative meaning "morality police" and establishing a theocracy.#####


I agree with you on the fiscal liberalism. But the theocracy charge is utter nonsense. Was America a theocracy from 1776 through about 1973? Listening to a lot of people, you'd think so. Social conservatives simply want an America like A) the Founding Father intended and B) like it was until activist social liberal judges changed it.


#####Without the war on terror, I doubt the GOP would get more than 45% of the national vote.#####


Then why is the GOP performing so well in states where the so-called "theo-cons" run the party (the south and heartland) while it's stagnant in areas where socially liberal Republicans hold sway? Lose the "theo-cons" and the GOP will perform nationally at about the level they perform in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

[Tungenchek]

Well I am not disagreeing with you at all.

Basically what I was trying to say is that is that while you correctly point out some creationist/religionists are patent liars the others are not really aware that they are lying.

When you are lied to about something by someone you have faith in has told you....when you pass that lie on as truth do you recognize it?



They have been lied to so much and so often by those they have faith in...they simply do not know fact from fiction
honesty from dishonesty.


Or sumpin like that .. :o)

[JeffAtlanta]

Kinda like scientists with the global warming scare?

Global warming or more accurately, global climate change is not a scare but a reality.

It is the cause of the climate change that has been politicized.

[PatrickHenry]

As for fossils, how many scientists have actually personally examined and tested them?

Infinitely more than the number of creationists.

Overall, there have not been as many fossils found as science would lead us to believe.

Ah, then you think it's a fraud?

Fossilization doesn't always occur, which I'm sure you know.

Yes. Thus the inevitability of gaps.

So science (evolution) is actually passed on to others by very few who have actual evidence that they have examined and studied.

So? Do you think they're lying?

A lot of what science purports to "know" isn't readily verifiable by others.

It's all verifiable, to anyone who wants to expend the effort. But for creationists, it's so much easier to do nothing, and thus to know nothing.

[Thatcherite]

Global warming or more accurately, global climate change is not a scare but a reality. It is the cause of the climate change that has been politicized.

And also what best to do about it....

My opinion of the science is that there is strong confirming evidence that global warming is under way (for whatever reason). However non-attempts to deal with it like Kyoto, which seems solely to be a kind of developed world self-flagellation with no discernable benefit to anyone have rightly been rejected by the administration.

[donh]

As for fossils, how many scientists have actually personally examined and tested them? Overall, there have not been as many fossils found as science would lead us to believe.

That's rich. You badly need to visit the backroom of a university museum before you shove your foot any further into your mouth.

[js1138]

I said science "had the reputation" of logic. Not that the reputation was strictly true.

I keep wondering why, if science has such a bad reputation, ID wants ot piggyback on the reputation of science.

If there is a better way of finding truth than through the methods established by science.

The textbook thing is interesting. My son took advanced biology in a public school from a teacher who hated all textbooks and who wrote his own. He must have been competent because all his students passed the AP exam with 4s and 5s.

[Tungenchek]

The "thinking passion equals logic" idea is also quite prevalent in politics and the media.

---

You got that right.

When ever I hear a politican say "I know in my heart" etc

I stratch my head... :o)

[PatrickHenry]

May as well provide a link or two, which no creationist will bother with:
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record. What the fossil record is all about.
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Cuffey. Great collection of information.

[mlc9852]

You seem very defensive on the subject. I was just pointing out that a lot of science requires faith of what others have taught us. But so does most other subjects as well. History, for example. By definition it has to be passed on but a lot of people question others' take on it. I assume science could be the same. And truthfully, if you ask most Americans if they have been following the Kansas situation, I doubt there would be many who have. And what does the federal "No Child Left Behind" Act say about teaching evolution?

[Dimensio]

Well, there was Matchett-PI fabricating a portion of a quote to make it appear as though Wayne Carley likened teaching evolution to teaching religion, when actually he said that teaching Intelligent Design is teaching religion.. When this falsehood was exposed, he made no apologies, and in fact REPEATED the lie by saying "How embarrassing is it for you blind-faith Darwinists to have the executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, no less, admitting that to teach evolution is to teach a religion?".

Then there was hosepipe, earlier in the same discussion. The issue of fossil fakes came up, and hosepipe asserted -- without evidence -- that "nearly all" fossil fakes were found by "non-evo" scientists. In fact, he actually reiterated this point later on in the same topic. Of course, when pressed for evidence, he balked and told me to research his claim for him. In other words, he made it up and was lying. When someone else finally joined in badgering him to actually support a claim with evidence, he outright denied making the claim in the first place. Nevermind that I was able to point to TWO posts of his where he made the claim, he insisted that he'd never actually made a claim that he'd made TWICE. Yet another example of a creationist liar who refused to back down even after his lies were exposed.

And, finally, my personal favourite recent example involves nmh. Earlier this year philosopher Antony Flew announced that he was no longer an atheist. Even still, he said that he did not accept the Judeo-Christian God, and -- the article specifically stated this -- "He accepts Darwinian evolution" (note that the original article is only excerpted on FR, and the link is to a dead page now, but the full article was available for some time, and the original text is archived on multiple places, including here).

Known creationist and liar nmh popped in to say " Those poor atheists. Another one abandons their godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution."

Kind of odd given that the article specifically stated that Flew accepts evolution. I corrected his mistake and nmh responded by telling me to " Read the article. He rejects it."

So I re-read the article, see the "He accepts Darwinian evolution" line, and quote the relevant section in my reply. Nmh's response is nothing more than a snide comment wherein he tells me to read the article once more even though absolutely nothing in the article supported his completely false claim.

But the story doesn't end there. Nmh has proven himself a shamless, brazen liar, and I'm not shy about bringing that up when he tries to discuss issues in the future -- after all, he's demonstrated that he's willing to lie to "prove" a point, so why should anything that he says be trusted? So in response to my bringing up of the story of nmh claiming -- falsely -- that Antony Flew rejected evolution, after saying in direct response to an article about Flew that he had "rejected" the "godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution", nmh denied ever having heard of Flew and said that he'd never posted anything about the man, even though I could directly link to nmh's posts on the matter.

So there you have it. Three creationists wrapped up in their own lies. Their lies exposed, they retreat into a larger web of lies rather than admit a single mistake.