Video: Jindal supports teaching of intelligent design
posted at 1:37 pm on June 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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 ... 7 8 9 10 11 Next »
Not my problem. Dismantle the corrupt government school system. I don’t send my kids to these schools. Those that do are part of the problem.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I checked out your blog. You are first male cat-lady that I’ve ever seen.
Ars Moriendi on June 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Limey, I hate to say it, but you are just like a secularist liberal. Never answer the tough questions. Just omit what you aren’t comfortable with.
What about the recidivism point I made?
What about altruism? Do you think it happens if people only care about themselves? The book link I gave you proves (written by a secularist liberal) that Conservative Christians are more altruistic than any secularist cold heart. So to get to your Utopian vision, we better evolve with Jesus Christ in our soul.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
This is a whole ‘nuther conversation. Some would say it is justifiable by virtue of their lack of shoes. Me and my .45 say otherwise.
No power on Earth can prevent someone from forming their own morals in their head. The good news is that we seem to be quite good at settling on societal standards that get cemented into laws. Theft, murder, deceit etc.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Ummmmmm… thanks? ;) Not exactly sure HOW to take that, but I think I’ll take it as a compliment. I am definitely a cat guy; I like certain dogs, too, but I much prefer felines.
Thanks much for visiting my blog! Hope you liked what you saw there. I’ve got… half a dozen posts being finished up at the moment that I’ll be posting over the course of the next two-three weeks. :)
Jockolantern on June 17, 2008 at 11:46 AM
And you expect your anonymous amateur assessment to have precisely what kind of impact?
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Limey.. it’s almost a form of anarchy, your moral code you set for yourself..
if taken to the extreme..
everyone has their own definition of their own moral code. examples, me feeding my kids justifies stealing.. stealing from you justifies killing, thug onthe street wants your shoes justifies him mugging..
Man does have laws in place to help keep order.. but the current congress is a perfect example of how man can be corrupted..
so are you a man who’s morals are unfailable?
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 11:48 AM
You didn’t make a point, you pulled a stat out of your ass. Very impressive.
What about it? Decide for yourself.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I personally believe in Creation and think ID is PC bunk. I can’t prove it and don’t claim to want ‘Creation’ to be ‘taught’ in school. But ID does ‘complete the understanding’ of evolution. That’s the entire point of ID instead of Creation.
The problem is that these details aren’t taught. If they would teach the details that discredit the theory of evolution and allowed the young scientific minds to study critically and possibly find the answers that evolutionists need to complete their hypotheses, then that would be fine. But the problem is that evolutionists aren’t willing to display nor discuss the ‘details’, ‘observational challenges’, and ‘controversy’ in these classes where they ‘teach science’.
1+1=2. That’s science. It will always be that way, there is no nuance there, no controversy, no observational challenges. 1+1=2 is something that provides a base from which to predict things in the future. Evolution is nothing that 1+1=2 is even though it is taught that way.
Biology doesn’t say that all living material came from one organism. However biology does support the idea that all HUMANS came from one source ‘eve’. The issue of adapting is not controversial. The concept of evolving trans-species is something that has never been proven. Viruses evolve and build immunities to antibiotics, but they STAY VIRUSES.
ThackerAgency on June 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM
It is quintessentially anarchical. It cannot be any other way. What authority structure exists with control over my brain?
I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. I am an independent man that stands confident in his virtuous existence, if that answers your question…..?
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Convince the biologists you’re right, then you can teach it in high schools. That’s how it works.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 11:53 AM
“Wyatt, you are an oak.”
have to go.. kids to feed.. pantries to rob.. you know how it goes..
wish I had a chance to finish this..
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Limey..
favorite book of yours..
Atlas Shrugged?
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Anything by Terry Pratchett
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:56 AM
scientists are not some unobjective higher moral authority than the rest of us. They have their positions to defend, and they react very poorly when their views and cherished beliefs are questioned. Why should a biologist decide what ’science’ is all about? This is like having the judges make our decisions for us. we end up with a tyranny, not a democracy.
biologists who disagree with evolution or some aspect of it are censored, like sternberg. freedom of thought, as long as you think the way they tell you…nice.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I would never suggest that ’scientists’ are infallible, or incorruptible…..I would point to the ‘religious’ zealotry and almost luddite bigotry surrounding ‘global warming’.
But the failures of humans should not be taken as a failure of the scientific process.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Think of me as, ‘Bigger than medium Dave’ :)
love the death and night watch series.
Got to run seriously.
