Video: Jindal supports teaching of intelligent design
posted at 1:37 pm on June 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Qualified by the usual caveat, of course. He won’t say which theory he favors (beyond acknowledging some unknown role of the creator), but clearly he’s sufficiently sold on ID that he thinks it merits being laid in front of kids as an alternative to evolution. Which is a dodge, really, in the same way that the Truthers’ irritating “just asking questions” defense is a dodge: It uses the spirit of free inquiry as a way to avoid the threshold question of how credible any theory has to be to end up in the curriculum. Doubtless there are far left parents (and far right, per the Paulnuts) who wouldn’t mind seeing competing theories of 9/11 taught in history class so that kids can “make up their own minds,” but that ain’t likely to happen. Or actually, given the orientation of teachers’ unions, maybe it is. Stay tuned!
The politics of this issue are convoluted — majorities want both evolution and creationism taught, but roughly twice as many voters are less likely to vote for creationist politicians than more likely — so Jindal’s non-answer is the safe way to play it. But can we please, at least, lay off the federalist rhetoric he uses here until it’s settled whether ID violates the Establishment Clause or not? It’s a fine conservative idea that local school boards should have more power than state boards or the DOE, but constitutional violations are constitutional violations all the way down the chain, federalism or no. Jindal surely knows that too, which I guess makes that his second dodge.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 Next »
actually I’m not. I’m aware of some of the distortions the evolutionists use to smear IDers…like the whole ‘wedge document’ controversy.
but I know that in evolution, anything goes.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM
As you can see, Twain wasn’t much of an original thinker.
My collie says:
According ST-TNG lore, they were well acquainted with one another.
CyberCipher on June 16, 2008 at 5:03 PM
you maybe annoyed, but I find it a rather interesting question. I’ve noticed most atheists/evolutionists are left-wing ideologues. and since conservatism is based upon a series of truths, many based in religion, it seems difficult to reconcile the two.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Male Voice With Throaty Reverb: [some African flutes and drums play] Millions of months passed, and, 28 days later, the moon appeared. This small change was reflected best, perhaps, in the sand dollar, which shrank to almost nothing at the bottom of the pool, where even dumb amphibeans, like catfish, laid their eggs in the boiling waters, only to be gobbled up every three minutes by the giant sea orphans, which scared everybody. [music begins to build] And so, IN FEAR AND HOT WATER, [music approaches a climax] MAN IS BORN!!!
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 5:04 PM
In other words, if we can’t explain everything right now, to the rarified satisfaction of ID proponents, then we have to admit the existence of the Christian God in drag.
Gaah.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 5:04 PM
spmat on June 16, 2008 at 4:48 PM
That is sort of the essence of the argumentum ad ignorantium you keep hearing about. You are basically saying “we don’t have sufficient knowledge to reduce some system, therefore it was created by an intelligent designer–I’m not saying there is one though, quit putting words in my mouth! I take no position on the existence of a god!“
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Because of the principles of selection. Much of this stuff is individually of such minor selective effect, that you need a really really large population size and many generations to select against it. If you look at viruses, they have none of this stuff. If you look at bacterial, they have very very little. If you look at yeast, very little. As you move up to organisms with smaller pop sizes and longer generation times, you see more and more repetitive DNA accumulating in the genomes.
If fish are so well designed for the water, why do
whales use the mammalian design?
you’re asking why they were designed like this, ok, why did they evolve like this?
The sugar-expert appears first, the acetate-expert second and so on. Here you have every aspect of evolution occurring in a beaker – mutation, competition and selection.
you have every aspect of micro-evolution..so?
There are a very small percentage of introns that have evolved a functional significance (usually through the development of regulatory sequences that govern when the gene is active), but the vast majority can be removed with no effect.
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
how can darwinism scientifically do this?
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM
you need to update your arguments
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110903
albo on June 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Sort of. You can assert that there is such a macroscopic 1/r^2 force as gravity and prove it time and time again with out being able to prove it mathematically from first principles. Such irrefutable ‘theories’ become ‘laws’.
Interestingly, mathematics can prove the existence of something even before it is possible to see it. For example, the Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist Dirac accidentally ‘discovered’ the existence of anti-matter in the ’30s when he was formulating the theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. His equations showed that there were negtively and positively electrons. Later, based upon his work, other physicists were able to detect anti-matter in the laboratory.
SPCOlympics on June 16, 2008 at 5:08 PM
E1701 on June 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM
I agree with your characterizations…
but am confused by your conclusion. Are you saying, they should be taught as coequal approaches to the same thing? Because if so, should they not be examined simultaneously, instead of
?
