[NWPT62]Rather than relaxing with a pot of coffee and a copy of the Sunday Times (the New York Times, not the Seattle Times… the latter wouldn’t last me longer than a thimbleful of joe)… I am seething. Literally seething. Torrents of cartoon steam are shooting out of my ears, as my eyes spin round like an old time slot machine.
(Okay, maybe I’m metaphorically seething, but you get the point.)
Splashed across the front page is a lengthy piece on the driving force behind so-called intelligent design: Seattle’s very own Discovery Institute… which apparently draws the name “Discovery” from its concerted efforts to squash it. That the institute should get well-deserved scrutiny in the NY Times, rather than its home town paper, is another story for another day. But what really pissed me off was the following little tidbit of information about another Seattle area connection to Discovery’s zealous efforts to dumb down the nation’s science curriculum — for in addition to such well known right-wing patrons as Richard Mellon Scaife….
A closer look shows a multidimensional organization, financed by missionary and mainstream groups – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides $1 million a year, including $50,000 of Mr. Chapman’s $141,000 annual salary…
…
The institute also has support from secular groups like the Verizon Foundation and the Gates Foundation, which gave $1 million in 2000 and pledged $9.35 million over 10 years in 2003.
I do not care that this particular grant pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions of dollars the Gates Foundation gives to eminently worthy causes, or that it is supposedly targeted exclusively towards the institute’s Cascadia project on regional transportation. In giving money to Discovery, Bill Gates not only provides financial support, but lends credibility and respectability to an organization whose primary activities are antithetical to the principles of scientific discovery on which Microsoft — and Gates’ unparalleled personal fortune — was built.
Gates would do better to follow the lead of more experienced Seattle area philanthropists, such as Bullitt Foundation director Denis Hayes, who describes Discovery as “the institutional love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell,” saying, “I can think of no circumstances in which the Bullitt Foundation would fund anything at Discovery today.” Indeed, that the world’s most powerful technologist should provide any support, financial or otherwise, to an organization that describes its goal as “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies” in favor of a “broadly theistic understanding of nature,” is absolutely unacceptable.
There is no dispute that Gates is a brilliant man and that his foundation achieves great social good. But as has been proven by Microsoft’s missteps over its flip-flopping support for the gay civil rights measure, HB 1515, both he and his subordinates can make mistakes. And has also been proven by that PR fiasco, the full force of the progressive blogosphere can be successfully applied to convince Gates to correct his errors.
Gates’ support of the Discovery Institute — a vital cog in the right-wing propaganda machine… and an enemy of science — is an outrage and a scandal. And I call on my fellow members of the blogosphere to hammer this issue, and make clear to Gates that the only acceptable remedy is to instruct his foundation to pull its funding immediately.
The US has built its economic and military prowess on our scientific and technological leadership, and if organizations like Discovery are permitted to continue their Talibanization of our once proud educational system, the consequences for the American people and our standard of living will be catastrophic. A generation from now, when the economies of Europe and China are kicking our devoutly unscientific butts, we will have only ourselves to blame. And when the next Microsoft arises not in Silicon Valley or in Redmond, but in Paris or Beijing, it would be sadly ironic if the seeds of our own technological collapse were unwittingly nurtured by Bill Gates himself.
What a shame! Discovery shouldn’t be getting any funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They should rescind any grants/donations.
Oh come on Goldy, why shouldn’t the reactionaries have their version of holding hands in a circle and singing Kumbaya?
Just checked the Snark Site to see if Steffie Baby has admitted yet that KCRE responded to his latest public disclosure request in a timely manner. Nada. I infer from Steffie Baby’s total silence that KCRE did NOT violate the 5-business-days rule, and that the Snark is scared shitless of a cute, fluffy, 6-lb. rabbit.
However, today’s Snark Hiss does contain the following tidbit about the Puget Sound water taxi:
“Think about the economics for a moment. The service operates at a loss. Fares are subsidized. Bringing on additional subsidized tourist passengers will not create an operating profit that can subsidize fares for others. This makes no sense.”
You could have said the same thing about Interstate 90, Steffie Baby. I-90 doesn’t bring in a cent of revenue. It’s a total loss. Let’s get rid of it.
Why is Stefan against the only part of our state transportation system that brings in revenue and partially pays for itself? Is it because he’s stupid? Yeah, that’s gotta be it.
Roger, Steffie the Shrew never comments when his efforts are quashed. He only jumps up and down on his 2’X3′ desk in his childrens room so that normal people cannot see the actual ball of phlegm that he is.
Free Speech, provided it is approved by the Daily Kos, and Goldy.
It is a battle of ideas. Prove them wrong. Or demonstrate the superiority of your ideas. Chastizing the Gates Foundation by sucking up to the director of the foundation of one of your enemies just demonstrates your intellectual incoherence.
Are you saying that science says there was no beginning?
Was nothing ever created?
With all the evolving, was there ever a proto-evolver? From whence did it come? A government grant? A progressive think-tank-university? A King County proto-election?
Science has been able to explain quite a lot, but it falls far short of explaining everyting.
If Mr. Gates wants to fund the Cascadia Project, let him. If you want to continue contributing to the marginalization of the Democratic Party, feel free. Free Speech has a meaning. Approval of the Daily Kos is not included. Results may vary.
goldy, man are you a politically correct lefty.
attack, smear those who differ from you.
bound to defend abortion and evolution and ban prayer.
not sure why the left hates discovery institute so much…do you hate cindy laws..
Goldy: “A generation from now, when the economies of Europe and China are kicking our devoutly unscientific butts…”
Europe? With their future demographics? Hardly.
I noticed you didn’t include India on that list, but then again, religion isn’t an important part of Indian culture….
Where’s your indigination with foundations that support crazy lefty programs? Whoops, I answered my own question.
Look, in all seriousness, I don’t support ID in the schools; however, when I was taught evolution, it was done with respect for those who didn’t agree with it, for whatever reason. You don’t want creationism pushed down your throat, and I agree, but have the same respect for those who don’t agree with evolution.
I don’t tell you, nor do I have the right to, where to spend your money. Why is Bill Gates any different?
First of all, let me remind everyone that it is Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution. By the way, it is a really poor theory since it tries to prove generalities with a very limited set of very specific data. And not in the least bit testable.
Goldy, do you have the slightest idea how IDIOTIC you sound flying into a RAGE over how the Gates choose to spend their money. Stupid, really stupid.
And, have you ever noticed that Liberals are not at all shy about telling other people how to spend their money.
A Discovery Institute ‘authorized’ prayer for salvation:
Dear Lord God, Please give us a trillion barrels of oil. Only this time, put it in Iowa. Amen. Praise Jesus of Baku.
A donk prayer:
give us our abortion, our daily abortion
and lead us to taxation
as we lead others to taxation
and keep us from profiling
donk man
Terry J @ 7 “With all the evolving, was there ever a proto-evolver? From whence did it come?”
From whence did the “proto-evolver” come from, and where did the “entity” that created the “proto-evolver” come from?
Science does not claim to know “whence it all came from” That is dogma, and left to religion.
What science does is show the methods, and patterns of the material world. Things beyond the material world are the thing of relegion. ID is a material explanation for something well better explained by real science.
JC Bob @ 10 “First of all, let me remind everyone that it is Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution. By the way, it is a really poor theory since it tries to prove generalities with a very limited set of very specific data. And not in the least bit testable.”
The only thing you have reminded anyone of is that you do not have even the vaguest understanding of evolution, or science.
Please, for your sake, quit embarrassing yourself.
I took a quick cruise through the Discovery Institute’s web site and am fascinated by its spin. The institute attempts to wrap itself in the white lab coat of science, but has difficulties explaining an early fundraising letter dubbed the “wedge document.”
