`Intelligent design' ban is proposed (Democrats to the Rescue!!)

Chicago Tribune ^ | 17 Feb 2006 | Tribune News Services

[wardaddy]

Orwellian Thought Control Harridan:

[Ichneumon]

I wish you were a golfer - you'd see things differently if you were. I'm guessing you have a trauma memory on a golf course, which goads you to never risk that sensation ever again. But I testify in all sincerity: become a golfer, I mean, Golfer, and your life will never be the same. It will be better.

I appreciate the suggestion, but really, I doubt I'd find great philosophical revelations in knocking a ball around with a stick.

Post after post which, fairly I'll grant, indicates that folks are turned off by over zealous bible thumpers. Ok ...I'll grant these folks do not accelerate the winsomness of being in the GOP.

Well that's a start. ;-)

But that is not what I asked you. I asked you for EVIDENCE that EXPOSURE to the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION brings out the 'conservative voter' latent in some hapless Public School educated fellow.

Well, in this case I'd say it does -- if presenting the evidence that the radical anti-evolutionists are wrong gets them to tone down their public rants, it *will* bring out the "latent conservative voter", at least in a lot of *other* folks, who otherwise would have been scared off by the rants of the radicals. That's a large part of my primary reason for participating in these threads -- to try to get the anti-science folks to pipe down a bit so they'll stop scaring off a lot of conservative votes. If they weren't mouthing off so loudly and so publicly, I really wouldn't be concerned about what they chose to believe or not, nor would I be bringing up the subject myself except at rare times when it was relevant to something else being discussed. I'm not here to "preach" biology. It's just that with the anti-evolutionists being so loud and so numerous -- and so off-putting to folks who know better -- it's important for the sake of conservatism to a) try to get them to tone down a bit, and b) if that can't be done, at least show lurkers that it's possible to be science-literate *and* a conservative, come on in, there's room for all kinds, it's not all just folks itching to restart the Scopes trial.

But to address your more specific question, yes, I *do* believe that a good knowledge, appreciation, and respect for science can and does lead people to conservatism. As many have noted, in broad terms liberalism is about feelings, conservatism is about thinking/pragmatism. In my experience a good grounding in hard-nosed science or engineering produces conservatives more often than liberals -- it instills an ability to tell sense from nonsense, workable solutions from wishful thinking, and that there are right answers and wrong answers when dealing with reality. Joining hands and singing "kumbayah" doesn't get the rocket off the ground, and the parts and labor have to be paid for somehow. The more that people understand science and its methods of finding and testing knowledge, the more they become practical conservatives and the less they become starry-eyed liberals.

You see, we bible types are pretty convinced of something: exposure to GOD creates GOP voters.

I'm not sure that's true. There are plenty of liberal Christians. They may not be *your* kind of Christians, but they were exposed to God and still ended up liberals.

Exposure to Darwin creates selfish survivalists who love all messages from Today's Democrats.

Frankly, this is nonsense. There's some correlation between political outlook and acceptance of evolutionary biology, but not as high a correlation as you seem to assume, and the causation probably runs in the reverse direction -- instead of "Darwin" creating liberals, it's just that liberals are more open to the idea when they hear it, whereas not as many conservatives are (due to more traditional religious views, etc.) I've never heard of anyone who actually switched their political affiliation after "finding" evolution. And contrary to common belief, evolutionary biology really doesn't have any direct applications to politics or political philosophy. About the only non-biological parallel that's an apt one is the dynamics of laissez-faire capitalism, and as I'm sure you realize that's much more popular among *conservatives* than liberals.

This is evidence by experience, and articles like the one I posted here ... where DEMOCRATS are attempting to enshrine Darwin by legal fiat ... a survivalist tactic if there ever was one.

You're really misconstruing that article. No one's trying to "enshrine Darwin by legal fiat". As I mentioned earlier, the motive is just to keep unscientific stuff out of science classrooms. If there was a big sustained movement to shoehorn astrology into science classrooms, they'd eventually get around to putting a foot down on that too, but it wouldn't be about "enshrining" anything else, it'd be about saying, "come *on* folks, this doesn't belong in a science class, we're trying to maintain some standards." And yes, I'd be here posting about why astrology was bunk in response to folks trying to extoll it.

But for the sake of arguement, I'm just hoping in that vast library of links you have, you have just 2 links to studies which show how effective the teaching of evolution is in bringing about GOP voting patterns.

Well, I've got my personal experiences, described here, in the excerpts I posted in a prior post, and have talked abotu elsewhere.

But be honest -- if it turned out that the truth did happen to result in more liberal votes than conservative ones, would you find that a good reason to suppress it, or fail to stand up for it in the face of falsehoods? Really? Because if so, wouldn't that make us as bad as the worst of the liberals and the Islamists? Don't they care more about political power than about truth? Don't they care more about expediency than about being right?

I'm not willing to sacrifice reality, or honesty, or being correct, for the sake of increased political muscle. I hope you aren't either.

[SunkenCiv]

"pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom...

...other than "the greenhouse effect", "global warming", Clovis-first-and-only...

[Ichneumon]

So the opposite of that would be, "Thickly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science." And I'm just guessing here, but evolution fits that description quite nicely...

Next time, try an informed opinion instead of "just guessing" and getting it wrong. See post #33 for starters.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

Nope, it has already been established that you are only out for an argument for arguing's sake, so your opinions/suggestions and the like, matter not to me...

[gobucks]

"I don't know any Freeper who finds themselves "consistently" on the side of the folks you list."

Certainly not openly. That would get them banned, remember?