RushBaby on June 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM
You appear to be more familiar with it than I am… is that the document that explicitly states a desire to replace science with theology? Oh! Yes it is!
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Only in Ronsfi’s twisted, demented, little mind would quoting hindu theology prove the Bible is false.
You see..we don’t believe in hindu theology Ronsfi.
If you are going to be a consistent evolutionist..please come out and state your belief that the aliens set in motion the “evolution” process.
Also please explain to us how baal is truly the one who should be worshipped and not God.
I hope that you are not a lazy evolutionist who does not practice ritual human sacrifices to baal…you wouldn’t want your fellow satanists to accuse you of being a Baal worshipper in name only.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 5:11 PM
labrat on June 16, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Amazing…and all in the same post….Amazing.
PappaMac on June 16, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Bobby’s making WAY too much sense.
Mojave Mark on June 16, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Baal doesn’t exist, either.
Hey, you know, if you’ve picked the wrong god and it turns out the Muslims are right, you’re going to Hell, too. We’ll have lunch.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Scientists need to rely on naturalistic explanations not supernatural ones. They shouldn’t believe that their work demonstrates that supernatural forces don’t exist, rather those forces are outside the scope of their scientifc effort.
Historians tend to do the same. One might ponder the effect of God on Battle of Gettysburg, but it is ultimately unsatisfying to study the failure of Pickett’s charge and say that God caused the Union lines to hold. Looking at terrain and firepower provide more useful explanations.
dedalus on June 16, 2008 at 5:15 PM
If Baal doesn’t exist..then why did Baal worshippers invent evolution as a means to subvert Christianity?
Are you also willing to admit that evolution does not exist?
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Yes, all in the same post. Can you believe that?
I am enjoying my freedom.
Indy Conservative on June 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM
To right4life and other discussants here:
Interesting discussion, and hopefully friendly. I’d like to make one point about science and belief. Science and belief are two completely different things. I do not believe in evolution. I find the data overwhelming and internally consistent. Like I do for gravity, DNA as the genetic material, protein synthesis being directed by RNA transcribed from DNA, etc, etc. However, every scientist is (or should be at least) open to re-evaluating even these most tested ideas. And if the data comes in to disprove these models, that would be exciting. My guess is it will never happen for most of these principles (i.e., I think these models are close enough to fact that they will remain consistent with data going forwards). But we have explosions of new knowledge (miRNAs as a recent example) that upturn some strongly held assumption that you never know what will happen.
Does the same willingness to be disproved run in the ID community? Think to yourself: is there some set of data that would come in that would lead me to reject ID? If the answer is no, then I posit this is less about science and more about ideology.
Off to home, my wife and my son.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM
A misrepresentation of the argument. Please don’t be disingenuous. A more accurate formulation would be:
1) The system is irreducibly complex.
2) For that reason, the system could not have arisen by random chance — through Darwinian natural selection of an advantageous mutation.
3) Since it can not have arisen through s random mutation and natural selection, it’s existence suggests (by inference) an intelligent designer, instead of a blind random process.
CyberCipher on June 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM
I don’t know how I ever managed to pass biology and remain a Christian. Oh. Wait. That’s because when I took biology, it was taught from an apolitical angle by teachers who did not have an anti-religion agenda. It was because of that respect that religious leaders did not feel any need to complain or retaliate. We were taught science in school and how to reconcile science with religion outside of school. You know what? It worked.
Connie on June 16, 2008 at 5:22 PM
CyberCipher on June 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM
I’m not misrepresenting the argument… in fact, you repeated it right there! You assume that the system is “irreducibly complex” simply because we can’t explain how it might be reduced. That is a fallacious argument. Period.
If you don’t understand that, do not reply to me please.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Muslim and Flying Spaghetti Monster theories aren’t related to the origin of life. Oh, and neither is the Zoarastrain theory. Yet another pathetic excuse for an anology.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
orlandocajun on June 16, 2008 at 5:24 PM
It worked. You were able to instantly give up the absolute validity of the Bible without even realizing it.
Woo Hoo!
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM
No. I was able to pass the biology regents without giving my beliefs.
Connie on June 16, 2008 at 5:27 PM
correction: giving up
Connie on June 16, 2008 at 5:28 PM
I am confused SaintOlaf. You say that baal worshipers and satanist came up with evolution, but Ben Stein says that it was marxist nazis. Was it satanic, baal worshiping, atheistic, marxist, nazis?
