Score one for the American Taliban:
President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and “intelligent design” yesterday, saying schools should teach both on the origins and complexity of life.
In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with evolution in the nation’s schools.
Hmmm. I have a theory: George Bush is an uncurious, intellectual lightweight, with little regard for either science or education. Based on my theory, I propose that the President’s meddling with our public schools should stray no further than occasional readings of My Pet Goat, while leaving the content of our science curriculum to people who actually understand and respect science… you know… like, scientists.
The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have both concluded that there is no scientific basis for intelligent design and oppose its inclusion in school science classes.
“The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted,” the academy said in a 1999 assessment. “Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”
That’s right, intelligent design is not science, it is religion, and as long as we still have a First Amendment, we don’t teach religion in our public schools. If this is the President’s idea of education reform, perhaps what we really need is a “No Child Left Behind in the Middle Ages” act?
But wait… aren’t you being arrogant, Goldy? What of all those “scientists” who question evolution?
The Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle that is the leading proponent of intelligent design, said it has compiled a list of more than 400 scientists, including 70 biologists, who are skeptical about evolution.
“The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,” John West, associate director of the organization’s Center for Science and Culture, said in a statement.
Yeah, and I’m skeptical that the Discovery Institute is an actual think tank. It’s not. It’s a far-right Christian propaganda mill, with absolutely no credibility on this or any other issue of scientific discovery… and the MSM should be absolutely ashamed of itself for indicating otherwise. The Discovery Institute is a sham, pure and simple, financed by wealth individuals with a dangerous, far-right-wing political agenda.
When the President of the United States suggests that our public schools should teach this retreaded, creationist bullshit on an equal scientific footing with evolution, the whole world laughs at us. And they should… we are becoming a ridiculous nation. No wonder our high tech industries can’t find enough qualified employees without importing scientists and engineers from overseas… while nations like India and China are retooling to compete and win in a 21st century economy, we’re busy turning our once proud public schools into the Evangelical Christian version of Taliban madrasas.
Bush’s statement in support of intelligent design not only represents a dumbing down of our educational system that our economy simply can’t afford, it is also an offense to those of us who don’t share the President’s faith. Science is about facts, not belief, and thus I no more want President Bush teaching my daughter science than I want Tom Cruise teaching her religion. If Bush wants to teach intelligent design, he should teach Sunday school. But stay the hell out of our public schools.
I wish the feds would just stay out of the education business. All they have done is cost us money with bad results.
Leave schools up to the people who care the most. The parents of the kids attending.
If you believe in intelligent design, explain Ted Kennedy.
Perhaps when you’ve earned your Harvard MBA, you would be qualified to comment on the intelligence of one who HAS earned one.
Until then, be honest enough to just post: “I hate the man and everything for which he stands”.
Have the gumption to admit: “I’m frustrated because I belong to a party of losers”.
Have the moral fortitude to stand up and say “I’m pissed off because my party of losers is so impotent that they can’t beat this man, that I think is stupid, at anything so instead I’ll call him names like the petulant child that I am”.
At least then we could respect you for honesty.
jerkoff@2-
If Goldy won’t I will.
You and that petulant prick deserve each other.
So…will you respect ME now? Big Boy?????
No.
Neither you, nor your purported (look it up) “honesty”.
Your sarcasm is scorned and ignored.
You are merely annoying but irrelevent – like a mosquito… or a democrat.
Oh well,I tried.
Have fun following the indictments…I hope they all fry!
Toyota decides to build its new auto plant in Canada even though Alabama offered twice the amount of tax breaks. Toyota discovered from experience that the work force in Canada is more literate and educated. They wouldn’t have to use pictographs in their instrutional manuals like they did in Alabama. Knowing Jeebus just isn’t enough.
That, and Canada has national health coverage, which also makes locating there less expensive.
Science must by its very nature must reject intelligent design, or anything else that doesn’t follow “Natural Law”. The assumption that “all processes are governed by natural law, and are understandable by man” is just as much a leap of faith as belief in an omnipotent God. Because science must reject intelligent design it is left with deeply flawed theories like Big Bang, and Evolution. It time to admit that science may not be the answer to every question.
you@2 – I don’t have an MBA but I do have a BA in Physics and a Masters in Education. So I will chime in as one person who is qualified to make the statement that Bush does not have the intelligence to make these sorts of judgments. This should not be a liberal vs. conservative argument. This is the future of our educational system. This is about the credibility of our schools and as pointed out above, how our students compare to those in the rest of the world. We can not allow ANY one group to influence academia in this way. We SHOULD teach about creationism in schools. We should teach all creation myths from all cultures. We should teach these ideas in the proper forum though, and not in the science classroom.
This can not be a surprise. The Bush administration has been the most anti-scientific, anti-fact administration we have had in the modern era, heck, probably since Millard Filmore.
Being Conservative means never having to say your sorry. And science just has an annoying habit of providing facts that show you are wrong. So, from global warming to the budget and taxes to enviromental programs to intelligence on WMD, it is much easier to ignore the facts and stay with your beliefs than to realize you are wrong and actually deal with the world as it is.
This is truly a faith based administration; facts and science need not trouble you when what you believe is much more important than what is real. And, of course, any who dare be apostates (Christine Whitman, Paul O’Neil, most of the CIA), are ignored and thrown out for acknowledging the truth instead of toeing the party line.
So how can you be surprised that Bush would support clouding science education by putting in intelligent design. I assume astrology will be next, since probably more people believe in it than id, and, heck, if we are going to throw away the scientific method, what does it matter anyway? Hell, let’s base it, at least astrology has some basis in reality (there are stars and planets), while id is nothing but a negative.
Belive what you like. Believe that the world is flat, that it rides on the back of a giant turtle, or that it is only 4000 years old. Believe that the Grand Canyon came into existance in a week if that makes you happy. Just stop demanding that your beliefs equal science. Or, if you insist on calling beliefs science, lets start teaching in physics that the universe will end in a few years, since that is what the Mayan believe, and there is as much evidence in support of that as id. At least you will be consistant, if equally wrong.
bluesky@6
I read the article on that too, it said Toyota didnt want to pay health benifits to the employees, so they built in Canada.
Gary @ 7 – Yes, science is limited in what it can know. It can only know what we can observe. Is evolution a proven law of science? No, it is a theory. Science has a set form and function that guides what becomes “truth”. Philosophy has the same sort of guides and is the proper forum for discussion ideas and theories of matters that we can not directly observe. Could intelligent design be the “truth” of our existence? Sure, but shoving it into the realm of science will not prove it. People who want to discredit an idea because they do not agree with it because their religion tells them so do not make good educators.
bluesky @ 6
‘That, and Canada has national health coverage, which also makes locating there less expensive.’
Is corporate welfare OK if it is in Canada?
All of the ‘intelligent design” literature I have seen has focused on large holes in Darwin’s theories, as well as the many examples of fabrications presented in school books on the topic. They may have an underlying theory that creationism is true, but their method is to attack the fundemental building blocks of evolution. They are apparantly having some success or the left would not be in hyperventilation mode. I suggest expending more energy refuting the ID scientists rather than just calling them names.
That makes Toyota no better than Walmart, right libs? That seems to be a major problem with Wamart, health insurance…
Oh well,I tried. Have fun following the indictments…I hope they all fry! -Comment by rujax206— 8/2/05 @ 9:33 am
Oh, please let’s do talk about indictments:
PRESIDENT CLINTON
THE STORY OF A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
PROSECUTION
Revised 1/8/01
CONVICTIONS:
Webster Hubbell
Jim McDougal
Susan McDougal
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker
Stephen Smith
David Hale
Eugene Fitzhugh
Charles Matthews
Robert W. Palmer
Chris Wade
Neal T. Ainley
Larry Kuca
William J. Marks, Sr.
John Latham
John Haley
Michael Brown (Ron Brown’s son)
Eugene Lum
Nora Lum
Johnny Chung
Tyson Foods
Sun Diamond Growers
Richard Douglas
James Lake
Ron Blackley
Smith Barney
Crop Growers Corporation
Brook Keith Mitchell Sr.
Five M Farming Enterprises
John J. Hemmingson
Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr.
Municipal Healthcare Cooperative
Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet
Linda Jones
Patsy Jo Wooten
Allen Wooten
Roger Clinton
Dan Lasater
Bill McCuen
Dan Harmon
Roger Tamraz (Lebanon by default)
Peter Lee
Harold Worden
William McCord (head of Lasater & Co.)
Jack Williams, Tyson lobbyist
Archie Schaefer, Tyson spokesman
Mark Cambiano (plea bargain: drop drug money to DNC for guilty plea on bank crime)
The Robert Mondavi Corporation
Richard Douglas – additional count of lying to FBI
IBM East Europe/Asia Ltd. (export of computers to a top-secret Russian nuclear weapons lab)
Johnnie Chung
AP 12/18/98 Michael Sniffen “.A Miami computer company will pay a $1 million fine and one of its executives will plead guilty to federal charges stemming from contributions to President Clinton’s re- election and to other Democratic campaigns, the Justice Department says. Future Tech International Inc. and its chief financial officer, Juan C. Ortiz, both signed agreements to plead guilty that were filed in U.S. District Court in Washington on Thursday.”
CNN 1/4/99 Terry Frieden “.A Florida businessman involved in a scheme to funnel illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign will plead guilty in federal court in Washington Tuesday. The plea by Juan Ortiz, chief financial officer of Future Tech International (FTI), comes three weeks after the Justice Department announced Ortiz had reached an agreement with federal prosecutors. Government officials say Ortiz will plead guilty before U.S. District Court Judge Paul Friedman to charges of serving as a conduit for illegal contributions and reimbursing eight others who provided similar contributions.”
AP 3/25/99 Kelly Kissel Whitewater figure David Hale was found guilty Thursday of putting $150,000 into his insurance company’s bank account to show it was financially stable – ”
Robert S Lee
Howard Glicken
Yogesh Gandhi
Trisha Lum
Washington Post 4/13/99 Bill Miller Barbara Vobejda Freeper Rodger Schultz “…Nolanda S. Hill, a former business partner of the late commerce secretary Ronald H. Brown, was given a four-month jail sentence yesterday for failing to report roughly $140,000 in income on her federal tax returns….”
Sacramento Bee 4/26/99 “…A businessman has pleaded guilty to violating federal elections laws by giving the Democratic National Committee $150,000 drawn from a South Korean corporation. Robert Lee, 49, was the 16th person charged in a Justice Department investigation of campaign financing in the 1996 election. He had agreed to a plea agreement in early April, Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel J. O’Brien said….”
5/27/99 AP “….A former county GOP chairman pleaded guilty today to violating campaign finance law by illegally funneling $11,000 to Democratic U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli. Berek Paul Don, 51, pleaded guilty to election law violation, mail fraud and tax evasion. He could get up to five years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines when sentenced Aug. 19. Don, a lawyer, was Bergen County GOP chairman during the 1996 election. He said he cashed an $11,000 check from political donor David Chang, who had asked him to get the money into Torricelli’s campaign fund, and solicited others to make donations with the understanding that they would be reimbursed….”
Kevin McNulty
Marc Nardone
Webster Hubbell
John Huang
Philadelphia Criminal Court 7/1/99 Physicist “…Brief report: Teamsters Kevin McNulty and Marc Nardone have plead GUILTY to all counts stemming from the beatings of anti-Clinton protestors Don and Teri Adams on October 2nd at City Hall in Philadelphia. Sentencing is to take place on August 13th, at which point we will learn how well justice has been served…”
New York Times 7/1/99 William Safire “…Two men who admitted corrupting our politics during the Clinton years have copped their guilty pleas and are cheerfully walking free — without having to implicate any higher-ups. In Webster Hubbell’s case, the crony and serial felon the Clintons appointed to run their Justice Department in 1993 triumphed over the Independent Counsel because Ken Starr was sure he could not get a jury to convict Hubbell, and he wants to close up shop as fast as he can…. Sherburne called [the President’s personal attorney, David] Kendall. Could he ask the President whether he knew about any payment to Hubbell from Riady’s Lippo Group? Did Clinton instruct anybody to help Hubbell? “Kendall said he would ask. . . . He got back in touch with Sherburne later. ‘I’ve checked it out,’ he said convincingly. ‘It’s not a problem.’ ” But then Clinton told a news conference, “I didn’t personally know anything about it until I read about it in the press.” “She called Kendall to remind him,” writes Woodward, “. . . she had asked Kendall to check it out. Kendall said he recalled.” She asks: ” ‘but how could that be true given the conversation we had?’ Kendall reacted angrily, suggesting that there was some disconnect. . . . Sherburne thought that Kendall was one more person who didn’t tell her the full story.” And so, with no White House tapes and with Hubbell’s zipped lip, Starr was unable to unearth the full story. But what could John Huang, the Riady employee placed in the Commerce Department and later as D.N.C. fund-raiser, tell us about the Clinton-Hubbell-Riady hush-money connection? …”
New York Times 7/1/99 William Safire “…That’s where the second walk comes in. Despite the strong protests of F.B.I. Director Louis Freeh and prosecutor Charles La Bella, Attorney General Janet Reno has kept tight political control over the carefully botched Chinagate investigation. This month, Reno Justice announced that John Huang, who raised millions in Asian money for Clinton that had to be returned, will plead guilty to raising just $7,500 illegally. His recommended sentence: a year’s probation and a small fine. In return for this slap on the wrist, will he reveal what he knows about the Hubbell money; or what transpired in the Sept. 13, 1995, Oval Office meeting with Clinton and Riady, or why he got regular C.I.A. briefings and called former Lippo associates? Don’t hold your breath. Justice’s walk-don’t-talk prosecutors have interviewed him extensively, they tell the court, but we will never see those transcripts….”
Office of Independent Council Donald C. Smaltz 7/21/98 “The Robert Mondavi Corporation, a Napa Valley, California producer, importer and distributor of premium table wines paid $100,000 to the United States in settlement of a civil tort and conflict of interest action brought today by the Office of Independent Counsel for giving six bottles of wine valued at $187 to or for the benefit of former Secretary of Agriculture Michael Espy in 1993 and dinner to and for the benefit of Espy and his girlfriend valued at $207 in 1994. Mondavi gave the gratuity while there were matters that company officials wished to discuss with or were within the jurisdiction of Secretary Espy. As part of its settlement, Mondavi agreed to spend at least $30,000 for a public education program to educate those in the wine industry and other California business leaders about corporate compliance programs and the bribery, gratuity and campaign finance laws. Mr. Smaltz stated: The management of Mondavi was quick to recognize the misdeeds of one of its senior officials and promptly accepted responsibility for his actions. From the inception of the investigation into the illegal gratuities, Mondavi has cooperated fully by making documents and witnesses available to this Office’s investigators and lawyers.As part of the Settlement Agreement, the government agreed not to bring charges against any Mondavi employee who may have been involved in this matter..”
AP 7/7/99 “…A lawyer who helped make former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker a multimillionaire in a bankruptcy scam had his community service sentence cut in half Wednesday. John Haley, a former co-defendant with Tucker in a tax-avoidance case, had also requested that his travel restrictions be eased, but the judge reserved judgment on that issue. Haley pleaded guilty in February 1998 to a misdemeanor for his role as Tucker’s lawyer in a $13 million cable television deal in the 1980s. Government prosecutors claimed Tucker, Haley and a third person set up a sham bankruptcy to avoid taxes….”
Associated Press 7/23/99 Janelle Carter “…A federal appeals court today reinstated the conviction of a Tyson Foods Inc. executive who had been found guilty of providing illegal gifts to former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. The ruling sends the case of Archie Schaffer III back for sentencing. A lower court had overturned the jury’s guilty verdict. “We find sufficient evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could have concluded that Schaffer violated the Meat Inspection Act,” the court wrote in the 26-page decision….. U.S. District Judge James Robertson in September overturned Schaffer’s June 26, 1998, conviction…..”
Inland Valley DAILY BULLETIN 7/22/99 Todd Richmond “…A statewide investigation of voter registration bounty hunters has netted a woman who turned in more than 60 bogus cards and uncovered evidence that a Democratic registration drive may have submitted as many as 9,000 faulty cards. Kathy Lemus of San Bernardino pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of registering a ficitious person and one count of perjury, both felonies.She was sentenced to three years in prison Wednesday….Lemus is the second voter registration bounty hunter to be prosecuted since the November 1998 election;Derrell Whitfield pleaded guilty to perjury earlier this year after he submitted 12 fake voter registration cards in Vallejo. Both worked for the California Voter Registration Project, which centers on drumming up Democratic votes, said Alfie Charles, spokesman for Secretary of State Bill Jones. CVRP has come under intense state scrutiny after only 4,500 names on the 13,000 cards its workers returned proved eligible to vote…..”
AP 7/28/99 Laurie Asseo “…Fine print in presidential friend Webster Hubbell’s agreement with prosecutor Kenneth Starr is giving Hubbell a shot at erasing his guilty plea to a misdemeanor tax charge. Starr is saddled with an appeals court ruling that makes his tax case against Hubbell hard to prove. Under the agreement with Hubbell, Starr needs to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling for the guilty plea to remain in place. This week, Starr asked the high court to hear his appeal and give him a chance to preserve Hubbell’s guilty plea. If the court denies review or rules against Starr, he has agreed to seek dismissal of Hubbell’s June 30 plea to the tax charge….”
CNN 9/7/99 “…Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros agreed to plead guilty to one misdemeanor count after reaching a plea bargin with federal prosecutors Tuesday just as his trial on 18 counts of lying to federal investigators was scheduled to begin. Under the agreement, Cisneros will pay a $10,000 fine for the one misdemeanor count, but will not face prison, probation or any other penalty. U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin must still approve the plea agreement….”
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 9/5/99 Jane Fullerton “…While Webb Hubbell’s five-year legal battle with independent counsel Kenneth Starr is over, his protracted tax negotiations with the Internal Revenue Service may be just beginning. As part of the plea agreement Hubbell reached with the Office of the Independent Counsel, the longtime presidential friend and former Justice Department official must work with authorities to repay a debt that now likely tops $1 million in federal, Arkansas and District of Columbia taxes….”
McClatchy Newspapers – Scripps Howard News Service 9/3/99 Michael Doyle “…A federal judge on Friday concluded a painful chapter in the history of Sun-Diamond Growers of California, by ordering the farm cooperative to pay a $36,000 fine instead of the $1.5 million penalty he originally imposed. The drastic reduction marked a litigation victory for Sun-Diamond, which had successfully challenged its most serious criminal conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The modest fine imposed Friday covers remaining convictions for actions initiated by a now-departed Sun-Diamond official. …”
Reuters 9/15/99 “….A New Jersey businessman will plead guilty to illegally channeling $12,000 to the 1996 Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and $50,000 to Sen. Robert Torricelli’s campaign, the government announced Wednesday. Lawrence Penna, 55, will plead guilty to a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the government said. He is the 19th person charged by the Justice Department’s Campaign Financing Task Force. The government said Penna got some managers and employees of Investor Associates — a defunct firm he headed — to issue personal checks to the two campaigns….”
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 9/24/99 Susan Roth patrick Howe “….A federal appeals court this week rejected Tyson Foods Inc. executive Archie Schaffer III’s request for a rehearing of his case involving illegal gifts to former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. In July two members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reinstated Schaffer’s conviction on a charge that he tried to influence Espy to change agency policies by paying for Espy to attend a 1993 birthday party for Don Tyson in Russellville. A federal jury found Schaffer guilty on two counts related to illegal gifts in June 1998, but the judge later threw out the convictions. The government then appealed the decision. The appeals court reinstated one of the charges and denied Schaffer a new trial. This month Schaffer, Tyson’s corporate spokesman, asked the panel of judges to hear his case again, and he also asked the entire appeals court to reconsider it. ….”
NANDO/AP 10/4/99 Richard Carelli “….The Supreme Court on Monday let stand the lying conviction and prison sentence of Ronald H. Blackley, once chief of staff for former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. The justices, without comment, rejected an appeal in which Blackley challenged Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz’s authority to prosecute him. Blackley was convicted last year of failing to disclose $22,000 he received from Mississippi associates dealing with the Agriculture Department ….”
AP Breaking News 10/14/99 “….The Labor Department has fined Tyson Foods Inc. nearly $60,000 for child labor law violations after a teen-ager was killed at an Arkansas plant and a young worker was injured in Missouri. In the Arkansas case, investigators said 15-year-old Juan Alderete of San Felipe, Mexico, was electrocuted when he walked into a ventilating fan while chasing chickens in April. The Labor Department said he should not have been working so late or in a job that hazardous. …”
http://www.newsday.com/ap/rnmpwh09.htm AP 10/14/99 “….Two officials of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians pleaded guilty Thursday to illegally routing thousands of dollars in tribal money to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign. Mark Nichols and Greg Cervantes, both non-Indians, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor federal charges of using tribal money to make illegal “conduit” campaign donations– contributions made in the name of someone who is then reimbursed the money, said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office. Such a scheme hides the true source of the money and allows donors to get around campaign contribution limits. In this case, the true and unwitting donor was the Cabazon Band, Mrozek said. Nichols, chief executive officer of the Cabazon Band, pleaded guilty to three counts of causing the donations. Cervantes, director of special affairs for the tribe, pleaded to one. They admitted to a scheme involving donations to Clinton-Gore during 1994 and 1995, according to U.S. Attorney Alejandro Mayorkas’ office….”
The Progressive Review/Undernews 10/18/99 Sam Smith “…..Major media, led by the NYT and Washington Post, continue to misreport the facts of the Michael Espy case in a way that smears the highly credible efforts of special prosecutor Dan Smaltz and his staff, including Robert Ray, who is taking over Kenneth Starr’s job. …..– While Espy, charged under a corrupt law that makes conviction, was acquitted, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years’ probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. Espy got off because the law makes it easier to convict a briber than a bribee. As the Washington Times put it, “Intent by the companies who gave him the gifts did not matter in the decision.” — In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. …..In short, Espy received more than $20,000 in payoffs from a company that among other things, does so much business with the feds that its fine amounts to just 3% of its annual government contracts…..”
Associated Press 11/1/99 James Jefferson “…. Presidential friend Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie was sentenced today to four months of home detention and three years of probation for violating campaign finance laws. Trie, 50, also was fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 200 hours of community service…..U.S. District Judge George Howard Jr. imposed a stiffer term than prosecutors had recommended for the former Little Rock restaurateur. Prosecutors had suggested probation because of Trie’s support of a federal investigation of campaign fund-raising. Howard said he tacked on the additional sanctions because of concerns that Trie and others who violate federal campaign finance laws “compromise the integrity and the virtue of this great nation.” …..”
AP 10/28/99 “….The U.S. Justice Department today recommended that presidential friend Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie be sentenced to three years’ probation, saying Trie has provided essential information in a federal campaign financing probe. Trie pleaded guilty in May to two counts involving federal campaign violations and is to be sentenced Monday. The felony and misdemeanor charges stemmed from indictments out of Washington and Little Rock. As part of Trie’s plea, he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. In return, prosecutors dropped other indictments. In its written recommendation filed today, the Justice Department said Trie has been interviewed by the department, the FBI, and the Agriculture Department on more than 15 occasions. …… ”
Associated Press 11/10/99 John Hughes “….The FBI has stepped up a criminal investigation into the taping and distribution of a 1996 cellular telephone conversation involving GOP leaders, a spokesman for Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday. The episode already has resulted in a criminal conviction for the tapers and a civil suit by Boehner against fellow Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., for allegedly leaking the tape’s contents. FBI agents interviewed Boehner last month, aide Dave Schnittger said…..”
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE 11/4/99 Carrie Rengers “….Archie Schaffer III, perhaps the best-known person at Tyson Foods Inc. — next to company founder Don Tyson — has been on paid administrative leave from the Springdale poultry company since Oct. 21…..”There’s nothing that requires that [he take leave] at this time,” says Carol Seymour, assistant deputy administrator for enforcement operations at the Food, Safety and Inspection Service in Washington, D.C. …..”
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE 11/13/99 Jane Fullerton “….Taking the witness stand for the first time, former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy testified Friday that neither Archie Schaffer nor any other Tyson Foods Inc. official tried to influence policy decisions during a 1993 trip to Arkansas. Espy appeared during a federal court hearing on Schaffer’s motion for a new trial in a case concerning illegal gifts to the one-time Cabinet member. That case grew out of independent counsel Donald Smaltz’s long-running investigation of Espy…..”
Capitol Hill Blue 11/27/99 Susan Jones “…..The Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct has filed a complaint asking the court to disbar former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, and the Washington Times reports the panel is also considering a similar move against President Clinton, who was found in civil contempt for lying under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky…… Unlike Tucker, Clinton has not been convicted of any offense, and that may make Clinton’s case different from Tucker’s, some observers say. ….”
WASHINGTON TIMES 11/25/99 Joyce Howard Price “….The Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct has filed a complaint asking the court to disbar Jim Guy Tucker, the former governor, for criminal conduct. The seven-member panel — five of whom are lawyers — is also considering similar charges against President Clinton, whom a federal judge found in contempt for lying under oath about his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky in testimony taken in the Paula Jones sex harassment case. “Disbarment is the most serious punishment that can be imposed [by the committee]. . . . It’s the equivalent of the death penalty for a lawyer,” James Neal, the committee’s executive director, said in a telephone interview yesterday…..”