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I think we’ve finally established LimeyGeek as a Christian hating, ad hominem attacking, anarchist. At least you have a lot in common with Code Pink.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM
“If complete and utter chaos was lightning, he’d would be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting ‘All gods are bastards’ “
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I’ll raise you a Douglas Adams.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 17, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Really. Stunning work. Ad hominems? Like….
….and you really have a long way to go before you master the art.
Chin up.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Ah yes. Masterful stuff.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Meanwhile….back on the ranch…..didn’t we conclude that ID is a pseudo-scientific trojan horse for christianity deployed to deflect attention from their latent homosexuality?
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 12:17 PM
We don’t teach the controversy over string theory in High School physics. Or discuss the unsolved problems of quantum particle interactions. We teach the foundation of the subject, so that if a student is interested he/she will be prepared for a more rigorous treatment at University.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Anarcho-Fascist Christian-hating Nazi Illuminati Freemason Gold Standard loving Rincewind kissers use evolution as a way to push their agenda on an unsuspecting populace. Also, you’re just like code pink and possibly a homosexual who will be devoured by furious flames of frenzied ferocity.
I think that about sums up this discussion thus far.
;)
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM
We get PO’d, justifiably I think, when people who don’t understand the science or the methods involved try to tell us what we know and what we don’t know. So much of the ID “movement” depends on Johnnie Cochran defenses (’If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit’) to make its case, holding onto a single murky detail to try to derail a mountain of other evidence.
Big S on June 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM
yeah well we get PO’d by a bunch of arrogant scientific twits trying to ram their atheism down our throats by redefining ’science’ as atheism.
your ‘mountain’ of evidence is a molehill. you think micro adds up to macro, and you cannot observe it, duplicate it, or observe it in the fossil record.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 12:26 PM
See how predictable? I KNEW you would say that. But it’s not ad hominem when you’ve laid down the facts with all your inane comments.
Bottom line, it takes a bigger leap of faith to believe in nothing and chaos, than to believe in ID.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 12:28 PM
To this day, Stephen Jay Gould is reviled in certain biology circles for his views on punctuated equilibrium. Didn’t stop him from publishing research, writing books, and holding a tenured university position. Just about every biologist disagrees with some aspect of evolution. The difference between how they get treated and how intelligent design “theorists” get treated? They actually do research.
You can’t censor someone who has nothing to say.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Limey, for you, and those similarly inclined
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Thanks for the summation. How far we’ve yet to go.
Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 12:31 PM
laughable. so why did sternberg have to be silenced then? and gonzales denied tenure? oh and he did a great deal of research.
get a clue, Gould was an athiest, and he supported the atheistic worldview of evolution…ID is a threat to that worldview, that religion….thats why you get the reaction…and the mountain of lies by evolutionists.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM
On to 1000, because I think that’s all this post is about now.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Unlike modern birds it had teeth. It had spinal and pelvic attributes that were more like dinosaurs than modern birds.
dedalus on June 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM
right4life, +1000!
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 12:33 PM
ROFL :)
Awesome.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Gonzalez was denied tenure, in part, because his research output in his field (hint: he’s not a biologist) declined dramatically after his hiring. You guys crack me up. You’re like that Jon Lovitz character that can’t stop lying. Censorship! Yeah, that’s the ticket.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM
We only insist that the scientific process remain agnostic, and will not accept supernatural explanations for natural phenomena as within the reach of our fields. Plenty of scientists (including myself and my thesis advisor, for instance) are religious.
Two of the greatest pieces of evidence for what you call macroevolution are the existence of a mechanism for change in species (variation and selection) and the observed progresson of morphology over time in the fossil record. The timescales of evolution are likely too long for us to sit around and watch it happen, but short on a geological timescale. The “transitional forms” argument is a poor one, since it is unclear how sharp the transitions are in any given case. If you are expecting continuous change from one phenotype to the next over the course of evolution, you have a lot of reading to do (I suggest taking a look at Stephen Jay Gould’s work, and the debate it started).
Creationists and IDers have no mechanism other than
GodThe Designer did it, which is not a valid explanation for the purposes of the natural sciences.Big S on June 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Gould was addressing the speed of change not the mechanism. As RightOFLeft pointed out above Gould was a great popularizer of science for the non-scientific, but his work as a scientist has drawn criticism.
dedalus on June 17, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Maybe Satan is the ‘Intelligent Designer’, we are all Lucifer’s children, and God is a lying weasel trying to steal Satan’s thunder by planting falsified ‘biblical’ evidence and controlling the minds of the intellectually less-endowed?