Ars Moriendi on June 16, 2008 at 5:29 PM
I take it that the inerrancy of the Bible is not one of your beliefs then?
Or are you saying that you passed the class without being brainwashed?
Either way..brainwashing students to believe in a disproven theory is not an acceptable practice.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 5:31 PM
By definition, you can not be atheistic and Baal worshiping…
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Predictive power is an inherently required function of scientific propositions (in fact, some might argue, it is the only function of scientific propositions). If the proposition in question doesn’t make predictions about future observations, there’s no criteria by which to weigh its veracity. Evolutionary theory does lead to certain predictions, however (such as those about what types of “bridge” fossils might be discovered). But compared with the likes of physics or chemistry it is a rather “soft” science, in that it doesn’t lend itself to controlled testing.
The important thing is that it is in principle scientific, as it advances propositions about the physical world. “Competing theories” that posit the existence of non-physical entities (whatever those may be) all fail to meet that basic standard.
As for illumination, it is provided by candles and lamps.
Blacklake on June 16, 2008 at 5:34 PM
albo, if that fossil is as close as they are able to get to a whale then evolutionism quite obviously has some very major hurtles to overcome. The fossil looks nothing like a whale….. please !!
I challenge you to watch this video, it’s not very long, then give me your comments.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Poor Bobby,
I had such great hope for ye.
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Did you know that it is proven that Marx was a member of the illuminati?
Also do you know why both the nazi’s and the illuminati use the swastika?
The swastika is a sun symbol.
The babylonians the druids and the egyptians all used the sun symbol to represent their deity. (Baal/Osiris/Satan)
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 5:35 PM
We were not brainwashed. We were taught theory as theory and tested on our knowledge of what that theory was. There’s a difference. It wasn’t demanded that anyone agree with it, just that we knew what it was.
Connie on June 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM
“Macro-evolution” (which is just a whole bunch of microevolution) happens over millions of years. We’ll never directly observe it, we have to infer it from the evidence. What evidence do we have of the history of life on Earth?
- We have the preserved remains of a small percentage of the animals that have lived on Earth. We know approximately how old the remains are, and we notice a trend of (generally) increasing complexity over time. We can even point to certain epochs where complex features appear for the first time on earth (things like feathers, eyes, backbones, etc..). We sometimes find series of fossils that appear to ‘morph’ from one species to another. This is evidence of progression. Scientists call it evolution. Designers call it ‘practice’, I guess.
- We see signs of features that all life, or all of certain families of animals, share. Whales have hips and hair, for instance. All life is based on about the same chemical principle, with some variations: DNA codes for proteins, which get folded into structures, which build life. At the cellular level we’re made of the same stuff, but we also find common strands of DNA between species. And the closer the species are related morphologically, the more similarities we find. This is evidence of relatedness.
- We know from experiments – from direct observation – that when living things reproduce, the offspring is different genetically from the parent. Even in organisms that clone themselves, the clone isn’t always a perfect copy. The genetic code that defines the structure of the organism changes in measurable ways. Two parents’ genes get shuffled together and rearranged. DNA doesn’t copy itself exactly right sometimes. Viruses and other organisms can insert new DNA into a host organism. To name a few. We don’t guess that this happens, we’ve seen it happen. Over a few thousand years it can turn a wolf into a pug, given a selective pressure that favors annoying, little dogs. This is evidence of change – a mechanism which might cause evolution.
There’s a lot more, but this is already too long. It’s necessarily simplified because I’m not a biologist. If I were a biologist, I’d look at all the evidence, and I’d say, “wow, evolution explains a lot about the origin of species on earth.” Intelligent design explains nothing. I could accept it as a criticism of evolution, but it’s not even a good criticism. Just a bunch of non sequitur mixed up with Dembski’s math toys. Christians would be doing themselves a favor if they didn’t get mixed in with ID, too.
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 5:38 PM
So it was satanic, baal worshiping, atheistic, marxist, nazis.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Ars Moriendi on June 16, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Olaf,
If I want crazy I can go to Kent Hovlind’s or Jack Chick’s website. But you seem to be insistent on bringing it here.
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Apparently for some reason hotair management has been treating you with kid gloves, or is the f-bomb and racist statements now things that are allowed and the norm here?
(The racist statements were from a different thread from today where you referred to the White House if Obama is elected as the “Black House”)
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Also, Osiris was not the Sun god, he was the god of fertilirty.