For example, a “truth sheet” dismisses charges that the Discovery Institute is championing a “secret conspiracy to fuse religion and science.” Yet the institute acknowledges that a central goal of its Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture is as follows:
“We want to end the abuse of science by Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson who try to use science to debunk religion, and we want to provide support for scientists and philosophers who think that real science is actually ‘consonant with … theistic convictions.’ Please note, however: ‘Consonant with’ means ‘in harmony with.’ It does not mean ‘same as.’”
It’s easy to adopt and an either/or stance on the institute. I would expect no less of most of HA’s discussants. However, I don’t think a thoughtful student of Eastern spiritual disciplines or Native American mysticism would reject out of hand the above goals.
Where I get antsy is the institute’s all-too-cozy relationship with economic and cultural (re: Christian) conservatives. And while I don’t pretend to have much background in the natural sciences, the institute’s attacks against E.O. Wilson sound decidedly shrill. I thought his recent book, “The Future of Life,” was well reasoned and enormously important. Do we have to agree on the nature of “God” in order to save the planet?
truth sheet” dismisses charges that the Discovery Institute is championing a “secret conspiracy to fuse religion and science.”
No!!! Wow! Charges of a secret conspiracy. Well this changes everything.
This whole discussion is bizarre. There is clearly more than one school of thought on where we came from. Both sides can argue their cases passionately and persuasively. Both sides have elements of science and faith.
What I don’t get is why the left gets so enraged at the mere thought of another view, and wants to shut down the discussion rather than engage in dialogue. The whole concept of political correctness is an attempt by those who can’t defend their positions logically to shut people up who disagree with them.
You can rant and foam and vomit all you want. It’s not gonna work guys…
Reply to 7
How many times do we have to prove the goddam Earth is a sphere?
Donnageddon @ 13
How many satellite communications systems have you developed?
I love debate…but there is no debate about ID. 99.9999% of the scientific community accepts evolution. That is not a debate. I’m sure you could find a few nuts who don’t accept the theory of gravity either. But I really don’t think that should be debated or presented in schools.
Catholics and Jews have no issues with evolution, even. It’s just the Christian Taliban that have a problem with it.
And Mr. Redneck — you are so into presenting all sides of an issue in schools? Does that go for social issues, too, like gay marriage, etc.? Teach the debate, right?
3. Roger Rabbit
Do tell. How do YOU know that KCRE responded to Stefan’s latest public disclosure request in a timely manner? Please don’t keep us in suspense. And fill us in as to why he would be afraid of you?
Reply to 10
Oh geez, here we go again! For the umpteenth time — a “scientific theory” is NOT a guess or hypothesis! It’s an explanation of observed phenomena that is has been confirmed by sound experimentation.
Try reading this, it’ll straighten out your igorance. http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
Sheesh! :(
In the USA (land of the free for those of you who’ve forgotten) any citizen is entitled to donate his or her own money to any cause they choose. Goldy, I really wish you could see how childish and pathetic your ranting is. Everyone else can see it. It’s comical and pathetic at the same time.
Reply to 20
The same way a detective knows a suspect committed a crime.
The detective asks the suspect if he did it, and the suspect sits there and doesn’t say anything.
Goldy could not be more right on this point. It is important to recognize that this is NOT a free speech issue or a political correctness issue; the Discovery Institute is allowed to say and believe whatever they like. It is a question of making it clear to the Gates Foundation that, by giving them money for ANY project, they are directly supporting an organization whose agenda includes actively misleading students in this country regarding the scientific method and the nature of scientific observation.
Two things are abundantly clear to me in the intelligent design debate: 1) Science, contrary to the apparent opinion of some adherents of Intelligent Design and some on this board, is not the enemy of or even in conflict with religion (science is essentially by definition silent on the subject of religion); and 2) Intelligent Design, contrary to these same opinion holders, IS the enemy of science, because it mistakenly claims to BE science. Claiming that you are a scientist, or believe in the scientific method, “except for the evolution bit” is like saying you believe in arithmetic, except for the part about 2 + 2 = 4.
Evolution is an entirely self-consistent scientific theory that has been subjected to intense scrutiny, analysis, experimentation, and observation for over a century. There have been numerous experiments that could have disproven evolution in that time, and they have resulted in refinements of the theory, as is the case with other scientific “theories” like say gravity. No scientific theory can ever be proven of course, but the hallmark of a scientific theory is not its provability but rather its DISprovability. This is why Intelligent Design, EVEN IF IT IS ENTIRELY RIGHT, is not and can never be considered a scientific theory, and has no place in a scientific classroom. It is not based on scientific observation but on faith, and there is no experiment that can be designed that would disprove its central hypothesis. Anyone who pretends otherwise, or argues that it deserves “equal time” in a science classroom, simply needs to go back to school to learn what the scientific method is. They’d better do it soon, though, before it’s not taught any more.
Bill Gates of all people should understand this.
Stephen J. Gould is rolling in his grave.
What???
its alwayas political correctness run amuck when the libs try to say they are free speech, but somehow this is differeent…
Reply to 16
Enraged? Who’s enraged? The left is merely of the considered opinion that we should not be teaching our public school children that science is wrong in order to satisfy someone’s religious agenda.
Our country’s prosperity and strength are built on technology. Science is the foundation of technology. If we throw away science in favor of theistic dogma, within a generation or two we will be a backward, third world country.
Comment on 19
“Intelligent design” isn’t even a theological theory, let alone a scientific one. It was invented by lawyers and is nothing more than a clever legal stratagem to get around court decisions saying it’s unconstitutional to teach religion in public schools.
Donnageddon @ 13
This might surprise you that I think Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution is pretty close to be correct but that does not mean that it is anything more than a theory.
But I an still scratching my head as to how those molecules accidentally became self-reproducing. Did they reproduce using DNA?
IT IS A THEORY.
Silly Wabbit. Science is not going to be “thrown away” because of belief in God and creation. People have believed in God for quite some time now. Many of those folks have been scientists. God and science are not mutually exclusive. Get a grip. Eat a carrot.
karmalyzed — it’s only the right wing nutjobs who think god and science are mutually exclusive. why do you think they are attacking evolution? you need to go back and read the right wing nutjob talking points, unless you are turning liberal or something?
Mark @ 19 – Huh? You can equate butt fucking with where we came from? You’re hopeless.
29
“Those folks” are not talking about believing in God, they’re talking about not believing in science. Evolution is a fact of nature. Get over it.
Goldy: You are proof that abortion should be legal.. retroactivly.
Evolution is not incompatible with a belief in God. Somebody or something had to design evolution, right?
Gosh, you’re clever Gary. Sad thing is, you probably thought that tired joke was cuttingly witty.
Welcome to the reality-based community.
apparently right wing nut jobs don’t understand the difference between scientific theory and the Bible.
hey jc bob — do you think the Bible is JUST A THEORY?
If President Bush were to declare that the earth is flat, newspapers headlines would read: “Disagreement on Shape of Earth” :)
Here is a solution… VOUCHERS! That way everyone wins. Well everyone except the teachers unions that is.
i just want you whakos to tell me i have to conform my scientific belief system to the “stir some mud, add some water, and humans will one day show up” theory.
You all treat this as fact above Newtons laws.
Christian belief isn’t threated by this mediocre theory on “how” new forms showed up, but our minds are threatened by the mind police telling us there is one approved theory for all.
How the fuck can anybody take the NYT seriously? Listen to the words they use. Tell me they aren’t just left wing hacks masquerading as journalists.
“…reading from the playbook…”
“…Mr. Bush embraced the institute’s talking points…”
“…Financed by some of the same Christian conservatives…”
“…a fringe academic movement…”
“…Like a well-tooled electoral campaign…”
“…a 1999 Discovery manifesto…”
“…the moral crusader…”
“…The institute would not provide details about its backers “because they get harassed,” (and then the article proceeds to name many of them, presumably so they can get harassed)
This isn’t reporting. This is a hit piece. And it sure as shit isn’t “fair and balanced”. Fercrissakes moonbats, stop drinking fucking kool aid like this. Turn on Fox and find out what the fuck is really going on.
hey mark the redneck — BUTTSEX!!