CNSNews.com 3/3/00 Jim Burns “…..Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) predicted that Maria Hsia, who was convicted Thursday on charges she hid $109,000 in illegal campaign contributions during the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign, will receive probation instead of jail time and that she had most likely compromised American national security. During a question and answer session at the Heritage Foundation in Washington Friday Thompson, who is also the Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee which investigated the campaign finance scandal, said the Hsia conviction is but one example of how far down in stature the Justice Department has sunk during the Clinton Administration. “The greatest tragedy of the Clinton administration is the Department of Justice,” Thompson said. He cited as the reasons, “no leadership, gross incompetence [and] not having an outside prosecutor look into the campaign fundraising case.”…… When asked by CNSNews.com if Hsia was connected to the communist Chinese government and if this may have compromised American security Thompson said yes. “We pointed out that there were a half a dozen individuals who were raising large sums of money for the Democratic National Committee who had very close ties with the Chinese government,” Thompson said. “We also said in our report that Miss Hsia was an agent of the Chinese government. We did this after consultation with the FBI. With regard to the rest of your question, I’ll just leave it there. I don’t want to draw any broad conclusions until I at least have the chance to go back in and review our report,” Thompson said. …..”
AP 3/4/00 Catherine Wilson “……An immigration official accused of spying for the Cuban government has been indicted for allegedly handing over U.S. secrets to a Cuban citizen and lying about contacts with government officials from the Communist island. Mariano Faget, a Cuban-born supervisor in the Miami office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, has been jailed without bond since his high-profile arrest Feb. 17 and faces arraignment Monday. The case led to the expulsion from the United States of a top Cuban diplomat, Jose Imperatori. In a federal indictment, Faget was charged with communicating national defense secrets, converting classified information to his own use and three counts of making false statements. ……”
AP 3/2/00 Pete Yost “….A federal jury today found former Democratic fund-raiser Maria Hsia guilty of arranging more than $100,000 in illegal contributions during the 1996 presidential campaign. Prosecutors alleged that Hsia, a Los Angeles immigration consultant, tapped a Buddhist temple and some of her well-to-do business clients for money to reimburse straw donors or “conduits” who were listed as the contributors on federal election reports. ……”
USA Today 2/28/00 Edward Pound “….. A federal grand jury investigating whether Labor Secretary Alexis Herman was involved in a campaign fundraising scheme has accused a Singapore executive of making $150,000 in illegal donations to the Democratic Party. The businessman, Abdul Rahman, once a social acquaintance of Herman’s, was accused of a felony and seven misdemeanors. The grand jury said Rahman, in making contributions in the names of two other people, had caused the Democratic National Committee to file a false campaign report with the Federal Election Commission. In addition, he was accused of violating an election law prohibiting donations by foreign citizens. The gifts were made to the DNC and four state party organizations during the 1996 campaign. …..Herman is not named in the indictment, but the inquiry is continuing. The Labor secretary’s lawyer, Neil Eggleston, could not be reached for comment but has said his client had not acted improperly. …… Reno said the Justice Department had developed no evidence clearly demonstrating that Herman had acted illegally, but the attorney general said her investigators had corroborated parts of the allegations against the Labor secretary. Those allegations were made by Laurent Yene, a native of Cameroon and former partner of a Washington consultant named Vanessa Weaver. She and Herman are close friends. Yene has alleged that Herman, while a top White House official, had encouraged Weaver to solicit campaign gifts from Rahman and that the funds were funneled to the Democratic Party through a company owned by Weaver. …..”
AP 2/28/00 Pete Yost “…..The independent counsel investigating Labor Secretary Alexis Herman has charged a Singapore businessman with making $200,000 in illegal contributions to the Democratic Party through two U.S. businesswomen with ties to the labor secretary. Herman is not mentioned in the Feb. 16 indictment against Abdul Rahman, but the two U.S. businesswomen, sisters Vanessa and Caryliss Weaver, are named 11 times as the contributors of record for donations which the indictment says actually came from Rahman. ……. Vanessa Weaver and Herman are close friends and Herman, who ran the White House Office of Public Liaison before becoming labor secretary, took Caryliss Weaver on a trade mission. Herman had been introduced to Rahman by Vanessa Weaver on one or two occasions. Rahman was introduced to President Clinton during the 1996 presidential campaign. ……”
CNN 3/25/00 Philip Brasher AP “…A Tyson Foods executive convicted of providing illegal gifts to former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy asked an appeals court Friday to give him a new trial so Espy can testify in his behalf. Espy, who didn’t testify at Archie Schaffer’s trial last June, was awaiting a trial of his own at the time on corruption charges. He was subsequently acquitted. Schaffer attorney Bill Jeffress told the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that there was no way to get Espy to testify for Schaffer while his own case was pending. “There was never a point he was going to give us an affidavit any more than he was going to be interviewed,” Jeffress said. U.S. District Judge James Robertson agreed in December to give Schaffer a new trial, saying Espy’s testimony would likely result in Schaffer’s acquittal, but Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz appealed the decision. The judge had earlier overturned Schaffer’s conviction only to have it reinstated on appeal. ………”.
Capital Research Center 6/2000 Phillip F Kelly Jr. “…….Hamilton was the Teamsters’ political director. Since then, many have been waiting to see whom else U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White will indict. Testimony in the Hamilton trial implicated high-ranking labor officials, including AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumpka, Gerald McEntee, president of the Association of Federal, State, County and Municiple Employees (AFSCME), Andrew Stern, John Sweeney’s successor at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) as well as officials at the Democratic National Committee and Clinton fundraiser Terry McAuliffe. President Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickies was also implicated in testimony. Not surprisingly, the Justice Department did not appoint an independent counsel to investigate White House involvement in the illegal scheme. ……… No indictments have been handed down against Carey, Trumpka, McEntee et al, while Arthur Coia of the Laborers’ Union (LIUNA) and the late Edward Hanley of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees (HERE) —both big Democratic contributors— avoided takeovers of their unions in sweetheart deals with the Justice Department. ….”
Capital Research Center 6/2000 Phillip F Kelly Jr. “…….. Since the 1980’s Carey had purchased real estate in Florida and Arizona well beyond his modest means. Before the election, the reformer” Carey was widely reported to be making about $40,000 a year. Giacumbo offered Lacey documents exposing Carey’s financial dealings. Lacey demurred, but soon after an article appeared in Time magazine which quoted Giacumbo and detailed Carey’s extensive real estate holdings. Lacey subsequently spoke with Charles Ruff, White House counsel during the Clinton impeachment. Ruff was then working for Carey and the Teamsters, and he had briefed the review board on the allegations against Carey. In a letter to Thomas Puccio, a government trustee overseeing Teamsters Local 295, who had raised to Lacey and Ruff allegations linking Carey to organized crime, Lacey made plain his sympathy for Carey and reminded Puccio to consider “what would happen if you brought Carey down…… so that the clock would be turned back to what it was when first I came on the scene as independent administrator”. Lacey, the lone Independent Administrator, has since morphed into an Independent Review Board (IRB) comprised of Lacey and two others: Judge William Webster, former FBI and CIA director and Grant Crandell, general counsel for Trumpka’s ideological United Mine Workers. (Many believe Trumpka is the real power at the AFL-CIO.) ….”
AP 6/16/00 Samuel Maull “……Abe Hirschfeld, the real estate developer and frequent political candidate, was convicted Friday in his second trial on charges of trying to hire a hitman to kill his business partner. Hirschfeld, 80, was found guilty of second-degree criminal solicitation for offering to pay $150,000 to have Stanley Stahl, his real estate partner of 40 years, killed in 1997 because of a business dispute. The judge allowed Hirschfeld, whose first trial ended in a deadlocked jury, to remain free on $1 million bail. He faces up to seven years in prison when he is sentenced Aug. 1. ……”
6/27/98 AP “……Attorney Mark Cambiano has been sentenced to probation on a money laundering-related charge. The 43-year-old Morrilton lawyer, who was initially accused of funneling drug money to President Clinton’s inauguration fund and the Democratic National Committee, pleaded guilty in April to causing a bank to file a false transaction report. ……… U.S. District Judge George Howard Jr. sentenced Cambiano to three years’ probation. Howard said he was persuaded that Cambiano deserved leniency and also waived a fine. ……… Initially, Cambiano faced 30 other counts in an April 1997 indictment. All those charges were dropped. …….. At the time of his guilty plea, Cambiano told Howard he deposited $62,000 in a Morrilton bank in June 1992, half of which was a loan from one of his former clients, Willard Burnett, who later pleaded guilty to drug charges and conspiracy to commit capital murder. Prosecutors said the other half of the money was given to Cambiano by Burnett. ……”
St Petersburg Times/AP 6/14/00 “…..Attorney Michael Lazaroff often thanked his clients with extravagant gifts, including tickets to Backstreet Boys concerts and trips to Las Vegas. They didn’t know they were paying for every gift they received. The attorney admitted Tuesday he inflated the bills of about 50 clients between 1992 and 1999 to pay for more than $380,000 worth of entertainment and merchandise that the clients believed were gifts. Lazaroff falsified charges for telephone and fax costs, witness preparation and legal services. …….. U.S. District Judge Charles A. Shaw accepted Lazaroff’s guilty plea to two counts of mail fraud and will sentence him Sept. 1. ……Lazaroff also pleaded guilty to one count of causing false reports to the Federal Election Commission. He admitted he reimbursed co-workers who wrote six $1,000 checks to Vice President Al Gore and two $1,000 checks to his Democratic presidential primary opponent, former Sen. Bill Bradley, concealing that he was the true source of the contributions. …..”
AP 6/2/00 Jeffrey Gold “…..Two international businessmen agreed to illegally funnel donations to Sen. Robert Torricelli’s 1996 campaign, hoping their businesses might prosper if he won, one of the executives said. Cha-Kuek Koo, an executive with a South Korean conglomerate, pleaded guilty Thursday to making campaign contributions in the name of another person, admitting he recruited eight “straw” donors at the behest of David Chang. …… Torricelli is not accused of any wrongdoing. He has maintained he was unaware of the improper donations, which have since been donated to charity. …”
Newsday.com 6/5/00 Laurie Asseo “…..The Supreme Court today handed presidential friend Webster Hubbell a victory that wipes out his guilty plea to a misdemeanor tax charge. The justices’ 8-1 ruling said prosecutors could not use financial documents against Hubbell that he was forced to produce under a limited grant of immunity. Using the documents would violate his protection against self-incrimination under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, the justices said. Hubbell pleaded guilty to the tax charge last year on condition his plea would be dismissed if the Supreme Court ruled in his favor on whether the documents could be used. Today, the nation’s highest court ordered the charge against him dismissed. ……”
Associated Press 9/14/00 David Lieb “……Attorneys for Tyson Foods executive Archie Schaffer III have submitted nearly 100 letters to a federal judge requesting leniency in Schaffer’s sentence for trying to illegally influence the agriculture secretary. …… The letters of support for Schaffer cross all political and social lines, coming from Arkansas’ governor and past and present Congress members, judges, co-workers, university professors, a federal agent, a former professional baseball player, family members and other friends. ……. Among the letters on Schaffer’s behalf is one from Bill Buford, the agent in charge of the Little Rock office of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He trumpeted Schaffer’s involvement in charitable causes. ……”
UPI 9/21/00 “……The district court in Belgrade Thursday sentenced President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and 13 other top Western and NATO leaders to a maximum 20 years in prison for the use of weapons prohibited under international law and crimes against the civilian population during last year’s NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia. Veroljub Raketic, the presiding judge, said the arrest warrants would be issued for the convicted leaders and their sentences would start as soon as they are arrested. …….”
New York Times 9/19/00 David Kocieniewski Tim Golden “….In a Friday afternoon in December, F.B.I. agents arrested one of the Democratic Party’s most generous contributors as he picked up his Mercedes from a garage in suburban New Jersey. ……The donor, David Chang, spent only that weekend in the Hudson County Correctional Center. But while he lay alone in his cell, he was visited by several men he had never seen before, he later told prosecutors. One of the men warned him not to cooperate with the authorities, he said. Another simply put a finger to his lips……….In recent weeks, three guards who were in the jail that weekend have been called before a federal grand jury, and F.B.I. agents have seized log books, personnel files, videotapes and other records. ……Prosecutors are also preparing to question the man who supervises the three guards, a senior prison official who is a longtime friend of Robert C. Janiszewski, the Hudson County executive. Mr. Janiszewski, in turn, is one of Mr. Torricelli’s most steadfast supporters in the state…….. The senior prison official, Martin Budnick, did nothing improper, his lawyer, Peter R. Willis, said in an interview. But Mr. Budnick, who generally works Monday through Friday, has told associates that he came to the jail over the weekend of Dec. 11 at the behest of one of Mr. Janiszewski’s top aides. Mr. Budnick insisted to the associates that he merely ordered that Mr. Chang be given an extra blanket and some food………”
New York Times 9/19/00 David Kocieniewski Tim Golden “….Until his arrest last year, Mr. Chang, 56, was one of the more prized donors in American politics. He visited with senators and congressmen and had a particularly close relationship with Mr. Torricelli, who had been his congressman before being elected to the Senate. Mr. Chang had met with President Clinton half a dozen times, at both casual get-togethers and White House galas. But on June 2, Mr. Chang pleaded guilty to organizing more than $53,000 in illegal donations to Mr. Torricelli’s 1996 campaign. In return, the government dropped other, more serious charges, including conspiracy and obstruction of justice…… After his weekend in the jail, Mr. Chang appeared in court on Monday, Dec. 13, and his lawyer at the time, Michael Critchley, suggested that his client had no intention of cooperating with the authorities. Mr. Critchley said his client had no incriminating information about any of the politicians with whom he had dealt – not Mr. Torricelli, not President Clinton, nor anyone else. The next day, after being moved out of the Hudson jail to the Union County jail in Elizabeth, N.J., Mr. Chang hired a new lawyer, David Schertler, and began to distance himself from Mr. Critchley……..”
New York Times 9/19/00 David Kocieniewski Tim Golden “….According to people familiar with Mr. Chang’s account of his time in the Hudson jail, the first of several visitors appeared at the door of his cell on Saturday night, Dec. 11. One man, whom Mr. Chang described as tall and burly with a tattoo on his arm, warned him not to cooperate with the authorities, telling him, “You know what you are supposed to do.” Mr. Chang told investigators that he assured the man and another standing behind him that he would not “betray his friends,” according to people familiar with his account. Later, Mr. Chang told investigators, he was awakened in his cell by another man who put a finger to his lips, motioning him to keep quiet. Mr. Chang reported at least one more visit, this one from a man who brought him a blanket and food. Lawyers for Mr. Chang have said that he complained of being cold and ill-fed during his stay in the jail……..”
Washington Times 12/11/00 Jerry Seper “…..Arthur A. Coia, former embattled president of the powerful laborers union and a longtime confidant of President Clinton and New York Sen.-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton, has lost his law license for two years because of his guilty plea to income tax fraud……The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a November ruling made public last week, issued the suspension after refusing a request by Coia that he be given a lesser penalty of a public censure – meaning no loss of his license to practice law……….Coia, who raised millions of dollars for Mr. Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and the Democratic Party, pleaded guilty in federal court earlier this year to a felony charge of defrauding Rhode Island taxpayers of nearly $100,000 in taxes he owed on three Ferrari sports cars……”
Arkansas Democrat Gazette 10/27/00 Paul Barton “….Tyson Foods Inc. executive Archie Schaffer III, convicted of trying to illegally influence former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, must surrender to federal prison officials after Jan. 1, a federal judge ordered Thursday. The ruling came as Schaffer’s attorneys and members of the Arkansas congressional delegation continued to urge President Clinton to pardon him. Schaffer has formally requested a pardon, White House spokesman Jason Schechter said Thursday. But Schechter continued to say the White House will not comment on the possibility of Clinton granting one. …”
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE 10/27/00 Paul Barton “…..Tyson Foods Inc. executive Archie Schaffer III, convicted of trying to illegally influence former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, must surrender to federal prison officials after Jan. 1, a federal judge ordered Thursday. The ruling came as Schaffer’s attorneys and members of the Arkansas congressional delegation continued to urge President Clinton to pardon him. Schaffer has formally requested a pardon, White House spokesman Jason Schechter said Thursday. But Schechter continued to say the White House will not comment on the possibility of Clinton granting one. A pardon, if it occurs, is not expected until after the Nov. 7 election. …”
INDICTMENTS AND TARGETS:
Ron Brown (indictment was pending at time of death)
Herby Branscum
Robert Hill
Mike Espy (Acquitted)
Henry Cisneros
Charlie Trie
Nolanda Hill
Bruce Babbitt
Ron Carey
Monica Lewinsky
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
Roger Tamraz (France)
Alexis Herman
William W. Hamilton, Jr. (Teamsters)
Carmen Lunetta
Susan McDougal (new charges Whitewater)
Susan McDougal (Mehta) (Acquitted)
Mayor Richard M. Daley
John and Patti Garamendi
Calvin Grigsby
Neal Harrington
CATIC, the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Company
Don Tyson
James Nicholson
Haley Barbour
Maria Hsia (already indicted for illegal campaign contributions, now also federal income tax charges.)
Howard Glicken – Indicted Campaign Contributions
Pauline Kanchanalak (24 counts foreign contributions to DNC, etc.)
Duangnet “Georgie” Kronenberg (with Kanchanalak)
Mark B. Jimenez (17 counts illegal contributions to Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign and other Democrats)
Franklin L. Haney – 44 counts illegal campaign donations (.also accused of conspiring to make illegal contributions to the campaign of former Tennessee Sen. James Sasser, who is now the Clinton administration’s ambassador to China) – Acquitted
Webster Hubbell 15 felony counts, re: lying and fraud in federal banking regulator’s investigations – Convicted
USA Today 11/30/98 Paul Leavitt “.A federal grand jury is about to indict Julie Hiatt Steele, who contradicted accusations that President Clinton groped White House volunteer Kathleen Willey in the Oval Office in 1993, Time reports. The magazine says independent counsel Ken Starr told Steele’s lawyer of the pending indictment, which is expected to accuse Steele of perjury. Steele, who initially said Willey had told her of the incident when it happened, later testified that Willey hadn’t told her but asked her to lie to a reporter by saying Willey had told her. Prosecutors reportedly are investigating whether White House officials conspired to discredit Willey..”
Abe Hirshfeld (offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop Clinton suit) – attempted murder, former business partner
AP 12/17/98 “.Hudson Foods Inc. and two employees were charged with lying to regulators about the quantity of meat that might have been tainted in what eventually became the nation’s largest beef recall. The indictment, handed down in Omaha and released Wednesday, accuses the Arkansas-based company, its Columbus plant manager and a quality control official each with one count of conspiracy to provide false information to the U.S. Department of Agriculture..”
AP 1/8/99 John Solomon “.A grand jury investigating Kathleen Willey’s allegation of an unwanted sexual advance by President Clinton indicted one of her friends Thursday on charges of obstructing justice and lying when she cast doubt on Mrs. Willey’s story. Julie Hiatt Steele of Richmond, Va., was charged with three counts of obstruction of justice and one count of false statements in an indictment brought by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Among other things, the indictment accused Ms. Steele of filing a false affidavit in the Paula Jones litigation. The president’s lawyers had used Ms. Steele’s testimony in an effort to cast doubt on the credibility of Mrs. Willey, a former White House volunteer who alleges Clinton made an unwanted sexual advance toward her in the Oval Office in 1993..But Starr alleged that the affidavit and Ms. Steele’s subsequent testimony before two federal grand juries were false. Ms. Steele was told about the advance by Mrs. Willey and repeated the information to her friends, Starr charged. Prosecutors also contend that Ms. Steele lied to FBI agents working for Starr and “attempted in the Eastern District of Virginia to influence the testimony of one or more witnesses in the grand jury investigation.” .”
AP 1/12/99 Pete Yost “.Presidential friend Webster Hubbell is seeking dismissal of a new indictment by prosecutor Kenneth Starr, arguing that the case cannot be brought because of a 1994 deal prosecutors struck with him. The former associate attorney general is accused in a 15-count grand jury indictment of covering up his and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s roles in a fraud-riddled Arkansas land development called Castle Grande. His lawyers said in court papers this week that six of the charges against him are invalid because of a four- year-old plea bargaining agreement in which Hubbell admitted defrauding his former law firm and its clients of at least $394,000..”
Reuters 1/26/99 “.A U.S. federal appeals court gave independent counsel Kenneth Starr a victory Tuesday, reinstating tax evasion charges against Webster Hubbell, a longtime friend of President Clinton and the first lady…”
MSNBC 1/29/99 Freeper Mancini “.Keith Watters (sp?) told John Siegenthaler that he knows for a fact there are sealed indictmentS to be handed down by Starr once this trial is over. He looked very somber..”
AP 2/5/99 Linda Deutsch “.Two former and one current member of Kenneth Starr’s prosecutorial team insisted they did not leak the story of the independent counsel’s plan to indict President Clinton after impeachment hearings. The group was silent when asked if there is a sealed indictment against the president.. Immergut, who served with Starr for four months in 1998, said when she arrived there was “a siege mentality which emanated from the White House attitude toward Ken Starr. … We were so concerned with leaks. We only had each other.”. As for the explicit sexual detail contained in Starr’s report, Bienert said, “For my taste, I would like to have seen less detail.” But he blamed President Clinton for putting at issue the definition of what is sex. “It forced the office to get into details,” he said. Levenson’s final question — “Is there a sealed indictment?” — elicited only silence from all members of the panel..”
AP 2/22/99 Philip Brasher “…U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued the contempt order, saying Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt failed to produce documents related to a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Indian trust funds. The secretaries and Assistant Interior Secretary Kevin Gover were ordered to pay legal fees and other expenses that resulted from their delay in complying with Lamberth’s November 1996 order to produce documents….”
Antonio Pan
AP 4/16/99 “…A businessman indicted on 17 counts of making illegal contributions to the campaigns of President Clinton and others faces more charges in an indictment announced Friday. An indictment issued in Washington in September accused Mark B. Jimenez of illegally giving candidates nearly $40,000. Those charges were incorporated into Thursday’s indictment, which also accuses him of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud. Jimenez was Florida’s largest donor to the national Democratic Party in 1996. Jimenez, a Philippine national, fled in December and is believed to be in that country. The Department of Justice said it would seek his extradition….”
Washington Post 7/2/99 Bill Miller “…Tennessee financier Franklin L. Haney, a longtime friend of Vice President Gore’s family, was acquitted by a jury yesterday of 42 charges accusing him of violating campaign contribution laws…..Haney’s defense lawyers suggested in court that Attorney General Janet Reno had tagged him to be the fall guy for the fund-raising excesses of the 1996 campaign…..”
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE 7/28/99 Linda Sattler “…”An investigation into whether a conservative group may have paid Whitewater witness David Hale to influence his testimony has ended in a decision that “no prosecution be initiated.” That’s what special counsel Michael E. Shaheen Jr. wrote in a letter faxed Tuesday to Hale’s Little Rock attorney, David Bowden…. ”
AP 8/24/99 “…The Philippine Supreme Court temporarily stopped the government Tuesday from extraditing a businessman accused of making illegal campaign contributions to President Clinton. The court asked the Department of Justice and other government agencies to stop Mark Jimenez’s extradition until it has resolved a petition questioning the U.S. extradition request. In June, the U.S. Embassy asked the Philippine government to arrest and extradite Jimenez for tax evasion, wire fraud, conspiracy, giving false statements and campaign financing violations. He was indicted in Washington last September on 17 counts of illegally giving nearly $40,000 to Democratic Party candidates, including Clinton. An additional indictment in April charged him with conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud….”
Landmark Legal Foundation 8/25/99 Mark Levin “…Two EPA officials were indicted today by the United States Attorney in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on charges of obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and perjury. The indictments are based on evidence of criminal wrongdoing first reported by the National Wilderness Institute (“NWI”) and brought to prosecutors’ attention in a complaint filed with the Criminal Division of the Justice Department by Landmark Legal Foundation. Marc M. Randell (who is an attorney) and Claudia Johnson, both EPA employees, were indicted on four felony counts arising from their creation and submission of backdated documents to a federal court to support the EPA’s decision granting the Oneida Nation Indian Tribe regulatory authority over the waters in and around its reservation near Green Bay, Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin had challenged the EPA’s decision. If convicted on all counts, each faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a fine of up to one million dollars….”
Austin American-Statesman 9/22/99 Laylan Copelin “…Brian Russell Stearns came to Austin last year spreading money around. He bought a $2-million-plus mansion overlooking Lake Austin. He donated to charities, invested in a fleet of expensive aircraft and rubbed shoulders with politicians. He attended President Clinton’s fund-raiser in Austin last May and sat at the head table with Hillary Clinton when she visited here in August to raise money for a possible U.S. Senate campaign in New York. He paid off Garry Mauro’s $100,000 campaign debt from his unsuccessful run for governor. What no one knew at the time was that the FBI was investigating Stearns, 29, for securities fraud. On Monday, the FBI arrested Stearns at his Lake Austin home, charged him with securities fraud and then seized the house, two jets worth more than $10 million, a $2 million helicopter and $800,000 in vehicles, plus undisclosed amounts of money in bank accounts…..”
