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?
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: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »
Ya know, ladies and gents and all creatures in between….
…. the earths been flat for a long time
….. oil and vinegar don’t mix, but it makes a good salad dressing
……. sex and religion are not mutually exclusive to politicians or reverends
………. Reverends and Politicians are like children, I like to look at ‘em, but I wouldn’t want to own one.
Kini on June 27, 2008 at 5:58 PM
High post count means more ad dollars, which means more money for HA, which means AP gets paid, which means we continue to get the best analysis on the internets.
I wish it was over something more interesting than this, but hey, capital is capital.
spmat on June 27, 2008 at 5:59 PM
That about sums up my thoughts on you, AP.
Jockolantern on June 27, 2008 at 5:59 PM
That’s basically the position of both the hardcore atheists and the biblical literalists. A lot of people outside those extremes don’t believe that to be the case.
phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 6:00 PM
“Intelligent Design” is the same pig just in a different pen with a little more lipstick smeared on it.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 6:00 PM
I don’t mind lining AP’s pockets while lining my brain with knowledge.
Kini on June 27, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Just sayin’.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Intelligent Design and Designing Intelligence…., huh…., hmmm….
Kini on June 27, 2008 at 6:02 PM
@ phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 6:00 PM
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Uhh, what? “Pet theory” and “science” are not mutually exclusive. One can have a pet theory within science.
Prove it. I know you can’t because you’re simply not smart enough to figure out what ad hominems and straw men even are. =)
Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 6:05 PM
I tend to agree with Michael Savage: Liberal lawyers and judges are what are bringing this country down.
sanantonian on June 27, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Good job, Gov. Jindahl !!! well done… courage personified.
MNDavenotPC on June 27, 2008 at 6:05 PM
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 6:02 PM
I understand the sentiment, but global warming is not a scientific theory so the analogy is off–actually it’s backwards. It would be more applicable if it were the ID advocates who were using the lack of peer reviewed research explicitly refuting ID as evidence of their argument.
The reality is that ID advocates are trying to pass ID off as a scientific theory, and any scientific theory–by definition–lends itself well to research papers that explicitly hypothesis the core ideas.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:07 PM
As an amateur internet marketer, I don’t think that’s the case. People ripping each other’s throats out don’t tend to click on ads (which is how most of them operate: someone clicks, you get paid; nobody clicks, you don’t get paid). Blogs like hotair aren’t that profitable since people in general don’t come here to click on ads, they come here to use the site for information and discussion.
More likely AP just wants to inflate his ego. =)
Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Beto Ochoa on June 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Tralala!
MB4@6pm You speak of your own conception, not of mine.
maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I would think that for evolution to be true it would have to happen on a massive scale and be the norm rather than the exception.
Why do we find only DNA based life on earth?
Where is the evidence for failed non DNA life that was driven out by DNA based life?
How did digestive systems come about without mouths and waste disposal at the same time?
How did the aforementioned systems evolve to breakdown and process the needed and dispose of the unneeded?
Why don’t we find life of any type on other planets or even in space?
Why no giant planet eating space goats?
The galaxy is old, far older than earth so why no evidence of life that would be far more advanced then us?
Where did human edible grass come from?
Why doesn’t anyone ever answer any of these questions when I ask them?
jmarcure on June 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Just in case anyone cares to check it out:
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 6:09 PM
He should veto the legislative raise bill as well and have Louisiana legislators pray for a “blessing”.
SouthernGent on June 27, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 6:05 PM
This is getting downright petty, but for the sake of the comment count…
You don’t have much room to talk considering
you’re so ignorant[an ad hominem] you can’t differentiate between an attack onyour[a straw man's] pet theory and a defense of someone else’s pet theory.DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:11 PM
davidk @ 6:09 good link to that point
maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Is it possible that Hotair gets media sponsorship? Call me paranoid, but I think Fox news’ “sexpert” is paying for all those links.
The ID threads aren’t for everybody, but it’s fun to let loose the hounds of flame war every now and again.
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM
He should veto the legislative raise bill as well and have Louisiana legislators pray for a “blessing”.
SouthernGent on June 27, 2008 at 6:11 PM
LOL!
maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Custer had a similar, well not so similar but kind of similar, well sort of kind of similar, kind of courage.
How did that work out for him?
