Hot Air » Blog Archive » Jindal signs intelligent design bill

Jindal signs intelligent design bill

posted at 3:30 pm on June 27, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Depressing yet predictable. On to litigation!

Gov. Bobby Jindal attracted national attention and strongly worded advice about how he should deal with the Louisiana Science Education Act.

Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming…

In signing the bill, Jindal issued a brief statement that read in part: “I will continue to consistently support the ability of school boards and BESE to make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children.”…

“It’s good politics if you are a conservative Republican politician,” said Pearson Cross, a political scientist at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. “That being said, not every place is Louisiana. . . . Certainly this is not going to do anything to endear Bobby Jindal to a majority of voters in places like California and Massachusetts and New York.”

Indeed, although it ain’t California or Massachusetts or New York that’s going to decide this election or any other anytime soon, and Jindal knows it. Here’s the celebratory statement from the pro-ID Discovery Institute, and here’s one from Americans United for Separation of Church and State promising that they’ll be watching. Closely. Exit question: How much of his decision to sign was motivated by wanting to turn down the heat on the pay raise uproar?

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: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 »

This one is unique in that the explosion is created by two chemicals that by themselves would be deadly to the beetle. The mechanism required to mix them together would have had to have been ‘evolved’ before ‘evolving’ the glands to produce the chemical that would be deadly to the beetle by themselves. Natural selection can NOT explain the bombardier beetle. There would be no evolutionary step to get to where the beetle is now that would have been a process of natural selection, or make sense to the ’survival of the fittest’ nature of evolution.

Again, this is one example. There are many.

ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Not true. You can have a benign mutation that’s a part of the “final” mechanism develop in a dominant gene. Since the gene is dominant it will likely spread to the entire population (unless the original source manages to get itself killed before it can reproduce) and since it is benign it won’t contribute to the beetles who carry it getting killed before they can spread it around.

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM

Avalanche of Trolls!

ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM

The New York Times despises and condemns Jindals’ take on Intelligent Design, yet, interestingly, they are very Pro on Interior Design.

there it is on June 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM

Avalanche of Trolls!

ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM

now that you’re here.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:30 PM

lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Any way I assume it might have happened is a leap of faith. Your faith is that it must have evolved because that is what you believe. You have no proof.

This issue has been debated ad nauseum. Yes this stupid little beetle has had studies and books written dedicated to it because it BY ITSELF disproves evolution. Why haven’t you heard about it? Because they don’t teach it in classes about evolution. They should.

ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 4:30 PM

It’s far more likely that a simple defense was developed. Creatures adapted to it. The creatures eventually evolved an improvement. Etc etc etc over millions of years.

more faith.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Would one of our eveolutionist friends please explain how sexual reproduction occured simultaneously and beneficially across species lines. Surely you have a theory.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:27 PM

uh it evolved

so there!!!!

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Of course. We have religious schools and, of course, creation is taught in Sunday schools everywhere. Should we not, then, seek to provide a balanced survey of the different theories in those settings as well?

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Don’t be dense. There’s a difference between public schools which are paid with creationst tax dollars and private institutions. What you’re telling me is that it’s ok to teach people’s kids a theory that contradicts their religious beliefs in some cases (Christain Fundamentalists being taught evolution) but it’s not ok to do it in other cases (naturalist evolutionist kids being taught ID).

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM

uh it evolved

so there!!!!

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Brilliant! Evolution proves evolution! A+ in govt school science class, but F in Philosophy 102.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:34 PM

If the creationists really believe science has so little credibility, why are they trying so hard to get on equal footing with it?

backwoods conservative on June 27, 2008 at 4:23 PM

Which creationists believe “science” has so little credibility? Or have you proclaimed yourself the god of science and take all defiance of you as defiance of science itself?

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 4:34 PM

What you’re telling me is that it’s ok to teach people’s kids a theory that contradicts their religious beliefs in some cases (Christain Fundamentalists being taught evolution) but it’s not ok to do it in other cases (naturalist evolutionist kids being taught ID).

No, what I’m telling you is that you would properly make the distinction and agree that evolution or any other science does not integrate well into a Sunday school class and shouldn’t be forced into it. They are not competing, objective theories. One is religious. The other is scientific.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Remember when creationists were Democrats?

phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Brilliant! Evolution proves evolution! A+ in govt school science class, but F in Philosophy 102.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:34 PM

and if any of you complain, we’ll sue you, or silence you one way or the other…

capiche?? ;-)

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word “macroevolution.” They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:27 PM

Would one of our eveolutionist friends please explain how sexual reproduction occured simultaneously and beneficially across species lines. Surely you have a theory.