That 99.99% of scientists accept evilution is nothing but a string of words randomly joined with no meaning to them whatsoever. Seriously, that is a profoundly ignorant statement and simply wishful thinking. If you took the time to do more wide-spread reading, you would learn that the science of today has been inheirited from a very large number of earlier scientists who were Christian believers. And although secular humanism and moral relativity is the fad of the age, there are many Christian scientists around today. Many Americans seem completely ignorant of what the very large number of their fellow citizens do inside those church buildings they pass by daily. They imagine that it is they who are “normal” and not those who worship their Creator and try to live in harmony with him. Drugs, sex, and rock ‘n roll really aren’t “normal” folks, sorry to break the news.
Comment by Roger Rabbit
1. That guy knows more about it than I do, and his opinion deserves consideration, but common sense argues that we cannot dictate what happens in another society by invading that country.
Iraq is not a nation, and never has been. It’s an artificial construct, created by Europeans who draw arbitrary lines on the map to further their own selfish interests. That part of the world is still stuck in the tribal phase of human social development. The creation of “Iraq” threw together three different ethnic/tribal groups who historically didn’t get along. The country was held together by force. When we removed the regime, there was nothing to keep these groups from going at each other’s throats except American troops, and unless we’re willing to keep American troops there forever, sooner or later the rival groups are going to have it out with each other. They may temporarily be making common sense to some extent for the time necessary to throw out the foreign invader. But given that country’s social history, it’s inevitable there will be an intertribal contest for power that most likely will be settled violently, to be followed by another iron-fisted regime.
klake input on subject:
“That was done by the English before they left after World War II. They left because we told them to, or encourage them to leave, or else. The Troops will be there for many years to come but not like Germany or Japan. The country is a great place to kill Terrorist and make the other countries do a reality check; deserts are better places to fight than jungles. The Arabs culture is the great challenge to be dealt with and shouldn’t be change or that will be our downfall. They have always had to deal with foreign invaders as well as another nation and you can’t exclude us. This should be a window of opportunity for them to gain a better future for themselves.”
I would be interested to hear more about why and how the good professor thinks our objective of a peaceful democracy can be achieved in Iraq. Maybe he knows something I don’t. I’m always willing to consider new evidence, and revise my conclusions in light of further evidence.
Input from klake
“I see this from your point of view.”
Of course, this type of analysis does not answer the question of whether we should be spending American lives to bring democracy to Iraq even if it’s possible. That’s a value judgment that depends, to some extent, on whose lives are being spent.
Input from klake:
“This area I’m not allowed to input for what I know could be classified. If you are opened minded about this subject matter, the Defense Department has some great info on it.I could try and get what isn’t classified.”
And it also does not answer the question of whether bringing democracy to the Iraqi people and improving their lives was our real motive for going in there, or is even our government’s present objective. There are lots of other countries ripe for similar “improvement,” the difference between them and Iraq being that Iraq sits on top of lots and lots of oil.
Input from klake
“From my vantage point, we didn’t go into Iraq for the oil but for other reasons. The WMD was one of our fears but not the reason for the invasion. Everything we and other counties have done in the past has been a complete failure to change that part of the world. This attempt may be a long shot, but it could work, only if all of use pull together and make it work. That doesn’t mean we shut down everyone’s input on the subject matter. Not everyone is right or wrong and it is not black or white, but more like shades of gray.”
Wabbet I like the way you mind works and you input is welcome. Your point of view is better than the average cat and adds to the thought process. You have a great gift use it to improve the world we live in. God Bless, and you to Headless Lucy
sadtohearubesowrong — you’re cute
44
What does any of that have to do with whether evolutions works?
45
“You have a great gift use it to improve the world we live in.”
Been trying to do that by, among other things, attempting to pound some sense into my fellow Democrats.
I don’t attempt to pound sense into Repubicans, though. They’re a basket case.
keep it up Wabbit
sadtohearubesowrong – i know what some of my fellow citizens do in those church buildings…my sister was sexually abused by a priest in one of them
AMEN, Goldy!!!
Why argue. Everyone has a right to their beliefs. Just dont shove it down a child’s throat. Let the parents decide. Vouchers now.
Thank you Bill Gates for being a MAN! Don’t let these freakshow donk Moby Troll MoonBats dissuade you and your foundation for spending what it wants with YOUR money! Donks now want to spend your money after taxes? Man this be too funny.
Goldy, you condemn Microsoft for not backing HR 1515, then you condemn the Gates Foundation for spending Bill’s money. Ever thought that he may agree with intelligent design. Is there $$$$$ Envy in your life?
I know what don*****don believes and I respect him for telling me. What do you believe Goldy? Did you descend from a fly? Or maybe a blood SUCKING mosquito? Since you be Democratic it must be TAX sucking mosquito? Loocy came from spontaneous generation in a garbage heap. Wascally Wabbit, spawned from somewhere and then became a lawyer to boot! I hope GBS believes in intelligent design because he says he believes in God.
Rufus,
hear hear on the Vouchers.
What is wrong with people donating their money to the cause of their choice? Bill Gates donated billions of his fortune to his foundation, which he presumably directs. Gates’ foundation can give its money to whatever charitable cause they desire, and can even give its money to churches and religious groups if they see fit.
Why don’t we find out if Bill Gates belongs to a church or has some sort of religious beliefs? Then find out if Bill Gates has ever given money to a church? Then condemn Microsoft for supporting religion, and threaten to boycott their products until Bill Gates renounces any belief in God and/or other religious theology?
Goldy, if you don’t like the idea of “intelligent design” being taught in public schools, then that is a political issue — and a legitimate matter for public debate.
On the other hand, if university professors want to promote or study “intelligent design”, then that is a matter of academic freedom — which must be respected.
If the Discovery Institute wants to study and promote “intelligent design”, that is a matter of freedom of speech — which must be respected. Same principle applies to Bill Gates and anyone else who wants to give money to the Discovery Institute.
“mark” @ 19, 31, etc.
HEY! Pick a new nick! I’m “Mark” and there is already a “marks” and a “Mark the Redneck.”
GOLDY! You really gotta find a system that lets people “register” their posting nicknames.
Roger @ 33: “Evolution is a fact of nature. Get over it. “
Then why are Lefties stuck a few generations back?
By the way, why are Seattle liberals so unsuccessful in establishing think tanks of their own?
Conservative think tanks, such as Washington Policy Center, Discovery Institute, and Evergreen Freedom Foundation, have annual budgets in the millions of dollars.
The only liberal think tank in this area is the Rainier Institute. Its annual budget is less than $150,000, in spite of having prominent well-connected local people like Ken Alhadeff, Booth Gardner, Deborah Senn, and Mark Sidran on their board of directors.
Maybe if they could pick nicer people than CINDI LAWS to be executive director, local liberal think tanks could have much larger donations and credibility. And maybe actually accomplish something useful in promoting truly progressive ideas.
Well, Orb has this down, quoting Goldie, as “Bill Gates supports intelligent design.” One can’t help but wonder, considering what a stumble in the dark Windows has always been, if it isn’t just a search for intelligence somewhere, anywhere…
But seriously, keep in mind evolution confers on all the “right” to fail and become extinct. If, as Goldy asserts, “A generation from now, when the economies of Europe and China are kicking our devoutly unscientific butts…” that will be a fine proof of evolution itself. Perhaps if this country fades and ultimately goes under, it’s religions will go, too.
See? there is a bright side!
So what did tin-foil hats evolve from, and what will they become?
The words “discovery” and “freedom” in the names of these organizations is NEWSPEAK taken to the level of MARXIAN (Groucho) hilarity. To the epithets of fascist, anti democratic, corporate tools, ad-infinitum, these two organizations now deserve the label,”KOOKY”!!! And right here in WA state, no less. The Reps must be sneaking lattes as they drive about in their sticker festooned K-Kars.