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 6:15 PM
This is probably the smartest thing you have ever said. And, I think you are a very knowledgeable person from all of the other threads that you have commented on. Thanks for saying this.
I’m glad Jindal signed this bill. Get more information into the classroom and discussion. Let people think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
That’s the problem with this evolution theory, its just a theory and should not be taught as no-other-posibility fact.
cjs1943 on June 27, 2008 at 6:17 PM
jmarcure on June 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Read this previous comment.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:18 PM
As suspected, you have no idea what an ad hominem is. Simply insulting someone is not an ad hominem fallacy.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
I like that explanation the best, but feel free to look it up from other sources, virtually every one of them will tell you the exact same thing: being insulted is not a logical fallacy automatically.
Again, this is incorrect. Here is you doing exactly what I said:
“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 ”
You take the criticism of evolution in this thread to mean that it’s being used to directly support ID. It isn’t. If I’m wrong, feel free to show me a few of these ID advocates claiming/implying that because evolution is wrong, ID is true. Simply showing them argue against evolution isn’t enough (and would, in fact, further support my point that you can’t tell the difference between the two).
Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Maybe because we haven’t been able to look much any other place. I guess maybe “Intelligent Design” wasn’t so intelligent after all.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM
another darwiniac lie. look what happened to sternberg when he published that ID article…intimidation, harassment, etc.
from you ‘tolerant’ darwiniacs.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM
No, but a LOT of physics is absolute (FROM OUR OBSERVATION POINT). You are the one saying we should stick our head in the sand, and not be open minded to new ideas about Where we came from, and Why are we here?
Scientists have no clue how magnets work, they just know they do. Perhaps some kid that is taught freedom of thought can figure that out. Too bad you are a closed minded liberal when it comes to that freedom.
kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM
haven’t you heard, this is anti-science the macro-evolution/darwinian gods have spoken. ID must be banned, it is not science…
great scientific minds like Sir Isaac Newton are rolling over in their graves.
jp on June 27, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Nah, Hot Air would give Fox free traffic anyway. I think the sexpert gets all those links because she’s a cute (and quite possibly multiple STD infested) blonde and AP is so desperate he’ll link to anyone for the slightest chance at getting some.
Ohhh yes.
Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Cosmos, Not Chaos
jp on June 27, 2008 at 6:23 PM
The difference is that ID doesn’t meet the criteria for scientific theory. Not every idea qualifies as a theory within science.
dedalus on June 27, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Dr. Carl Sagan said that the odds of non-living matter giving rise to life was 1 in 10 with 2 billion zeros.
Dr. Emile Borel said that anything with odds beyond 1 in 10 with fifty zeros would never happen.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 6:24 PM
yeah you darwiniacs are good story tellers…
‘plausible’ don’t worry about the evidence when a good story will do!!
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Oops, sorry. I’ll try to be more circumspect.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM
all I see is a lack of intelligence on your part.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Dr. John Grebe, Chemist and Physicist, wrote,
“The 15,000 or more atoms of the individual sub-assmeblies of a single DNA molecule, if left to chance as required by evolutionary theory, would go together in any of [1 in 10 with 87 zeros] different ways.”
BTW only one would be functional.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Governor Jindal signing this bill may have been predictable, but it’s not depressing. It passed both houses of the LA legislature by veto-proof majorities, so why would Jindal veto a bill that offers the chance to teach a theory in school that Jindal may believe himself?
For those worried about why Intelligent Design theory hasn’t been published in a “peer-reviewed” scientific journal, it’s because the “peers” who review articles for “mainstream” scientific journals are all evolutionists. They make lots of money promoting evolution theory and doing research on it, and they censor out anyone who disagrees. “Mainstream” scientific journals are the scientific equivalent of the “Mainstream” political media–they filter out politically incorrect thought, regardless of whether it is scientifically valid. However, there are scientific journals which allow research articles which support Intelligent Design or creationism, but the MSM will never cite them, except to label them as crackpots.
The problem with origins theory, whether one believes in evolution, intelligent design, or creationism, is that any investigation is speculative, not empirical, as is most science. We can’t run an experiment to find out where the first cell, plant, frog, or human came from. We can look at fossils of past life and currently living organisms, and
speculate on where they came from, by extrapolating presently valid scientific theories into the past, but we run into a conundrum: something happened in the past which no longer happens today.