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 12:46 PM
My 2 cents…
.
Laminin
.
Watch the whole thing. It’s very good. †
abinitioadinfinitum on June 17, 2008 at 12:47 PM
And Evolutionists have no mechanism other than, random chaos created it.
You go on believing random chaos, I’ll believe in an intelligent orderly designer. k?
Because believing in random chaos, is anarchy, and we really have NO PURPOSE.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Puntuated equilibrium is valid on the scale of individual genes and proteins, implying that it is important in the case of whole organisms and species. In this respect, Gould was correct. You will often hear Creationists argue that random mutations most often cause a loss of function, which is true. What tey miss is that a gene that has lost function may then embark on a “random walk” with relaxed selection criteria, and is likely to devaiate significantly from the sequence of the “functional” gene due to random variation over the generations. Once in a while, a new sequence that specifies a new function may be attained, and can cause large changes in the system quicky, since the small, incremental changes that occurred to get it to that point were “hidden” by the lost function. This process is a foundation of my field of science (biophysics and protein design).
Big S on June 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Does there have to be a purpose? Where is this axiom of reality defined?
Perhaps we are the purpose of reality itself. Perhaps our existence gives purpose to reality.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Really? Was Gonzalez somehow derelict in publishing 350% more peer-reviewed publications than his own department’s stated standard for research excellence? Or in co-authoring a college astronomy textbook with Cambridge University Press? Or in having his research recognized in Science, Nature, Scientific American, and other top science publications?
link
continue with your lies and propoganda…I know its all evolutionists have got
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM
You can look at natural selection and common descent and see them as the mechanism that God used to achieve his plan. It seems no more difficult to believe that than to believe in individual free will and know that between now and the end of the day some people will unpredictably change plans, make new acquaintences, die, or conceive children.
dedalus on June 17, 2008 at 12:54 PM
CyberCipher on June 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM
What was the designer’s purpose? To kill Dinosaurs?
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM
no one is trying to change the scientific method, rather to change the atheist assumption that underlies evolution.
can’t you evolve some new lines? this gets so tiresome and lame.
natural selection is a tautology, its meaningless…if its fit it survives…there is no oberserved progression of morphology in the fossil record…I’ve posted several references about this already, look them up.
this refers to the faith of the evolutionist…you cannot see evolution, you cannot reproduce evolution, but you have faith in time, that it happens.
ever hear of the biological big bang? another refernece I linked to…actually its not a poor argument, its a pretty good one. and like everything else you evolutionists have no answer for it.
ok, since you’re a ’scientist’ why does the tuatara have the fasted rate of DNA ‘evolution’ but it is a living dinosaur?
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I don’t know why I capitalized dinosaurs. I guess I just really like them.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM
evolutionists have no other explanation than ‘it evovled’
how, they have no clue…its just a statement of their atheist faith.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM
And what about Aesthetic Design? I mean….meat & two veg….really? Is that the best you can do? The ‘last chicken in the shop’ look?
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Thanks for the info. Your work sounds interesting.
dedalus on June 17, 2008 at 1:05 PM
ID is all about narcissism really. These fools can’t abide the thought that once upon a time they had hairy hooters, protruding jawlines, sloping foreheads and shat where they ate.
I think it rocks. In fact, I may start a restaurant chain called “Monkey-Ass Meat Munchers” where civilization is optional.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM
I can live with that.
Religion offers a comfort to those who want to believe that there is a purpose to everything, and there is some great wisdom controlling things that will cause everything to work out for the best in the long run. It also offers what is for many a convincing illusion of absolute truth.
Science does not and cannot offer any of that. Science seeks to find how things really are, and good scientists must be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Contrary to what many wish to believe, nature itself detemines what the facts are, not the personal desires of the scientists. Taking the scientific approach also means abandoning absolute certainty for the realization that all knowledge is provisional.
Whichever of these is most important to a person will determine the approach they choose.
I respect any person’s decision to choose religion over science. I just wish they would be honest about their reasons, which is simply that is what they want to believe.
backwoods conservative on June 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I do not believe that they (faith and science) are necessarily “mutually exclusive”. If an individual genuinely seeks and values the truth, he is free to acknowledge it wherever it is found, whether it is in the scientific journals, or whether it is a spiritual truth.
CyberCipher on June 17, 2008 at 1:17 PM
The problem with evolutionists is that they believe if the theory of evolution is disproven (which it is – there only needs to be one animal that couldn’t have evolved for it to be disproven), then Creation must be the answer (which they can’t prove or believe in).