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM
And have you ever found any religious person who can credibly tell you what was before the Big God.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM
That’s my point. I rely on faith that God was and always will be, and some would say that is stupid. Yet, these same would say that the universe just exploded out of nothing, with no explanation of how and I should believe that. What’s the difference is what I am getting at. How is my belief that God created the Big Bang any different than another’s belief that the universe popped out of a sub atomic partical. I just people start throwing out the “you’re stupid” without thinking that maybe both people could be right.
mo_gunslinger on June 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM
A bit touchy, are we?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on June 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Olaf = the Justin Timberlake of crazy
Bringing it back
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Another worthwhile issue for a Republican hopeful to blow his political reputation on.
Republicans, once again, take their eye off the prize to suck a little evangelical tit.
/s
mylegsareswollen on June 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I’m sure Hot Air folks and myself appreciate that you don’t blame us for your head injury.
Indy Conservative on June 16, 2008 at 5:43 PM
I guess it’s just a weird coincidence that fossils of animals that exist today were found among the so called oldest fossils.
It must also be a strange coincidence that no transitional fossils have ever been found.
In order to prove evolution you would need thousands and thousands of transitional fossils FOR EACH AND EVERY SPECIES!
Doesn’t matter to you I guess. You will accept anything on faith that tells you that you don’t need to be accountable to God.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 5:43 PM
I dunno how many evangelicals you dated, but I have never had such luck.
(SORRY COULDNT RESIST)
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 5:44 PM
so predictable…so where is that quote from the prominent IDer again?
the wedge document ‘controvery’:
same old darwiniac propoganda…
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 5:47 PM
SquidShark,
It must be tough for you to be a “practicing jew” that does not believe in the Bible.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 5:47 PM
better than bending over for your hairygod darwin..
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Intelligent Design is not science. Teach it as religion or, promote it to philosophy if one is determined to waste class time on such an intellectually bankrupt concept.
The bible is a classic work of ancient literature (category : fiction) and may be in the same context that one would examine Cicero or Gaius Petronius Arbiter. It has zero scientific content.
I have some Hindu friends who would probably like to sic the goddess Kali on those that the unbelievers that insult their religion. Fortunately, my friends are more civil than one or two of the so-called Christians posting here.
Annar on June 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Olaf,
Yep I am tore up inside because I dont buy into your crazy.
Most Jews gave up the stupid you cling to years ago.
It is a creation legend, a metaphor of the fall.
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM
this is a statement of faith.
if you haven’t realized it evolution is all about philosphy. atheist philosphy
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM
evolution is not science
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Cor: replace may be in the same context by may be taught in the same context
Annar on June 16, 2008 at 5:51 PM
The Bible is a work of fiction…why have over 25,000 places been dug up exactly where the Bible says they were? (despite the many “scholars” that claimed those places did not exist)
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Annar,
Why does it not surprise me that you and your friends worship Kali ma(Satan)?
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 5:53 PM
I guess all those scientists teaching evolution as a science must be, in your opinion, retarded idiots. Please, good doctor, show us your credentials that would permit such a gratuitous affirmation.
Annar on June 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM
since the f-bomb is OK to use, I guess I could use it..
however, I have more class..
And no, my head injuries we all my fault..
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Clark1: Cheers to you, sir.
My expectation is that much like the synthesis between the openly hostile original Darwinism and Mendelian camps, there will in the not-too-distant future be a synthesis between Darwinism and ID. The two are mutually exclusive only insofar as Darwinism intransigently refuses to acknowledge the possibility of guided design within the development of life.
This intransigence, I believe, is destructive in two ways:
1) It occupies a rather sizable chunk of research resources in the largely useless activity of maintaining the hard-line Darwinian narrative. As LimeyGeek pointed out above, as a predictive model, Darwinism is largely useless. It is “an illuminating view upon a incomprehensibly vast framework of biological change over vast stretches of time.” Unfortunately, Darwinism as a research effort spends most of its time and money illuminating itself. As a bed time story for materialists, it can’t be beat, but as science, it’s mostly useless, except for the various fields (such as Mendelian genetics) that it has appropriated as its own.
2) It inhibits lines of research by constraining researchers to regard biological systems as essentially equal. If you find something that has the “illusion of design,” that is not relevant; you’re just staring at a face in the clouds. ID, to my understanding, places a special level of importance on irreducible complexity. ID, as a research tool, basically suggests to make a point to study these irreducibly complex (IC) systems. You will likely find they are a significant key to understanding that particular organism or biological process. Conversely, problems (design or implementation flaws, possibly due to UDWM + random mutation) within a particular IC system will likely hold the key to any errors in normal functionality in the organism or process that uses that IC system.