AP Larry Neumeister 10/5/99 “…Federal prosecutors say $7 billion from Russia was illegally funneled through accounts at the Bank of New York in one of the largest money laundering cases in U.S. history, according to a criminal indictment unsealed Tuesday. Three individuals and three companies were charged with channelling the money – believed to have ties to the Russian mafia – in the first criminal charges to be brought in the case. The charges were contained in a three-count indictment filed under seal in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Sept. 16. Peter Berlin, 44, Lucy Edwards, 41, – a former vice president at the Bank of New York – and Aleksey Volkov, 34, as well as Benex International Co. Inc., Becs International L.L.C. and Torfinex Corp. were named as defendants. The Bank of New York, the nation’s 15th-largest bank, was not named in the indictments…… Lewis Schiliro, an FBI assistant director in charge of the New York office, said the FBI is primarily focused on determining the origin of the funds and tracing the path of transactions through accounts at the Bank of New York. ….”
Freeper NDCorup adds 10/6/99 “….In the Lufthansa theft at JFK airport Lou Shiliro was in charge of the investigation. It is reported that Shiliro is now in charge of the N.Y. FBI thanks to Clinton. There were No arrests, No money recovered, and the witnesses are all dead. Sal Reale was in charge of Security at JFK airport and was Gotti’s bagman at Mena. Phillip Shiliro, (Lou Shiliro’s son) works for Waxman. It’s noted that Lou Shiliro controls the Flt. 800 evidence……”
Chicago Sun-Times 10/4/99 Robert Novak “….Next week brings an unwelcome conjunction of events for the AFL-CIO hierarchy in general and Secretary-Treasurer Rich Trumka in particular. At the labor federation’s executive counsel meeting Oct. 11 in Los Angeles, Trumka will press hard for an immediate presidential endorsement of Vice President Al Gore. On the next day, when a labor-Democratic Party federal corruption trial begins in New York City District Court, Trumka will be praying just as hard that he is not involved. The offstage actor in both events is Teamsters President James P. Hoffa. The reason the AFL-CIO brass has to work so aggressively for the Gore endorsement is that the Teamsters support that would have gone to the vice president was withdrawn when Hoffa was elected president nearly a year ago. The New York trial charges a money-laundering conspiracy aimed at keeping Hoffa out of power. Hoffa and his friends threaten the cozy partnership between the Democratic Party and big labor. Indeed, they still are bitter about plotting between the White House and AFL-CIO that rigged the 1996 election to keep Hoffa out of power. The Teamsters don’t figure they can block the Gore endorsement, but they want no part of it. While Hoffa wants to play both sides of the political street in the long run, he is intensely hostile to the Clinton-Gore team in the short run…..Just how far afield that trial goes is up to the defendant: William Hamilton, the Teamsters political director during the Carey regime. He is charged with orchestrating the money-laundering conspiracy intended to swap inflated contributions to the Democratic Party in return for funds to re-elect Carey. He has been under pressure to make a plea bargain by testifying against other conspirators. A government source says if Hamilton is to avoid the possibility of a prison term, his best bet would be to “give up” Trumka…..”
The Detroit News 10/17/99 Richard Ryan “…..The trial of former Teamsters Union political director William Hamilton, scheduled to begin in New York on Monday, has the potential to seriously rock organized labor and reach deep into the White House……. Among those implicated in the scheme are Terry McAuliffe, the chief fund-raiser for President Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign, and Richard Trumka, the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO who played an instrumental role in last week’s critical labor endorsement of Vice President Al Gore. McAuliffe, who earlier this year put up $1.7 million to help the Clinton’s finance their New York home, is expected to testify in the trial in federal district court in New York. The Clintons, sharply criticized for their use of McAuliffe’s money, subsequently obtained conventional financing. Hoffa has called the Hamilton trial — and its potential for revealing just how far up the chain of command at the White House and AFL-CIO the illegal plot went — the “Rosetta stone of the Teamsters.” …..”
New York Times 12/11/99 Raymond Bonner “….Before deciding to go ahead with Friday’s indictment of Wen Ho Lee, senior law enforcement and intelligence officials of the Clinton administration concluded that the necessity of a prosecution outweighed any damage to national security that might result from the release of classified information. That judgment will be seriously challenged, as the case unfolds over the coming weeks and months. According to the government, Lee had access to the most sensitive nuclear weapons data possessed by the United States, which if disclosed, could case serious damage to the national security. ….”
MSNBC 12/10/99 “…..Sources tell NBC News that the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque, N.M., has asked a federal grand jury to indict Wen Ho Lee, who has been investigated in a probe into allegations of Chinese espionage at U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories. THE SAME sources tell NBC News that Lee will not be indicted for espionage, but for lesser charges like downloading highly classified information from a classified computer to a non-classified computer and copying classified material to tapes. Some of those tapes are reported missing. Earlier this week, newspaper reports said top U.S. security, law enforcement and energy officials met at the White House last Saturday and decided that should Attorney General Janet Reno decide to prosecute, the secrets that would probably be divulged at a criminal trial would not irreparably damage national security. …..”
AP via Tampa Bay Online 2/16/00 Larry Neumeister “….A former Bank of New York executive and her husband who played a central role in a money laundering scandal involving billions of dollars have surrendered to the FBI. A federal indictment alleges that Lucy Edwards, and her husband, Peter Berlin, illegally moved as much as $10 billion from Russia through accounts at the Bank of New York…… An alleged accomplice, Aleskey Volkov, remains a fugitive. Investigators believe most of the laundered money came from Russian importers trying to avoid paying taxes, though they are still looking into whether some of the money came from criminal activity and was transferred through the bank’s accounts in order to mask its origin. Authorities have said that Edwards, as head of the bank’s Eastern European operations in London, had access to accounts and could move the Russian money through a series of accounts until it appeared to be legitimate profits from legal businesses. ……”
New York Times 2/15/00 Raymond Bonner Timothy O’Brien “……Two major suspects in the federal investigation into the illegal transfer of billions of dollars from Russia through the Bank of New York have agreed to plead guilty to money laundering charges, people involved in the inquiry said yesterday. The suspects — Lucy Edwards, who was a senior officer at the Bank of New York, and her husband, Peter Berlin, whose company, Benex International, controlled the accounts through which the money was moved — were expected to arrive in New York from London today to surrender to the federal authorities, a law enforcement official said. ……”
New York Times 2/15/00 Raymond Bonner Timothy O’Brien “……A person close to the investigation said Ms. Edwards and Mr. Berlin had agreed to plead guilty to several criminal charges, including conspiracy to commit money laundering, visa fraud, wire fraud and bribery of a bank official. Details of the charges were not immediately known, including the identity of the official or the bank involved in the bribe. The person providing the information said Ms. Edwards and Mr. Berlin had also agreed to forfeit $8 million that had been seized in their personal accounts by the federal authorities last fall, when they were indicted in New York on relatively minor charges, including transferring money without a license……. The fact that Ms. Edwards and Mr. Berlin have decided to plead guilty to money laundering charges seriously complicates legal matters for the Bank of New York. Lawyers with expertise in banking law said that whenever a senior bank officer admits to such charges, questions arise about the bank’s own culpability…….. ”
New York Times 2/15/00 Raymond Bonner Timothy O’Brien “……A spokesman for Natasha Gurfinkel Kagalovsky, a former Bank of New York executive who oversaw the division in which Ms. Edwards worked and who has also been a focal point for the investigation, said she had never been approached to discuss a plea agreement of any sort. ……. Ms. Kagalovsky is married to Konstantin Kagalovsky, a senior executive with a large Russian oil company called Yukos who previously worked as a senior executive with a now defunct Russian bank, Menatep. Mr. Kagalovsky has not been charged with any wrongdoing. ……”
New York Times 2/15/00 Raymond Bonner Timothy O’Brien “……Last month, the federal authorities indicted a former Bank of New York employee, Svetlana Kudryavtsev, on charges of making false statements to investigators in connection with the money laundering inquiry. According to the indictment, Ms. Kudryavtsev received about $30,000 from Ms. Edwards and her husband between 1995 and 1999. The complaint said Ms. Kudryavtsev lied to investigators in August about having received money from the couple and also lied about having any knowledge of their business activities. ……”
Detroit News 3/17/00 Jon Pepper “…… It’s lucky for the former political director of the Teamsters union that he led a life of liberal activism. If William Hamilton hadn’t been disposed to march in demonstrations as a college student, lead the Washington office of Planned Parenthood, work for Democratic politicians, and toil as the chief of staff for the AFSCME, he might have to spend an extra 11/2 years in jail. As it happened, Hamilton was sentenced this week to three years in jail for embezzling money from the financially distressed union. That’s less than the recommended 46 to 57 months that he would serve under sentencing guidelines. “He has indeed led an exemplary life,” said Federal District Court Judge Thomas P. Griesa in New York. And what of the criminal behavior by the exemplary Mr. Hamilton that led him to be sentenced at all? He robbed the nearly broke union so that he could save it from corruption. ….”
Washington Post 4/5/00 “……Two Buddhist nuns were indicted Wednesday for failing to appear as government witnesses at last month’s trial in which Democratic party fund-raiser Maria Hsia was convicted for arranging more than $100,000 in illegal donations during the 1996 presidential campaign. Justice Department spokesman John Russell said the pair, Venerables Yi Chu and Man Ho, fled the country after being given immunity for their testimony and are believed to be in Taiwan. A federal grand jury here charged them with contemp
Belive what you like. Believe that the world is flat, that it rides on the back of a giant turtle, or that it is only 4000 years old. Believe that the Grand Canyon came into existance in a week if that makes you happy.
Two words: Invisible Gnomes.
Goldy: “…while nations like India and China are retooling to compete and win in a 21st century economy, we’re busy turning our once proud public schools into the Evangelical Christian version of Taliban madrasas.”
Yes, and in India, religion isn’t important at all or plays any role in politics.
Excuse me, but where are our schools the worse? Out in the stix or the cities? And who is in charge of the cities? Also, since when does any one comment from any president instantly transforms into national education policy?
HowCanYouBePROUDtobeAnASS: Links, buddy, links! Cut the cut and paste!
ONE CONVICTION after a 12 year harassment campaign to bring down the Clintons. Get over it, ass. chimpy’s gonna pardon all his buddies anyway…so they’re gonna skate just like his great friend “Kenny-Boy”.
So where do the bushies fit into “intelligent design”…oh I get it…as BAD EXAMPLES.
Links, buddy, links! Cut the cut and paste! -Comment by Jon— 8/2/05 @ 10:26 am
I edited it down by more than half.
A puny little link wouldn’t quite have the same impact on the punier little dimwits.
As a practicing Christian, I find the religious right’s assault on science and empiricism to be shameful. The religious right seems to propose that being a good Christian requires denying what is plainly observable to any open-minded individual. The proposition that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs did not actually roam its surface falls into this category. God granted humankind the power to reason. The religious right’s campaign to remove reason and the scientific method from our public schools makes Christianity look like a sect for the scared, the intentionally blind, and those who won’t acknowledge that the Christian faith can hold its own without the assistance of government. As I recall, Jesus Christ did not receive much by way of governmental promotion and assistance. Injecting issues of faith into a public school curriculum, as with any breach of the wall between church and state, demeans religion.
Moonbats shouldn’t write about stuff they don’t know about. And most of them don’t know about much. Especially science. If they were smart enough to be scientists, they’d be doing science.
Evolution is a religion too because it’s a faith based belief system. So put down the Kool Aid while someone who knows what he’s talking about explains the “facts of life”.
The basic equation behind evolution goes like this: Helium plus Time equals Life. In order for this to work, the period of time has to be extremely long. The “scientists” will tell you evolution to humanity took billions of years. But how old is the earth? The true answer is that nobody knows. The “scientists” don’t know, and neither does any organized religion. “Scientists” invented a fantasy method of measuring the age of the earth called Carbon 14 dating. In C-14 dating, the “scientists” measure the amount of carbon 14 in a rock, and then estimate its age based on the amount of C-14 that they find. In order to do that, they had to have an “index rock” whose age was known in order to calibrate its amount of C-14 to its age. How did they come up with the age of the index rock? They guessed. And the truth is, they have no idea how old the index rock really is. NO idea… And then they turn around and say that the rock next to it MUST be the same age based on it’s fraction of C-14. The second rock’s age then “proves” the age of the first rock. This is a textbook case of circular reasoning that any high school student should reject in a heartbeat. And once you understand that C-14 is grounded on faith based belief in the age of the index rock, then evolution suddenly switches from science to religion.
Does anybody think I’m wrong on this? If so, please “educate” me on C-14 dating to prove it’s logical validity. Focus specifically on proving that I’m wrong about the circular reasoning of C-14 dating. If you can’t do it, find the “scientists” who gave you the evolution kool aid, and give them this challenge. Let me know what you find out. I’m waiting…
Mark the meathead @ 22 You have no fucking idea what you are babling about. Carbon-14 dating is NOT USED TO DATE ROCKS! You moron! Unless those rocks are in your fucking head!
Carbon-14 dating is used exclusively to date things that were once LIVING!
Like you said, Mark the jackass, Leave the science to the scientists, not redneck no-nothings like YOU!
redneck @ 22 – http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
There is your in-depth explanation. The carbon dating technique is based off of the half life of C14. That half life is a constant that can be measured (I did so myself in my junior level physics lab). Using data from rocks that have recently formed or organic remains of recent times we have an idea of average levels of C14 in those substances. We have to make two assumptions. One, is that those average C14 levels have been relatively constant (and from what we can tell they have) and two, the speed of light is, and has always been 3.0 x 10^8 m/s^2. It’s the second point that many creationists say is wrong. They have no proof, they just say that God could easily change that if it wanted to. So God obviously has since that is the only way the world could have been created 6000 years ago and that is what the old testament says.
Reply to 22
Equating evolution with religion is ignorance. There is plenty of empirical evidence that supports evolution. For example, fossil records demonstrate physical changes in species over time.
The appendix is evidence of unintelligent design. It’s utterly useless, and all it does is make you sick. Why would any intelligent mind give us an appendix?
Bunny – hate to tell you… the “geological column” doesn’t exist. That too is the fantasy of the religion of evolution.
More info for the Moron Redneck Mark
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/.....adiom.html
Sedimentary material of recent origin can be tewted by C-14 because of the LIVING matter incorporated in it.
Moron Mark Rednek @ 27 “Bunny – hate to tell you… the “geological column†doesn’t exist.”
Oh, gosh Moron Mark, if you say so!
You do not have any idea what your saying Mark, like any Repug you are just reading off of talking point memos put out by the religious right. FUCK YOU!
OK, here’s the deal. Bush should mind his own business. What’s taught in public schools isn’t part of his job description. That’s for local school boards to decide. I thought Republicans were against Big Brother in Washington D.C. interfering in local affairs???
Donna – STFU and “prove” to me that C-14 dating works. Specifically address the problem of circular reasoning. Or do you you not know anything about critical thinking?
Once you understand the problem, evolution = religion.
Bunny – I agree with your 30. Let’s dissolve fed department of education.
Perhaps Mark the Moron could explain how, if Earth is only 6,000 years old, coral and sea shells got to the top of Mount Everest?
The presence of coral and sea shells prove the rocks now topping off the world’s highest mountain were once a seabed. On a 6,000-year schedule, these rocks would have to rise nearly 5 feet a year, on average, to make it from below sea level to their present elevation. In fact, they are rising less than 1 centimeter a year. (Scientists can accurately measure this with GPS technology.) So, at some point in time, Everest had to be a veritable rocket ship. Either that, or the mountain is more than 6,000 years old. Like say, 50 million years old. The coral and sea shells on its summit are 400 million years old.
MArk the Moron ““prove†to me that C-14 dating works. Specifically address the problem of circular reasoning”
There is no circular reasoning to disprove, you dipshit! You just do not understand enough about Carbon dating to realise that.
If evolution is nothing but a theory based on faith, then mutation and natural selection don’t work, and the hominid fossils in our possession don’t exist.
For a good article on why ID is the death of creationism:
http://www.slate.com/id/2062009
Mark the Redneck:
“Moonbats shouldn’t write about stuff they don’t know about. And most of them don’t know about much. Especially science. If they were smart enough to be scientists, they’d be doing science.”
Apparenlty you are a moonbat, because you know nothing about science.
First of all, it is hydrogen, not hellium. Hellium is a nobel gas and does not react or combine with anything. This is why the Goodyear blimp does not blow up, but the Hindenberg does.
Second, the basics for life are Water (hydrogen and oxygen) and carbon, plus time and engery = life.
Thirdly, Carbon 14 decay works only with biological material that has carbon in it, not rocks. When the biological material dies (be it a tree, an animal, a bacteria), it stops taking up carbon, and fixes it’s state. C-14 exists at a known level in nature, and breaks down at a known rate (its half-life, or, in other words, the time it would take a pound (or any quantity, for that matter) of pure C-14 to breakdown to half a pound (or half that matter). The half-life is 5,730 years.
So, if the background rate of C-14 is 8% (I don’t have the time to look it up, but for the sake of arguement, let’s use 8%), and the wood you are testing shows that it has a 4% level of C-14, you know that wood, give or take a few years, is 5,700 years old.
Besides the basic physics involved in the half-life break down, this has been confirmed over and over again using material of a known age. Carbon 14 dating is only good to about 60,000 years, since by that point so much has broken down that you cannot get a reliable figure. Here is a link to a good simple explanation of the science involved: http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm
For longer dating, you can use other radio-isotopes which have longer half-lifes.
Geological dating uses similar process which, in turn, have been supported by comparision with the biological dating processes (C-14, tree rings, etc.). To the best of my knowledge, these indexes are done on Volcanos using historic lava flows (Hawaii and Etna are the big test centers). Since you know when the lava flowed, you know when the rocks are created, and you have your index. QED. I know of no science that seriously questions any of these calculations, and all studies have upheld them.
There is no circular reasoning at all. Go dig up a person who died on a given date, run a C-14 test, and it will give you the same date on the tomb stone + or – a given number (about 30 years, I believe).
No faith, no belief. Just good, strong science, based upon observations of the physical world. This doesn’t mean that God does not exist, only that he does not play dice with the universe.
…”Using material of a known age”. Now we’re getting somewhere. There is no “known age”. It’s made up. That’s the problem. The “scientists” have NFI how old that stuff is. They just made it up, and then that somehow “proves” other fossils with similar C-14 content are a certain age. That’s the circularity of the reasoning. That’s how it blows up. That’s where evolution becomes faith based.
You mentioned 30 year old samples. Do you think is smart (scientifically) to extrapolate 30 years to thousands or millions? I don’thtink so.
…Okay!!! So we see Arbusto Boy’s boat is takin’ on LOTS of water these days (crowd chuckles) and a little JU-dicious PAN-derin’ is in order here. (Laughter) Prob’ly not enough to save the wicked Schmidt of the Mid-West (applause, a couple hoots)…BUT…I love it when he gets all sanctimonious and shit…you know, like he REALLY BELIEVES. (some amens, chuckling, a smattering of applause) Maybe he and Arnie can star inna flick together when they’re both DRUMMED out of office. (laughter) Like Eraser, ony the opposite…tryin’ to put something in bushy’s head that never was there to begin with. (bigger laughs) What a popcorn burner that’ll be. (right-ons and applause)
Don’t ferget to tip your waitress…I’ll be here all week!..luvya luvya, folks…HEY wipe the drool offa “The Redneck’s” chin willya? Great!
Goldy your comments on Bush are sounding more shrill every day. Pretty soon only dogs will be able to hear them.
RR @ 30
I agree. I had a similar thought when I heard that Bush was for this. I think the federal government should get out of K-12 education all together. Or, at a minimum block grant the money to the states without all these unfunded mandates and strings attached. We don’t need more administrative waste in education.
To be effective, I think education needs to be reformed from the bottom up, instead of the top down.
Here is a potential consequence of not teaching evolution. Sometime in the future, after the current generations of scientists have died out, a deadly virus mutates into a new strain. Because no one understands mutation anymore, no one will figure out where that virus came from, or how to unlock its genetic code. Consequently, a cure will not be found, and it will ravage — perhaps destroy — the human species. But this is no problem for the religious wingnuts, because the end of mankind will reaffirm their belief in Armageddon. When that day comes they will, undoubtedly, be standing in the street awaiting the arrival of the Rapture.
37
Sounds like Mark the Redneck is arguing that time doesn’t exist, or is random. In other words, if I’m 65 years old, I could be anywhere between 0 and 65, because the length of a year could be anything. For this to be true, the Earth’s orbit around the sun has to be speeding up and slowing down, instead of maintaining a constant speed through space. The short answer is we can measure the Earth’s movement against fixed objects in space (e.g., galaxies; stars) and scientists know the length of time it takes for the Earth to orbit the sun is constant.
“The sky is falling, The sky is falling!” ranted the impotent liberals.
WalMart!
Intelligent design!
NoNewGasTax!
John Bolton!
“The sky is falling, The sky is falling!”
headache. Damn people are stupid.
do some research on dating processes. Theres a huge number of radioactive isotopes with rare but stable decay products, carbon-14 has a halflife of 5700 years, uranium-238 has a halflife of 4.47 billion years… Thorium-230 has a halflife of 738000 years. There are many others…
The thing is you can use several of these at once sometimes, to get a better feel for age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thats all a little off topic however… Theres nothing wrong conceptually with ‘Intellegent Design’, except that its used as a tool against evolution. Evolution doesn’t talk to the causes, but rather describes what happens… and its a good description. Proponents of ID like to pretend that the ’cause’ is significant to the theory, however, because they want to hurt it any way they can, and know most people consider themselves religious.
Its more dirty-trickism from the whacko right, but maybe this shouldn’t surprise any of us.
On a side note: Whats up with the righty trolls lately? They seem way worse than usual this week… Far more strident and doctorinaire than usual…
Bunny – take yer meds. yer losin yer mind. When did I mention speed of light? Focus now… circular logic… C14 dating.
I think the c1@39 has it right… almost. In fact thats probably it, the conservatives are feeling the heat as the administrations’ goofs and scandals continue to pile up.
Being rightwing whackjobs, the first thing they do is take anything they’re doing or that they can be accused of, and accuse their opponents of it.
Oh, and PS: Just to say it again, ID is a huge red herring, its talking about things that evolution doesn’t (and shouldn’t) address.
damn my post got held up.
anyways. Keep saying ‘circular logic’, dumbass… If you keep saying maybe you’ll convince yourself is true, if not anyone that can actually think.
Redneck:
Do you not listen. They test against things that are of a known age, that have a history. And not just 30 years old, but thousands of years old. Go to a grave yard and dig up a person 200 years old (where you have a tomb stone that says Here lies X, Died August 2, 1805), go test King Tut’s mummy (when we know exactly when he died), go test a parchment of a deed for a piece of property from 1625 which has its date on it, and guess what, you will get back the same date as the known date. You will get consistent results.
Further, you do this by sending them blind to the testing labs. You have your body from 1200 AD, you take a sample, you send it to the lab, but you do not tell them the date you think the sample is from, and, surprise, surprise, you get a return date of 1200 AD.
The 30 years is an error rate, because a half-life is not perfect, but an average. However, the tests that confirmed how radio-carbon dating worked were done with items of known ages up to 3000 years old.
So where is the circular reasoning? We know that Carbon-14 decays at a certain rate (this is not a forum for the basics of radio-isotope decay, but if you need a link, I’ll get you one). You then take many things where you know how old they are,(totally independant of C-14) you test them, and find out that C-14 returns the same dates as the dates you know independantly. Based on that, you can go to unknown things and verify their age through the same process. There is nothing circular about that.
You can argue all you want, but please note that to prove yourself right, at this point you have to throw out all we know about 1) biology), 2) geology, 3)physics, and 4) history. Which just proves that your theories have no place in science.
We’re talking about two distinct disciplines here folks: Philosophy and Science. In the case of “creation” (small c), the intelligent design folks are bringing a possible “theory” to the table as to how the universe was Created (big C). The evolutionists bring their own “theory” to the table as well in the form of the big bang and subsequent evolution. In my estimation, both parties, must take a leap of faith in order to “believe” their respective theories. Creationists use inductive logic to support a belief system founded in historical fact (The people, places and history related in the bible are real therefore what those people report in it as truth must be “real”). Big Bang proponents use the same sort of inductive process basing their beliefs on scientific records (ie. attribution of terrestrial evidence to undefined extra-terrestrial sources as there is no record of perhaps a particular element on earth (big bang)).