Creationists I know recognize that they could be wrong – and they are fine with that. Evolutionists can’t fathom the concept that this theory that isn’t as old as this country could be flawed and completely wrong.
If species didn’t evolve, that does not mean that we were Created. The problem is scientists can’t imagine that there are things that they can’t explain. So to them, a flawed and impossible theory is better than a concept that can neither be proven nor disproven such as Creation.
Evolution is the establishment of the atheist religion in public school. I think that’s a great argument to be made by ‘religious fanatics’ that evolution is the domain of religious fanatics and should not be taught in public school.
If you believe in accurate science, these things should be taught. . . unless you think it is a good idea to teach the foundations of global warming in the absence of absolute data proving it.
ThackerAgency on June 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM
“…a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez’s case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise. …
Under normal circumstances, Mr. Gonzalez’s publication record would be stellar and would warrant his earning tenure at most universities, according to Mr. Hirsch [a scholar who analyzed the publication record]. But Mr. Gonzalez completed the best scholarship, as judged by his peers, while doing postdoctoral work at the University of Texas at Austin and at the University of Washington, where he received his Ph.D. His record has trailed off since then.
“It looks like it slowed down considerably,” said Mr. Hirsch…. “It’s not clear that he started new things, or anything on his own, in the period he was an assistant professor at Iowa State.”
This is a falsifiable claim, did he publish that stellar research at Iowa State or at UTA and UW? Iowa State only cares about the research he did for Iowa State.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 1:21 PM
I agree with most of what you said backwoods. And I said essentially the same thing. I wish evolutionists would just be honest in saying that’s just what they want to believe.
I’m especially glad you mentioned “good scientists”, because nearly ALL scientific research these days is follow the money. In fact, much of their results are predetermined, and they’ll do whatever bending and twisting of the data to reach that result.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Actually, it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that mathematics, or closely related logic, are sciences unto themselves. They’re certainly tools used by scientists, but they’re fundamentally stipulative formal systems. The extent to which they’re used by science they lack the “certainty” I think you mean to imply. Note, for instance, the collapse of bivalent logic at the quantum level, or the failure of Euclidean geometry when dealing with wines on the surface of a sphere.
This means that, while within the stipulated confines of the systems themselves the conclusions of math or logic might well be defined as “necessarily true” (though not “scientific,” which would imply empirical support), the applicability of those systems to the physical world remains contingent on empirical observations, just as with any scientific theory. So even statements like “1+1=2″ or “p v ~p” are “scientific” only when associated with empirical contingency, and, potentially, refutation.
Blacklake on June 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM
You’re too late. It’s called Hooters.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 17, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I’m not allowed to go there. The boss says so.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I like what you’ve said here. I too can handle that we might not have a purpose here. Well, a purpose other than to procreate (my body does not accept that my mind says three kids are enough procreation). In fact, because I have witnessed so much in my life that was purposeless (yes, from my vantage point), that is why I started questioning my childhood faith in the first place.
I think this might be the heart of the matter – the ID/creationist/theist side believes we have a purpose, and that any beliefs that do not support this are wrong/evil/whathaveyou… and then there are the secular evolution theorists/atheists/others that believe we’re here by chance, and that any beliefs other than that are fairy tales/not true/whathaveyou. Yes, there are those who believe in God and evolution (and atheists who might believe in ID by aliens or whatever), and I’m being very general here, but I do think that the real battle is between those who believe we have purpose and those who believe we don’t.
While I’m ranting, I’m really starting to dislike the notion that a nonbeliever (atheist/nontheist/agnostic) cannot be conservative or moral. I’ve already explained the conservative a few pages back. But just because I don’t believe in your God doesn’t mean I’m no better than a rabid wolf. An example from above was that if my kids were hungry, and my neighbor had food while I had none, I would be within my rights to steal. Um, no. If my kids are hungry (which they are, it’s snack time), I first go to my pantry. No food? To the store. No money? Get a job. Unless my neighbor stole food from me in the first place, I am never justified in stealing it. If I teach my children how to work and earn their own food without stealing, they will grow up to be adults that know how to provide for their own offspring. I don’t need God to tell me how to do that.
Also, as a nonbeliever living in a society with majority believers, I also know to respect others’ beliefs even if they are contrary to my own. If the laws of my country are based on the rules from a religion, but they are enforced by a secular authority, then I am bound to them by the rules of society. So, I’m not allowed to burgle my neighbor’s house, but I’m allowed to want the things in it. At least I think we don’t have laws against thoughts (yet).