What makes you think that everything must have a theory at all times. What’s wrong with saying, simply, “We don’t know how that works yet”?

Really, this whole ID thing is about a lot of insecure religious folks who are insecure about their own faith–or perhaps insecure about their ability to understand complicated matters beyond faith–who feel that pushing this stuff into the classroom will somehow give them a sense of confidence or belonging (whether in their faith or a society that studies complicated ideas).

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:39 PM

# Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.

# There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct “kinds.” This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.

ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 4:40 PM

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:39 PM

In fact, it’s ridiculous on the face of it to even speculate how sexual reproduction evolved.

Mutations destroy genetic material/information. No increase in genetic potential resulting from random mutations has ever been observed. Explain how asexually reproduced species evolved into sexes and sexual reproduction and you will win the Nobel Prize for Science.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:41 PM

No, what I’m telling you is that you would properly make the distinction and agree that evolution or any other science does not integrate well into a Sunday school class and shouldn’t be forced into it. They are not competing, objective theories. One is religious. The other is scientific.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:36 PM

First, scientific and religious are not mutually exclusive.
Second, your analogy fails because ID is not a religious theory, it’s a scientific theory which may or may not have a religious component depending on what type of ID we are talking about. Some ID theories (like mine) don’t even conflict with evolution (though they all conflict, of course, with naturalist evolution, which is what is really bugging the atheists).

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM

Buh Bye, gotta go.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM

ID is unsuitable for public schools since it was not designed and put in place by Marxists, Marx sympathizers and anarchists. I thought education had been turned over to them.

snaggletoothie on June 27, 2008 at 4:43 PM

concept of species is just a human construct. if you believe in microevolution within a species then you have to accept macroevolution as well. enough changes within a species will make it a new species eventually. given enough time. don’t you agree?

lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 4:21 PM

No, I don’t agree. And neither do many good and notable scientists. But I will accept it as your theory. When you’ve proven it let us all know.

Same bull. Different day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 4:18 PM

No kidding. I’ve seen the proposed lists, but at least point to something better than Wikipedia.

A 1979 quote from Patterson (British Museum of Natural History, author of Evolution):

‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …’

pecan pie on June 27, 2008 at 4:47 PM

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 4:37 PM

talkorigins…laughable atheist wacko site.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:50 PM

why don’t you try some real science ronsfi??? hmmmm??

The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components.

link

not that you’ll be able to comprehend it….

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Explain how asexually reproduced species evolved into sexes and sexual reproduction and you will win the Nobel Prize for Science.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:41 PM

yeah and explain how they both ‘conveniently’ arrived about the same time…..

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:52 PM

This issue has been debated ad nauseum. Yes this stupid little beetle has had studies and books written dedicated to it because it BY ITSELF disproves evolution. Why haven’t you heard about it? Because they don’t teach it in classes about evolution. They should.

ThackerAgency

Not to burst your smug bubble, but the ridiculous bombardier beetle claims were dismantled years ago, as were most of Duane Gish’s claims. Why don’t people talk about it anymore? Because like all other creationist claims, it’s a lie, :)

A 2 second search on Talk Origins, brings up these 2 treatments immediately:

Bombardier beetle evolution

Bombardier beetle FAQ

chupa on June 27, 2008 at 4:53 PM

I really don’t care what they teach in school with respect to the origins of the universe, mankind, etc. because my kids are going to make their own choices about what they believe regardless of what they hear in school.

It is , however, very interesting to see atheists, et al. get into a lather every time they are presented with an idea at variance with their own. Usually we see these threads littered with comments by muyoso (and others) decrying the fascism of the religious right for forcing its imaginary friends on the rest of the unsuspecting children who would never have heard of Creationism were it not for those stuffy religious people.

As the atheistic sky begins to fall their comments are invariably interspersed with assertions about the founders. We are often treated to the indisputable “facts” that the founders were somehow completely divorced from any type of religion and were more humanist (read atheist) in their approach and would have found the idea of Christianity somehow repugnant.

Maybe we should just copy and paste the comments from the previous post and save everyone the heartache.

SWAK

Mormon Doc on June 27, 2008 at 4:53 PM

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:23 PM

You are referencing a dictionary for the word theory and getting a definition from the common usage, rather than the formal use of theory by scientists.