RE 40: Do you think liberal teachers are too dumb to set up their own private schools and collect vouchers. Just think how many would be owned by women and minorities. We know how to get preferential treatment just like a BOEING EXEC.!!!!
61
They evolved from algae shit into Republicans and eventually will recycle into algae shit again.
58
Why don’t you modify your posting name? We already have a redneck Mark so how about “Bluestate Mark?”
Heaven help us if our role model is non religious, non moral chinese masses. What happens to a world with no morals or ethics? Germany in 1939? Japan same years?
If others have no moral compass, do we mimic? Should we clone people, just cuz China will?
righton @ 66,
Please, righton, we have some heavy betts riding on your answer. How much do you get paid for being a troll?
duh, what’s the question?
The Gates Foundation has done so much to promote science education, but they’re kinda undercutting the whole thrust here.
Seriously, People that hold that religion and evolution (or any real science) are mutually exclusive understand neither. Intellegent Design is still largely irrelevant to the theory of evolution, not really adding anything. If you want your school to talk about God, go to a private school.
The problem with intelligent design advocates is this:
We already have a ton of people who think evolution is just a theory, and they want to make more. Unfortunately, all those people are deluded and need to be educated.
In this day and age, we know how to sequence genes and how genes make proteins, etc. Scientists make microscopic drugs that attach to just one protein molecule, in just a certain point. People have witnessed modern instances of evolution in action.
Talking about the THEORY of evolution is like talking about the THEORY that transmissions have gears in them — it’s not a theory.
Now, there is still room for God. Either God set the universe up so that we would evolve, or he *poofed* us into existence pretty recently, and either he or the Devil have some reason to have not only created the evidence for evolution, but made it an ongoing process that we see happen in labs every day.
Personally, I believe the former — that God didn’t create humans directly, but did create the entire Universe that led to the creation of people. Not very compatible with the Old Testament, though.
It comes down to whether you want to believe what is blatantly true (molecular biology proves evolution), or what was written down (Genesis and other Hebrew texts) thousands of years ago.
Here’s an example that took two seconds to find:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/.....letype=pdf
Look at Figure 1a. That is a ‘clade’ or a diagram of related flower species. At the places where arrows point, the genetic differences between the species are described. Not only is the difference explained, but the manner in which that difference evolves is named. Flowers might take millions of years to experience the evolution, but the kind of changes they make are the same kind that bacteria make several times in 20 minutes. All of them leave tell-tale marks in the genes, which can be read out.
We aren’t to the point of technology where genes can be read out completely and directly. But the technology of molecular biology is all around us. Today, scientists can take a DNA sample of a criminal and tell us what race that person is, what color that person’s eyes are, and more.
Misunderstanding the scientific basis of evolution is a big problem in our society. It leads to a lot of needless fighting over something that is a matter of fact.
heath@71
The problem is bigger than misunderstanding the science. This whole intellegent design thing is about certain people misusing the trappings of science, and throwing real learning to the wind for political gain.
Theres a small number of ‘scientists’ that really care about and are crackpot enough to promote “Intellegent Design”, and a large number of people that can be decieved into supporting it, but the real problem is the political hacks that will grab onto anything for a little political gain. God isn’t remotely important to the Bush clique. All there is to them is holding onto power.
The problem with the Gates foundation (I wonder if its common with ‘newer’ philantropic organizations) is that they’re not considering the connections of the ‘good’ organization they’re funding. If there was an organization that did great work for rural poor in the south, but it was linked to the KKK, you wouldn’t fund it, unless you wanted your name associated with racism.
Windie@72 –
I couldn’t agree more about why the Bush Operation wraps itself up in the robes of God. I don’t think they really misunderstand the science, I agree with you it is clear they are willing to say or do nearly anything just to gather more power onto themselves.
What I’m addressing is the point on which most of the public has been misled: that evolution is “Darwin’s theory” as opposed to a commonly-used fact. In a world where the major scientists mostly believe in God as the creator of all this stuff they study, it’s messed up that an ‘institute’ can form and keep the dialog on the level of “evolution vs. religion.”
@73
I totally agree :)
Its just a tool… People are more easily led if they’re less educated and lack understanding.
Windie @ 74
Now you know why Bush purposely failed to fully fund No Child Left Behind.
Knowledge, education and creative thinking skills are detrimental to the power grab of the Republican Party. As we continue our way through the “Information Age” it is becoming strikingly clear that there are predominantly two types of mindsets. A) Progressives, who possess creative, logical and critical thinking skills. Then, there are those who haven’t fully developed these skills, and are more Retarded in their thinking abilities.
You are either moving forward, i.e. Progressive, or you are stagnated and Retarded. I prefer the former to the latter, Mark the Redneck, well his name says it all, he’s the latter.
GBS – Fuck you asshole. You are a textbook case of “smugness masquerading as knowledge.”
Our beliefs are grounded in ideas that work. Here’s the fact; liberalism has failed every time it’s been tried. Don’t believe me? Look at Europe and get back to me. Look at their crime rates, substance abuse rates, unemployment rates, income, standard of living… Europe’s system is collapsing on itself.
Conservatism marked by limited government, personal accountability, property rights and free markets works every time. 100%.
So how fucking stupid are you promoting the liberal ideology with a 0% success rate vs 100% for conservatism?
Multiple Marks @ 57 – Wabbit introduced me to the idea of “Paleo-Con”, and I’ve recently discovered that there’s something called a “NeanderCon” that more closely aligns with my beliefs. So I’ve been toying with the idea of changing my handle to NeanderCon. I kinda like that…
But I’ve built up something of a “brand recognition” Mark the Redneck, and I’m real hesitant to change it now.
Dumbass Loocy: When you return to your “job” at the Seattle School District, tell them that you don’t want to use Microsoft products. They will get out the dusty typewriter just for you.
I Thought You Asshole Liberals Were Liberal Thinkers? I guess not if it disagrees with your “progressive” ASSHOLE thinking processes.
When Jesus comes again and says Intelligent Design was correct, WTFWYST – What the fuck will you say then? You leftist religion hating moonbatty donks hate anything/everything that the founding fathers created this country by. You hate the Constitution, you hate the Bill of Rights, you hate having to swear on the Bible in court, you hate people who attend church, you hate flyover country. Why? God is in each of those places. Follow a liberal progressive home and ask where de Bible be? Watch the dopey look magically appear!!! You prove it everyday on this earth by you words and actions.
So, Adam n’ Eve were walking in the Garden one day and they came to a rope strung between trees and stakes as far as they could see one way and the other. “What’s this, God?” they whined. A huge thunderclap sounded and afterward God voiced, “Just stay on this side of the rope and you won’t have to worry about being eaten by dinosaurs.” God later admitted that though dinosaurs were jolly playthings, they had no nuance, no subtlety and huge flatulent appetites, and had to be put down, their remains relagated to Latter Day purposes.
…taken from an Intelligent Design notebook.
@76
“Conservatism marked by limited government, personal accountability, property rights and free markets works every time. 100%.”
Now only if the current Gov’t stood for ANY of those things.
Limited Government? Patriot Act
Accountability? “Anyone involved with this leak will no longer be a part of this administration” HAH! They like other people’s accountability
Property rights? Up there with privacy rights for these folks
Free markets? Well sorta, if no-bid contracts and cartelism count as ‘free markets’.
Even if your statement weren’t the rankest of propaganistic generalizations, the current administration has nothing to do with the values you say succeed 100% of the time.
Anywyas, you’re kinda yes-manny to be an old-fashioned conservative. You need, y’know, values, which you haven’t really shown on here. Have more positions, and less trolling, and we can see if you can qualify as a real conservative. Until then, you’ll just be another Bushie clone spouting the lines your masters taught you.
I really hope you were just being contrary, and really have old-fashioned conservative beliefs tho’. We need more of them, fewer party hacks.
Back from a nice, long vacation in the mountains.