Some people attribute this to a long series of lucky breaks over billions of years. Some attribute this to an intelligent designer who organized life contrary to the Law of Entropy, which tends to disorganize matter. Some attribute this to God, depicted as a loving creator, for whom creation was “good”. But science can’t prove or disprove any of these three speculative ideas, because science per se is based on experiment, and no one was around back then to observe the experiment.
So, the question of the origin of life is a matter of faith, not science. Some have faith in Evolution, others in God, others in an unnamed Intelligent Designer.
But the State of Louisiana, through its Legislature and Governor, did not insult “science” by allowing Intelligent Design theory to be taught in public schools. Let’s put the scientific facts, observed in the here and now, that tend to favor or refute Evolution theory on the table (there are many on both sides), and let Louisiana’s children make up their own minds, without forcing someone else’s faith in Evolution or Creation on them.
Steve Z on June 27, 2008 at 6:32 PM
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Those papers linked are (or appear to be) all merely raising questions about particular aspects of evolutionary theory, which is perfectly valid science. What you will never find is a paper which makes the next fallacious step and claims that an intelligent entity did it.
Interstingly, those links disprove the popular complaint that bid-bad-science was out to get religion and crushed all criticism to the evolutionary orhodoxy… or whatever the conspiracy theory is.
Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 6:18 PM
When you attribute to me some non-existent attachment to a particular scientific theory which is sufficiently strong to label the theory as a “pet theory”, you are, indeed, setting up a strawman. And the fact that your declaration of my “ignorance” was used to discredit my argument makes it ad ad hominem argument.
Of course, you would be much better off if you focused less on petty, childish (and error prone) nitpicking about the definition of any of the fallacies in your arsenal, and focused instead of developing some reasonably developed arguments supporting this absurd charade of a “scientific theory” you are trying to foist upon kids in the name of science.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Pindal/Jalin ‘12
aengus on June 27, 2008 at 6:34 PM
kirkill on June 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Oh yeah? When did I say that, exactly?
You know, you guys would appear to be much less pathetic if you would even ATTEMPT to make an argument without resorting to straw men or other fallacies.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Call me crazy, but having people call you names and rip you a new one every time you post on something controversial is hardly a good way to inflate your ego.
Meh, this is news. It’s worth a post, even if I think AP and the sizable anti-ID contingent here are wrong on this. In the end, more page loads equals more ad revenue, as it increases the likelihood that readers will see an add that they will click on.
spmat on June 27, 2008 at 6:37 PM
The first three studies (essays, per wikipedia) were published in an anthology called “Darwinism, Design, and Public Education.”
Note that Stephen Meyer is both an author and reviewer.
The next study (again Meyer) has been rescinded by the publication in question. The outgoing editor, who was sympathetic to intelligent design, reviewed the article himself without consulting the other editors.
Look for yourself at the article published in Dynamical Genomes. It’s scarcely 3 pages long, and presents no research findings. It’s nothing more than a summary of intelligent design. Seriously, read it. It’s a joke.
Looking through the rest of the list, none of the publications appear to be academic journals. Conference proceedings, vanity anthologies, monographs…
where’s the research?
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Should have been Dynamical Genetics, not dynamical genomes…
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 6:40 PM
OK I’ll just talk about evolution.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 6:45 PM
whats funny is that evolution’s time is up…
Papers are in. MIT will publish the findings in 2009 – the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species. And despite the fact that organizers are downplaying the Altenberg meeting as a discussion about whether there should be a new theory, it already appears a done deal. Some kind of shift away from the population genetic-centered view of evolution is afoot.
link
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:46 PM
ABSOLUTELY! Excellent response!
dominigan on June 27, 2008 at 6:46 PM
As in virtually all of these cases, it’s simply a matter of teaching actual science and allowing criticism of Darwinian theory. It’s not about teaching the Bible, etc. It’s just an objection to dogma and the “don’t you dare question Darwin” crap that plagues our eduction system.
At any rate, this key point of the act sums up why Darwinists hate it:
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 6:49 PM
You, like others who don’t know what they are talking about regarding this subject, should check your information before you parrot it.
You are merely reading and regurgitating Darwinist-evolutionist propaganda, and it is 100% wrong.
Of course, that is not to say that, due to an overwhelming bias against alternative findings that the cards are not stacked against those of an opposite point of view. Darwinists-evolutionists dominate the media at this time and they will oppose and censor those they disagree with. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that, due to bias, prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance, Darwinists-evolutionists, controlling these outlets, would prevent ID related publications from print.