A scientific theory should be able to make predictions, be useful, be falsifiable, empirically testable, parsimonious, be correctable and dynamic.

dedalus on June 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM

First, scientific and religious are not mutually exclusive. Second, your analogy fails because ID is not a religious theory, it’s a scientific theory…

Science can exist within a set of religious beliefs, but there is NO place for religion within a set of scientific beliefs. Religion is based on faith.

Second of all, there is no way that ID can reasonably be described as “science” or a “theory”. Simply saying “We don’t understand how something happened, therefore it was ~~God~~ an intelligent force of nature…” is not, by any credible standard, science.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Thought I’d throw this out there.

I know it’s early and all, but…

Jindal/Palin or Palin/Jindal 2012?

catmman on June 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM

So, exactly what are God’s religious beliefs?
What humans think or believe is of practically zero validity.

Beto Ochoa on June 27, 2008 at 5:00 PM

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:57 PM…no way that ID can reasonably be described as “science” or a “theory”.

There’s the problem.

ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 5:00 PM

It is , however, very interesting to see atheists, et al. get into a lather every time they are presented with an idea at variance with their own.

It has nothing to do with “athiests”. I think the vast majority of Christians would agree that teaching ID in schools is a really, really indefensibly stupid idea.

The whole paranoid idea that the world is out to get you, that it’s “us against them”, is symptomatic of those insecurities I mentioned earlier, and it’s a huge problem. Evolution is not incompatible with most peoples’ creationist beliefs, and trying to force explicitly religious material into a science classroom only ensures that kids get less education and come out stupider than they already do.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:02 PM

ID hasn’t had a single paper or article submitted for peer review. What are the believers afraid of?

lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 5:03 PM

So much for wonder boy

Kini on June 27, 2008 at 4:23 PM

I’ve been telling y’all… he was great, incredible, fabulous, when he was in the House. Never put a foot wrong. In fact, I’d gladly have him back in the House or the Senate right now.

Laura on June 27, 2008 at 5:04 PM

chupa on June 27, 2008 at 4:53 PM

It’s pointless dude. Any site that provides countering evidence is labeled a “Smear Site”. You can’t reason with brainwashed pod people who think you are De Debil!

ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 5:04 PM

DaveS

I don’t think you can make that assumption without anything to back it up. Do you have anything to support what you are saying about what Christians would agree with?

Why would Christians be opposed to the Christian creation story being told? How would it hurt anyone? As long as it is presented as another origin of the world that a large segment of the population believes. It seems like it could be covered in about ten minutes.

Mormon Doc on June 27, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Mormon Doc on June 27, 2008 at 5:06 PM

There are lots of creation stories from every culture and faith. Explore them all.

Beto Ochoa on June 27, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Richard Romano on June 27, 2008 at 3:47 PM:

Typical evolutionist talking point — how is evolution science when you have proponents of evolution stating that they don’t know how life began, but then point to a fossil record for transitions that don’t exist, but still then say that evolution is true? This is laughable circuitous reasoning that has no basis to be circuitous in the first place.

Evolution is science because they have a theory which is supported by mountains of observations. The theory is testable — indeed it has been tested numerous times and found successful — has predictive ability and can be verified independently.

The fact that no one can explain abiogenesis at this time is irrelevant to the argument.

Competing ideas such as creationism and ID Creationism have none of this and are made up of whole cloth, thus they are not science and are completely useless to explain anything.

Robert Prather on June 27, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Science can exist within a set of religious beliefs, but there is NO place for religion within a set of scientific beliefs. Religion is based on faith.

Do you even know what faith is? I suspect you don’t, because if you did you wouldn’t have made such an obviously self-contradictory comment.

Second of all, there is no way that ID can reasonably be described as “science” or a “theory”. Simply saying “We don’t understand how something happened, therefore it was God an intelligent force of nature…” is not, by any credible standard, science.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:57 PM

That’s not what ID is and I now understand you’re just a troll who isn’t actually interested in a serious discussion. Goodbye.

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Mormon Doc on June 27, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Why would Christians be opposed to the Christian creation story being told?

Generally speaking, they wouldn’t, and, in fact, they DO tell that story in their places of worship. But if there was an implied “in science classes” at the end of your question, I would hope the answer would be pretty obvious. In case it isn’t the answer is pretty simple: Because most of them are not stupid enough to delude themselves into actually thinking that ID is even arguably science.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:11 PM

Beto Ochoa

Why not. Sounds OK to me. I think they are very interesting.