It seems some people on this board are confused by issues of faith vs scientific reasoning. Simple words may be necessary to explain it.
1) You are allowed to be a scientist and have faith in an intelligent and just Creator. The two don’t cancel each other out.
2) Scientific method is not all-explaining. There are large bits of the world where we have to say “We don’t know yet.”, or venture hypotheses that need experimentation to prove. To say that something is unknown now does not make it forever unknowable. It just means we don’t have enough information, or haven’t asked the right questions yet.
3) You do not, as a scientist, get to say “God did it, that settles it.” as part of a hypothesis. To do so does violence of the highest order to point #2. It shuts off inquiry on a certain line and throws it forever into the realm of the unknowable.
If, in the process of asking questions, looking at how life goes together, and seeing the wonderful complexity of how it is all linked, you see the handiwork of God, good for you! I do too.
If you feel threatened that people try to understand His handiwork by asking “How’d He do that?” questions, I think you should reevaluate the premises on which your faith rests.
Mark the Redneck @ 75
“So how fucking stupid are you promoting the liberal ideology with a 0% success rate vs 100% for conservatism?”
Wow. . . your are living in quite the fantisy world. Get back to us when you reach planet earth. . . .
What cracks me up is the “party of choice and acceptance” would rail against somebody making a choice. We don’t like Bill Gates’ choice so we don’t accept it. How freaking hypocrytical can you get. The guy gives massive amounts of money to causes that should give liberals wet dreams but makes one choice a liberal doesn’t like and he is vilfied and raked through the goals on, what else, liberal blogs and press. You guys kill me.
WIndie @ 79 – GWB is not a conservative in the truest sense. I disagree strongly with him on many points including expansion of medicare to include prescription drugs, and the failure of his adminstration to protect our borders. The steel import tarrif thing he did in the first term was economically wrong (although it may have given him the margin in Ohio that he needed.
But you’re either ignoring or not understanding my main point. Liberalism is a failed ideology. The proof is conclusive and absolute. And conservatism… true conservatism always always always works.
cw@82
I’d rail against anyone that supported the harmful idiocy that ‘intellegent design’ represents.
Anywys, we’re railing against the choice, not Gates. You don’t hear me saying “I’m going mac”, or anything stupid like that.
it seems like a silly oversight on their part anyways. They thought they were supporting work on local transportation issues, not some moron political hitman.
Windie @ 79 – I wrote a reply but it got blocked.
So I guess I’ll hafta say shit, piss, cock, cunt, fuck, tit, nigger, kyke, hymie. Those words are OK.
CW –
It’s not OK to support Intelligent Design because their overall effort is evil. Pushing that kind of thinking will leave us in a situation where things happen like OJ getting off at trial although his blood was all over the murder scene. Ignorance hurts.
MTR@84
Showing your true colors again, eh?
Thank you for clarifying who you are.
We really need true conservatives for a balanced debate, its a pity what we’ve come to.
Redneck Mark: It has to be when we use Pro gress ive or something like that we get blocked.
Windie@83
Have you read the posts on the thread or Goldy’s original text? The whole premise is Bill Gates making a stupid choice by supporting intelligent design. Sure good things were called out but since this is a liberal blog the dialogue quickly degenerated into a BillG hate fest. And why should you care where he spends his money? Isn’t it his to spend in the first place? Or would you like to take that choice away from him since you don’t agree with it?
Whether it’s evolution or creation or some nutty combination of both why is his choice to fund his viewpoint such a terrible thing?
Lefties; guess ya’ll wanna shut down any thinking that violates your view of the world. Taliban Left as it were. Righties quite capable of allowing colleges to spew nonsense, as we’re sold, bought into the notion of free thought, no matter how odd, leads to good things.
But of course, the pravda/leninist view of the world won’t allow such
@88, 89
Okay, I reread the whole thread. There are alot of lefties saying basicly “What a pity” or “what a mistake”, and a bunch of righties saying “HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE HIM?”
We have the right to think its a mistake, especially since the foundation money is going to the Cascadia project, not directly to Discovery.
This is all irrelevant tho’. What you folks are doing is assigning a position to us, then criticizing us for the position you’ve said we’ve taken.
righton @ 89:
So in the interest of “equal time”, is it OK that after the boring lecture on plumbing, contraception, and STDs that passes for sex ed in the public schools, we should bring in a flaming hedonist to lecture on how much fun it is to get high as a kite on crystal meth and bareback anonymous partners?
If so, let me know where your kids go to school. I don’t care much for crystal or barebacking, but in the interest of giving them a broader education, I’ll spout anything for a day or so.
Who thee **** are you to tell Gates how to spend his money? First earn your own, then decide how to spend your own money. Leave others alone!
Looks like my earlier #70+ sumtin commentary is still in purgatory.
Windie, puddybud and goldy – The filter is frustrating. When I write thoughtful replies to legitimate issues, many of them get blocked. But the filter freely passes words that are the height of political incorrectness and poor taste. Is that how you talk like a true HA? I guess so.
Why do I have to say grouchoharpochico to get around the filter instead of the real word, but it’s OK to use shit talk?
Heath @ 85
‘It’s not OK to support Intelligent Design because their overall effort is evil.’
Wow. Isn’t that a bit judgmental? What is so ‘evil’ about ID?
windie @ 90
‘What you folks are doing is assigning a position to us, then criticizing us for the position you’ve said we’ve taken.’
Bingo – this is actually used more against the righties at HA. Nice observation though. (Compliment from someone on the right who does not think it is OK to mow down crosses at the Crawford campout.)
MTR:
It sounds to me like a thesaurus would do you a world of good.
Although Goldy insists its a coding issue and soc-shi-yuh-list is not on his banned words list, I recall several months ago there was a righty troll who pretty much added nothing to the conversation but getting on, comparing progressives to Ol’ Joe Stahlin (or someone equally unpleasant), and leaving. His messages all wound up getting held indefinitely, and he left. He really dug calling people Soc-shi-yuh-lists.
Give the word a rest already. In the first place, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Perhaps you’re looking for “Boshleviks”. They figure that the hoi polloi should not be allowed into the decision-making process because they’ll interfere with the creation of “real soc-shi-yuh-lism” by becoming petit bourgeoise. I promise, there are no Boshleviks on this board, no matter how convenient it would be to you if there were.
I believe there are problems that have collective solutions. So do you MTR. We just have a disagreement as to which problems those happen to be.
If you REALLY, honestly believe that all issues from roads to education should be solved in the private sector, why don’t you have a time-out in the kid’s corner for a few minutes, color in your copy of Atlas Shrugged and explain the overwhelming successes of the private sector. I’ll have my files on California energy privatization, the privately funded and built Channel Tunnel, and a few other faves handy if you get too out of hand.
The private sector isn’t bad. It’s just not flawless, just like anything else. No quantity of crowing to the contrary will make it so.
There’s no crime in the Gates Foundation spending some of its billions on the Discovery Institute, provided the foundation is held accountable for Discovery’s work.
While the foundation goes through pains to demonstrate that they are only providing funding for Cascadia’s local transportation work, many people are wondering whether that’s true – especially when Mr. Chapman tells people that ID advocacy is Discovery’s number one priority.
Thanks to the NY Times for reporting that Gates is paying a healthy portion of Mr. Chapman’s salary. How much of the rest of the Gates grant to Cascadia is going to Discovery’s overhead? Somebody said staff there there have estimated that Discovery gets over 50 % of the total of $1 million per year. Just what have Mr. Chapman and his staff done to improve transportation with the money Gates has already sent? It has been several years now since the initial million- has anything changed in transportation as a result of Mr. Chapman’s work?
Mr. Chapman hasn’t had a new idea in transportation years – he’s still spinning his same pre-Gates grant yarn: kill light rail – pro monorail – pro tunnel on 520, even though light rail building is now well underway, the monorail looks doomed and the 520 tunnel was deemed impractical many years ago. Is Gates funding a catalyst for change or the lame musings of a transportation policy dilatante?