That is a predictive model. One that can bear fruit. I think that the future, and truth, is in ID’s corner.
spmat on June 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Indy, I don’t care who created you, or whence you came from, I’m just glad you’re here. The country needs more of you, especially now.
Entelechy on June 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 5:47 PM
The link you posted only hurts you. The “defense” of the wedge document basically admits that they want to redefine science and influence public opinion through their new science.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM
You are truly a random noise generator incapable of parsing simple English. Fortunately, your god does not exist or he would have excised you long ago as an embarrassment.
But keep on spouting your infantile drivel, it’s sometimes good for a laugh.
Annar on June 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I.D. is more philosophy, and a bad idea for secular gub’mint school classrooms.
A better idea is to simply teach the gaping flaws & outright fraud in the dogmatic world of darwinism. That’s anyone on the I.D. side of the coin really wants – teach people the truth about darwinism.
An interesting theory; great fantasy; but bad science!
locomotivebreath1901 on June 16, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Well I’m glad that I don’t have to hear you claim that you practice judaism any longer.
You are an atheist..come to grips with it.
If the account of Creation in the Bible is false..then there is no reason to accept anything else in it as fact.
Now you can feel free to spend your saturdays doing something more akin to your beliefs, like mowing the lawn,watching football or sacrificing humans to Baal.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 6:06 PM
In before 500 posts. Whew! Almost missed this thread.
AverageJoe on June 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I don’t know who and what you’re talking about but I thank you anyway, um, wait, “the country needs more of you,” of me? Are you crazy?
I am a jealous god, I don’t want anybody to worship another god but me.
Now I see some people rolling up their sleeves and getting ready to curse the hell out of me.
Maybe not, or maybe yes.
Since the talk here is about Intelligent Design, well, I don’t give a damn about teaching it or not.
This country needs to grow up.
Read my previous comment.
People are so stupid.
I can’t stand stupidity.
It makes me sick, physically, literally.
Indy Conservative on June 16, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Thank Baal for such hilarious threads!
Ars Moriendi on June 16, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Why not teach ID in schools, together with Creationism and Darwinism…as an elective?
In my high school, science, biology, and geometry were standard, but trig, calculus, chemistry, etc, were electives. Latin was not offered at all, but a bunch of the brainy students and their parents lobbied the school district, and Latin is offered there now.
I cannot imagine hogging this debate to ourselves and depriving our kids of the opportunity to see all sides, think through the issues, learn how to debate, etc. Who knows. Maybe one of them will turn out to deliver a breakthrough.
RushBaby on June 16, 2008 at 6:10 PM
What is the big problem?
They teach a bunch of complete non-sense in school now disguised as “World History” and “Government” and “Civics.”
Why is there not as much outrage against this as there is in teaching this alternate THEORY to a THEORY currently taught?
EJDolbow on June 16, 2008 at 6:11 PM
I would settle for this much. It is the truth, after all.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on June 16, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Unless Congress passes a law mandating ID, it does not violate the Establishment clause.
The local schoolboard can do what they like.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Keep hope alive!
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.” Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 735 (2005).
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Olaf, Right, or one of you evangelicals…
How old is the Earth?
DCGamer on June 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM
For one thing, Intelligent Design is not even a theory by the scientific definition.
Ars Moriendi on June 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Then they’re not actually Jews any more, are they?
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM
yeah they want to redefine science from atheism…which is what evolution has done.
all you darwiniacs can do is talk about conspiracies and try to sue, silence, and harass your opponents. you cannot debate the issues.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 6:19 PM
I am curious, right, how old do you IDers believe the Earth is?
DCGamer on June 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM
hate to tell you, but your own ruling disproves the whole ‘ID is not science’ theory.
tell me how can science refute faith? it cannot, it can only refute science.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 6:21 PM
There is no issue. There’s nothing to debate. ID is not science.
You may as well try to “debate” the “issue” of whether a butterfly is a pachyderm.
You’re wrong. Attest to the fact and move along.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 6:21 PM
not exactly sure, but I really doubt sagan’s billions and billions of years.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 6:22 PM
obviously there is, otherwise you wouldn’t be so desperate to silence your opponents. again, how can science refute ID, if ID is not a science???
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Allah, I don’t mean to wake you guys up, but exactly how many racist comments are allowed on this board from any given individual? This person calling himself “Indy Conservative” has slung more racist comments than anyone I’ve ever seen, yet he is still here.