Mormon Doc on June 27, 2008 at 5:11 PM

ID hasn’t had a single paper or article submitted for peer review. What are the believers afraid of?

lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 5:03 PM

Which gets to the reason for the whole ID movement. Science has a process for the introduction and evaluation of new evidence. If the evidence for ID were really so strong, the IDers would use that process, get their ideas properly established, and have a legitimate place in the classroom. The IDers know the evidence won’t stand up under scientific scrutiny, so they try to do get around normal procedures by going through politics and the court of public opinion.

backwoods conservative on June 27, 2008 at 5:11 PM

ACADEMIC FREEDOM!

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:10 PM

That’s not what ID is…

That is exactly what ID is. It is absolutely a argument that we can’t understand how something came to be, so it must have been “designed”. You can read through this very comment thread for many examples of ID advocates making that very “argument” (actually, its a fallacy, but let’s not get too technical). The less crude ID advocates call this fallacious argument “positive evidence of design”.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:17 PM

If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in. When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of fellows like Bobby Jindal [updated] and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?

The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.

Ever good Christian should line up and kick Bobby Jindal [updated] right in the a$$.
- Barry Goldwater

MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

You are WRONG again about Peer Reviewed studies.

It’s usually the people evolved from monkeys that are scared to review them.

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

ID is summed up in 2 logical fallacies:

Negative Proof:
“X is true because there is no proof that X is false.”

Argument from incredulity:
“I can’t believe this is possible, so it can’t be true.”

And with a little argument from ignorance thrown in:
Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.

lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

DaveS

I implied nothing. If you inferred it then that is your business. Alas, that is beside the point.

The point is that evolution gets to a point where it can’t explain certain aspects of nature (nor can creationists for that matter). Evolutionists should simply acknowledge that and say “We don’t know.” If they would just do that instead of insisting that they have “mountains of compelling information” or “a general consensus” or “stuff that sounds cool” then I think it would make the argument more palatable to me.

One thing that grinds my gears is the unbelievable arrogance that oozes (no pun intended) from the evolutionary argument. They don’t have it all sewn up and they can’t answer the big question “Where did life come from?” If they would acknowledge that fact then I wouldn’t be bothered at all by the theory of evolution as an elegant (if not altogether creative) way of explaining the origin and differentiation of species.

So long as the argument is presented as “The leading theory that many ascribe to” or “The general guideline that we assume once life was formed” then it would be easier for me to swallow. They don’t do that either out of fear or stubbornness. They insist that evolution explains it all but it doesn’t and therein lies the rub for me.

Mormon Doc on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

How’s it any crazier than teaching about global warming?

misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

In fact, it’s ridiculous on the face of it to even speculate how sexual reproduction evolved.

Mutations destroy genetic material/information. No increase in genetic potential resulting from random mutations has ever been observed. Explain how asexually reproduced species evolved into sexes and sexual reproduction and you will win the Nobel Prize for Science.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Mutations do not destroy genetic material, they change it or add to it. Sometimes this results in a new protein, or a change in the way an existing gene is expressed.

There is no such thing as genetic information, there are only the laws of chemistry and physics. Mutations do not change the laws of chemistry or physics.

There are about 5 million species on earth, and many more have existed in the 3.5 billion year history of life on earth; each one a unique expression of genetic material. Each species itself represents a subset of millions of permutations of genetic codes. There are likely millions more species nature hasn’t yet found, and still millions more she never will. The DNA molecule is not as fragile as you think.

I’m sure you could find various theories on the evolution of sexual reproduction if you wanted. The appropriate answer is that we don’t know exactly how it happened. We don’t know exactly how the universe creates gravity, either, but you don’t see anyone demanding to teach intelligent falling.

RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 5:22 PM

That is exactly what IDEvolution is. It is absolutely a argument that we can’t understand how something came to be, so it must have ~~been “designed~~” evolved from nothing.

fixed it.

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:22 PM

So, exactly what are God’s religious beliefs?
What humans think or believe is of practically zero validity.

Beto Ochoa on June 27, 2008 at 5:00 PM

+1 That’s what it boils down to. Leave God out of it. Don’t blame God.

Since Darwinianism is metaphysical, Darwinians’ own limitations bind their legitimacy. As intelligence directs what we perceive as form, there is no conflict in studying intelligence within matter during science coursework since nothing within this earth’s “nature” is truly isolated as infinity goes in all directions simultaneously.