While Gates is attempting to distance itself from Discovery’s pro-design and anti-stem cell research PR machine (as it tried to do in the NY Times piece), Discovery uses the Gates grant to beef up its credentials and raise more dough.
In the end it might turn out OK. Most of the news media coverage on ID has reawakened many people like me to all of the progress biology has made based on Darwinian science since we went to school. The progress of the human genome project and its direct relationship to progress in computer science, via “systems biology,” is one great example.
Maybe Chapman has actually found a way to get kids interested in real science, with some blundering assistance from the Gates foundation. Not really what Discovery had in mind with its ID promotion but perhaps proof of the random ways that things often evolve.
jsa on beacon;
I assume then that goldy and you guys collectively will cease using the fasciassst word, tha naziii word… ?
fascist is appicable tho’, so its hard not to use it :p
Laughing darn hard at the ignorance of you guys on the left…all you know about fassicisst is what your handlers tell you.
wanna wax eloquently about german national socialism, peron, franco, italy in the 30’s…? Maybe compare that to speech codes, re-education for racial slurs, shouting down speakers at universities…?
you guys are a hoot.
righton @ 99:
* shrugs *
What insults other people use are frankly none of my business. I try very hard to be civil here to a number of people who are frankly not very deserving of such.
Word up people. You can’t spell SO-C-I-ALIST on this board without having your message held for moderation. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other words that will trigger the mod filters.
You can hyphenate it, misspell it, you can use lots of other words like “collectivist” “slave of the State”, or whatever other derogatory phrases fall out of your brains. If you feel you need that word so badly and that your freedom of speech is being cramped, go to a community college near you and sign up for a remedial writing course. It will do you good.
Not that it matters what I think, but there are people on both sides of the proverbial aisle on this board whom I would apply editorial discretion on if it were in my power to do so. Goldy gives all y’all a lot of rope. Quit bitching and get back to arguing.
jsa@97 – I never said private sector was good for every endeavour. Clearly there is a role for government. My bitch is that I’m not getting my money’s worth from government, and they’re involved in too many things that are not core functions. So we need to slap them in the face again with a bucket of cold water.
I work in an industry where we make a family of highly complex technical products. We get the crap beat out of us constantly to do more better faster with less. And we do a pretty good job at increasing our efficiency and competitiveness. It all happens because there are a lot of smart people who work their asses off. Nothing glamourous…. just hard work. So if that kind of pressure is OK for the producers, then GD it, then it’s gonna have to be OK for everybody else including government. The majority of us are SAFT of doing the heavy lifting, paying excessive confiscatory taxation and then seeing too much of our money wasted on social engineering and hopeless boondoggles.
I don’t see the same culture of efficiency in government. At all levels, they don’t appear to GAF about “doing the right things” and “doing things right”. Their elitist arrogant “we know better” attitude just infuriates us even more, and you can read what I mean first hand here on HA from the smug “progressives” who think they know everything except history.
GD IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!! It happened again. GD Filter
JSA, I wrote good answer. I guess good answers aren’t welcome here.
Shit, piss, cock, cunt, motherfucker, nigger, nazi, hymie
quit being infantile, MTR.
The filter irritates alot of people on both sides… Everyone’s been filtered at least once or twice, and its maddening.
Either wait, or reword your post and try again. Theres no need to throw a temper tantrum.
Windie: Sometimes you wait forever. Ask some others here. I have lost three posts. One I recreated becuz it was spesul. The other I just let pass. Today was the third.
I’ve lost a few permantently too.
Still, no reason to be a crybaby, and flip out over it.
It might be a good thing, but the filter is totally killing the debate.
I agree that Bill Gates (and anyone) ought to be able to spend his money as he pleases, but it does seem wrong that the Foundation simultaneously invests millions in order to improve our nations public schools (very much including their science performance) while supporting the Discovery Institute which makes a mockery of science and the scientific method. It would seem far more compatible to invest in Discovery while starting a nationwide network of Christian madrasas which replaced science with Bible studies, rather like the Taliban did in Afghanistan.
Lemme aks y’all a qweshun. I speek a inneresin dialec I call “redneck_samurai_bro”. I’m gonna star speakin in dis kinda ranguage sos I kin git fru da filtah. Y’all gonna hafta work wif me to unnerstan whut I be sayin, but a’ leas my fots will get frru da filtah.
Windy @90 says:
“This is all irrelevant tho’. What you folks are doing is assigning a position to us, then criticizing us for the position you’ve said we’ve taken.”
In original post Goldy writes:
“In giving money to Discovery, Bill Gates not only provides financial support, but lends credibility and respectability to an organization whose primary activities are antithetical to the principles of scientific discovery on which Microsoft – and Gates’ unparalleled personal fortune – was built.”
Sounds like personal criticism to me.
I notice the filter snatches my longer posts. Wonder if it’s programmed to word count?
Here are links to the filter’s standard banned words.
http://codex.wordpress.org/Spam_Words
It’s only length-sensitive in the sense that you are more likely to hit a word with a longer post. Some of these are idiotic.
Wabbit @ 109 – Don’ fink so. I don’ write no rong posts, ’cause I don’ read da wuns put up by da morons who try to cover up dere lack of fancy book larnin’ by tryin to slip in a google_copy_paste. They fink I’m too stoopid two no whut they be doin’. So I jus brow it all off.
Filter don’ make no sense ta me. the stuffs I rite where I try to rite like I did when I got my fancy book larnin’ post grad degrees don’ seem to git fru, so I guess I gotta rite like a dum fuk.
JSA – Don’ make no guldurn sense. Whyizzit I kin say nigger, kike, wop, motherfucker, nazi, but I gotta say grouchoharpochico?
Amazing. If we were talking about Las Vegas I could not say black-jack as one word. Or erectile dysfunction stuff. But vagina is legit?
Allowing ID into schools is essentially state-sponsored stupidity.
Goldy is pointing out that a man who built his massive personal fortune on technology and science should know better than to sponsor an organization whose goal is to legislate mental retardation in public schools.
The whole ID “debate” just reminds me of one of the worst aspects of American culture: the vast undercurrent of anti-intellectualism in this country. Why bother to figure things out for yourself when someone else can tell you how to think?
It’s curious that you don’t find the Bible scientific – if so it means that “religion” has obfuscated it’s actual contents. I find great reading of quantum physics, evolution within creation, mathematics, economics…if it could be read fresh without preconception you’d be amazed at what it contains! To suggest that somehow the study of evolution, which doesn’t stand up to the scrutiny of scientific testing, is somehow more intellectual and elevated than “intelligent design” – let’s not be silly, it’s called “creation” simply because it’s liberally PC to do so is just as mindless as those who find heresy in science.
Aexia @ 113:
….”sponsor an organization whose goal is to legislate mental retardation in public schools.”
Don’t you feel silly for making such a ridiculous comment?
“Why bother to figure things out for yourself when someone else can tell you how to think?”
And that is exactly what you are purporting here. No ID in schools because YOU don’t like it. Nevermind letting kids “figure things out for themselves”. It’s your way or the highway.
oops. 118.
Mark the Redneck,
In spite of an alleged post-grad degree, you don’t understand keyword filtering very well. There seems to be a lot in the world you don’t understand very well, but we’ll stick to easy stuff today.
I posted a list of words that this software will hold for moderation. Follow the link, and you’ll find them. Most of them are things that show up in comment spam. Talk about the side of your pen is or disusss loa ns, and you will be held for moderation.
It is pretty well-known that if you use the word SOCI-AL-ISM you will also be held. This was added for a dear departed user who just loved this particular word. He used it in every single post. It was the only word he knew.
All the words you mentioned are not in the list. It is left to your judgement to be a grownup and not use them. Judgement which you have shown to be completely lacking.
One prong of the “conservative” thesis in this thread is “Gates earned his money, therefore he can do what he wants with it, and you can’t question him.”. The suggestion being that the fact he has money makes him above reproach.