As a Christian Conservative, I don’t see where there isn’t room for both philosophies until one is proven false. Evolution does not pose a problem for me as I can’t say that God did not create us in His image and expect us to grow and change based on our new environment as part of His plan. I am not a literalist. I know that even though he created an incredible machine (the human being), we have never been “perfect”. The events in the garden of eden speak to that contradiction. With that all said, isn’t education supposed to be about learning and solving problems for yourself? I don’t like to see a learning environment where we completely obfuscate one “possible” answer to a question because it is politically expedient. No one could (including fundamentalist christians) state that the big bang/evolution isn’t possible. Nor do I think that anyone could say that Creation/Intelligent Design (big C) isn’t possible…except for, in my opinion, one entity (but there is a topic for a philosophy class). To attempt either is the height of hubris and detrimental to any rational conversation about the subject(s). I tend to agree with Tom@8 that we should offer all possibilities to students and arm them with the tools so that they’re able to decide what is “true” for them based on their own research/belief system. The only way I see that this could ever be a bad thing is where one possibility is omitted based on prejudice, politics or arrogance.
The subject of C14 dating is one that is actually another good question for a philosophy class…”what is the nature of time relative to God’s will?” We can prove that C14 results are accurate based on our understandings of nature’s constants. But we cannot disprove a C14 test result’s validity based on our religion because we know that for God, time is not a constant. It is solely at His will.
@47
to your last paragraph. You bring up an interesting concept, do you really believe that God would set up a system so prone to decieving, or even worse purposely make the record lie as some kind of test? ’cause I sure don’t see it.
You also seem to hae missed the point. “THEY’RE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!” If you believe they are, its because you’ve been sold a bill of goods. ID (in its purest form) in no way contradicts anything that standard scientific theory says. Ol’ fashioned creationism does, but just about everyone given up on that one.
They’re making it a divisive issue on purpose, and trying to use peoples belief in God to discredit real science.
So does the filter not like the abbreviation I D ? (without the spaces)
“Darwin
INTRODUCTION
I. There is a phrase which is shaking the very foundations of science as we know it.
II. That phrase is “Irreducible Complexity”.
III. I’m going to briefly introduce you all to this interesting and important subject.
>A. I’ll tell you what this phrase means.
>B. I’ll tell you why it’s important.
>C. I’ll explain related factors such as the difference between physical and conceptual precursors.
>D. I’ll give you some examples of irreducible complexity.
>E. I’ll tell you how and why irreducible complexity is being ignored by scientists.
BODY
I. In his book, Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe, a biochemist from Lehigh University, says that irreducible complexity means a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.
>A. So, even something as simple as a mousetrap is irreducibly complex; it’s all one integrated piece which couldn’t work if I removed any part of it.
II. This term is important because our science these days is built upon the theory of evolution, also known as Neo-Darwinism.
>A. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin stated that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
>B. What Michael Behe and other scientists are now saying is that Darwin’s criteria for destroying evolution has been met, mostly thanks to advances in the field of biochemistry.
>C. Scientists used to think that, as you went down smaller and smaller, biological systems would get more and more simple.
>D. What scientists actually found was that, once you went past the level of gross anatomy, things got really complicated and the examples of irreducible complexity, which could not be found in basic bodily systems, were abundant on the biochemical level.
>E. The most obvious example of this is the cell, a structure so complicated that we can hardly fathom it.
~~1. Take, for example, the nucleus, which is the brain of the cell.
~~2. Richard Dawkins is one of the defenders of evolution, but even he is daunted by the complexity of the cell.
~~3. As He puts it in his book Climbing Mount Improbable, “Each nucleus…contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”
(Now that you have a little background on what irreducible complexity is and why it’s important, I’m going to shift gears a little and explain a problem related to evolution and irreducible complexity.)
III. Scientist who study evolution often fail to make the distinction between physical and conceptual precursors.
>A. In order for evolution to work, everything that exists must have a physical precursor, something from which it could have directly evolved from.
>B. Most evolutionary pathways do not follow this very well and instead resort to using conceptual precursors.
>C. An example of conceptual precursors is the bicycle and the motorcycle.
>D. The idea of one is built upon the concept of the other, but there is no evolutionary pathway from one to the other.
>E. You could get together with a friend, take a bike, a lawnmower, and some spare parts and perhaps with a lot of time and elbow grease produce something like a motorcycle, but what would you have proved except that an intelligent agent with a clear goal in mind, using pre-existing, perfectly formed, irreducibly complex machines such as a bike and lawnmower can produce something even more complex.
>F. This goes against every principle of evolution and is an argument instead for intelligent design, since a bicycle is a pretty simple thing next to the smallest parts of a cell.
IV. An example where Darwin and others have stumbled over the conceptual precursor problem is in the development of vision.
>A. To explain how vision developed, Darwin showed a progression of light-sensing organs from a light-sensitive spot to a direction-sensing cup to a cup with a quasi-lens over it and so on up.
>B. What Behe points out in his book is that these tiny, incremental jumps are only simple on the level of gross anatomy and are hideously complicated biochemically.
>C. The first break in Darwin’s chain is at the beginning, since the process of making a cell sensitive requires a cascade of factors which can’t be accounted for.
>D. Next, the molecular maneuvering required to make cells form a cup is pretty complex.
>E. Also, there is no such thing as a “simple lens”, they are extremely difficult to produce.
>F. What we really see going on in this progression is the adding of irreducibly complex systems to more irreducibly complex systems to form an even more complex machine, just like in our example with the bike and the motorcycle.
(Irreducible complexity can be found everywhere at the biochemical level, and Behe shows this again and again in his biochemical challenge to evolution. I’ll now just touch on one of his examples to give you an idea of how bad the case is for Neo-Darwinism.)
V. Most people think of blood clotting as a simple process, but believe me it isn’t.
>A. This chart shows part of what it takes to make your clotting system work.
>B. There are actually even more factors than are listed here, and all of them combine to cross-activate each other in a cascade that boggles the mind with its complexity.
>C There is no good Darwinian answer to how the clotting cascade developed.
>D. The chances of producing just one of these factors, such as TPA, by random shuffling of the genetic code, not factoring in the chances of getting the code on the right place on the genome which would make things much worse, is 1:30,000 to the fourth power.
>E. An illustration to help you grasp this number is this: in a lottery with those odds, if a million people played each year, it would be a thousand billion years before anybody won, which is roughly 100 times the calculated age of the universe.
>F. And those odds are just for producing a non-functional code for TPA; just think how difficult it would be to construct the amazingly complex cascade you see before you.
(Now that we’ve glanced at the evidence, and believe me all we’ve done is glance, we must ask ourselves how and why scientists are fighting so hard to ignore the implications of irreducible complexity.)
VI. Neo-Darwinism has become unreasoning, unscientific, and tainted by a quasi-religious prejudice.
>A. Instead of taking the facts and adjusting the theory to fit them, it tries to force them into a pre-existing frame as biased as that of an ancient mystic who claims the sun is carried across the sky on the back of a giant turtle.
>B. A mythology is an attempt to describe and explain the universe we live in, and that’s what evolution is: a new mythology.
>C. It no longer matters to evolutionists that their theory doesn’t fit the facts biochemistry is bringing up because they’ve become so enamored of their new mythology.
CONCLUSION
I. Now you know what irreducible complexity is, why it’s important, where we can see it in our universe, and how Evolution has become a stubborn mythology which refuses to acknowledge that the facts have proved its falsehood.
II. I hope that when you have a science class and these issues come up, you will have the knowledge and bravery to challenge this state-sponsored, false religion and demand a return to true, observational science. “
Not that facts actually matter to the chicken littles of the anti-anything-Bush groupies
Asshat@49-
Boy…you been waitin’ a LONG TIME to call out some pointy-headed libruls.
Done yerseff proud, boy. Now git me a beer.
Ok, idiot #49…
I’ll give you a quick answser on the so-called ‘irreducable complexity’ thing.
The classic example of this is the bacterial flagellum. Its something like 23 protiens, and will not work at all without all of them in place.
The thing is, actually intellectually honest researchers have found that smaller groupings of these protiens DO have a function, and thus a reason to be in the cell. With all of the protiens in place, there was the capacity for them to combine in the proper manner. I’d imagine there are other actual justifications for the examples you mentioned, but I don’t know them offhand, and frankly, its not worth my time to research them when I know you won’t listen anyways. The fact remains: Cases of ‘irreducable complexity’ often end up to be reducable afterall, once we know more about the system in question.
Anyways… your whole argument is “We don’t know how it happened, therefore it can’t have!” Pretty weak, if ya ask me.
Oh yeah, this is more of a cause than a result of anti-Bushism. I at least would have alot less problem with him if he didn’t glom onto idiot causes like this just to score some political points. If he actually believes this, I’d retract the former, but say instead “I’d have a lot less of a problem with Bush if he weren’t an anti-intellectual, airheaded, moron”
Proud at 49 – I think our work here is done for a while. We gave ’em something to think about. Logic and science are WAY over their heads. They need to take a kool aid break after we so totally demolished their fantasies.
1. I don’t speak gang, slang OR Ebonics, nor do I recognize them as viable/legitimate languages.
2. I am not your “boy”. I was under the distinct impression slavery ended in the United States in 1863. I suggest you review (learn??) your US history.
3. Get your own damned beer.
1. I’m with windie @51
2. re:53: Touchy…touchy! Ouuuch.
….Ass – you may be a fathead (and you are), but at least you are a FUNNY fathead! ~Get your own damned beer~
(hmmm either that or you are the biggest moron on the planet? mmm… Please advise.. fathead or moron?)
I think our work here is done for a while.
Yes, drag your knuckles over to (un)SP for “intelligent” comment on “intelligent” design.
And please take ProudAss and her blogorrhea with you. She’s off her meds again…
Sorry clueless, THINKING folks don’t medicate to get through the day, we don’t get stoned to face our fears, we don’t medicate our kids, we don’t “drink liberally” (aka, become drunken asses) or swill Democrat/moveon/DU KoolAid.
Like President Reagan said “It’s not what they don’t know that’s the problem. It’s the things they “know” that aren’t true that are the real problem.”
We’ve seen textbook case of it here.
‘..your whole argument is “We don’t know how it happened, therefore it can’t have!” Pretty weak, if ya ask me.’
That is not the argument. The argument id that if there needs to be several items developed over time that only have function as a group, Darwin falls apart.
Darwin said “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Evolution would not create other items in the cell structure that have no prior function, only to wait for the final combination to happen. This would imply “planning”, as opposed to random or blind evolution.
All science should allow for dissenting theories until they can be refuted. Yelling and calling names is not really refuting.
58
I’m sure you needed quite a bit of medication after your oh so intelligent predictions of the election contest didn’t quite pan out – the result of swilling so much (un)SP KOOL-AID or was it PRIVATE SCHOOL (INBRED) EDUCATION?
I just read an old ancient history textbook from the early 1960’s that took recorded human history all the way back to 4000 b.c. So, for the whole “the earth was created by Gawd 6000 years ago” to fly – the earth would have had to have been created extant the day before recorded human history began (and, mind you, this is before the last 40 years of scientific progress in mapping human history is laid out).
Another way to put it – for you religious nutjobs out in Central Washington – go look at the Columbia River Gorge. That’s what water will do over millions of years.
BTW – the next time you get in an airplane, understand that the science behind evolution is inseparable from the science that put planes into the air.
BTW2 – George Bush is one dumb motherfucker – he would NEVER have gotten into Yale or Harvard if Daddsy wasn’t who he was (and if he weren’t the grandson of old Nazi-sympathizer Prescott Bush).
ass@everywhere
Its always great to see someone afraid to answer your points… leaves people to assume they can’t, but hope nobody will notice.
@61
First of all, evolutionary theory has come a LONG ways in 100 years. Don’t go quoting darwin too much. Sure he came up with the thoery, but its been refined a LOT.
Second, did you even read the first part of my post? Just because a ‘part’ didn’t have a simpler version of the function in question doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a function at all. If its there theres a chance that it’ll end up in a new structure.
For the record, I’m not against a Creator, or the idea of a grand plan behind everything… BUT- people trying to refute evolution, or trying to put parts into the theory that aren’t there to refute it, or trying to backdoor non-science in under the guise of science… Well that, in my mind is a terrible thing. Trying to twist things around backwards just to have your ‘proof’ isn’t good science, nor is it good religion. Why don’t you try to understand how God’s plan works within/around observable phenomena instead of wasting all your time and effort trying to disprove something that only contradicts a frankly ludicrous version of the creation of the world?
If you think Intellegent Design and Evolution don’t fit hand and glove (if they’re relevant to each other at ALL), you’re a closet creationist making excuses.
Faith-based dimwit @51 and elsewhere
HowCanYouProudtoBeSuchAWillinglyStupidClulessBackwardReligiousMoron would be the better question.
Tell you what, they haven’t proved gravity to your liking either, why don’t you go jump off of something really high and prove Newton wrong?
windie @ 53
‘The thing is, actually intellectually honest researchers have found that smaller groupings of these protiens DO have a function, and thus a reason to be in the cell. With all of the protiens in place, there was the capacity for them to combine in the proper manner.’
Please provide source(s) for this information. I have seen a couple attempts to discount the “irreducibly complex” issue, yet these have all been discredited. I am interested as it is a pretty important theory.
Mark The Redneck says “Moonbats shouldn’t write about stuff they don’t know about. And most of them don’t know about much.”
Wow, considering this sentence is followed by a completely incorrect statement about how carbon dating works (as has been pointed out at length in prior posts, i.e. it doesn’t work on rocks and it’s not done versus “reference” rocks) MTR has constructed one of the most poignantly ironic posts ever. I’m starting to think that MTR is perhaps a liberal who’s posting to make conservatives look really, really bad.
63
The ProudASS doesn’t make any points, she just cuts and pastes her favorite winger propaganda and mixes in some name-calling.
Heh. Very “intelligent” indeed. Must be an old usenet veteran.
So show us Mr X… where did I mention RELIGION?
No where, Mr Koolaid.
Really, you kiddies need to sue your neglectful high schools, parents and liberal icons for not teaching you rudimentary logic and debate.
windie @ 63
‘Just because a ‘part’ didn’t have a simpler version of the function in question doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a function at all. If its there theres a chance that it’ll end up in a new structure.’
I agree with your point. The problem is that until we know what all the functions were and how they became obsolete such that a new function could utilize the newly obsolete parts before they were “selected’ out, there is only “faith” that it is true. The opposition to these competing theories is actually more shrill than the religious zealots who tried to dump evolution altogether.
‘..you’re a closet creationist making excuses.’
How creative. I am actually interested in the science. Whether the truth is evolution, creationism or some combination is of no concern to me.
@ 67
If you didn’t mention RELIGION, then what else does Intelligent Design imply if not God? And if you say God, which God are you speaking of? The God of Israel? Hence, the three major religions or are you referring to a Hindu God? Or perhaps a Apollo?
If you are not implying the ideals of the Christian God when you mention Intelligent Design, could you please clarify the position you are starting from?
@68
Seriously, if you had a real unbiased view of science, Creationism wouldn’t come up at all.
More to the point, the ‘refunctioned’ parts dont’ have to be obsolete anwyays. All they have to be is “there”.
Also, to DumbAss: There is no discussion, or debate here unless we’re talking about religion. Theres simply no other reason to bring up “intellegent Design” or creationism than that.
ProudDumbAss@67-
Well, since NO ONE in the serious scientific community supports what you’re saying, and since proponents of “Intelligent Design” acknowledge in their occasional honest moments that it is a subterfuge to get religious instruction into science classes, I put one and one together (which seems to be more than “ID” proponents can manage).
So, you’re an atheist then? Right.
@71
This just occurred to me… Might not be about religion to them at all, but rather all about personal and Party loyalty.
“The President says Intellegent Design is right, so it must be!”
Well you can make all the juevenille insults you want Goldy, but if Bush is a dunce, then Kerry is even worse.
“In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.”
“Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D’s in his freshman year out of 10 courses…”
So I guess My Pet Goat is too advanced for Kerry.
Wow, what a surprise!
PBJ comes in with a comment that has NOTHING to do with the debate at hand!
Its only the 1350000000th time ‘es done that!
there are a multitude of mixed up definitions here.
Not taking a position, here are some slightly more accurate definitions to at least make sure all the arguments are using the same terms.
Literal creation: God made the world in 7 literal days 6-10 thousand years ago.
Creationism: God made the world from nothing, time span is indeterminent as day has a literal and a metaphorical meaning in jewish writing.
Evolution: This is the big misunderstanding. Evolution defines a process where by selection the stronger elements survive over the weaker, and the life form evlolves accordingly to a stronger life. It does not necessarily have to be associated with natural creationism or darwinism to mean life created out of the primordial ooze.
Evolution as a scientific concept is a visible fact, and has been demonstrated in many current species, but not to the degree necesary to completely validate naturalism.
Intelligent design is also endorse by the Carl Sagan types who think life was created or seeded by aliens
My take on whoole thing is maybe both camps are right. Simply because you determine life was generated out of ooze, doesnt mean there wasnt a God making it do so.
And in the end, the whole argument is pointless to me. There is so much more practical benefit to learning about the world around us, then to worrying about whether God made the big bang, or of it banged itself.
Flame on folks, feel free. I dont particularly care, i dont have an oar in this conaoe either way.
I am more worried about the Supreme Court eroding my rights to someday own property.
that, and fixing my spell checker…….
Redneck @ 60:
Name one thing that I claim that is not true? Further, where has been your logic? Covering your ears and closing your eyes is not logic. I’m still waiting for one piece of evidence on your part. I have answered every question you have raised politely and with
ProudtobeanAss @ 51:
Darwin’s Black Box has been pretty soundly taken apart. There are many web sites that show the errors made in it and in other ID claims. If you need links I would be more than happy to provide them to you, but a google search should put you on the right direction.
Windie @ 53 gives a good example, there have been others as far as the lens of the eye arguement which have shown the problems with those claims.
For a good example with a non-biological case, take Windows through Windows Millineum. It has Evolved from DOS, but if you try to pull DOS out of it, Windows will not work. Does this make it irreducibly comlex? Of course not. It just means that as things evolve, older functions give way and are adapted for newer processes. You cannot always break down a very complex item to its individual parts. But, as Windie pointed out, if you look, you can almost always find the roots of the individual parts.
K2 @ 48:
There are differences between Theology, Philosophy and Science. I think you have posted a very interesting post, and as theology or philosophy, it has merits, but as science, it does not.
The problem with ID is two fold. One, it is not an answer, simply a criticism. ID does not proposed a substitute theory for how life came about and achieved its complexity, but instead just tries to point out problems with evloution and says, because of the problems, evolution does not work.
Second, ID pre-supposes an answer that cannot be challanged. When science finds something that cannot be explained, new theories are advanced which are tested; ID just says it was God, and leaves it at that. God, last I looked, cannot be tested. Further, by giving an unchallangeable answer, God, you stop the pursuit of knowledge. Why investigate or figure out the links? Science does not work that way.
Now, if you want to talk about the questions such as 1) What started the Universe, 2) How were the laws of Nature set up, 3) Why are we here, I have no problems with discussions of God. But you cannot contradict observable facts. Up is up, down is down, and the speed of light is the speed of light. The physical Universe started with the big bang (the remains of which are all around us), life evolves. The mechanisims can be disputed, but the fact that these things happened really cannot, unless you wish to be like Redneck and simply ignore the truth. If truth is not important to you, than you can believe whatever you like, like Redneck and ProudToBeAnAss. Just know you are no more right than a person who thinks that an eclipse is a dragon eating the Sun.
Proud, Mark and my other friends who are always RIGHT–
This is an impossible issue to successfully debate with the NEW AGE PROGRESSIVE LEFTIST PINHEADS. They truly believe that unless THEY can be made to understand something like CREATION, it must not be true. They have no concept of what FAITH is about. That’s why they take things oh so seriously and they are always oh so self-righteous. FOR THE NEW AGE PROGRESSIVE LEFTIST PINHEADS, this Earth and this life is ALL THERE IS. Kind of sad….for them. These NEW AGE PROGRESSIVE LEFTIST PINHEADS live their lives in complete fear. And the NEW AGE PROGRESSIVE LEFTIST PINHEADS political strategies are also always based on fear-mongering and the sky is falling.
I appreciated both of your comments however. Great discussion. You are preaching however to GODLESS, HEATHEN NEW AGE PROGRESSIVE LEFTIST PINHEADS. However, the day will come when they are on their knees too. They have choosen their journey. As Mork would say on Mork & Mindy—May the force be with you…NANU NANU!
Idiot/Cynical.
You are the morons dragging God into it. We’re discussing evidence for evolution, refuting false claims against the theory, actually dealing in facts.
And your response… is to put words in our mouths and mock us for things we didn’t say.
If you’re going to just make up our half of the argument, why even bother posting? What you’ve posted @78 is an amazing confabulation of hot air…
People throw the word ‘troll’ around, but you know, I always thought you people were at least trying… Not anymore. Cynical, you’re clearly here only to make trouble and get people mad. How sad is that?
windie @ 70
‘More to the point, the ‘refunctioned’ parts dont’ have to be obsolete anwyays. All they have to be is “there”.’
If we do not know what their purpose was we can only “believe” that there was one. Darwinism does not allow for things to hang around when they are not being used for a specific purpose. One or two items, sure. 10-30 items hanging around with no reason for being there, until all items come together to perform a vital function, that would be amazing.
I agree that the word “Creationism” need not come up to debate the science. The problem is that both sides started the search for theories to refute the other side. The Darwin types reveled at finally being able to sell Aetheism or naturalistic religions to the masses, while the other religions have their obvious desires.
Cynical @ 78:
What are you smoking and where can I get some? Have you read this discussion? Please site one, just one instance of new age thought here.
Faith is faith. I have no problem with it. Just don’t call faith science. And just realize that by your very own argument, astrology is right.
And boy oh boy are you going to be pissed when you find out that the Hindu’s were right. Hope you like being a slime mold, but, heck, at least there is a chance you will evolve, right?
Windie @ 79 and all you lefities.
For the last DAMN time, the Earth is FLAT!!!!
Deal with it! Then, get over it!
nowonder@80,
well we’re at the same point then. You choose to believe that their previous function is obsolete, I choose not to.
I’d note in my own defense that we’re talking about protiens here usually, or cell-parts, not anything as complex and useless as say… an appendix :p
That being said, I’m glad you’re willing to debate the issue with a goal to persuade, or at least enlighten… Theres not enough of that down here…
I will say your statement about darwinians ‘selling’ atheism… I don’t buy that. Aethiests are in the minority, but creationists have ALWAYS branded evolutionists as aethiests or worse. It was rarely actually true.
Cynical @ 78
Is it your position that someone who doesn’t buy into your rightwing ideological mush doesn’t know what faith is and is a godless heathen? Wow. Talk about self-righteousness. The “faith” that you express suggests that your Bible studies stopped well short of the New Testament; indeed, Leviticus would seem to be about as far as you’ve read. Your suggestion that leftists live in fear is just plain silly. Fear inspires people to do things like start unnecessary wars, clamp down on civil liberties, and belittle diversity. If not for fear and fearmongering, George Bush would most certainly not be president. The close-minded, tow-the-line predictability of your rants indicates you don’t understand the meaning of your moniker, Cynical. Try to think outside your little box sometime.
Proud LEFTIST PINHEAD–
Predictably, you rant when someone calls a spade a spade. What precisely is my “right-wing ideological mush” that you refer to?? If you have followed my expressed beliefs closely, you would understand that I am much more a Libertarian than a Republican. Government is TOO BIG and TOO EXPENSIVE on all levels. Much evolves from how much money and power you give to bureaucrats. Do you really think I’m a supporter of Bush and his big spending ilk??? Man, are you out to lunch. However, you are typical of the NEW AGE PROGRESSIVE LEFTIST PINHEAD ELITE. Anybody who challenges you is a Rightwing Ideologue. If you don’t believe the LEFTIST PINHEAD philosophy is based entirely on fear, YOU need to try to think outside YOUR little box.
proud leftist @ 86
Please note that it is worse than you state. Cyn states that if we don’t agree with him, we must believe in another faith (New Age). Somehow his “faith” (which is mindless, hence his fear of facts) is better than another “faith” (which he looks down on just because it is not his).
Fortunately, I have read the Bible and many other great works, and know while faith is important, God never expects us to be blinded by it. To ignore reality for the sake of faith is to spit in the face of God. God expect more of us, not just blind allegience. Which, if you think about it, is no faith at all.
windie @ 85
‘..darwinians ’selling’ atheism..’
I may have overstated that. How about Darwinism gave a great boost to atheism. The one quote I could find quickly is from Richard Dawkins, a zoologist from Oxford – “although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”.
No intelligent atheist would pass up the opportunity to back up their beliefs.
Cynical,
A true libertarian opposes foreign military entanglements, promotes civil liberties including the right of privacy, and sure as hell does not believe the government has any business promoting religion. Libertarianism involves much more than just wanting to cut taxes and eliminate spending. Rightwingers seem fond of calling themselves “libertarians” nowadays, but they typically buy into a very small part of the libertarian position.
JDB @ 88
You’re correct. His position is scarier, and loonier, than I characterized it. Trying to engage with these guys does seem pointless, doesn’t it?
Nowonder@89
Athiests supporting evolution discredits it at its source no more than the existance of the “Solar Temple” discredits Christianity.
Cynical @ 87 Just because you were groped by a Catholic priest in grade school is no reason to take it out on us. My firm belief is that most religions have caused more pain and death, than any “good” that they have done. This is why we MUST keep Bush from turning this into a religious state. This ID crap is just an attempt to get religion into school.