I will reiterate. Creationism is not the same thing at all as Intelligent Design. Jindal via Discovery Institute’s celebratory letter had better personally supervise the ID materials’ standard selections from which school boards then contemplate their choice. It would be a fiasco to put this experiment into the care of those who already burden the public education system with the limitations of ignorance, i.e. public educators with minimal higher education beyond their classroom who suffer strong personal agendas. $.02

maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 5:22 PM

the truth is, ID isn’t a religion, but evolution is.

right4life on June 27, 2008 at 3:41 PM

If right4life had a world of his own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?

Sigy on June 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM

ID is summed up in 2 logical fallacies:

Negative Proof:
“X is true because there is no proof that X is false.”

Argument from incredulity:
“I can’t believe this is possible, so it can’t be true.”

And with a little argument from ignorance thrown in:
Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.

lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Awesome, thank you.

RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM

How’s it any crazier than teaching about global warming?

misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Not crazier, Academic Freedom! I don’t care if it’s an elective, or not, the FACT that you can’t teach something is nothing more than CENSORSHIP. I was forced to take a course on Mythology. It wasn’t elective, I didn’t complain. I studied it, there were some good lessons there, maybe ID will lead us to understand the unknown better, but that wouldn’t be good for the Evolutionists somehow? I don’t get it.

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:26 PM

This guy is the real deal. You go Bobby

thmcbb on June 27, 2008 at 5:27 PM

ID is a transcendental philosophy and any observations supporting it are subjective.
The exact same statements can be applied to evoloutionism.
What an individual has to accept is their own limited knowledge.
Between the two are overlaps of possibilities that cannot be discounted. That means ID is just as valid as, if not a part of, evoloutionism on a scale that is greater than the little planet we inhabit.

Beto Ochoa on June 27, 2008 at 5:27 PM

That is exactly what ID is. It is absolutely a argument that we can’t understand how something came to be, so it must have been “designed”. You can read through this very comment thread for many examples of ID advocates making that very “argument” (actually, its a fallacy, but let’s not get too technical). The less crude ID advocates call this fallacious argument “positive evidence of design”.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:17 PM

Error’s yours. You assume that because someone’s attacking your theory of evolution, they’re trying to offer an argument for ID. That may be the case in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them that I’ve seen, it isn’t.

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:28 PM

If we need a bill on intelligent design, then how about designing some intelligence in our elected officials.

I’d support that.

Kini on June 27, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Evolutionists against ID: Secular Humanism must be protected! We’re SCARED of that big mean God man!

I wasn’t scared of evolution, even as it was shoved down my throat. I’ve studied it even more since disbelieving it, and it’s a bigger farce at every turn. EVERY missing link turns out to be a HOAX.

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:29 PM

If [Sigy]~~right4life~~ had a world of his own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?

Sigy on June 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Speak for yourself.

maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Sigy on June 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM

I did a Facebook search by Religion. 14 people list “ID” as their religion. 2 list “Intelligent Design” as their religion.

In contrast, 191 list “Evolution” as their religion.

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:31 PM

I don’t like this decision. Creationism is just a belief. There’s zero evidence to support it. You might as well teach our children about Dragons and Unicorns and The Easter Bunny.

SoulGlo on June 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM

If they would just do that instead of insisting… They don’t have it all sewn up and they can’t answer… They don’t do that either… They insist that evolution explains it all…

Strawmen much?

For what it’s worth, I’ve never heard anyone claim that the body of science supporting evolution had “all the answers”, but I’ve heard tons of people who don’t like evolution claiming that it should.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM

IDEvolution is summed up in 2 logical fallacies:

Negative Proof:
“X is ~~true~~false because there is no proof that X is ~~false~~true.”

Argument from incredulity:
“I can’t believe this is possible, so it can’t be true.”

And with a little argument from ignorance thrown in:
Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.

lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Exactly the same.

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:31 PM

In contrast, 191 list “Evolution” as their religion.

Probably to get your goat.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:34 PM

In contrast, 191 list “Evolution” as their religion.

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Which says a lot about those 191 people and nothing about evolution.

backwoods conservative on June 27, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Beto Ochoa on June 27, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Very well said.

We are all so full of ourselves.

kirkill makes the point that a GOOD education is not lopsided and does not intentionally censor THOUGHT.