I haven’t seen so much as a warning to him yet, I wonder why that is. This guy is no conservative, he is a racist troll put here to make conservatives look bad, why are you allowing this?
This guy is LONG over due to be banned, don’t cha think?
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM
After Kitzmiller vs. Dover it’s pretty silly to think ID is ever going to end up in public High School science classes. Looks like Republicans are going to use this the same way they use abortion and immigration; or the way Democrats are using the Iraq war. Get the base nice and riled up about an issue they won’t (or can’t) do anything about.
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 6:25 PM
I read all your comments. There’s no cure for what makes you sick, except retreat. But, please, don’t go away, punishing as it is. It would just get darker.
Entelechy on June 16, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Sure ’nuff, chief.
spmat on June 16, 2008 at 6:26 PM
A more profoundly ignorant statement has never been made.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 6:27 PM
its really scary the way this country bends over because a judge says something. They have usurped the power they have, and unless we take it back, we are doomed to be a judicial tyranny, as the ruling last week shows…
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 6:27 PM
ID must be science because it’s been refuted, and only science can be refuted. wtf?
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM
There’s no single answer to this question. Literalists, like SaintOlaf, believe that it is only is a few thousand years old. I refer to these people (rightly or wrongly) as Creationists.
The ID people are a bigger tent. Many believe that the earth is billions of years old.
CyberCipher on June 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Actually, evolution is extremely predictive. Give me any organism whose genome has not been sequenced, and I can predict:
1. How similar that genome will be to others of related organisms.
2. I can predict what their cellular structure is.
3. I can predict what types of proteins will be found encoded in their genome.
4. If I can run chromosome squashes before hand to test for evidence of recent polyploidy, I can make a good guess at the number of genes in the genome.
5. I can tell you the consensus sequences for the most common retrotransposons, and transposons.
6. I can tell you the sequences of their telomeric and centromeric repeats.
7. I can tell you much about their development regulation – what factors, and how they are expressed and act (how extensive I can do this depends on how close they are to a model organism).
I can only make these predictions on the basis of evolution.
As for the concept of irreducibly complex, that’s usually due to insufficient analysis. Richard Dawkins (who, I admit, is a giant a**hole), wrote a nice book on the evolution of the eye, which many had postulated was irreducibly complex. There’s a pretty nice progression from light sensing organs in flatworms all the way to complex eyes of mammals.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM
The earth is approx. 6,000 years old.
After 6,000 years of human history there will be a thousand years of rest(the millenial kingdom).
I know that you do not consider the Bible to be valid DC, but it doesn’t matter what you believe.
We are in the END TIMES! You as a memeber of the church of Laodicea will get to see this first hand very soon.
There is an astounding amount of geological evidence proving that the earth is young and that there was a flood that covered the entire earth.
Go ahead and believe in your mythical geologic column.
It is a fact that the geologic column does not actually exist. No one has ever dug anywhere near 100 + miles into the earth. It only exists in the mind of the evolutionist.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 6:31 PM
its really quite simple. darwiniacs say ID is nothing more than a faith. how can a faith be refuted by science? how can its claims be refuted, unless IDs claims are testable? and if ID is testable, then its science, because science is testable.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Indy got yer goat huh? I think he’s collecting a fine herd of goats. He’ll start milking your goat, next.
RushBaby on June 16, 2008 at 6:32 PM
I hadn’t seen any of his comments. Do you think I follow these threads, let alone ones that run 500 comments? Next time e-mail me as soon as you see one.
Allahpundit on June 16, 2008 at 6:33 PM
RushBaby on June 16, 2008 at 6:32 PM
I don’t have a goat.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM
You’re wrong. He has been warned. You’re preoccupied with self-righteousness, instead of the topic. Sorry to see that Maxx, especially that you wasted so much time collecting old caca, and hurling it altogether.
Entelechy on June 16, 2008 at 6:34 PM
I’m not interested in silencing anybody. In fact, I want you creationists to sling your BS as loudly as possible, so as to maximize your public humiliation. The best remedy for speech being more speech, and all that.
I just don’t want you to sling said BS in science classrooms, where it’s off-topic.
Gee, Einstein. How does science refute the faith-based thesis that the earth is only 5000 years old and was created from nothing and fully populated with plants and animals in a mere seven days?
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 6:34 PM
You and your
pet rockcollie obviously haven’t read much by Mark Twain.MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 6:34 PM
I know, Maxx. Indy has it now.
RushBaby on June 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 Next »