Okay, rant off. It’s a bad day here, with the smoke and all from the wildfires/child sacrifices to Baal in NC.
Anna on June 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I don’t think it’s a reasonable educational goal to teach high school students advanced scientific topics before they’ve learned the fundamentals.
People keep bringing up global warming. I think global warming skeptics would be horrified to find out they’re being lumped in with the ID conspiracy theorists. Global warming skeptics at least offer scientifically testable alternatives (solar activity, natural variability, etc…) and do actual research. ID explicitly rejects the cornerstone of modern science – methodological naturalism. Let me know when Richard Lindzen starts saying that God is making it hotter.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 1:30 PM
That’s not true. While it is necessary for scientists to “follow the [grant] money”, if there were rampant falsification of data, you’d have a lot more successful scientists around. Perhaps contrary to what you think, the majority of projects fail to reach their goals, and the peer review process is a brutal one. I’m actually going through it right now with repect to one of my publications, and the anonymous reviewers are particularly picky this time. Scientists compete with one another, and must protect the integrity of published data. Otherwise, we run the risk of beleiving something that is not supported by others’ experiments, and wasting valuable time and money on it.
Big S on June 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Some commenters seemed to operate under the assumption that the only publications that should be counted are the ones published by the tenure applicant since joining ISU. But this is not what tenure guidelines for the Department of Physics and Astronomy state: “For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals.” There is no indication that the publications must be since joining ISU, and the text seems to assume that all publications in the scientist’s career are to be counted.
link
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM
That’s fair. Sorry, I was wrong. I had in mind the scientific research being done to prove Global Warmongering.
But we do agree that scientists that want to make a living at their career choice, have to follow the grant money. So they might not even be allowed to perform science on what they are really interested in.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Generally, the papers published as a result of one’s doctoral and postdoctoral research do not count as that person’s own independent research, and are instead considered part of the principal investigator’s research. When a scientist get a tenure-track faculty position at a university, it is expected that they start their own research, related to but not identical to their past work. The hiring process involves one or more (usually three) independent research proposals that are evaluated by the department’s faculty during the hiring process, and if little progress is made on those projects after a few years, tenure is usually not granted.
Big S on June 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Thanks for the link to biology-direct.com. It looks like it makes the peer-review process open and easy. The article seems to address the question of whether the TOL has been filled out as orderly and gradually as Darwin’s sketches suggest. The fact that scientists argue over this and use sceintific tools to support their theories seems positive.
The article doesn’t seem to make the case that because you had periodic explosions followed by long periods of equilibrium that supernatural design was required.
dedalus on June 17, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Just tell her she’s being irrational. I find that usually goes over well.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 17, 2008 at 1:44 PM
You can’t handle the truth!
- Nathan Jessep
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM
It is worth pointing out that in early 2004 Gonzalez’s department nominated him for an “Early Achievement in Research” award for an outstanding record in research. So what changed between 2004 and 2006 when Gonzalez submitted his tenure application? Well, 2004 was the year The Privileged Planet was published. Dr. Gonzalez continued to publish peer-reviewed journal articles, and even co-authored the Cambridge University Press textbook in 2006, but his department seems to have soured on him just as the controversy over intelligent design heated up on the ISU campus and around the nation. Coincidence… or design?
link
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Sounds like a plan….hang on, I’ll give it a try…..Hey honey, stop being so irrational and let’s go to Hooters!…..what…no, I didn’t mean that….you’re taking me out of context….put that down….wait…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM
no it doesn’t say anything about supernatural design. thats not the point of the article. the point was to debunk the notion that evolution is supported in the fossil record.
its not.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Mitt’s got style and he’s got grace, he’s a winner.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 1:51 PM
First of all, not all peer-reviewed journals are considered equal, based on the past citation records for the journals (quantified as “impact factors”). Second, it is unusual for someone to author a college-level (non-specialist) textbook so early in one’s career. That’s usually reserved for older and/or semi-retired scientists whose research programs have run their course. In fact, it is likely that taking the time to author yet another undergrad astronomy textbook was viewed as a negative by the faculty who voted on this scientist’s tenure.
Big S on June 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM
He’s light in the loafers alright
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM
You’re missing the point. His diminished research output after he went to ISU (which you’re apparently conceding. good.) wasn’t the only factor. The guidelines are more comprehensive than, “publish 15 papers and get tenure.” It’s necessary but not sufficient. Reread your own link.