You claim to be a wealthy man. Yet you behave on this board like a six-year old. I don’t think money makes people better or worse. It just makes them rich. However, if I were to want to argue that society needs a bit of protection from its better-off members, your petulant whiny derrière would be a poster-boy case.
Goldy is pointing out that a man who built his massive personal fortune on technology and science should know better than to sponsor an organization whose goal is to legislate mental retardation in public schools.
The donk controlled schools already do teach retardation. Where do you think we got all those people working at the KCRE.
Just as an aside, it’s not that I am saying that anyone would lie on an anonymous messsage board and say they have a degree they don’t have, or make claims to wealth that doesn’t exist, but I will mention a psychological pattern.
I get to hang out with a fair number of well-to-do people. A lot of my friends, relatives and business contacts are in business for themselves, or retired, and made a tidy pile along the way. These people are not exclusively Republicans, but let’s say that the GOP is represented at a level well above the national average.
A lot of them have strong opionions about taxes, in the way that people who have to stroke out five- and even six-figure checks to the IRS four times a year tend to have.
The doctors in the crowd don’t seem to like the idea of universal health care very much. I suspect if an organization was trying to set a cap on my billing rate, in my gut, I’d feel the same.
What I NEVER hear is the whiny Bill O’Reilly The-Liberals-Are-To-Blame-For-The-Downfall- Of-Western-Civilization brand of conservatism. Real wealthy people, for the most part, have gotten pretty good and realize that. They may feel a lot of different things, but opressed generally isn’t one of those feelings.
The only place I hear “rich conservatives” talking like this is on Horses Ass. Maybe I need to do more cocktail parties.
I’ve always wondered about Bill Gates. Sure, he lovingly donated computers to schools and libraries, but microsoft surely saw a pretty return on the investment. And then there’s his support for the opera, dahling. How delightful the opera, don’t you know. The gowns, jewels, tuxedos, limos and especially the corn dogs are ever so to die for, don’t you know.
Comment by Pud dud: “When Jesus comes again and says Intelligent Design was correct, WTFWYST – (What the fuck will you say then). You leftist religion-hating moonbatty donks hate anything/everything that the founding fathers created this country by. You hate the Constitution, you hate the Bill of Rights, you hate having to swear on the Bible in court, you hate people who attend church, you hate flyover country. Why? God is in each of those places. Follow a liberal progressive home and ask where de Bible be? Watch the dopey look magically appear!!! You prove it everyday on this earth by you words and actions.”
Art Bell had a fantastic show Sunday night. One of his long-time nemesis callers, JC, a hellfire and brimstone southern feller, was given an hour to rant about Jesus and hollywood pornographicators and the devil and Merika. What a hoot! JC reminded me of ‘Senator Spitball’ Zell Miller and Pud dud, after reading the above rant. Har har har!
Pud dud, If there’s anybody here that deserves to go to hell, it’s you, boy. You don’t know Jesus.
Why don’t I believe in evolution? Because I don’t have that much faith! ;-)
jsa – My bitch with the filter is that it filters out the comments I write that tries to take a serious and thoughtful approach to issues discussed here. But if I write flaming crap, it goes through with no problem. Your view of me is skewed because you never see the good stuff.
I pay far more than my “fair share” of taxes, and do far more than my share of society’s heavy lifting. My tax bracket carries a little over 85% of the total. I’m tired. SAFT of working my ass off and seeing my money wasted. And after doing more than my share, to then be called greedy and stupid and selfish when I try to keep a little for myself is while the freeloaders whine is too much.
JSA – You can also take your elitist attitude and shove it up your big fat ass.
Your baseless denigration of my background and the use of ad hominem attacks on me shows that you really have no argument. Take my previous posts and refute something. Let’s have a “dialogue”.
And no, you should go to fewer “cocktail parties”. But c’mon down to the tavern with me and the boys and we’ll splain how things really work.
All knowledge is tentative.
Redneck, You say you want to have a dialogue. OK. You ask “why the left gets so enraged at the mere thought of another view, and wants to shut down the discussion rather than engage in dialogue.”
I don’t think it’s that “another view” is being proposed to be added to evolution in our children’s curriculum that enrages the left; it’s the fact that the case is presented as if there are two equally accepted and valid theories– evolution and I.D.– the latter of which is being censored by evil secular humanists who are out to smear Jesus and all he stood for. If tens of thousands of scientists agree with evolution and a few hundread (at most) support the ideas of I.D., is that a good enough reason to teach both theories side by side (implying to some degree that they are equally valid) in all of our schools? If you believe it is, then how can you argue against including the myriad other philosophies and cosmologies that have the support of a few hundred people. Why not teach the many Native American philosophies as well? Or those of Hindus? Buddhists? Rastafarians? If we tried to accommodate everyone, our students would miss out on quite a lot of science, and that would be a shame in a science class, especially when American students are already falling further and further behind their global peers.
The idea of a separation of Church and State (which is not something immoral liberals invented) is violated by bringing in a religious philosophy to a public school classroom. I can hardly imagine that having to endure the lessons of evolution would offend anyone but regardless, the constitution ensured a separation of Church and State, not that the ideas of one’s Church would be permissible and practiced anywhere and everywhere. Those who believe in creationism or I.D. are welcome to teach it at home, at church, or wherever else they please, but why do they insist on bringing these religious tenets into the public school system? If that is hard to understand, just imagine how you would feel if some little institute in Colorado Springs spearheaded a movement to teach Islamic cosmology to all American children, including yours, and did so under the guise that it was not religion at all.
PuddyBud @ 78 “I Thought You Asshole Liberals Were Liberal Thinkers? I guess not if it disagrees with your “progressive†ASSHOLE thinking processes.
When Jesus comes again and says Intelligent Design was correct, WTFWYST – What the fuck will you say then? You leftist religion hating moonbatty donks hate anything/everything that the founding fathers created this country by. You hate the Constitution, you hate the Bill of Rights, you hate having to swear on the Bible in court, you hate people who attend church, you hate flyover country. Why? God is in each of those places. Follow a liberal progressive home and ask where de Bible be? Watch the dopey look magically appear!!! You prove it everyday on this earth by you words and actions. ”
tisk tisk tisk, WWJD?
Remember what you good friend Desmond Tutu told you : “Don’t raise your voice, improve your argument.†When the facts state otherwise, they arm their small minds with vitriol and nasty name calling. “
Shame shame PuddyBuddy! PacMan will be very cross with you!
jsa – well put. The redneck is an asshole pure and simple. A blockhead. After having his taxes cut in wartime by his hero GWB and living in a state without an income tax, he still whines about paying too much. Whines while he drives a luxury SUV and lives in a gated community on the eastside. Whines even when his money makes more than he does. What a freaking baby! Waaaaa. Waaaaa…
Doofus – what schools did the attorneys for the Republicans in the election contest attend? Send your check to WSGOP. You folks need to pay those well-educated guys. You’re not going to stiff them are you?
Sometimes I really think most elected officials would do great making a living by picking fly crap out of pepper.
Can the wingers (on bothsides) just apply common sense once, that’s it, just once.
To correct the record; Charles Darwin never had a theory of evolution. Darwin had a theory of natural selection. If you read every piece of work Darwin wrote, you would be hard pressed to find the world evolution more than a couple dozen times.
The term evolution is more of a pop culture term then a scientific term. It is used in a much more generic way then Darwin’s work was. It really did not catch on till 50 years after Darwin died.
Natural selection (survival of the fittest) basically states that those traits (be they natural or mutations) that are most advantageus for survival in a particular environment, will be passed on more often to the next generation then less desirable traits. Logic: the quarterback gets laid way more often than the drum major. (FYI 1859 On the Orgin of Species, is a facinating read and definately belongs in a classroom).