Moonbats – Splain sumfin to me. You call Bush “unintelligent”. Yet you continue to vote fer Senator Dimbulb. Here’s a woman who has won the “Not Rocket Scientist” contest many years running.
HTF do you get off calling President Bush stoopid when one of your main water carriers is a certifiable idiot?
HTF do you get off calling President Bush stoopid when one of your main water carriers is a certifiable idiot?
Comment by Mark The Redneck— 8/2/05 @ 6:16 pm
Well, that’s pretty easy. She votes the right way on issues that matter to working people. She didn’t start an illegal (and soon to be lost) war on a country that didn’t attack us. She’s pro-choice. She hasn’t given the store away to Halliburton and Enron (Boeing and Microsoft, yes, but there isn’t a Washington politico who doesn’t give the store away to them). She may not be Hilary Clinton smart, but she does her homework (and I’ve never seen her with a transmitter on her back during a debate being fed responses by Karl “Edgar Bergen’s evil twin” Rove).
Oh, and she isn’t an evil unempathetic sociopathic lying piece of spoiled overpriviliged good for nothing shit.
That about cover it for you?
So a woman who gives cover to terrorists and hates the corporations who make American life so good is a winner in your eyes?
And “Hillary Clinton” smart? Geez, talk about evil sociopathic lying piece of spoiled overprivilged good fer nufin shit. That describes her pretty well don’t you think. But please don’t get me wrong. PLEASE nominate her for 2008. She’ll bring people out of the woodwork to defeat her and guarantee that America is safe for 8 more years.
Perhaps Mark the Moron could explain how, if Earth is only 6,000 years old, coral and sea shells got to the top of Mount Everest?
Cuz Noah’s flood warshed them up thar…that’s how! And I know it ‘cuz I read it in the Bible!
Here’s what your fucking compassionate conservative evangelical holier than every body else fucking leader of the “free world” is doing to HIS FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS in the name of the people of the United States of America. Lousy dirty bastards!
****************************************************************
‘One of them made cuts in my penis. I was in agony’
Tuesday August 2, 2005
Guardian
Benyam Mohammed travelled from London to Afghanistan in July 2001, but after September 11 he fled to Pakistan. He was arrested at Karachi airport on April 10 2002, and describes being flown by a US government plane to a prison in Morocco. These are extracts from his diary.
They cut off my clothes with some kind of doctor’s scalpel. I was naked. I tried to put on a brave face. But maybe I was going to be raped. Maybe they’d electrocute me. Maybe castrate me.
They took the scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut. Maybe an inch. At first I just screamed … I was just shocked, I wasn’t expecting … Then they cut my left chest. This time I didn’t want to scream because I knew it was coming.
One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over. “I told you I was going to teach you who’s the man,” [one] eventually said.
They cut all over my private parts. One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists. I asked for a doctor.
Doctor No 1 carried a briefcase. “You’re all right, aren’t you? But I’m going to say a prayer for you.” Doctor No 2 gave me an Alka-Seltzer for the pain. I told him about my penis. “I need to see it. How did this happen?” I told him. He looked like it was just another patient. “Put this cream on it two times a day. Morning and night.” He gave me some kind of antibiotic.
I was in Morocco for 18 months. Once they began this, they would do it to me about once a month. One time I asked a guard: “What’s the point of this? I’ve got nothing I can say to them. I’ve told them everything I possibly could.”
“As far as I know, it’s just to degrade you. So when you leave here, you’ll have these scars and you’ll never forget. So you’ll always fear doing anything but what the US wants.”
Later, when a US airplane picked me up the following January, a female MP took pictures. She was one of the few Americans who ever showed me any sympathy. When she saw the injuries I had she gasped. They treated me and took more photos when I was in Kabul. Someone told me this was “to show Washington it’s healing”.
But in Morocco, there were even worse things. Too horrible to remember, let alone talk about. About once a week or even once every two weeks I would be taken for interrogation, where they would tell me what to say. They said if you say this story as we read it, you will just go to court as a witness and all this torture will stop. I eventually repeated what was read out to me.
When I got to Morocco they said some big people in al-Qaida were talking about me. They talked about Jose Padilla and they said I was going to testify against him and big people. They named Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, Abu Zubaidah and Ibn Sheikh al-Libi [all senior al-Qaida leaders who are now in US custody]. It was hard to pin down the exact story because what they wanted changed from Morocco to when later I was in the Dark Prison [a detention centre in Kabul with windowless cells and American staff], to Bagram and again in Guantánamo Bay.
They told me that I must plead guilty. I’d have to say I was an al-Qaida operations man, an ideas man. I kept insisting that I had only been in Afghanistan a short while. “We don’t care,” was all they’d say.
I was also questioned about my links with Britain. The interrogator told me: “We have photos of people given to us by MI5. Do you know these?” I realised that the British were sending questions to the Moroccans. I was at first surprised that the Brits were siding with the Americans.
On August 6, I thought I was going to be transferred out of there [the prison]. They came in and cuffed my hands behind my back.
But then three men came in with black masks. It seemed to go on for hours. I was in so much pain I’d fall to my knees. They’d pull me back up and hit me again. They’d kick me in my thighs as I got up. I vomited within the first few punches. I really didn’t speak at all though. I didn’t have the energy or will to say anything. I just wanted for it to end. After that, there was to be no more first-class treatment. No bathroom. No food for a while.
During September-October 2002, I was taken in a car to another place. The room was bigger, it had its own toilet, and a window which was opaque.
They gave me a toothbrush and Colgate toothpaste. I was allowed to recover from the scalpel for about two weeks, and the guards said nothing about it.
Then they cuffed me and put earphones on my head. They played hip-hop and rock music, very loud. I remember they played Meat Loaf and Aerosmith over and over. A couple of days later they did the same thing. Same music.
For 18 months, there was not one night when I could sleep well. Sometimes I would go 48 hours without sleep. At night, they would bang the metal doors, bang the flap on the door, or just come right in.
They continued with two or three interrogations a month. They weren’t really interrogations, more like training me what to say. The interrogator told me what was going on. “We’re going to change your brain,” he said.
I suffered the razor treatment about once a month for the remaining time I was in Morocco, even after I’d agreed to confess to whatever they wanted to hear. It became like a routine. They’d come in, tie me up, spend maybe an hour doing it. They never spoke to me. Then they’d tip some kind of liquid on me – the burning was like grasping a hot coal. The cutting, that was one kind of pain. The burning, that was another.
In all the 18 months I was there, I never went outside. I never saw the sun, not even once. I never saw any human being except the guards and my tormentors, unless you count the pictures they showed me.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
****************************************************************
There’s a real compassionate man…a pox on him and his evil administration. EVIL! And you support these monsters! The unmitigated shame you should feel.
W – When did I say Earth is 6000 YO? Never. I said nobody knows how old the Earth is. The Pope doesn’t and neither do the “scientists”.
Goldy — your slam of the Discovery Institute as a “far-right Christian propaganda mill” with a “a dangerous, far-right-wing political agenda” is completely unjustified.
The leadership and board of directors of the Discovery Institute is composed primary of moderate Republicans. And also includes some people who follow some religion other than Christianity.
http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
One of their directors is Mike Vaska, a leading opponent of the I-912 gas tax repeal (who successfully sued to make John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur’s editorials into “in-kind” contributions). Vaska was a GOP moderate trounced by Rob McKenna in the September 2004 primary for Attorney General (the first Republican to be eliminated in the primary for that position in 24 years).
Susan Hutchison, the former KIRO TV anchor being promoted by GOP moderates as an alternative to Mike McGavick, is also on their board. Also other moderates such as Christopher Bayley (King County prosecutor 1970-78) and Jim Spady, just to name a few.
k2 @ 48
You could not, in my estimate, be more wrong (although you are more erudite in your wrongness than typical redwingnuts).
Evolution is a “theory” in the same sense that Einsten’s theories of physics are “theory.” They are theories in the sense of being explanations of how nature works. Those explanations are correct. If they weren’t, atomic bombs don’t work and Hiroshima didn’t happen, and there is no biological difference between the species inhabiting the Congo and the Amazon. Oh, sure, scientists make mistakes of detail and the theories get re-tweaked around the edges sometimes, but they got the big stuff — the core principles — right. If they didn’t, a lot of things wouldn’t work that do work.
The tipoff to your scientific ignorance, k2, is your statement, “The evolutionists bring their own ‘theory’ to the table as well in the form of the big bang and subsequent evolution.” I hate to tell you this, but the “big bang” is a theory of astronomy, not evolution. The science of evolution doesn’t depend on there having been a Big Bang; it works anyway. The Big Bang doesn’t depend on evolution; it didn’t have to be followed by evolution (or any life at all) to work. What I’m getting at is, if you are connecting Big Bang theory with evolution in your mind, either you haven’t been exposed to science education, or you chose to ignore what your science teachers tried to teach you. Because there is nothing in modern science teaching that remotely justifies your statement.
You say, “I don’t like to see a learning environment where we completely obfuscate one ‘possible’ answer to a question because it is politically expedient.” This statement is fine as far as it goes. But if you were to apply it to math — let’s say you argued that teaching schoolchildren that 2 + 2 always equals 4 is “obfuscating” a “possible truth” for “political expediency” — i.e, that 2 + 2 can sometimes equal 5, 6, or some other number — you would be laughed off this board. And that is the problem with your attempt to apply this reasoning to well-established scientific knowledge, apparently as a result of your misunderstanding of the meaning if “scientific theory.”
The term “scientific theory” does not necessarily imply, as you seem to think it does, that an explanation furnished by science is unsettled, uncertain, or open to question. The “theory” of gravity is not open to doubt. Science’s precise understanding of how gravity works may be modified by new observations or understandings, but a person who argued gravity doesn’t exist and an apple falls to the ground because God’s hand is pushing it is not arguing a plausible “alternative theory” but rather is a crank whose ideas are unsound. If this person is appointed to run NASA, and orders the space shuttle to fly even though the preflight inspection revealed damage that will cause the rocket booster to explode on ignition, because he has prayed to God to use His mighty hand to stay the explosion and lift the shuttle into orbit, the flight crew is going to die.
The foregoing is an apt analogy for how liberals feel about anti-science, anti-fact, right winger (particularly fundies who want to replace science with faith). Faith is fine as a moral compass and a personal explanation of where the world came from, but as a substitute for gravity, it sucks. If you strap a pair of wings to your back and jump off a 1,000 foot high cliff, your leap had better be based on sound principles of physics and engineering, not faith, or you are going to die. We liberals think the anti-science, anti-fact wingers are doing something analogous when it comes to things like global warming, or where disease comes from (and how to cure them).
If you want to take that leap of faith off the 1,000 foot cliff — well, freedom is what America is all about. That’s your privilege. But don’t make us jump with you — that’s what this argument is all about. You want to force us into partnership with your ignorance and stupidity, and to suffer the consequences with you. We’re not willing. If you don’t like what science teachers are teaching your children, then take them out of school and teach them at home. But don’t use the public schools to indoctrinate MY children with nonsense that will harm, not help, them. That’s all we’re sense.
95
“‘Perhaps Mark the Moron could explain how, if Earth is only 6,000 years old, coral and sea shells got to the top of Mount Everest?’ Cuz Noah’s flood warshed them up thar…that’s how! And I know it ‘cuz I read it in the Bible!”
O heavens yes, I forgot about THAT, didn’t I? Buuuut … if Mount Everest has ALWAYS been 29,000 feet high (or at least, has been since God created it around Tuesday or Wednesday of the First Week), and IT was under water, then EVERYTHING was under water, so we should find coral and sea shells EVERYWHERE, right? So how come we don’t? And, even more troubling, where did all that water go after the flood? There’s enough in the polar ice caps to raise the sea level a few feet. We’re missing about 5 1/2 vertical miles of water. Anybody know where it went? By the way, W., just to avoid any misunderstandings, I know you’re being facetious. I’m making fun of the deliberately ignorant crowd (e.g., Mark the Redneck), not you.
94
How does Hillary Clinton “give cover to terrorists”? You’ve totally lost it, pal. If anybody is giving cover to terrorists it’s your hero Bush-boy:
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority. I am truly not that concerned about him.” — George W. Bush, March 13, 2002.
Let me say this about Hillary Clinton. She wants me to have health care. She wants my family to have health care. She wants you to have health care, too. And your children. She wants everybody to have health care. Does that make her evil? In the eyes of Republicans and right-wingers, yes that makes her evil, or at any rate they sure as hell demonized her for wanting us all to have health care.
Now ask a guileless 6-year-old child who is evil: The person who wants us all to have health care, or the people who think wanting us all to have health care is evil. The children always know, because they haven’t been corrupted yet, and see the world through simple and honest eyes.
Richard Pope at 97
Just out of intellectual curiosity, why do you personally think that this organization of moderate Republicans takes a position that is so blatantly absurd? I assume that you, at least, are a smart enough Republican to know that ID is a fraud. I don’t think I could do a better job than Roger Rabbit in spelling it out.
Moderates from either party tend not to believe in fairy tales. Why is it that these particular ones do?
Richard Pope @ 99
Just out of intellectual curiosity, why do you think that so many moderate Republicans believe in something that is so patently absurd. Normally, the term ‘moderate’ is reserved for people who don’t believe in fairy tales told by the party leadership and are able to think for themselves. How is it that they support the nonsense that this organization is doing?
Kwazy Wabbit – Hillary tried to destroy the best health care system in the world. She tried to take over 1/7th of the US economy and screw it up. Yes, that is evil. Fortunately, thinking people rose up and stopped her dead in her tracks.
You like socialized health care? Go to Canada or Cuba or europe. Die while you’re waiting for doctors who don’t GAF and technology that’s outdated.
But like you said, you have to have the sophistication of a 6 year old to buy liberal foolishness.
Roger Rabbit @ 98
‘..But don’t use the public schools to indoctrinate MY children with nonsense..’
Agreed. Creationism from a religious perspective has no place in biology education. There are, however, several evolutionary examples and theories that have been disproven or discredited, yet remain in modern textbooks. The “cumulatively complex” and “irreducibly complex” organism/process arguments put forth are perfectly valid science. The competing science should be allowed in schools, or we still “indoctrinate” students.
Wabbit and other Marxists out there – Health care is NOT a right. You have no GD “right” to stick yer greedy f’ing hand in my pocket and make me pay your medical bills. Pay your own way like I do. And if you’re too stoopid to be able to pay your own bills, then it’s your “scientific” evolution in action. Crawl in a hole and die. F all of you.
Roger Rabbit @ 102
‘The children always know, because they haven’t been corrupted yet, and see the world through simple and honest eyes.’
How sweet. They also see the world through inexperienced and naive eyes. Children need guidance from parents throughout childhood, as opposed to the other way around.
Hillary tried to destroy the best health care system in the world.
Actually, no, she tried to make the most expensive one more affordable.
She tried to take over 1/7th of the US economy and screw it up.
Yes, overpaying for health care is an American right, dammit!
Fortunately, thinking people rose up and stopped her dead in her tracks.
Fortunately, many of those people have changed their minds. In fact, many American businesses are starting to realize that they can’t compete with companies in other countries as well as they used to because it costs too much to provide health care for their American employees. GM is a primary example. They’re in serious trouble.
You like socialized health care? Go to Canada or Cuba or europe. Die while you’re waiting for doctors who don’t GAF and technology that’s outdated.
Nice fairy tale you’ve got going there. As someone who has lived in Europe, allow me to officially laugh my head off at your stupid ass.
But like you said, you have to have the sophistication of a 6 year old to buy liberal foolishness.
If you can think of 6 years as being sophisticated, you’re probably a wingnut.
Pay your own way like I do. And if you’re too stoopid to be able to pay your own bills, then it’s your “scientific” evolution in action.
Marc the Idiot, do you think that the people in this country who go bankrupt from health care costs are stupid? Really? Do have any idea how many people who have been insured, or were temporarily uninsured while changing jobs and got sick, have gone bankrupt in this country?
In addition, you can see here that if you’re worried about more money coming out of your pocket towards health care, you should probably move to Germany, Canada, or France. More of our GDP goes toward health care costs here than there. And if you think American companies are happy to absorb that cost, then you’re even dumber than I thought.
But like you said, you have to have the sophistication of a 6 year old to buy liberal foolishness.
If you can think of 6 years as being sophisticated, you’re probably a wingnut.
Comment by thehim— 8/2/05 @ 7:29 pm
I rest my case. Thanks thehim.
redneck…you just take these worn out canards and vomit them back up and you don’t know whether they are true or false, do you? Heard ’em on faux or on the hillbilly heroin addicts show or freerethuglic or some shit and…well it must be true.
Ever thought that some of us know different because we’ve been there? Oh yeah, good ‘murkins don’t need to go anywhere. ‘Cept to the fridge for another Lone Star.
I said nobody knows how old the Earth is. The Pope doesn’t and neither do the “scientists”.
Who is going to be your go-to guy for this information…someone that gets all of their knowlege out of a dusty old book or those that are actively seeking new information to support their hypothesis?
And, even more troubling, where did all that water go after the flood? There’s enough in the polar ice caps to raise the sea level a few feet. We’re missing about 5 1/2 vertical miles of water. Anybody know where it went?
Gawd just poofed it all away! See how each science is when you’re a Republican!
Mark the Idiot,
What are you talking about? My comment does not refer in any way to what Roger Rabbit said. YOU were the one who used the word sophisticated in terms of a 6 year old. This is what RR said
“The children always know, because they haven’t been corrupted yet, and see the world through simple and honest eyes.”
You read that as “sophisticated.” Only someone who’s been kicked in the head a few times by a mule would think that someone who is simple-minded is “sophisticated.”
Moron.
Keep making my point thehim.
Thanks.
RR @ 100
Excellent reply on the “theory” controversy. The anti-science posts on this thread explain why this country is in such trouble. Evolution is supported by many scientific threads. Biology, geology, genetics and others. Look at how isolated populations (Galapogos Islands) evolved. Look at the flu changine each year. Look at how livestock are bread. The deliberate ignorance of facts in favor of unfounded assertions is frightening. I fear for our future
Hey wingers, just what is this “Theory of Intelligent Design” that Dubya wants taught in science class?
I’m not talking about “we just don’t know…God/Space Aliens/A Giant Green Bunny must have done it!” or nit-picking around the edges of biology – what is the Theory of Intelligent Design?
And I’m afraid Mark the Redneck is so immune to facts (the whole C-14 foolishness) and so willing to argue in the face of his own ignorance that his posts are meaningless.
The donks lecturing people on science is particurly amusing. Shit they can’t even count right and their going to tell me what should be taught in science class. Get outa here you clowns.
Keep making my point thehim.
What exactly was your point? That 6-year-olds are too sophisticated for you? Or that you can’t read?
Take off your skirt and make an argument for crying out loud. Real men don’t duck behind semantics when they’ve had their ass handed to them by grownups with facts.
Rufus-
I’ll match my scientific background and knowledge against yours any day.
And I do believe your “donks” got this country to the moon. The “repugs” have allowed the shuttle to deteriorate to the point it is a hazard with no replacement in sight.
The Presidency of George W Bush…….
Best evidence yet there is no such thing as intelligent design
This has been a very revealing topic. I wanted to see the real conservatives come out and state that ID is nonsense, and has no place in science education. I knew there would be the wingnut radicals spreading the mythology, and hate.
But that is all I see from the Trolls. Hate Nuttery and complete acceptance of unreality.
Kudo’s to the wingnuts. You help put the last shovel of dirt on the Neo-Con grave.
Have fun in fantasy land.
Die.
So in the NEW AGE PROGRESSIVE LEFTIST PINHEAD WORLD of make-believe it is somehow wrong to even include “intelligent design” in an open discussion in our Public Schools. You LEFTIST PINHEADS are the real Fascists!!!
Mr. C-
I’m disappointed as you used to post some intellegent thoughts. Now it’s capitals and name-calling. Did you read the thread and the attempts to discuss evolution and science? Or did you just jump in swinging.
Does a liberal blog put so much fear in conservatives that the must come in shouting irrationally?
Sad
Mr Cyn-Irr, any discussion of “intelligent design” would be a great thing in any public school. as long as it never takes place in a science class, and the pro-ID asshole has a plate of jello slipped into their pants.
I think that would be fine.
“Mom and Dad, I went to school and told everyone that God designed all the animals and plants and mitochodria… and then… and then.. they put jello in my underpants!”
“Whahh, Whaah!”
Mr. Cynical,
I have no problem with public school children learning about religions that believe in ID. But it can’t be taught in science class unless it’s science. There is not a single scientific experiment anywhere to back up ID. Therefore, it’s not science. It’s a form of faith wearing a costume pretending to be science.
And by the way, Richard Pope, I’m still waiting for an answer. I’m really intrigued by your eagerness to correct Goldy on his claim. Generally, people who care about the party they represent tend not call people within their party who promote clearly insane beliefs as “moderates”.
How about this one guys-
“U.S. has fallen to 16th in the world in broadband connectivity”
We don’t need no stinking science and technology, we got faith.
104
Best health care in the world? You jest. America has the most expensive health are in the world, not the best. When 45 million Americans have NO health care, how can that be “best”? When we get less health care per dollar than any other developed country, how can that be “best”? It works for people of your mentality, because as long as you have yours, the hell with everyone else! But hardly any rational person disputes that America has a health care crisis. For which right-wingers have no solution except to say, “I’ve got mine, fuck you!”
Reply to 105
Since government pays for nearly all basic medical research in this country, you’ve had your fucking hand in my pocket for a long time, asshole!
By the way, Mark Redneck, we don’t use asterisks (*) on this site. If I want to call you an ignorant f**ker, I’ll call you an ignorant fucker!! There’s no censorship on this site.
Actually I probably shouldn’t be calling Mark a “fucker” until he provides proof that he’s not a virgin. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to lay him.
106
“How sweet. They also see the world through inexperienced and naive eyes. Children need guidance from parents throughout childhood, as opposed to the other way around.”
True; but they know a liar when they see one. Just ask any parent.
115
“A Giant Green Bunny must have done it!”
Nope. Bunnies are fast breeders, but we’re not gods. All we do is fuck like crazy and make more bunnies. We can’t make galaxies, universes, or species. Just more bunnies.
Cynical, I don’t see why evolution couldn’t have been intelligently designed. In fact, I believe it was. My problem is with the “either-or” folks. And … I think kids should get their religion from the Sunday School or Church of their parent’s choice.
RR @ 135, even though I am an atheist, I agree with you. I have no idea where “all this” came from, I just do not believe that any of the relgious texts I have read have an answer.
Therefor I “disbelive” in any religion.
But there has never beena science text that I could not test for myself, or follow the logic and find it true without “just believing”
Reality. What a concept!
Richard Pope:
Your post is simply sad. I would hope much more of those people. And I would like to know, as another asked, what is the “theory of intelligent design?” Was it a giant rabbit? Space Aliens? Please tell me an experiment that I can carry out that will show intelligent design at work?
There are many who think Astrology is science, does that mean it should be taught side by side with Astronomy? “Children, while science teaches that the Universe runs based upon the laws of physics, you should know that there are some who think that the stars and planets simply exist so that you can know wether or not you will have a good day, and in what months the person you will marry was born.”
Since being science no longer matters as to what is taught in science, why not?
Cyn:
There are many people who think that captialism and keynsian economic are wrong, and that Marxism is a better form of economics. I assume you would be in favor of Marxism being taught as an equally valid form of economics to middle school children?
Or does your insistance at a bad education stop at the sciences?
And imagine if evolution theory stated that evolution occurs, but we are not even going to guess at how it occurs? That is exactly what ID does. Or are you in the big bunny school of designers? How wonderfully new agey of you.
Mark:
I’m thinking more and more you are simply a bad parody of the average ss minnow reader, except you have somehow managed not to claim there was fraud in the govenor’s election in over 10 posts.
Are you seriously arguing that we don’t know anything? That we don’t know when King Tut died, or when the pyramids were built, or when Julius Ceasar ruled Rome, or when Jesus walked the Earth? I guess we don’t know for sure that D-Day happened or that the holocaust occured or that Stalin killed millions? Heck, if you are young enough, maybe even Viet Nam didn’t happen, or GWB didn’t snort a ton of coke and blow out the chunk of his brain that was attached to reality (Look at his statments on Palmero if you think I’m kidding). I’m not saying that GWB is stupid, I’m not so foolish to think so low of him. However, I do say that he just doesn’t care what the truth is if it gets in the way of what he wants. He is all id and ego, apparenlty like you.
However, I will give you one more chance. You are the PhD, who is the Designer, and please give me your theory of how he/she/they/it works. Also, please give me one experiment I can run to test your theory. Lastly, plese explain Neaderthal Man, was the Designer just experimenting, or did he make a mistake? If you want, we can move on to Homo Erectus or the Dinosaurs next. Why does the Designer, who can design such wonderful, complex things make so many mistakes? Was he just being lazy when he designed the Dodo or the Tasmanian Wolf? Why did he design peanut allergies into humans? Should we sue for such bad designs?
Cyn, Richard? Do you have answers to any of these questions? I’m dying to hear.