“For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals.”
not
“For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is sufficient and would automatically be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals”
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM
come on, we all know the reason he was denied tenure was becasue he endorsed ID.
his peers admit this, from the same article:
According to a story to be published in the May 26 edition of World Magazine (already available online here), two faculty members of the department that denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzales at Iowa State University have admitted that his work on ID played a role in the denial. While Prof. Eli Rosenberg, Chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, insisted to the magazine that intelligent design “was not an overriding factor” (emphasis added), he then conceded according to the magazine that Gonzalez’s pro-ID book The Privileged Planet “played into the decision-making process. He also explained that the reputation of a professor among others in his field is a significant factor.” Of course, if “reputation” is used as a code word for whether one’s views are popular among fellow scientists, then this is another way anti-ID bias entered into the decision.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 1:55 PM
when those research papers diminished he was writing a textbook. but we all know the real reason, and this dancing around is amusing, but as shown above, his peers admit the reason is his support of ID
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Common Descent is supported by the number of transitional and intermediate fossils that have been found after Darwin published. They don’t prove Common Descent but the are consistent with a theory that animals evolved from other animals, with more complex animals appearing later.
dedalus on June 17, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Shows lack of planning and leadership. Someone like that would never have been promoted in the Army.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 1:57 PM
So he wrote two books, as a junior faculty member, that did not function to advance his own field scientifically? That’s a huge waste of time for someone looking to get tenure.
Big S on June 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM
one or two? transitional fossils are very rare, and subject to debate even in the evolutionary community.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 2:03 PM
As a Creationist, I think ID is PC crap. We were either Created or not. ID is ‘well we were Created but then we were helped along naturally’. . . we were still Created.
I am not arguing for the teaching of ID or Creation. I am arguing that you shouldn’t be teaching that evolution is fact because it isn’t. I don’t think there is a need to discuss the origin of the species to learn different things.
Science (physical science) is supposed to prove things that are verifiable and repeatable. The origin of the species had no witness, is not repeatable, and is not verifiable. To me it does not qualify as science. You can predict where the planets will be based on provable, observable, verifiable science. Evolution is not good for anything useful in predicting natural occurrences in the future. Neither should be taught. We have people graduate public schools who can’t read. There are plenty of other things that should be taught instead of the atheist manifesto (evolution).
ThackerAgency on June 17, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I’m not hiding. If anything is hiding it’s your God. Come out, come out where ever you are.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Oh, $%^& it, you’re not responding to anything anyone says anyway. Yeah, he got canned because he was wasting his time writing books about crackpot pseudoscience instead of getting research grants for the university. He deserved it. ID defines itself as a revolt against one of the fundamental tenets of science. It’s not just an insurgency against evolution, it explicitly rejects the modern methodology of all science. You want a revolution? You better expect a few heads will roll first. So quit whining about how science isn’t stabbing itself in the heart so we can go back to the glory days of astrology and alchemy.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Exactly.
Big S on June 17, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Goldwater was a God and he wasn’t invisible either nor did he hide. In fact maybe I will start The Church of Goldwater. Probably get me some nice tax breaks to.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Department of redundancy department.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on June 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Does anyone ever really have an original thought? You certainly don’t seem to ever have one that’s for sure. Bible thumping is certainly not original.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Would you count Ambulocetus?
dedalus on June 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM
like you are?
which is atheism.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 2:19 PM
not really
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 2:29 PM
They weren’t “sayings” and they had a point which from your two “sayings” clearly appears to have gone over your head. So sad…
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I told you just yesterday that you
pet rockcollie has clearly fallen ill and if you are not too cheap you should take him/her to a vet.MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 2:36 PM
I have mixed feelings about how we approach science education. Most kids would probably get more benefit from an automotive class, or remedial English. But if we want to keep producing first-rate technology, we have to keep producing first-rate scientists. Biology is a messy science; it prepares students to answer the messy questions that remain in science.
FWIW, I don’t think you’re giving evolution enough credit. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, no matter how much Dawkins says otherwise.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Perhaps you are not aware that you come across like some old spinster school marm. Also your “My collie says” routine is geting rather old to say the least.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 2:47 PM
After this thread, “rude, inconsiderate, and boorish” have even lost their capacity to be indignant.
Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Awww….c’mon….stop pouting in the corner IDers…..we’re so close to the magic 1000!
Has any HA thread ever cracked that ceiling?
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 Next »