Now, common sense. “Evolution” as a concept can be taught in a school just as easily without stating “human evolution” as a fact. Students can learn about Gregory Mendel’s work on genetics as a base, followed by numerous evolution and natural selection experiments that have been conducted on species with much shorter generation spans (e.g. house flies). These experiments show more concrete results that theories of human evelotion anyway.
That is definately appropriate for a high school science course (biology, life science, physical anthropology, etc…). A high school philosophy or cultural anthropology course is also an appropriate venue to explain to students the many different ideas, theories, hypothesis, and yes, guesses, to how life began. Discussing unknowns (and unprovables) is what philosophy is all about. This discussion would fit in great with aristotilein logic to boot.
Simple facts, (1)something created the world, (2)it wasn’t me, (3)it wasn’t you, and (4)none of us truely “KNOW” for sure in the scientific or legal sense of the word “KNOW”. Amazingly we are all operating on faith when it comes to matters we can not possibly know or even comprehend.
Get your political agenda out of the classrooms (all of you).
Dijital@ 130 – Your assertion that evolution is pure science based on facts, data, rational analysis, and testable hypotheses is false. To believe evolution takes huge leaps of faith in order to buy into the underlying assumptions. It is therefore a religion as is liberalism in general.
So your approach of classifying one as science and the other as religion fails. Both have elements of science and faith.
You’re also misinformed on the concept of “Separation of Church and State”. Those words do not appear in the Establishment Clause or anywhere else in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson spoke those words to a church in Connecticut that was afraid of the state attacking the church. So the idea is to protect the church from the state. It in no way suggests that America should be governed from a secular standpoint.
Wells and don*****don. I’ll make this simple. Both of your ridiculous little opinions have been noted. I wouldn’t want either of your minds to wander too far as it’s too small and fragile to be out by itself.
I post that comment to see which of you will respond. I am sure PacMan will have no problem with what I say? Why? Because we on the right know the game. Use the same language they use. If I go to hell, I go to hell still believing in Jesus as the Son of God. I will meet the Master of the Universe and He will explain to me what I did wrong on this earth. When you leftist donk moonbats arrive at the final destination (and not the movie), you’ll say “Oh Shit, you are real!” At which God will say “Why didn’t you believe in me? Why did you persecute my brethren? Why didn’t you believe in Biblical Creation?”
Regarding WWJD, what did Jesus do in the Temple? He threw out the money changers, the robbers and those who defiled his temple. Don’t you know He will perform the same task again upon his return? What did Jesus do when he came into Jerusalem the last time and wept over her? What did Jesus do when he condemned the Pharisees in Matthew 23? Yeah go read it because I know you can’t recite it!
You all have a cow on how Bill Gates got his money and how he spends it. Does Bill Gates complain how you waste pixels each and every day? I appreciate David Goldstein providing a forum for discussion. But, I do disagree with him on >95% of what he thinks, writes, and believes.
Wells & don*****don:
Remember: Jesus loves you…but everyone else thinks you are an asshole.
Remember: Some people are only alive because it is illegal to shoot them.
Remember: The proctologist called, they found your head.
To demonstrate I have a softer side even when dealing with Wells and don*****don, a message from a bud in Australia:
At a recent world brewing convention in the States, the CEOs of various brewing organizations retired to the bar at the end of the days conferencing.
Bruce, CEO of Fosters, shouted to the barkeep, “In ‘Straylya, we make the best bladdy beer in the world, so pour me a bladdy Fosters, mate.”
Bob, CEO of Budweiser, calls out next, “In the States, we brew the finest beers of the world, and I make the king of them all, give me a Bud.”
Hans steps up next, “In Germany ve invented das beer, ferdamt.?? Give me ein Becks, da ist der real King of beers, danke.”
Paddy, CEO of Guinness, steps forward, “Barman, would ya give me a diet coke with ice and lemon. tanks.”
The others stare at him in stunned silence, amazement written all over their faces. Eventually Bruce asks: “Are you not going to have a Guinness, Pat?”
Paddy replies “Well, if you fookin’ pansies aren’t drinkin’, then neither am I!”
Cynthia@119, MTR@134
You 2 are showing the basic deception of the ID argument.
But first of all, cynthia, evolution has stood up to plenty of experimental testing… But, anyways!
What you both are missing is pretty straightforward:
1) Evolutionary theory doesn’t talk at ALL about the very origin of life, or even think about causes. The idea that its some kind of bizarre secular humanist plot is a… lie.
2) What intellegent design proposes is irrelevent to the science anyways. You can’t point at experiments, you can’t use it…
3) Intel. Design is ultimately a trojan horse for creationism.
4) Alot of people see God in creation, and are very religious, but at the same time know that misrepresenting evolution and teaching religion in the place of science is a recipe for failure.
5) Alot (to my understanding) of the Intel. Design proponents are those same people who were promoting ‘scientific creationism’ in the ’80s. That didn’t work, so they changed their tack. Prtty godly just kinda giving up like that, eh?
PuddyBud @ 135 “I will meet the Master of the Universe and He will explain to me what I did wrong on this earth.”
Gosh! That will be exciting!
http://images.amazon.com/image.....ZZZZZ_.jpg
Terry J @ 7
…Are you saying that science says there was no beginning?
Yes Mr. J, that is exactly what scientist are saying.
.Was nothing ever created?
Once again, the same old argument from my creationist brothers: If the Big Bang causes the creation of the Universe, what was everything like before the Big Bang? This makes as much sense as asking what is north of the North Pole.
…With all the evolving, was there ever a proto-evolver? From whence did it come? A government grant? A progressive think-tank-university? A King County proto-election?
Although it is easier to express these concepts mathematically, there was NOTHING before the start of our Universe.
The Universe is composed of matter and energy. We perceive this through space and time, so any observable phenomena in space, whether objects (a star) or events (e.g. a stellar explosion or supernova), have actually occurred thousand’s or millions of years in the pass. Time did not exist, and no frame of reference is possible.
Science has been able to explain quite a lot, but it falls far short of explaining everything…
Science does fall short of explaining everything, but at least we are brave enough to”keep on trucking”, as my hippy parents used to say. Institutions like the so called “Discovery Institute” (what an oxymoron) do not wish to discover anything. They wish to believe, no matter if there is no evidence of their so called Intelligent Designer.
What does this thing look like? Matter or energy? Can you prove it mathematically? How do you set up an experiment? What are your control factors? Who will peer review it? Can the results be duplicated? AND MOST OF ALL, DO YOU ACCEPT THE RESULTS, OR DO YOU PUBLISH INACCURATE DATA IF THEY GO AGAINST YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?
.
I just want to know the name of any scientist who has taken basic elements and subjected them in any combination to heat/cold, light/dark, radiation,etc. and created a living cell. And then tell me the second time he was able to do the exact same thing.
100% agree with Mr Quale. Can man create life? Don*****don, you are the resident a t h i e s t here, can any of your friends create life? If not then how we be here, created just a little lower than the angels?
Uh — what’s the problem with intelligent design? I think that in not allowing for that possibility, you may well put yourself in the dogmatic position, and that’s not scientific, eh?
It does not seem illogical to me to think that intelligent design could be an option.
Isn’t there sort of a free thought and/or free speech thing out there?
I’m in Canada, and have recently lived in the States, and I’m realizing that people often get their church and state thing all mixed up, and I can realize the frustration with PUSHY groups, but, anyway, doing the same is hardly that good.
You know, pushing creation OR evolution down people’s throats is not the answer.
Ptolemy was wrong, and the church held to his SCIENCE, if you please, for more than hundreds of years. So, the church sometimes goes just as gung-ho over SCI as over the Bible.
In the case of evolution or intelligent design, one or both of them is true, and it doesn’t really matter much how strongly we defend our positions, the truth is out there,and all the data are not in, IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT TRUTH.
I don’t know what the fuss is about allowing two views in schools. I don’t know why that would be turning back the clock. What, exactly, is WRONG with the idea of intelligent design. Pray, tell!