JDB, thanks for you rational query. You will get no rational response.
That is the way it goes. Righty say. Righty no thinky. Righty No respond to hard question.
Based on my theory, I propose that the President’s meddling with our public schools should stray no further than occasional readings of My Pet Goat, while leaving the content of our science curriculum to people who actually understand and respect science… you know… like, scientists.
But Goldy, that would leave no room for ideology! We can’t have that in America. Science is only good for select purposes: making weapons or things to sell in a Wal-Mart.
I edited it down by more than half.
Now let’s move on to real intelligence: use your own material!
Let us all say it together:
Neo-Con Repugs are facists! We will never let it happen again!
JDB @ 38
Leave my relatives out of this. They had nothing to do with Mr. Cynical’s stupidity.
Actually, that’s a misnomer. Mr. Cynical isn’t stupid. He’s a stooped, beady-eyed, conniving little man who likes to pull your chain. He clearly doesn’t believe his own bullshit. He just likes to watch your reaction. Kind of like the guy who yells “fire!” in a crowded theater, then stares at his watch to see how long it takes the fire department to get there. So he can criticize the fire department.
This post created a lot of hot air but no real points refuting intel-design. The “bacterial flagellum” and “irreducibly complex” organism theories have poked some giant holes in old Darwin, and the lefties here expend megawatts of energy by focussing on name-calling and bashing religion. It almost appears that nobody here has actually read any of the books or articles related to this topic, yet so many “experts”. It is obviously not a science blog, but then why do so many blather like they know something about intel-design? Propaganda, that is all the left has anymore. I long for the old days.
Roger Rabbit @ 132
‘When 45 million Americans have NO health care..’
Do you mean health insurance? If you mean health care can you provide a source? Thanks.
Roger Rabbit @ 132
‘America has the most expensive health are in the world, not the best.’
What countries have the best or better health care?
JDB @ 141, TheHim @ 130
This whole topic seems like a minefield. However, “intelligent design” seems to be quite a bit different than “creationism”. ID isn’t trying to assert the ridiculous idea that the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old. Rather, ID asserts that the laws of physics and the changes in life forms over time are so complex that they couldn’t possibly be the result of random chance.
Certainly it is reasonable to devote resources to investigation and testing of theories. Especially theories that either have some factual support or which cannot be refuted.
Even if ID is based largely on conjecture, so is the Big Bang — i.e. the idea that the universe and the laws of physics were all created from nothing in a fraction of a nanosecond. One major issue with the Big Bang is that the theory requires faster than light travel at the time of universe creation, then a drastic reduction in expansion speed, followed by an increase in expansion speed as the universe expansion (i.e. Hubble constant), then an increase to more than light speed as the universe gets bigger. But the laws of physics say that nothing can travel faster than light speed.
So if we can devote resources into studying the Big Bang theory, it is certainly reasonable to devote resources into studying the ID theory. And ID doesn’t detract from the theory of evolution (which is so well proven that it can be considered a fact), but instead holds that random evolution cannot explain all the changes in life over time and the complexity of certain structures.
I certainly don’t think the folks running the Discovery Institute are raving lunatics. They are acting based on sincerely held beliefs.
@nowonder
You were actually discussing things for a while, but then… well damn. Then you pretend that the arguments you didn’t like re:complexity, the ‘evolution’ (hehe) of Darwin’s theory, et cetera don’t exist… I’m dissapointed to see that the classic “I’m losing so I’ll pretend that the other guy didn’t say anything” tactic has raised its ugly head…
RP@151
The thing you have to understand, there are plenty of people in the sciences who believe in God. Most of them wouldn’t support “Intellegent Design” because they recognize it for what it is…
A sockpuppet to get creationism into the education system based on a misrepresentation of what The theory of Evolution says.
windie@152
Denying it is just being closed minded. All alternatives must be offered for a true sciece class to be offered. If you dont look at all the options you may as well either drop the class or start calling the school science class the religion of darwin.
Science:
1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.
Chuck, you lost me in your dumbass lecture on science when you posted (2)1s, 2s, and 3s.
Just like any other creationist dipshit, you can’t even count.
chuck:
show me how Intellegent Design is covered by ANY of those definitions? (And no, ‘Christian Science’ doesn’t count, I don’t think Mary Baker Eddy ever talked about Intellegent Design… she sure hated doctors tho!)
more to the point: All credible alternatives should be presented. Most scientists recognize Intellegent design for the trojan horse it is. Show me the least bit of evidence for Intellegent Design, and we can talk about including it in science classes. All proponents can offer is logical arguments, and altho interesting, thats simply not science.
Not to mention that Int. Design isn’t an alternative to evolution, its an additional speculation on things evolution doesn’t cover.
windie@155
That one is easy:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
maaaaybe ‘theoretical explanation’, but even thats a stretch. Observe me some evidence of Intel. Design, and I’ll pay better attention.
chuck at 156
????WTF???
windie@157
Depends on your perspective, in my perspective anyone that denies a historical theory is just as guilty of hiding potential facts as Cardinal Bellarmine at Galileo’s inquisition. There are many things in religious text as well as folklure that cannot be explained away by “science”. There are many things that cannot be explained by science or “Darwins theory of evolution”. Not taking anything out of science, how do we know that evolution be inteligent design isnt what happened? We have monkeys and apes all through the ecological chain, we have people of every race known living today, however the “men” between the conversion are all extict. Why couldnt the in between man survive and yet even the most primitive monkey did? I think we owe our youth to present that potential, and no Im not saying to send the pope in the class for a sermon, just be open.
Great kos diary by Dark Syde – tools for debaters with the flat earth IDCists.
chuck:
You know, right… Evolution and intellegent design should have NOTHING to do with each other… Evolution describes the process not the origin.
windie@161
You never answered my question, where are the so called “cavemen”, we have monkeys and humans…where are the in betweens? This could be the process of intelgent design…
I think one thing that is being missed here is the history behind the ID movement and the whole necessity for its existence.
Basically, it is an outgrowth of the fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalist gets thrown around a lot as a loose term, so for the sake of definitions lets just go with the text book one that describes it as anti-modernist religious movement that seeks literal interpretations of religious texts.
The particular fundamentalist movement that has been popular mainly within Protestant circles only started at the beginning of the 20th c. here in the US.
Fundamentalists have two problems with evolution.
1) It contradicts the literal reading of the Bible that says the earth is only 6000 years old. If the Bible is wrong with that fact, how can we trust it to give literal truth the rest of the time?
2) The ‘random’ nature of evolution. Cardinal Schoenborn’s article and ID in general spell the dangers for fundamentalists out quite nicely.
Many people – fundamentalists included – conflate fundamentalism with Christianity but that is just not the case. Various forms of Christianity have struggled with the problem of incorporating a faith based on 1st c. Judaic holy texts into a modern world – whether that world is 4th c Rome, 12th c. Paris or 21st c. Seattle.
People thought that the inclusion of Aristotelian thought into Christianity would somehow destroy it. For a long time the ‘fundamentalists’ of their day railed against it and for awhile even had some success suppressing it.
Thing is, Christianity was bigger then the small-minded fundamentalists and life moved on. We are just riding through a historical wave where modern fundamentalists are seeking to attack science because they see it as a danger to their faith.
Evolution is as established as close to fact as just about anything you are going to get. Heck, even the pope said so. The problem comes when people of weak faith seek to destroy anything that might challenge them. To me this is not a problem of science, but a problem of faith.
John @ 160
I checked out the link. A bit short on any good refutations. Also, all of the links to details on how to refute the prominent authors on Int-Design lead to the following message:
“Sorry. I can’t seem to find that story.”
Is there a hidden meaning here?
Chuck @ 162 asked while dragging his knuckles on the floor “You never answered my question, where are the so called “cavemen”, we have monkeys and humans…where are the in betweens? This could be the process of intelgent design…â€
Chuckie, iof you new anything about transitional forms of homosapiens, you would also now what a profoundly stupid question you just asked.
Other homospaien species died out because they were in the same niche with homosapien sapiens. They were competitors, and in the evolutionary competition, only one survives. But there are fossilized records of these transitional forms. But like every numbbrained creationist fool, you will ask, yes but where are the missing links to those transitional forms, ad naseum.
Bottom line. It is a stupid question asked by a stupid person.
Donnageddon@165
But we still have other primates…stupid person…
#
Roger Rabbit @ 132
‘America has the most expensive health are in the world, not the best.’
What countries have the best or better health care?
Comment by NoWonder — 8/3/05 @ 6:59 am
Believe it or not, for the average person, Cuba (of all places) does – not to mention dozens of other countries in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world (and I’m not counting the 1% of patients who have lavish coverage that allows them to afford transplants, quintuple bypass surgery, or other high end treatments that constitute a tiny fraction of the day to day medical care needs of our nation’s citizens)
Chuck, you moron, primtes are not homosapiens, so you have absolutely NO POINT!
Donnageddon@168
See you are closed minded much like Cardinal Bellarmine at Galileo’s inquisition.
chuck, I am very open minded, I am just not stupid like you.
NW @ 164
Nope, just DS has to update his links since Kos shifted things around.
Here’s as good a link as any and it does work from DS’s post.
It has lots and lots of links!
Mr. X @ 167
‘Believe it or not, for the average person, Cuba (of all places) does – not to mention dozens of other countries in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world.’
Do you have any good links or resources? I am curious about how health care is rated. (i.e. cost, mortality rates, etc.)
But we still have other primates…stupid person…
Any you still have a brother and sister, even if your parents have died.
…oops, got it slightly wrong. The World Health Organization ranks the US 37th of 191 and Cuba 39th, but they have a lower infant mortality rate for both genders (which is what I based my statement on) and a higher adult mortality rate for females – 87 per thousand vs. the US at 82, but the US mortality rate for males is higher at 139/1000 as opposed to 137/1000 for Cuba. Still – they pull this off in the face of a 40+ year old embargo that only the US honors. And, mind you, there are 36 countries ahead of the US on the list, and we spend more than anywhere else in the world per capita on health care (and I’m uninsured!)
http://www.who.int/whr/en/
@172 – I would be interested as well… but wouldn’t you agree wonder that access has to be a criteria as well?
Reply to @ 150
“What countries have the best or better health care?”
Well, gee, Wondering, there’s a nearly infinite choice of sources I could use. I randomly chose this one — a piece by a medical doctor in the Long Island Press. It’s as good as any.
http://www.longislandpress.com.....;a_id=4729
Dr. Ebell writes:
“Bottom line: We are spending far more than anyone in the world, failing to insure more than 45 million Americans and getting worse outcomes than almost all similarly wealthy countries. We don’t have the best healthcare in the world, as many claim. What we do have is the most expensive mediocre healthcare in the world.”
Some of the facts and figures that Dr. Ebell uses to support this conclusion:
“In 2001 we spent almost $5,000 per person, compared with between $1,500 and $3,200 in European countries.”
“Out of 13 industrialized countries (including most of Europe, Canada and Australia), we were 11th and 12th for life expectancy among men and women respectively.” (excluding violent deaths)
“According to the World Health Organization, our quality-adjusted life expectancy is still only 30th in the world, just after Slovenia.” (quality-adjusted refers to a statistical adjustment for unhealthy habits like smoking)
@chuck everywhere:
I was at lunch… and I missed your question.
Donna answered it pretty well though. Theres plenty of evidence of ‘transitional hominid species’. As to modern apes and monkeys, they’re believed to have evolved from the same “proto-primate” as humans, but on a divergent path.
Chimps are just as evolved as us, but to a different environment.
Richard Pope @ 151:
We can discuss ID all you want. I have no problems with that, but keep it where it belongs, in a class on religion, philosophy or mythology. It is not science. It is just another renaming of creationism in an attempt to make it science. What Scientific Creationism was to the 80s, ID is to the late 90s and now.
You state: “Certainly it is reasonable to devote resources to investigation and testing of theories. Especially theories that either have some factual support or which cannot be refuted.”
I fully agree. But ID doesn’t meet that standard. What is the Theory of ID? While Roger Rabbit insists that we leave his family out of it, how do we rule out that the Designer is a giant green rabbit with big, sharp teeth? If the Designer is so intelligent, why is there a genetic allergy to peanuts in humans? That wasn’t that intelligent, was it?
The Big Bang, like any scientific theory, came into being with a bunch of predicted observations and consequences to the theory. What is a predicted observation or consequence of ID that will prove that the Giant Green Rabbit of Design was at work? What would be an observation or experiment that would prove that the “Theory of ID” is wrong?
Saying that there are things that haven’t been explained, so you throw up your hands and say it is the result of the Giant Green Rabbit, and that is it, is not science. You work on finding out why you cannot explain those problems. When you find out the explanation, you either 1) confirm the theory (as more recent studies on flagellum, eye development, etc. have shown) or 2) have to come up with a new theory that is testable.
There are several theories on how the Moon came into being. Since we are not quite sure, should we now teach in schools that the Earth existed, but at some point the Giant Green Rabbit lost one of its teeth and that became the Moon? If not, how is that any different from ID?
How is Astrology any different from ID? There are plenty of people who believe in both, does that mean we should be teaching Astrology along side Astronomy?
Chuck:
The evolutionary tree of Homo Sapien Sapien is pretty well worked out, possibly even back to a common ancestor between Chimps and Humans(and, do remember, we share something like 98% of the same DNA). Or, as a follower of the Giant Green Rabbit, do you think the Rabbit messed up in his/her designs and created Neanderthals by accident, and had to kill them all off? Why did the Giant Green Rabbit mess up so often with proto-humans that he had to kill off all of these species before s/he got around to getting Homo Sapien Sapien right? Or do you think that the Giant Green Rabbit took a day off from hiding eggs and burried faked fosile proto-humans just to mess with our minds?
Believe in whatever you want, just don’t call it science when it is religious belief. As soon as any of you can answer just one of my questions, then we might be moving along the road to science. However, I’m not going to hold my breath. ID does not provide any answers, just a conclusion.
Mark the Redneck – “Moonbats shouldn’t write about stuff they don’t know about. And most of them don’t know about much. Especially science. If they were smart enough to be scientists, they’d be doing science. Evolution is a religion too because it’s a faith based belief system. So put down the Kool Aid while someone who knows what he’s talking about explains the “facts of life”.”
Yet you go on in later posts to say that scientists don’t really know anything. And you clearly are no scientist, so on the basis of your own criteria, you don’t have much place in this discussion.
Still, the fact is that no modern published science contradicts common descent. None of the people arguing anything else have published any work that demonstrates the insertion of some kind of outside will tampering with the natural progress of evolution. This is crucial because you can’t be said to be advancing any sort of scientific proposition until you do an experiment, collect supporting observations and analyze the results in such a way that indicate they’re significant. Then you have to submit them to a jury of your scientific peers who decide whether it gets published, after which your article will be released to the wolfpack of the scientific community who will pick it apart to the best of their ability.
None of these steps (abbreviated for space) have been undertaken by a single opponent of ID. None of the scientists who’ve signed on to this misguided notion have produced any proper analysis of observed data or reproducible experiment. They’ve advanced no case-specific critiques of the serious work of their peers. The only thing they’ve done has been to make claims to audiences of non-scientists that are dressed up in the language of science.
IOW, they use a lot of jargon without doing any supporting proof or work. Their jobs wrt ID are more like being scriptwriters for Star Trek, regardless of what they do with the rest of their time.
NoWonder – You don’t seem to be interested enough in biology to really study it, no matter how much you claim to be interested in the subject. Go take the first year of university biology for majors. They will walk you through the outlines of the cellular processes, show you the anatomical structures of organisms throughout the tree of species, and step through the family tree of the microorganisms that combined to form eukaryotic cells with fixed & specialized structures.
You even get to see firsthand what our appendixes used to be for. It’s a vestigial cecum/caecum, which is very large in herbivores and plays a part in digesting plant material. When the diet of a species shifts to meat, the organ serves little purpose and degradations of its function, instead of dooming the organism, allow energy to be expended on other organs.
Intelligent Design posits nothing more in scientific terms than that we draw a black curtain across all the things we don’t know and decide that we can never know them. That’s what irreducible complexity means. And hey, let’s have some science, since you’re such a fan.
If we’d believed in IC 50 years ago, we might not now know that mitochondria were once free floating purple bacteria that were harnessed by a larger single celled organism. The mitochondria take the products of the first few steps of cellular energy production (glycolysis, maybe fermentation), which happen out in the protoplasm (the liquid that fills the cell), are taken into the mitochondria who perform a process of cellular respiration that produces 34 molecules of ATP (the basic fuel of cells). The steps of glycolysis and fermentation existed in bacteria before mitochondria existed, and though they only make 2 molecules of ATP, it’s enough energy for a bacteria.
There are few things in biology more complex than cellular respiration, but we know for certain that it didn’t spring into being fully formed. We know for certain that mitochondria, with their own separate DNA, used to be free living bacteria, though enough of that DNA has moved into the nucleus so that the mitochondria could no longer be a free living organism. We know that something similar happened with algae, a family of which incorporated photosynthesizing cyanobacteria, turning them gradually into chloroplasts as we know them today and giving rise to plants. We’ve even found single-celled organisms still midway through this process of assimilating captured bacteria into full organelles.
Also, as DarkSyde pointed out, in a relatively few thousand years humans have turned wild grass into wheat and corn, and wolves into teacup poodles. It shouldn’t be a stretch to believe that some ‘illions’ of years can turn an algae into a tree, or a tiny lizard-like critter into the variety of dinosaurs we know to have once roamed the earth before they were wiped out.
Science only speaks about things that can be tested, while constantly trying to expand the borders of the things we can be said to provably know. It has nothing to say about the existence of god, or aliens, or anything beyond what you can find hard evidence for. Because ID doesn’t say anything that can be tested or proved, it isn’t science and shouldn’t be taught outside of philosophy or religion classes. Further, if ID is the only ‘science’ you study, you are by definition not studying any.
Proudtobeanass – “Perhaps when you’ve earned your Harvard MBA, you would be qualified to comment on the intelligence of one who HAS earned one.”
I used to work for a company run by a Harvard MBA, and I can say from first-hand observation that it doesn’t prevent someone from having terrible judgement and ludicrous opinions. After the marketing guy spent most of our money and skipped out, our Harvard CEO was as shocked as anyone and couldn’t save the company. He wasn’t a good enough judge of character to pick a good marketing guy, or a good first pick sales exec, also he gave a friend of his a job he couldn’t handle, didn’t have the temperament for and made everyone suffer.
I’m amazed that the Republican skepticism of elites (though obviously not financial elites) would allow you to falsely equate a degree with judgement or intelligence. The correlation is loose in too many cases, particularly in a fuzzy subject like business, and should be judged by results. Further, even very smart people can fall down outside their area of expertise, and until you brandish proof of Bush’s credentials in evolutionary biology, I’ll take the established consensus of the scientific community over his unfounded belief any day.
JDB @ 178
‘When you find out the explanation, you either 1) confirm the theory (as more recent studies on flagellum, eye development, etc. have shown) or 2) have to come up with a new theory that is testable. ‘
If some of the Intel-Design work pokes holes in Darwin should that not also be presented. It does not have to be in the context that someone or something specifically designed nature. Just to rule out valid critiques of Darwin because it is from the Intel-Design folks is doing exactly what the creationists are always accused of. (Ignoring scientific study because it conflicts with belief.)
@179
Thats assuming you believe that the Intel. Deisgn people are intellectually honest at all, and don’t just have a bone to pick…
make @179 to ‘@182’
No Wonder @ 181 “If some of the Intel-Design work pokes holes in Darwin”
This in itself shows that you are reading to many right wing nut talking points. I dare anyone to poke a hole in “Darwin”.
Sheese, the ignorance just grows exponential the farther to the right you go.
NoWonder @ 181:
I have no problem with holes be poked in theories, that is what good science does. But you cannot credit any Theory of ID for that. There has been no “Intel-Design work” that could do that, as there is no Intel-Design work.
I have not, and will not, say that Evolution, and specifically, Darwinian Evolution should not be criticised and tested. That is what science demands. Any theory as broad as Evolution is going to have weak points, and they should be tested. But ID does not help with this, in fact, it has nothing to do with this. No “Theory of ID” led to these weaknesses being exposed. ID does not provide any answers, or any new questions. It just presupposes a conclusion that cannot be tested.
I appreciate your give and take in this discussion, but I’m still at a loss to know of one scientific study that has resulted because of ID? Behe and the like have simply repackaged the old canards of Creation Scientist and Creationist before them, and have ignored that science has moved forward and already answered many of the questions they raise.
But, if you can do what none of them can, and give a theory of ID, so we may test it and see if it holds up, I would be glad to hear it. Who or what is the Designer, how did he/she/it work, and what is the proof that he/she/id did the work? I can answer those questions for Evolution (What is Evolution, how does it work, what proof is there that it has worked), why is it that ID cannot?
If some of the Intel-Design work pokes holes in Darwin should that not also be presented.
Well, go ahead and poke holes in Darwin. It’s not as though he wrote the Bible or something. Progress has been made in the last 150 years.
Natasha @ 179 & 180
WOW and Holy Cow (please excuse the pun).
The silence from the right is deafening. You laid down some pretty irrefutable points and the usual suspects have chosen to stick their tails between their collective legs and ignore your excellent points on the topic. And, I must admit, I learned a LOT on top of it all.
Thank you for a) the quick intro into biology 101 and b) making such an intelligent and salient argument that is has not been challenged by any one from the so called “right.”
All I can say is I’m glad I’m on your team!
“You could not, in my estimate, be more wrong (although you are more erudite in your wrongness than typical redwingnuts).”
— Thanks RR…I’m flattered…I know you don’t compliment lightly…
“Evolution is a “theory” in the same sense that Einsten’s theories of physics are “theory.”
— I understand concepts of relativity, matter, force, time and mass etc. are all constants and are understood as “natural laws”. Those things that “ARE” and are not subject to alternate interpretations. They’ve been proven beyond reproach and are sound conclusions based on millennia of observation and testing. I don’t have a problem with any of these concepts. What I do have a problem with is the misguided respect given to the whole of evolutionary theory without being able to trace (observe, test and define) all aspects of its supposed beginning in the ooze to where we are today. To my knowledge, no clear path has ever been proven to exist between whatever our “human” beginnings were and our current condition.
“The tipoff to your scientific ignorance, k2, is your statement, “The evolutionists bring their own ‘theory’ to the table as well in the form of the big bang and subsequent evolution.”
The relationship between the big bang and continuing evolutionary theory is long established and is just a part of my problem with it as a whole. Hard core “evolutionaries” explain that the beginnings of life on this planet could have been created (small c) by the random chance of our particular piece of the larger rock expelled during the big bang to this particular orbit in our universe containing just the right chemical components that would react positively in only this environmental complex and would thrive and evolve in an unpredictable manner over billions of years. I would say that this is as much of a religion as any monotheist tradition in any country on earth.
My specific objection to obfuscating one possible solution to a problem was in relation to Creation (big C) as a potential beginning to the evolutionary process as opposed to the big bang theory as stated above. I know that fundamentalist Christians will have a problem with that. I don’t see the problem in offering students several potential creation (big or little Cs) possibilities. Although, some concepts as I stated before might be better left for further investigation as part of a philosophy or theology class.
A “theory” is a compiled statement intended to answer a question made by a researcher based on a set of initial findings, whether personally observed or based on a set of existing data. The researcher would then set out to prove or disprove his/her theory by whatever methods best suited to accomplish the stated goal. If we accept evolution as a natural law instead of the unproven theory, we must say that it is constant process with a defined beginning, predictable outcomes and measurable results. So far as I know, none of these are true. Having said that, evolution does occur. It is observable and worthy of study and a sound working theory for how species adapt to a changing environment. Does it explain our existence on this and only this planet? NO. Until our progenitors are proven to have crawled from the ooze, I would rather believe that I was formed by the hand of God with special gifts and purposes here on this planet.
windie @ 152
‘Then you pretend that the arguments you didn’t like re:complexity, the ‘evolution’ (hehe) of Darwin’s theory, et cetera don’t exist…’
It is just that all the arguments I have read here are far short of satisfactory, even for a non-scientific blog. The fundemental problem with the complexity issue is that there is no way to explain the organisms and process using evolutionary theory. You said that the individual parts can be “just there”, waiting to be utilized in a more complex structure. Yet there is no way to explain why they are there in the first place, and why, if there original or previous duty is no longer needed, why Darwin’s theory would allow them to hang out. In short, my points or questions have not been answered, as opposed to me just not liking the answers.
Good day.
Donnageddon@170
I am certain that Cardinal Bellarmine made that exact statement…see you arent the only closed minded one around that fears open alternatives.
W.@173
Now I asked a logical question and you want to play jabs. Possibly you might want a bit of education?
http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/.....ticle.html
windie@@177
Already posted this, but Ill post it again because you seem more rational than some:
http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/.....ticle.html
I notice we still teach Darwins theory, even when facts come in:
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
chuck, if you want to live in the dark ages, go ahead I couldn’t give a shit. But your religious beliefs have no place in a science claassroom. Kids learn all that mythology stuff in church.
And chuck, Cardinal Bellarmine was a dark ages RElIGIOUS Bigot, persecuting a man of science.