Those who argue via science that thought possesses NO power are either ignorant or deceitful. Enjoy looking into modern neuroscientific research and findings.

maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 5:37 PM

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Exactly the same.

The difference, of course, is that evolution is not intrinsically contrary to creationism, and those who understand science do not offer fallacies as arguments, and therefore the “negative proof” is a strawman. It is employed regularly by ID advocates, however.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:37 PM

backwoods conservative on June 27, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Which says a lot about those 191 people and nothing about evolution.

You have to bear in mind that these people–Darth Executor, et al–find fallacious logic to be perfectly acceptable.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:38 PM

kirkill makes the point that a GOOD education is not lopsided and does not intentionally censor THOUGHT.

Those who argue via science that thought possesses NO power are either ignorant or deceitful. Enjoy looking into modern neuroscientific research and findings.

maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Which is why we should allow truther history. Why not tell both sides of the story. Fire Doesn’t Melt Steel. That’s just what they want you to believe.

phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM

ID is a transcendental philosophy and any observations supporting it are subjective.
The exact same statements can be applied to evoloutionism.
What an individual has to accept is their own limited knowledge.
Between the two are overlaps of possibilities that cannot be discounted. That means ID is just as valid as, if not a part of, evoloutionism on a scale that is greater than the little planet we inhabit.

Beto Ochoa on June 27, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Well said! This is the argument. Teach Both possibilities. By all means let unsettled science have FREEDOM. Those firmly against ID are against teaching logic and critical thinking and open mindedness. They are the flat earthers.

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM

I think this may be the first article in which I have been indirectly referenced a la “conservative Protestants in northern Louisiana, a key part of Jindal´s constituency”…

apostle26 on June 27, 2008 at 5:40 PM

… still waiting for Negroes to become extinct …

corona on June 27, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Which says a lot about those 191 people and nothing about evolution.

backwoods conservative on June 27, 2008 at 5:36 PM

No, but it says a lot about how evolution is used as a weapon by atheists in another lame attempt to crush religion. Even though I believe in evolution I hate calling myself an evolutionist because of the ideological tainting of the word.

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Well said! This is the argument. Teach Both possibilities. By all means let unsettled science have FREEDOM. Those firmly against ID are against teaching logic and critical thinking and open mindedness. They are the flat earthers.

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM

All science is unsettled.

phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Evolutionists against ID: Secular Humanism must be protected! We’re SCARED of that big mean God man! *snip*

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Evolution is probably the only thing I’ve ever learned that makes me think there might be a god. If I did believe in a god, I’d like to think he’d find the most elegant method of creation; that he could make all the laws of the universe in an instant just to arrange a little molecule on earth that would one day create human life. The god of biblical literalism, with his haphazard interventions and corrections, frankly doesn’t live up to his omnipotent reputation.

RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 5:42 PM

phronesis, get a grip; convolute your own point.

maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Which is why we should allow truther history. Why not tell both sides of the story. Fire Doesn’t Melt Steel. That’s just what they want you to believe.

phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Can certainly teach truther history, SHOWING it as the fallacy it is, lest you end up with people who will follow Al Gore and Barack Obama off a cliff.

ID is not the same, just because you say it is. It’s part of the unsettled question of “Where did we come from?” and might provide the ONLY answer to “WHY are we here?” There’s a lot to be said for PURPOSE. That’s what secular humanists fear.

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:42 PM

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Those firmly against ID are against teaching logic and critical thinking and open mindedness. They are the flat earthers.

This, coming from someone who has shamelessly employed countless bold-faced fallacious arguments in this very thread.

Nice.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:42 PM

In an ideal education system we should be able to simply explain what trutherism is and have people realise the stupidity behind it without us having to actually say it outright.

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM

phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM

So if there is an argument over what happened in 2001 and for that matter what happened just yesterday how are we to understand whay happened before our knowledge began? I think that was January of 2001.

Beto Ochoa on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM

You don’t have much room to talk considering you’re so ignorant you can’t differentiate between an attack on your pet theory and a defense of someone else’s pet theory.

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM

The truth is that this law is about (1) local control of schools, and (2) academic freedom. This is not an “Intelligent Design” bill exclusively:

Gov. Bobby Jindal attracted national attention and strongly worded advice about how he should deal with the Louisiana Science Education Act.

Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming.