[Coyoteman]

"pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom...

...other than "the greenhouse effect", "global warming", Clovis-first-and-only...

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark!

Most folks won't get that one, but -- good dig!

[gobucks]

"Thickly disguised religion ...."

Hmmm. Yes. It works, and well.

[gobucks]

"Nice to see you have taken their side. :)"

But, really, it is not true. It is just a 'coincidence', governed by time and chance.

Everyone here at FR really is a friend of the GOP!! Really!!

Bob Ross, the famous artist, would call the conincidence 'a unhappy accident' on the FR canvas.

[SunkenCiv]

:') Glad you *dug* it. ;') [rimshot!]

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

"Thickly disguised religion ...."
Hmmm. Yes. It works, and well.

Thanks for the post. The critics have out-critiqued themselves...

[mlc9852]

I agree.

[Ichneumon]

How long will it go on? If you look at the debate in the same way that we view the crackup of the democratic party, I think the answer is self-evident. The majority of Americans rejects Evolution utterly. The best numbers they have are 6 percent in the ruling party believing it in undilute form and 13 percent total. The soft numbers give them a nod up to 40 percent; but, it's a nod, not wholesale support. The numbers are soft and are where Creationists are gaining much of their ground. The best descriptor for the evo crowd right now is panic. They don't want to admit it; but, the evidence of their actions betrays it day in and day out. The fervor with which they hit ID is full scale lunacy. And they don't have the slightest clue that it's tangiential. ID is not religious - has nothing to do with religion. But, it serves to make their fight a two front war with both fronts advancing against them. They may think they've won something with court battles and schoolboards; but, the majority public is with Creation and ID. And you can't legislate or adjudicate that. They have to prove their case and cannot. A key point to make is that they've pretended the theory is scientific. The crowd doesnt' believe that when it is discussed forthrightly. The longtime hidingplace has been behind science. When people don't find it scientific and they're hiding behind science.. just does them no favors. The copout on proofs drives many away as well. Once you beg off proofs, you've lost the audience with no real way to overcome it. The lunacy is not at critical mass yet; but, when they're referring to Ken Ham and Dr. Dino as dangerous threats akin to the Taliban, it isn't far off. The fat lady has been warming up for a while. I wouldn't be too surprised when she starts belting it out. There is just too much being learned each year and the best they can do is take something that discredits them and spin it to look the opposite way

We've refuted Havoc's rants time and time again, but he has proven himself incapable of admitting even the most obvious of errors. Take for example this documented case where he knowingly kept telling the same proven falsehood.

So it has proven pointless to try to get him to realize any of his various fallacies, errors, and falsehoods. It just bounces off his forehead with a sharp *ping*.

But if anyone else wants to see any of Havoc's claims addressed, say the word. Otherwise, I'll presume that no one else is taking him seriously either, and we can all use the time we save on better things.

But since I already had material relevant to his final "point", I can't resist addressing one of his fantasies now:

it isn't far off. The fat lady has been warming up for a while. I wouldn't be too surprised when she starts belting it out. There is just too much being learned each year

Ah, yes, the old "imminent demise of evolution".

People have been predicting that was about to happen "any day now" for oh, 150 years now.

For some perspective, check out this web page on The Imminent Demise of Evolution. Anti-evolutionists have been continuously predicting that evolution was about to come crashing down any day now since 1840... That page contains quotes predicting the "any day now" crash of evolution from 1825, 1840, 1850, 1878, 1895, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1912, 1922, 1929, 1935, 1940, 1961, 1963, 1970, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Sample:

"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its defenders at the outset. A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
-- Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution, 1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995)

But surely, Havoc is finally right *this* time, eh? Dream on. The anti-evolutionists have been fantasizing about evolution crashing down since before the Civil War... Uh huh. Sure. Any day now.

[balrog666]

Okay-maybe-it's-*not*-an-act placemarker.

[Ichneumon]

Nope, it has already been established that you are only out for an argument for arguing's sake,

Gee, really? When was *that* "established", and how?

so your opinions/suggestions and the like, matter not to me...

A closed mind gathers no thought.

[Ichneumon]

["I don't know any Freeper who finds themselves "consistently" on the side of the folks you list."]

Certainly not openly. That would get them banned, remember?

If you have any accusations to make towards any specific Freepers, now would be a good time to make them. If you don't, you should retract your cowardly and slanderous implication. Have you enough honor?

[silverleaf]

ID is not being banned from being taught as a "science". It is being banned from being taught (discussed) at all in a public school.

[starbase]

Take for example this documented case where he knowingly kept telling the same proven falsehood.

Dude, that's BS. I asked him directly if he misrepresented the ages of the skins vis-a-vis the bones, and he said no, he just referred to a misrepresentation made by someone else.

I hope you're not chasing down anyone who commits a faux paux and never letting them forget it. That's not science either!!!!

[Ichneumon]

ID is not being banned from being taught as a "science". It is being banned from being taught (discussed) at all in a public school.

Feel free to support this claim, if you think you can. The news article to which you are responding says otherwise.

[Cvengr]

It would be equally dishonest in the reverse case -- if evolutionary biology tried to elbow its way into the pulpit while falsely pretending to be revealed religion.

This statement actually touches on the heart of the argument.

Evolutionary biology without faith in God has created a pulpit in the classroom forming its religion worshipping rationalism and the Creation. Scripture is God's Word revealed to man, but religion is not a revelation, rather it is a system of worship. By excluding God or faith in Him from evolutionary theory or the classroom, the state is establishing a religion.