Kinda ironic, isn’t it, that now religious bigots want to bring our world back to the dark ages.
Donnageddon@195
And you are simply the reverse, a black man that hates white men is still a racist!
I have to say, this has been one of the most enlightening posts from Goldy. I really did not expect so many rightwing religious nutso posts.
I mean, “Creationism” wether called Inteligent design, or whatever.. surely not even conservatives fall for that crap anymore. Even the Catholic church recognizes evolution as a fact.
But the wingnuts came out in force to deny reality.
I am just left shaking my head. The world is really in bad way. The human species is just not gonna make it. We collectively just have too many stupid people to survive.
Donnageddon@194
If there was proof that the world was flat I have no problem presenting it, as a matter of fact we do introduce the flat world theory in school.
Donnageddon@197
You really shouldnt refer to yourself as stupid, I just like to think of you as optionally challenged with a closed mind.
chuck @ 198 “If there was proof that the world was flat I have no problem presenting it, as a matter of fact we do introduce the flat world theory in school”
Interesting information, chuck. Thanks. Explains a lot about you.
If there was proof that the world was flat I have no problem presenting it
There is about as much proof that the world is flat as there is for “Intelligent Design.”
Now I asked a logical question and you want to play jabs. Possibly you might want a bit of education?
http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/.....ticle.html
Hey, I can play cut-n-paste too!
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Now I asked a logical question and you want to play jabs. Possibly you might want a bit of education?
http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/.....ticle.html
Hey, I can play cut-n-paste too!
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
It amazes me the Masochistic tendecies of the HA Trolls. They never win, because the CAN’T win. They do not have any reality on their side, and they think they can just make shit up like their idols Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. do.
But they forget: they don’t own the mic. Every bullshit statement they make will be refuted with truth.
But they will keep trying. Just like a brainwashed cyborg on a suicide mission.
W.@203
Your article seems to prove my point a bit…
Question According to evolution, the diversity of life is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn’t that make evolution wildly improbable?
Answer Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Proceeds by Random Chance.>>>
I smell “Intelligent design” working here.
W.@201
And we teach the flat world theory in school to this day!
Donnageddon@200
Explain that comment, I was referring to a fact, the flat world theory is presented in school.
natasha @ 179
Thank you. It is clear you understand much more about biology than I. You do not, however, effectively discount the ID work that casts large doubt on fundemental aspects of current evolutionary theory. You refer to not having any actual experimental work done to validate such ID counter-theories, yet overlook that there is an enormous vacuum on the evolutionary side as well. Granted, experiments to verify how things evolve/change over millions of years is difficult. My point here is that claiming lack of test data to validate the counter-theory when there is no test data for the evolutionary side is bad science. Too much of evolutionary theory is difficult to prove or validate with test, and to throw darts at potential “alternates” because they call into question fundemental pillars of Darwinism looks like blind “faith”.
The arguments that seem to carry the most water on the ID side may possibly indicate that evolution is the truth, yet with some to-be-determined changes that we are not capable of understanding at this time. I react to some degree with the hypocracy shown by many evolution proponents who claim scientific cover yet react in the same manner as the religious zealots they despise.
Thanks again for you response. I will still search for better explanations on the evolution-is-gospel / ID-is-dreaming argument.
JDB @ 185
‘..But ID does not help with this, in fact, it has nothing to do with this. No “Theory of ID” led to these weaknesses being exposed. ID does not provide any answers, or any new questions. It just presupposes a conclusion that cannot be tested…’
I think the problem here is that if the evolutionary aspects of the ID theories had been or could be tested we would not be having this discussion. One of the problems with evolution, or any theory that involves millions of years of events, is that many aspects cannot be tested. The complicated ID concepts that appear to undermine critical evolutionary concepts have not been tested. It is, however, a canard to hold this against ID when the evolutionary aspect cannot and has not been tested either.
Question According to evolution, the diversity of life is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn’t that make evolution wildly improbable?
Evolutionary throry is more than a simple roll of the dice. Those traits that are more successful tend to survive, while those that don’t tend to disappear. Dice, on the other hand, have an equal chance for any combination to come up.
chuck: “TalkOrigins” Supports Evolution, and is against criticisms of Evolution.
Intellegent Design doesn’t have anything directly to do with Evolution, talking about something different.
THat being said, if you think that site supports Intel. Design, you’re crazy… Or maybe just massively intellectually dishonest.
Natasha @ 179
“in a relatively few thousand years humans have turned wild grass into wheat and corn, and wolves into teacup poodles.”
And you would have to agree that modern day wheat and corn cannot be explained by evolution through natural selection? Nor can you explain house cats and poodles this way either.
The development of the above species into their modern forms required an intelligent designer — namely human beings.
Can the development of modern human beings from, let’s say Homo habilis or Homo erectus be explained entirely through random evolution through natural selection?
windie@211
I do not nesisarily deny evolution, however I am also open to study of evolution by inteligent design, or many other options that are before us. If we are to teach science, real science then we must present these possibilities. If not, then we need to leave mans origin out of the schools and let that be the parents responsability.
NoWonder @ 209:
Here is the problem with what you are saying.
The theory of Evolution sets out a series of predicitons. As we discover more and more evidence, we can compare that evidence to the Theory and test the theory against the evidence. As we gain new ways of looking at things, we can see if the theory is consistent with those new ways.
Three examples. First, micro evolution. Do animals and plants change over time spontaneously, and new they do better (have more offspring, compete more sucessfully in the enviroment) due to these changes. This has been observed many times. As has been mentioned in this thread, look at how the cold or flu virus mutates with time so it can overcome our resistance to it. Look at how bacteria develope a resistance to anti-biotics. For life to continue, it either adapts to its enviroment, or gets worse and fails. Evolution anticipates and explains these changes. ID does not handle these questions, and has to yield to evolution.
Second, the fossil record. Evolution predicts that life developes and gets more and more complex with time. Further, that life adapts to changes in the enviroment, and that life that does ont adapt either gets pushed aside or dies off. The fossil record has gotten more and more complex since the time of Darwin, and nothing in it has been inconsistent with evolution. We know that with time, life has gotten more and more complex, based upon the fossil record. We know when there have been major changes in the enviroment that life struggles, forms die off, but that other forms take their place and adapt to the new enviroment. Look at everything we now know about human development. Everytime we find a new fossil it fits the Human tree, simpler forms (austrolopithicenes) become more comlpex. Home Erectus becomes Homo Sapien Neanderthalis becomes Homo Sapien Sapien. Neanderthals were ideally adapted to the harsh enviorment of the ice age, but as the ice age stopped, Homo Sapien Sapien (Cro Magnum) took over. Note also that as we have gained the tool of DNA, it has consistantly confirmed the fossil record. Look at the development of the whale, or the horse. No, we don’t have all the fossils, but it is amazing over the hundred of thousands of years that so many examples have survived, and they all fit the pattern Evolution would suggest.
Does ID address this? No. First, because there is no theory from which predictions can be made. I’m still waiting for a “Theory of Intelligent Design” to be atriculated. Secondly, unless the theory of ID is that the Designer, be it God or the Giant Green Rabbit, set up nature and just let it go from there (which is a great theological/philosophical position, but hardly science), you have to admit that either the designer makes mistakes all the time (Look hard upon the Dodo), or is just playing with us by burying fossils that are consistent with Evolution everywhere (the Giant Green Rabbit theory).
Finally, Eco-system evolution. Evolution says that life will expand to fill the niches open to it in any given enviroment. The Darwin Finches are a wonderful example. Start with one kind of finch that makes it to the Galapagos Island, and it will breed and adapt to fill as many niches as possible. So you have finches doing all sort of different things on the Island, but they are all descended from the same based species. Again, now that we have the ability to study DNA and genetics, which Darwin did not have, it has backed up Darwin theory again and again.
Look at the micro enviroments on Hawaii, where lava flows leave islands of life surrounded by barren flows. You have insects adapting in all kinds of ways to fill in the niches. Heck, you have carnivorous catapillars that have adapted to eat other insects becaue that is the only food around.
Again, ID does not explain this. ID does not even address this. ID is simply a non started scientifically.
At best, ID states the following. Somethings in life seem so complex that we cannot figure how they occured at this time. Since we cannot figure how they occured, it must have been the hand of the Designer (God, The Giant Green Rabbit, etc) that caused it to occur.
But, as has been pointed out, with such thigns as the flagellum, the lens of the eye, etc. as we look more and more into these structures, as we get better ways of observing how everything works, it turns out that, no, these things are not so complex, and were built up over time through adaptation and mutation.
Finally, while mutations are random, Evolution is directed. Bad mutations will die yout, while good mutations will allow the species to do better and are therefor kept. Again, all observations support this. ID has nothing to say about it.
This is the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief. Scientific theories provide predictions that can be tested. Religious beliefs rely on faith. There is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with saying, outside of science, Why are we here, how did Humans, the world, the Universe come into being and for what reasons, and answering it was the hand of God. But keep it where it belongs, in philosophy or theology classes, or at the pulpit. Do not expect it to be taught in Science class.
And I’m still waiting for one person to tell me why the Giant Green Rabbit theory of creation is not consistent with ID? Or L. Ron Hubbards creation myth should not be taught in science class? If you can’t answer these questions, you are going to have a hard time keeping a straight face while arguing that ID should be taught in a science class.
W.@210
Sounds like a possible case for inteligent design to me.
JDB@214
“And I’m still waiting for one person to tell me why the Giant Green Rabbit theory of creation is not consistent with ID? Or L. Ron Hubbards creation myth should not be taught in science class? If you can’t answer these questions, you are going to have a hard time keeping a straight face while arguing that ID should be taught in a science class.”
If your green rabbit idea has a theory, it should be taught, never read L. Ron Hubbard, but if that is a theory then it should be taught. In science we study the possibilities then make our logical choice from these possibilities.
@ 210
You have just revealed that your understanding of logic, mathematics and probability is equivalent to your understanding of politics. Not very comprehensive.
Your statement “Dice, on the other hand, have an equal chance for any combination to come up.” Could not be any more wrong.
Count how many combinations there are on a pair of dice that add up to 2. (hint: 1) Then count how many combination add up to 7 (hint: 6). Then determine how many possible combinations there are on a pair of dice (hint 36). Do the math and you’ll discover that the probability of rolling a 2 is 2.78%, while the probability of rolling a 7 is 16.67%.
It is precisely this kind of low level application of thought and logic that makes casinos in Las Vegas wealthy. It’s also the same reason Republicans get elected. Thanks for PROVING to the world you are a complete dolt and embarrassment to America and your party.
How would you like me to copy and past your stupid posts on SP so your peers can see how dumb you are?
chuck@216
At least you’re consistant… and your comparisons are apt.
Hubbard would have described Scientology (which is a for-profit fraud) as scientific, and Intellegent design advocates describe their philosophy as scientific.
The only difference between the two is that thet Intel. Design people have better motives. Intel. Design is about as relevant to evolution as scientology is. It also has as much place in our schools (as religion)
I’m forced to conclude that you have no idea about how science really operates, or why we teach kids what we do.
I have to hand it to ya tho, for sticking to yer guns and being consistant.
If your green rabbit idea has a theory, it should be taught, never read L. Ron Hubbard, but if that is a theory then it should be taught.
So any crank that can come up with a theory gets it entered into the science curriculum?
how about time cube? Thats a theory.
http://www.timecube.com/
windie@219
How can it be science if the possibilities arent explored?
If you present the possibilities, the inteligent person (student) will make a logical choice, a free choice to grasp the theory that makes the most sense to him/her. Much like they now choose to believe the flat/round world theories.
I am not talking about stepping into class with a bible, I am referring to a dry presentation of the theory.
let me try again chuck, you’re just not hearing us.
If we had to present every theory there was, we’d be doing it forever. Limiting it to observable, verifiable theories is a good way to do it.
Anyways, not all theories are equally valid. Evolution is more valid than Scientology, for instance.
Make a test for intellegent design with predictable results and evidence, and I, at least will support having it in our schools. Until then, it simply doesn’t belong.
If you present the possibilities, the inteligent person (student) will make a logical choice, a free choice to grasp the theory that makes the most sense to him/her.
Are you going to limit this to biology class or are you going to include it in astronomy, chemistry, and physics class, too?
I understand that there is a theory that lead can be changed into gold…
JDB @ 214
‘…it turns out that, no, these things are not so complex, and were built up over time through adaptation and mutation.’
First, thank you for taking so much time to respond. I am still, and perhaps will always be troubled by some of the holes in evolution that have not been filled. My sense is that even the later ape-to-man transition is hard to fathom, in that there is such a giant leap in terms of abilities. In general we know so little about the brain, eyes, etc. that shows a good evolutionary sequence, and that may not change in my lifetime. I am also not sure that your assertion regarding the complex organisms have been verified over time. There is still a non-trival portion of that part of the theories, either evolution or ID, that seems impossible to test. In reality, both evolution and ID concepts that involve the same topic can be tested over time. I am beginning to think that the time required will not support my search in this life.
Thanks again.
I think the basic fallacy here is that all theories are created equal.
They’re simply not.
“Windie’s theory of the Universe” which states that the solar system is actually a huge planetarium, with all the galaxies, stars, etc. painted on the inside in fluorescent paint, simply isn’t on par with the Big Bang theory.
I can call mine a theory, but me saying that doesn’t make it a theory thats good enough to teach in our schools.
windie@223
Evolution is more valid than scientology to YOU, dont ever forget that, to YOU. I havent completely formed an opinion myself, but I do wish that the other theories had been presented in a scientific form while I was in school (as well as my kids). Just because a red car looks best to you doesnt mean we all should have red cars. Just because white cars have a lower accident rate doesnt mean we all need to drive white cars. We are a diverse people, and need the diverse theories presented to us so we can make our choice. When you formulated that 2+2=4 in school it was because you were shown possible theories and made the logical choice (some adults are still formulating that choice, just ask Donnageddon). But if you leave out a theory you deny choice, if you leave some theories out you may as well leave them all out. Like it or not the creation theory has the backing of historical record, unlike the “green rabbit” or the “time cube”. It has the backing of documents such as the Koran, the Bible and writing in caves and pyramids.
nowonder@225
you seem a really reasonable person. Does it bother you at all that Intel. Design proponents couch their arguments in attacking evolution?
It still seems to me like theres plenty of room for both.
W.@224
We do this in math, chemistry and ect., Even the English language, look at the difference between our speak/writing as well as that of South Africa or Canada, or England, or Aussieland, or get the idea?
chuck@227
you’re just hurting your cause now, you have to know that.
one lst time before I go with the ol’ paternal figure to tour the Abe Lincoln
THEORIES THAT HAVE EVIDENCE ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED MORE VALID!
the insanity of the lengths you’re pushing your point, Chuck, is simply mind-boggling. If you believe what you’re saying, and not trying to just win, you have no respect or understanding for true science.
Evidence for Evolution: Volumnous
Evidence for Intel. D.: None
Evidence for Scientology: None, plus lawsuits against them for fraud
The difference is clear!
And if you ever advocate teaching scientology in any school, you’ll be laughed out of the meeting… at best. I mean, my God!
We do this in math, chemistry and ect., Even the English language, look at the difference between our speak/writing as well as that of South Africa or Canada, or England, or Aussieland, or get the idea?
I wish I were still in school and could tell the teacher that I had a “theory” that 2+2=5. That would have made math class more interesting.
Like it or not the creation theory has the backing of historical record, unlike the “green rabbit” or the “time cube”. It has the backing of documents such as the Koran, the Bible and writing in caves and pyramids.
Well, the Bible does say that pi does equal 3 so it must be true.
windie@230
I only know of scientology through hearing about it. Having never known of scientology, or even reading of it, I personally wouldnt have minded a dry presentation of the theory. You misinderstand, I dont advocate teaching any religion, but the theory, two completely different things.
Windie @ 226
There are a lot of problems with the Big Bang theory. Many of its assumptions violate the known laws of physics — especially relativity and speed of light.
First of all, if you take all the matter in the universe, and put it in a small enough place, the gravitational forces will become strong enough to prevent the escape of matter or light — i.e. the “black hole”. So it would be impossible for the universe to expand if it was smaller that the “event horizon” for such a “black hole”.
Second, the Big Bang theory has the universe expanding at a constant proportion, with objects at the edge of the universe moving proportionally faster than objects near the center of the universe. And as the universe expands, everything moves proportionally faster away from the center. (Hubble constant) Where does everything get the energy to accelerate over time? And once the universe gets big enough, objects at the edge would eventually have to go faster than light — which is impossible under the laws of physics.
Third, the Big Bang theory actually has the universe expanding faster than the speed of light for some period of time after its creation. Apparently, in order to make the numbers work, this detail has to be added. Otherwise, it would be left out, of course. Again, travelling faster than light is not possible.
My belief is that all the galaxies and other objects revolve around the center of the universe, just like stars revolve around the center of the galaxy. The universe is not expanding.
The mass of the universe is fairly evenly distributed, just like the mass within the galaxy. Compare this with the solar system, where 99.9% of the mass is at the center — i.e. the Sun.
When mass is fairly evenly distributed, the gravitational force will increase as you move from the center to the edges. If you were at the center of the earth, there would be no gravity, since the earth would pull equally on you in all directions. As you move towards the earth’s surface, gravity increase roughly proportionally — i.e. halfway to center, half of surface gravity. Only after you get to the surface and continue going up does gravity decrease.
With our galaxy, the stars further out have to orbit at a higher velocity, since there is more gravity as we go to the edge of the galaxy. This explains why the spiral arms of the galaxy stay together, instead of flying apart — most stars take roughly the same time period to orbit the galaxy, regardless of their distance from galactic center.
Within the universe, the more distant galaxies are subject to a stronger gravity from the universe, and therefore have to revolve at a higher rate of speed around the galactic center. This explains why galaxies further away from the center of the universe are moving at a higher rate of speed than galaxies closer to the center of the universe.
Where did all of this come from, and who wrote the laws of physics? Perhaps this can never be adequated explained by science, and perhaps the “non-scientific” explanations can only be analyzed scientifically as criticisms of scientific theory, and cannot be scientifically proved on their own.
I will venture that science will never be able to prove that there is no God, no gods, or no Giant Green Rabbit. Or that there is, for that matter.
Lame brain ID apologists and true believers:
I present conservative blogger John Cole.
I only know of scientology through hearing about it. Having never known of scientology, or even reading of it, I personally wouldnt have minded a dry presentation of the theory.
I wouldn’t mind a dry presentation of the theory either, but in a comparative religions class and not in science class.
NoWonder @ 225:
Just quickly, because I really do have a job.
You should have doubts. You should question any theory, put it to the test, and if you are not happy with the answer, change the theory. The problem with ID is that it cannot be quentioned or challanged, you must accept it on faith.
Faith is important, don’t get me wrong. But faith is no more science than it is mathmatics. W is right (I had forgotten this, but Issac Asimov mentions it in an essay) that there is a section of the Bible that gives both the diameter adn the circumference of a circle, and the ration is 3 to 1, meaning pi = 3 in the bible. Does this mean that God thinks that pi = 3 and everyone has been wrong ever since? Or is it more likely that the Jews weren’t great mathmaticians (unlike the Babylonians, Egyptians and the Greeks), and simply got it wrong (or gave a best estimate)? Based upon Chucks argument, you should teach this in schools, because children deserve to know all theories.
And why do children deserve to know all theories? Do you need to teach highschool students string theory? Shouldn’t they know the basic, mainstream theory, and leave it to their own pursuit of knowledge or college to get into all the criticism. There are theories, you can see them on the History and Learing channels, that space aliens built the pyramids. Heck, NBC a few years back ran a special on this. Supposedly they are 10s of thousands of years old (even though we have very clear records of when they were built, why they were built, and even the names of some of the architects). Chuck, when I was in the 5th grade and the King Tut exhibit came through and they taught us about ancient Egypt, do you think there should have been a dry presitation to my class on the Alien theory? Or wasn’t it best to just teach the mainstream theory followed by 95% of everyone?
Richard Pope:
Tonight I’ll try to address some of your issues. A lot of what you said is acatually explainable in modern physics. That being said, I have to thank you again for being reasonable in your arguments. I doubt I’ll ever change your mind, and you probably won’t change mine, but I appreciate that you are brave enough to engage in a debate. It is nice to know that there are still some thinking conservatives. How I wish I could give a copy of any William Buckly book to most of the posters at the ss minnows blog so that they could see that being a conservative doesn’t always mean mindlessly repeating the drivel you heard on Sean Hannity’s show.
Chuck:
I am perfectly willing to write a book on the Giant Green Rabbit Theory of Design. Does that then make my theory valid? And are you really saying that we should teach every creation myth in science class? Heck, I don’t even think that is necessary in a comparative religion class.
From Dispatches for the Culture Wars:
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/
There are religious or pseudo-scientific alternatives to every great idea in science. My friend Rob Pennock, in his book Tower of Babel wrote about the “it’s only fair” argument. If “it’s only fair” to teach both evolution and ID and let the students decide, then the same reasoning has to apply to dozens of other concepts as well. What about the Raelians? They believe that life on earth was bioengineered by aliens and they have followers all over the world, including many genuine credentialed scientists. Surely if “it’s only fair” to present both ID and evolution, then “it’s only fair” to present this alternative as well (and in fact the Raelians have issued a press release applauding the efforts of the ID movement to open up science classrooms to alternatives in the hope that they can get theirs in as well).
And this is not limited to alternatives to evolution either. If you’re going to “teach the controversy” between evolution and ID, you’re logically committed to teaching geocentrism along with heliocentrism (yes, there are credentialed scientists like Gerardus Buow who are geocentrists too), flat earthism along with normal earth science, astrology along with astronomy and much more. Wouldn’t we also have to teach the mind-first views of Christian Science or the new age mind-over-matter views of Deepok Chopra along with the germ theory of disease? In all of these areas you will find genuine, credentialed scientists who accept them as true.
The fact is, we have precious little time to teach good science in public schools as it is. In most high school biology classes, evolution is only a small portion of the curriculum. And American students have already fallen well behind the rest of the developed world on all the science tests. If we dilute the time we have for teaching even further by bringing in fanciful alternatives, we will only continue to erode our ability to compete and undermine the education of our children.
Richard @ 203 Richard, Richard, Richard… How can you be so wrong about so many things in one single post. It is truly amazing.
1. “Edge of the Universe” What? Where praty tell is that? Have you even cracked open a book on astronomy?
2.”Center of the Universe” Again RP, there ain’t no such thing.
3.”since there is more gravity as we go to the edge of the galaxy.” The gavity is the same throuout the galaxy. It is just goes in different and competing (cancelling out) in other positions of the galaxy.
4. “most stars take roughly the same time period to orbit the galaxy, regardless of their distance from galactic center.” Completely untrue. Again read something about a subject before you pollute it with your ignorance.
5. “Within the universe, the more distant galaxies are subject to a stronger gravity from the universe, and therefore have to revolve at a higher rate of speed around the galactic center. This explains why galaxies further away from the center of the universe are moving at a higher rate of speed than galaxies closer to the center of the universe”
So many things wrong with this statement, that it would take too much time to explore them all. Suffice it to say, you seem to not understand that the most distant galaxies from our perspective that we see, are actually how they were — 15 Billion years ago!— They lose their “spin” as time goes on, and if we could see them now (or wait another 15 billion years) we would see them spinning at a much slower rate, typical of a galaxy the same age as ours.
i came very close to throwing up when i heard that bush opened his mouth on this. i’m a christian (please hold off on calling me a “fake” on that account) and i go to the number of services a week at an evangelical church to be called “suspect” by any self-respecting liberal… but i have to say that this intelligent design stuff is a bunch of, um, petrified feces. my own people embarrass me with their unwillingness to look at actual facts, and their desire to insist that “the left” only gets irritated “because we’re right.” this whole thing is just sad in every way, and by the time the public at large realizes that we truly ARE an anti-scientific nation… we’ll be in so many wars we won’t be able to do anything but throw petrified feces. (but wait… we’re already doing that… oh no…)
Well guys then, riddle me this, why if you dont feel you can take the time to teach intelligent design then is it so damn important to teach evolution (an incomplete theory at best) at all in the K-12 classes?
chuck, evolution is not an incomplete theory. Do you even know what a theory in the scientific sense means? All of modern biology is based on evolution.
If you are so concerned about young minds being polluted with mythology, then work on having creationism taught in church where it belongs.
Not referring to creationism, we are discussing intelligent design, do not compare apples with oranges, it shows your lack of intellect.
As far as “creationism” or religion, or God, jesus, budda or what have you I couldnt agree more, leave it in the church.
Or family.
And your precious Big Bang:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
chuck, intelligent design is creationism. Really, if you are not going to be honest about such a basic fact, I have nothing to discuss with you.
It is futile to discuss something with the intellectually dishonest.
Donnageddon@247
I completely disagree with you, and you my freind are being intlectually dishonest about this. Intelligent design can well work hand in hane WITH evolution.
Donnageddon@247
And as I said you are comparing apples with oranges.
Donnageddon @ 239
I respectfully disagree with your comments on cosmology. There is a lot more evidence and logic to criticize the “Big Bang” theory than there is to criticize, let’s say, random evolution through natural selection.