There is a great deal of evidence that contradicts the Al Gore alarmist view of Global Warming. This law would allow that to be presented. It’s interesting that the most intolerant people around are the left-wing liberals who constantly talk about the need for “tolerance” and “academic freedom.” Bobby Jindal is not just talking about it. He just signed a law to make sure it’s a reality in Louisiana.

The more I see and hear about Bobby Jindal, the more I hope he gets a chance to do for America what he is doing for Louisiana!

federalistpatriot on June 27, 2008 at 5:45 PM

All science is unsettled.

phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Never a more ignorant comment has been posted.

Hope you don’t fly off the planet when that 32 ft/sec squared fails. Maybe you should try some laws of thermodynamics?

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:45 PM

All science is unsettled.

phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 5:41 PM

I would agree. That’s change we can believe in.

maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 5:45 PM

It has nothing to do with “athiests”. I think the vast majority of Christians would agree that teaching ID in schools is a really, really indefensibly stupid idea.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:02 PM

I believe that even the Roman Catholic church has accepted evolution and they used to be the religion that brought up the rear.

MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 5:46 PM

No, but it says a lot about how evolution is used as a weapon by atheists in another lame attempt to crush religion.

Is teaching about the Earth’s orbit and relationship to the Sun and moon an attempt to “crush” the religions of primitive native populations in Central America, who thought eclipses were a sign from their gods?

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:46 PM

This, coming from someone who has shamelessly employed countless bold-faced fallacious arguments in this very thread.

Nice.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Tell me which ones? They are only fallacious because DaveS wants to be his own god.

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:47 PM

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Hope you don’t fly off the planet when that 32 ft/sec squared fails. Maybe you should try some laws of thermodynamics?

So your assertion, here, is that relativistic physics is absolutely, 100% understood, merely because we can approximate acceleration due to gravity to 2 significant figures in casual conversation?

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:48 PM

Never a more ignorant comment has been posted.

Hope you don’t fly off the planet when that 32 ft/sec squared fails. Maybe you should try some laws of thermodynamics?

kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 5:45 PM

If that is ignorant, then every scientist is an ignoranmus. The corpus of scientific knowledge is both falsifiable and corrigible. Hence all science is in a sense, unsettled. That’s standard philosophy of science.

phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 5:50 PM

Hey, can’t you guys wait ’til I get home?

davidk on June 27, 2008 at 5:50 PM

ID hasn’t had a single paper or article submitted for peer review. What are the believers afraid of?

lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 5:03 PM

I think that even BigFoot and the Loch Ness Monster have had a few papers for peer review, so they are behind even them.

MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 5:50 PM

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:46 PM

All part of the grand mystery I’d say.

Beto Ochoa on June 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM

You don’t have much room to talk considering you’re so ignorant you can’t differentiate between an attack on your pet theory and a defense of someone else’s pet theory.

Considering that you think in terms of “pet theories” rather than science, I suppose it is you who have no “room to talk” (if you don’t mind my swiping your pedestrian language for a moment).

And, yes… ad hominem and straw man are both fallacies, and both are contained in your comment there.

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM

How’s it any crazier than teaching about global warming?

misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Well developing something even crazier than Al Gore’s Apocalyptic Global Warming is certainly quite a challenge, but the ID/creationists certainly seem up to the task.

MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 5:55 PM

I believe in the concept that idea determines form and that perception of truth or “knowledge” is metaphysical. What we “know” today as “science” is different from yesterday and will evolve tomorrow. The entire concept of evolution is very old, Goethe had his say about it, and to be stunted with Darwin’s version is like being stuck with only a modern transient street-language mis/translated version of a significant text with no original manuscripts for reference.

No hard feelings for the freedom of thought.

maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 5:55 PM

pecan pie on June 27, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Thanks. Great quote. If he said that stuff today, I think he’d be attacked. 30 years has made quite a difference in the politicization of science.

JiangxiDad on June 27, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Jesus AP,
Why oh Why must you open this can of worms every time?

I hope this one stays under 400 posts.

Squid Shark on June 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Is teaching about the Earth’s orbit and relationship to the Sun and moon an attempt to “crush” the religions of primitive native populations in Central America, who thought eclipses were a sign from their gods?

DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 5:46 PM

“Teaching” isn’t the problem and you’re displaying your pathological inability to actually respond to something that isn’t a strawman again. Articles like these are the problem:

http://www.slate.com/id/2124297/

Many atheists are not satisfied with just teaching evolution, they feel the need to proclaim that it crushes religious belief.

Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM

Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 »