As for # 1 and # 2, the universe has an edge and a center under the “Big Bang” theory. Under other theories, it does not — for example, a theory that the size of the universe is infinite, or a theory that the universe consists of the curved three dimensional surface of a four dimensional hypersphere.
# 3 — the gravity of a galaxy generally increases as one goes from the center of the galaxy (where all gravitational pulls should cancel out) towards the edge. Same as if one starts out at the center of the earth (earth gravity pulls cancel each other out) and heads towards the surface.
# 4 # 5 — again, you are mistaken. It would be a lot different if 99.9% of galactic mass was at the galactic core, as is the case for the solar system. And galaxies do not lose their “spin” over time. Individual objects “spin” by rotation on their axes. In a galaxy, stars revolve in an orbit around the galactic center.
Richard, It is pointless to explain reality to someone who is not in touch with it.
Mind experimet: imagine a figure skater spinning on an axis. Do they not slow down over time?
Your whole cosmology is not based on basic physics! I know that potential politicians do not need to be physicists, but you should go with what you know, not with what you haven’t a clue about!
And Richard, do you not acknowledge that the farthest galixies we see are actually billions of years in the past?
Read a book man!
Richard, I reread your posts. You do not have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
Richard, as I have posted before, I am an athiest. This does not mean that I know where “everything” came from.
Could be a turtle fart for all I know. But then the question becomes “Where di the Turtle come from?”
Same with ID.. they try to claim there is a “watchmaker”… where then did the watchmaker come from?
These are unaswerable questions.
So, osme “believe” in a religious faith that comforts them.
FINE!
But, there are many “religious” answers to that question, and none of them have any nore validity than the last.
We are alone. We need to do whatever we can to survive as a lonely species on an insignificant planet. And search for deeper understanding.
But survival is the biggest question. With people killing each other over mythologies over who is worshiping “god” in the correct manner we are doomed!
Fuck religion! Lets just try to get along! And search for real answers.
Still waiting for Chuck to show me one piece of evidence for ID. Without that, we can’t teach it in schools.
windie@255
I think I have made my point, as it is now we teach “theories” in school that may or may not be true, if these theories even have a basis for truth, they may very well themselves be guided by Inteligent Design. As I have said when you deny the education of one theory over another, you are equally as guilty as those that religios zealots like Cardinal Bellarmine, or even nuts like Hitler with burning books. The big bang, as well as evolution are simply theories, not undeniable facts, even at that they could well have beed guided by intelligence, as the lack of randomisation might suggest. But to deny options in theories is to walk blind. No where in my posts do I suggest the actual teaching of religion, Bible, Koran or cave hyroglyphics, just the theory.
chuck, you type “theory” like you believe it is an untest geuss. Wrong. In science a theory is an explanation for observed phenomenon. Hypothesis are descriptions of how the observed phenomenon does what it does.
These terms have absolutely nothing to do with the day to day manner the terms are used. This is SCIENCE, you fucking thick headed moron. Evolution as a “theory” is no less valid than gravity as a “theory”.
Now go test the observed phenomenon of gravity by jumping off a bridge, shitferbrains.
And “facts” are data points supporting a theory, or negating it.
Science is NOT dogmatic, as religion is. So any theory CAN be negated with proper experimentation and evidence contrary to the theory.
But ID is not that evidence. ID is just religious dogmatic crappola.
256
all the babbling aside, in the end of the day we can provide scientific evidence for the Big Bang AND Evolution… And you can provide nothing.
In the realm of actual science, I think theres a clear winner here.
I just saw on CNN that Senator Bill Frist watched a video of the stars and made a thorough diagnosis of the heavens. In his professional opinion he has decided to support science and the theory of evolution — yet again breaking with the President.
NoWonder – “You do not, however, effectively discount the ID work that casts large doubt on fundemental aspects of current evolutionary theory. ”
There is no ID ‘work.’ That is to say, there are no published studies of any sort documenting any ID assertions, assertions which are not in fact testable. Writing a book that makes claims is not scientific work, proof is work. No proof, no science.
Biology does not in any way make sense if evolution is incorrect. If a higher being did jumpstart the process, the process they began was evolution. There is a clear chain of lineage among all the many organisms that’s visible in their physical structures and obvious in their genomes.
I’ve seen through a microscope the shape of the first proto-vertebrate, a shape echoed in closely related early vertebrates. On the genetic level, very tiny changes over time allowed for large effects. The development of bilateral symmetry allowed sensory patches to be concentrated towards one end that could act as an executive for the organism, providing more directed movement than was possible for radial animals like jellyfish. Additions of extra folds of cells to the first stages of embryonic development allowed the development of body cavities and the differentiation of specialized organs. The repeated duplication of homeotic genes, for example, allowed for body segmentation, making specialized limbs and eventually spinal cords possible. The first animal to develop a body longer than its digestive tract gained such a considerable advantage and room to expand into new niches, that it’s hard to properly express the significance of it.
Other animals have developed into new species because their maturation process was altered. The earliest proto-vertebrates reached maturity resembling the free-floating larval form of their sedentary adult ancestors. Human beings skull morphology resembles closely the juvenile skulls of our ancestors, and our common cousins in the ape family tree. Yet as we grow to maturity, our jaws remain light and delicate, and we retain more of the relative proportions of our infant skulls. A deterioration in the protein that generates heavy jaw muscles (providing support for large jawbones) may have been partly responsible. Such a mutation would be fatal in animals that rely on tough plant fibers, but as our ancestors varied their diet and took in meat, this may have finally allowed individuals with the mutation to grow to maturity.
Even our protein coding genes have come to us highly supportive of minor changes. Amino acids are coded for by three genes, though far fewer than the maximum possible, largely because several genes often code for the same amino acid. During assembly of aminos in the cell, the most common error is in the third and last gene. The duplicate amino codes generally share the first two genes and have a variation in the third, such that even an assembly error is likely to still produce the same amino. When an amino acid is assembled into a protein, and that protein is folded into its final shape, its functionality is more damaged by a switch from hydrophobic to hydrophilic amino acids. Those amino acid codes most likely to be interconverted from one to another by accident tend to match in their water-attractive properties. It’s the sort of system that would only be useful, and thus conserved, if it governed an organism whose genome was steadily accumulating mutations. This way, a large number of mutations can accumulate without causing damage, and actually increasing the genetic variability that makes the species more viable.
These were very tiny steps and changes that have left their marks in our genes, the accumulated heritage of millions of years. Those changes that were the most beneficial, such as the preservation of the homeotic genes, have been highly conserved in the successful descendants of the first innovators.
For more, look through this 15 point rebuttal of creationism first published in Scientific American. Again, if you sincerely want your questions answered, you need to go to sources from the biological sciences. There’s more than enough supporting evidence, but you have to honestly look for it instead of burying yourself in the ID assertions that the evidence doesn’t exist.
Richard Pope – “And you would have to agree that modern day wheat and corn cannot be explained by evolution through natural selection? Nor can you explain house cats and poodles this way either.
The development of the above species into their modern forms required an intelligent designer – namely human beings. …”
The reason that’s true is because every organism must make a trade-off between the energetically expensive processes of reproduction and self-defense. In the case of plants, a wild plant that puts too much energy into large seeds or fruit might not be able to produce enough toxin to prevent itself being eaten before it can reproduce. When humans protect crops and take over the function of distributing seed, the natural variation in seed and fruit size can veer heavily towards one extreme with no adverse consequences, in fact it’s rewarded by humans with increased survival. Similar effects can be seen in all organisms when their natural predators are removed.
When humans intervene, we only accelerate natural variations that already existed, protecting those we favor even when such individuals wouldn’t survive in the wild. Natural selection is far from random, it selects for survivability, i.e. reproductive success. It follows a set of very simple rules that produce complex results.
When the environment changes, which it has done many times in the past, it can dramatically alter which traits are most survivable. As new organisms compete and interact, this can dramatically alter which traits are most survivable. Any alteration in temperature, food supply, numbers of predators, geographical events or diseases can dramatically alter which traits are more survivable.
We’re talking about geographic timescales and major extinction events such as the shifting of continents, the advent of the oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, meteor strikes, supermassive volcanic eruptions, 2/3 drops in oxygen levels, radical changes in global temperature and epidemic diseases. These events have produced changes that dwarf what we’ve done in the short few thousand years that we’ve been messing around with grasses and dogs.
Additional note: The truth about evolution suffers in such discussions from being complex. But it seems to me that even getting a basic overview of it such as I have is positively sublime. The progression of species, the early generation of our atmosphere by the first photosynthetic cells and later algae and plants, the slow accumulation of soil through the work of bacteria, lichens and fungi, the stabilization of that soil by plants, the development of beneficial symbiotic relationships between plants and the animals that eat them (leading to flowering plants and enough food for larger animals to develop), it’s just very, very beautiful.
To me, denying evolution is denying oneself the appreciation of an ancient elegance and power. To say that this work of billions of years sprang up in a few thousand years in close to present form is just blatant disrespect for the complexity of our world and the interaction of its species with their ecosystems.
Donnageddon@257
Something to ponder, I am not the one closed off to poresenting options, now you thick headed moron, who is the true knuckle dragger here?
Donnageddon@258
If it is as you say “dogmatic crapola” (term seems to match your inteligence level), then no worries, the student will see thru ID like they do the flat world theory (which is taught in schools) and no harm done, just let them make the open choice.
windie@259
I can provide evedence that King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table existed, does that mean there was a wizzard named Merlin that lived his life in reverse starting old then gradually getting younger?
Natasha @ 261, 262
I am certainly NOT saying that everything was created just in the past few thousand years. I agree that the Earth and solar system are many billions of years old – presumably the 4.5 to 5 billion years that is generally scientifically accepted.
But it is almost impossible to accept that all changes in life over these billions of years are solely the result of random mutations and natural selection.
Think of modern human beings. Think of our unique abilities and characteristics as a species. The large brain size. The ability to speak, think, reason, argue and even worship (or not). The relative lack of body hair. Our sexual and mating habits — which unlike other mammals, are not solely associated with reproduction. Infant head sizes — which make giving birth often fatal for the mother when medical technology is lacking. And there are a lot of other characteristics of humans that make us quite unique.
Now think of when modern humans first appeared — about 200,000 years ago in Africa. Species homo sapiens — genetically identical to human beings today. All of the same characteristics as people today. If you took a baby from back then, brought her up in today’s world, she would have the same speech, thought, reasoning, arguing, etc. capabilities as any other human. And she would look perfectly human as well.
So how did natural selection result in humans 200,000 years ago having all of the genetic advantages and disadvantages that humans have today?
Donna @ 251, 252, 253 and 254
I never said that the universe wasn’t billions of years old.
As for the ice skater analogy being applied to galaxies — ice skaters spin (rotate) on their axes, galaxies do not. Galaxies consist of billions of stars revolving around the galactic core.
ID is not science.
Teach it outside the science class.
Why does the leading seattle based philanthropic establishment financially support the leading proponent of ID as science? Why isn’t the mainstream media reporting about that?
Its never made sense for a technology based house of giving to give to a PR house for the most far-reaching anti tech anti science campaign around.
thor@268
Why did the people of NAZI Germany support the burning of books?
Richard Pope – “Think of modern human beings. Think of our unique abilities and characteristics as a species. The large brain size. The ability to speak, think, reason, argue and even worship (or not). The relative lack of body hair. Our sexual and mating habits – which unlike other mammals, are not solely associated with reproduction. Infant head sizes – which make giving birth often fatal for the mother when medical technology is lacking. And there are a lot of other characteristics of humans that make us quite unique.”
Our brain size development was probably greatly aided by the degeneration of our heavy ancestral jaws. It would have forced the discovery of new food sources, but more importantly, it allowed the back of the skull to enlarge. Without the need to support the weight of a larger jaw and the stress of the muscle operating it, the skull itself can be thinner and larger, expanding to leave room for a larger brain. A bigger brain would have made it easier to engage in cooperative behavior and capture prey, fueling the cycle.
Also at some point, fossils indicate that large nerve clusters split off towards our lungs. Unlike other animals, we at some point developed the ability to consciously control our breathing, a necessary precursor for speech that likely came about for some other reason. The other necessary soft tissue developments happened some time after that, and it would have taken a while to come up with language.
Difficult birth was a consequence of walking upright, which necessitated the narrowing of the hips and developing a whole pack of new perineal muscles to prevent our insides falling out. These are problems that other body plans don’t share, and the solutions would have to be unusual. Also, we aren’t remotely the only animals that have sex when we aren’t reproducing. Look up the bonobos on Google. Look up gay sex in the animal kingdom. It’ll be a blast. For a more thorough, also accessible and engaging, discussion of the problems associated with human reproduction you might check out Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Schlain.
The lack of body hair is pretty trivial. We no longer need fur, and it didn’t take that long to breed hairless cats and dogs. If something isn’t needed, it often gets bred out, and even other animals don’t usually mate completely at random. It wouldn’t have taken very many men or women deciding they were down with this kinky hairlessness thing in that cute H. sapiens across the campfire to spread the trait. Then at one point our ancestral genome narrowed to about a couple dozen individuals who may have been outliers in any number of ways.
It should also be pointed out that greater intelligence would almost certainly change a great many behaviors. As soon as you’re smart enough to ask a question or to imagine something that isn’t right in front of you, it would be shocking if a few things didn’t change.
We also know that there were other reasonably intelligent hominids. Neanderthals are known to have created various carved items, some had burial rituals, they may even have had music. Earlier species of hominid are known to have had the ability to make stone tools over two million years ago. So if this whole thing was planned out to the nth degree, why all these other intelligent species? Why weren’t they favored? Why did we get to prosper and eventually outcompete all the species that shared our niche? Did god just not love the neanderthals?
It seems to me that some people really want to believe in our specialness, that we were somehow chosen. But we weren’t. We were lucky and smart, and by some twist of fate, our couple dozen ancestors managed not to get themselves eaten or something before having children. If people want to cultivate a proper spirit of gratitude and humility, they should think about that long and hard, along with considering what a very long time it took to develop a planetary ecosystem that favors us and our agriculture so very well.
“So how did natural selection result in humans 200,000 years ago having all of the genetic advantages and disadvantages that humans have today?”
It was longer actually, probably another 50-150k years. Evolution had been progressing for +/- 3.5 billion years by then and life on earth had experienced at least two major extinction events leading to much deck shuffling. That’s an exceptionally long time.
Culture also takes a while to acquire. Just as the accumulation of new genetic traits took a long time, the accumulation of new knowledge would also. Further, until people started settling down and their numbers increased, it was difficult to accumulate and preserve new information. If you take a child of today and neglect it, raise it without language and leave it to fend for itself away from society, it will grow up to be little more than a very clever animal with an interesting range of grunts.
natasha@270
Thank you for the recap on evolution (I pretty much got that back in grade school), no one has neccisarily denied anything that you have mentioned. As I have said I for one am open to ideals as well as theories. Through your writing you didnt explain why your theory (actually a recap on your educational experience) could not have been guided by inteligent design.
Natasha @ 270 Chuck @ 271
Chuck — at least say that you learned about evolution in HIGH SCHOOL, and not GRADE SCHOOL.
Of course, Goldy’s original posting bemoaned the lack of science education among our high school graduates. So I looked up the Washington graduation requirements on the Superintendent of Public Instruction website:
http://www.k12.wa.us/Communica.....ements.doc
They simply require 2.0 credits in science — any science. So someone can graduate from high school in Washington conceivably without even taking biology or some other course in which evolution, etc. might be taught.
Other countries — and certainly India and China — would require high school students to take REAL biology, REAL chemistry, AND real physics in order to get a secondary school diploma. Presumably real algebra and real calculus as well. And a couple of years of real foreign language — English being very popular for this of course — to boot. Not to mention some serious courses on national and world history, national language and literature, etc.
In the USA, students can get out of high school with a few years of math lite, science lite, and other lite versions of subjects. High schools tend to offer both real and lite versions of the required subjects, and often grade the real versions on a 5.0 scale (versus 4.0 for lite versions).
I think these concerns are much more serious in relation to the preparedness and achievements of our young people (assuming they are even in the 70% or so that actually graduates with a regular high school diploma), than whether the biology course (which many graduates never take in the first place) contains intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
Natasha — your analysis is excellent, as usual. And certainly shows more understanding that would be gleaned from even a very careful reading of the best high school biology textbook. You have obviously read a lot about this subject, studied it very well, and can articulate your thoughts very well.
But are Homo erectus, Neandertal, and modern humans really separate species? If you look at the skeletons, etc., they have a lot more in common than not. Certainly they resemble each other a lot more than a Great Dane resembles a Chihuahua. And I think both of those dog breeds are the same species and can mate with each other. And there are a lot of differences within present day human populations as well.
Could a Homo erectus successfully reproduce with a modern human? Are the differences simply related to different gene information, or would reproduction simply be impossible? We can’t test this question. On the other hand, human populations that have been separated from each other for 40,000 years or more are capable of reproduction — such as the English and the Australian aboriginals.
Can you deny the intellectual and reasoning capabilities of humans 50,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, or even 1.5 million years ago? Certainly there was not the technology and retained knowledge that we have today, or even had 5,000 years ago. But certainly the basic human genetics have not changed nearly as much as retained knowledge and technology. Presumably, a human from several hundred thousand years ago would be genetically competent to function in today’s society.
So how can evolution explain a human of 50,000, 5,000 or even 500 years ago having far more intellectual and reasoning ability than necessary to function in the society of that time? And presumably today’s humans exceeding that standard as well?
Richard Pope@272
“Chuck – at least say that you learned about evolution in HIGH SCHOOL, and not GRADE SCHOOL.”>>
6th grade, Wally Platts class Thompson Elementary, Bethel School District. Sorry your school wasnt as advanced.
Okay, you knuckleheads, if you don’t quit bickering, I’m going to turn this universe right around and you all can spend the rest of eternity in your rooms.
I mean it, no kidding, I’ve had just about enough of your lip, and if you don’t quit fooling around back there, you’re all gonna be really sorry.
You think I’m kidding? Just keep it up.
Son-O-God
Richard Pope @272
“But are Homo erectus, Neandertal, and modern humans really separate species? If you look at the skeletons, etc., they have a lot more in common than not. Certainly they resemble each other a lot more than a Great Dane resembles a Chihuahua. And I think both of those dog breeds are the same species and can mate with each other. And there are a lot of differences within present day human populations as well.”
There’s no genetic evidence that the ancestors of modern humans did interbreed with neanderthals, or any other possibly contemporary hominids. And the differences in skull structure, jaws, posture, and what few indications we have of soft tissue marks in the bone would indicate different species if looking at other fossil animals. Also, I think that simply asking oneself whether or not you personally would be willing to pair up with a member of a species that looked so different (and they would have looked very different) and was probably a good deal less intelligent. It seems unlikely in the extreme that much of that went on.
There’s a species of frog that lives along the Mississippi river that select their mates by their calls. These calls will be similar within a given geographic area, but the farther away they get, the more the songs diverge. The greater the divergence, the less likely they are to mate. Though the species at either end could still technically interbreed, they won’t. Today, a group of field researchers are watching speciation in two newly divergent groups of butterflies, seeing firsthand that slight differences in the markings already discourage interbreeding.
Your point about the dogs is interesting, but I suspect over time these will become different species. However, it does take a long time. Forty thousand years may not be long enough for humans to have diverged from each other, but we’ve also had a pretty stable climate and conditions. Further, having reached a certain stage of intelligence, we became able to adapt to our environment so well that extravagant changes haven’t seemed very useful so far.
Though there are divergences that over time and with further isolation might have led to speciation. Native Americans, for example, seem to have much more aggressive sugar-digesting enzymes (due to the local diet, now just a major cause of diabetes). Many Asians can no longer digest milk. Both groups tend to have lower to non-existant alcohol tolerance. These might not seem like a big deal, but Leonard Schlain (Sex, Time and Power) made a very interesting argument about our present state being due in no small part to an inability to extract iron from plant matter, and needing to get it from the hemoglobin present in animal flesh. As the only species whose females tend towards the anemic by design, this seems likely to have had a major impact on us.
“… So how can evolution explain a human of 50,000, 5,000 or even 500 years ago having far more intellectual and reasoning ability than necessary to function in the society of that time? And presumably today’s humans exceeding that standard as well?”
That isn’t really how it works. It’s precisely because the process isn’t directed (even though it’s easiest to talk about it in anthropomorphic terms for brevity) that you end up with novelties. These genetic surprises can work out well or lead to eventual extinction, no guarantees, no returns. Anything which it doesn’t harm a species to have may stick around long past its usefulness, anything harmful usually gets eliminated or marginalized, anything which increases the ability to survive will be magnified as far as it can reasonably go over time. And variations in the size of given body parts, such as brains (or tail feathers, or claws, etc.) are often well within the parameters of an existing gene pool. If environmental conditions or prospective partners continue to favor an outlying trait, it will inevitably come to dominate the gene pool.
Just because our ancestors from way, way back didn’t build permanent structures or ships, that doesn’t mean they didn’t use their brain power. They likely began using it to increase their prospects of getting a mate or improving their status in the group (there are interesting speculations that brain size tends to be related to the number of social relationships a species favors,) to better remember the lay of the land or the local flora and fauna, to develop better hunting strategies & etc.
This point was made in Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, but it bears repeating: it takes a lot of intelligence to survive well in the wild. We’re weaker than other animals our size. We may be the first primates to run very well, but we’re damn slow compared to anything we might want to hunt. We have no insulating fur, our jaws are weak, we’re poor climbers, too big to hide in burrows, and our hands are soft and clawless. Without that intelligence, we’re little more than ambulatory deli cuts.
But hominids aren’t the only animals that came to be smarter than we needed. It’s of inestimable value to elephants that their long memories allow their herd matriarch to remember waterholes from decades ago when they need to search for water in a drought. It’s useful to other pack hunters to be smart enough to coordinate a hunt, and in fact cooperative hunters have the best kill rates in the animal kingdom. Then there are also parrots that are smart enough to really use a limited vocabulary, and apes that have been taught to communicate through sign language. All of these activities probably require more intelligence than strictly necessary for bare survival, but it seems more likely a demonstration of the fact that excess intelligence is a positive survival trait useful in compensating for other weaknesses and attractive to mates, so it’s very unlikely to be discarded from the gene pool.
Even now, people continue to favor intelligence in partners to varying degrees (and would that ever be a fascinating argument ;) Though we have very little way of knowing at this time a person’s ‘true’ intelligence separate from cultural factors and childhood nutrition, which we know to play a huge role in brain and skill development. Also, we now use different types of mental skills than we once did, and given a chance, remarkable people can emerge from an unremarkable background. So what I guess I’m trying to say is that as a species, we’ve clearly got a lot of variability and potential in this regard, and it has generally helped our chances for survival.
The irony is that we may have already created planet-sized problems that we aren’t collectively smart enough to solve. Any argument that our intelligence is in excess of our present needs is only going to get met, for my part, with a snarky look.
Darn those closing italics tags.
Chuck @ 271
“As I have said I for one am open to ideals as well as theories. Through your writing you didnt explain why your theory (actually a recap on your educational experience) could not have been guided by inteligent design.”
I never claimed to have come up with any of that on my own, or even to have done any field research. Of course it’s come from my education and reading, but that doesn’t have much to do with the argument itself.
Again, here’s something I said from an earlier comment which you must have missed. Evolution says that as far back as we’ve been able to look, we’ve been able to find material causes for these processes. This doesn’t say anything about the existence, or not, of some higher power. It isn’t a claim about God, or gods, or Allah, or Buddah, or the spirits of Voudon. What I said was that if there was some higher power involved, the process they used was evolution. As far as we know, the only place where there looks like room for intervention was maybe nudging proto-RNA into a primitive phospholipid membrane.
Truly, and you can look this up, we’ve accounted (if a bit patchy in some spots) all the way back to the genesis of the main types (somewhere between three and a couple dozen, depending on the taxonomy you look at) of eukaryotic cells. The ancestral trees are literally walking, swimming and floating around, locked up in the DNA of all the manifold organisms. Every year more of the puzzle is pieced together, more of the mystery unlocked.
The common descent of species is every bit as proven as the common descent of humans from other humans. I don’t say this as an atheist (maybe a bit on the agnostic side, though I do believe there’s something out there), but this is part of nature. It isn’t any different from astronomy, physics, math or chemistry. If a god set up the universe, these were the rules laid down for its running, unless that intelligence has deliberately misled us in ways so numerous that we would never be able to spot the lie. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, bodies fall towards the earth at 32 feet/sec/sec, hydrogen has one proton and one electron everywhere in the universe and all the organisms on earth have a chain of ancestry that stretches back to the bacteria.
These are the rules, even though our knowledge of them has a long way to go. Not even god can beat a full house with a pair of twos, because then you aren’t playing poker anymore.
Alabama people are smart enough to build the Saturn Rockets that put man on the moon and they build Honda and Mercedes Benz here. I guess that the Toyota people preferred French speaking car builders. I hope the people of Alabama and the rest of the United States remember his comments when it comes time to buying a new car. Don’t buy Toyota buy American made……