Nevertheless, there have been some printed.
The real problem is that many in the West are so brainwashed in Darwinism-evolutionism that they don’t know the facts. This includes many so-called “Scientists” who might know something related to their own field of science, say Physics, Biology, Chemistry, but they buy into the package of “Darwinism-evolutionism” as if it were an established fact, not realizing that it isn’t.
William
William2006 on June 27, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Perhaps its a symptom of researchers suckling at the teats of funding… similar to humans-cause-global-warming “scientists”.
I think it’s very ironic that those who would invoke the specter of Galileo would insist on playing the part of the institution preventing discussion of new theories. Hypocrites…
dominigan on June 27, 2008 at 6:53 PM
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Could you provide an example of “don’t you dar question Darwin” crap that plagues our education system?
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:54 PM
William2006 on June 27, 2008 at 6:52 PMThat was a very long comment considering you said nothing that advanced any argument at all.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé, (held the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for 20 years) writes, “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding. A single plant or a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with infinitesimal probability could no longer fail to occur. … There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it”
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM
dominigan on June 27, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Name one scientific theory for which discussion was prevented by the “scientific institution”, please.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:57 PM
sternberg, gonzales
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM
You’re kidding, right? What do you think this law was about?
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM
And that’s why thinking Christians are perfectly accepting of evolution.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM
No. Don’t be lazy… provide an example,
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 6:59 PM
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM
The problem has nothing to do with “questioning Darwin”. The problem has to do with teaching religion in a science class.
Do you have any examples of “don’t you dare question Darwin”?
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 7:03 PM
The late Dr. George Wald:
“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”
/s/ Unthinking Christian
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:05 PM
ID has funding too. The Discovery Institute sponsors research from the funding it receives from people like Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., who has also been a proponent of Christian Reconstructionism and its theocratic objectives.
dedalus on June 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 6:49 PM
RightWinged,
It is funny how the facts get in the way of their little, creepy outraged screams of objections, doesn’t it?
This bill does not promote religion, but it does show how bias and rabid opponents are, and how like sheep the public is. Without understanding this bill, they swallow the propaganda from objectors, and join in the protest.
It was while observing science that I realized that Darwinism-evolutionism is inadequate to explain many things that they actually try to claim.
RightWinged,
Many people today still believe that baby inside the womb, during the embryonic stage, revisit their “evolutionary ancestry” so to speak, and actually have gills, slits, or gill slits like a fish, a remnant of their evolutionary ancestry from lower forms of life.
In reality the human embryo never has gills, slits, or gill slits like a fish. They never have a tail. Humans, even in the womb, only produce human enzymes, human proteins, and so forth. They don’t procude fish, frog, turtle, chicken, pig, or ape proteins, enzymes, and so on.
Sshhhhh. Just ignore the scientific facts, dehumanize the human being, then you can justify abortion - it’s okay because baby isn’t really human or alive - and justify Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research - no problem if you can convince the public that you aren’t really exploiting a living human being, even though, in point of fact, you are.
Yes, Darwinism-evolutionism has a negative effect in the public square, least of all being the promotion of false information regarding biology, physics, the fossil record, etc., and misleading the public on the actually hard science knowledge regarding Human Embryology, etc.
Thanks to Darwinism-evolutionism, and ignorance, Margaret Sanger, and others, could righteously claim that blacks and Aboriginal Australians were not as advanced in evolution as whites, and babies inside the womb are not really alive or human.
William2006 on June 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Thinking Christians might, but thinking evolutionists say otherwise.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission:
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.”
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Intelligent design doesn’t get to skip research and go straight to our high schools just because it’s politically inoffensive to some Christians. Don’t even compare Galileo to Dembski and Behe, that’s just appalling. Galileo did science.
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 7:09 PM
A real shame - he’d had such a promising political career.
ajackson on June 27, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Professor D.M.S. Watson:
“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:10 PM
William2006 on June 27, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Now, that right there is an ad hominem argument. I don’t care where you’re from.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Just because you disagree with them, and hold your ears and your nose shut because you don’t like what they say, does not mean they don’t do science.
It is clear that Behe and Demski do science, and they do it very well.
Denial is not just a River in Egypt.
Get over yourself. Your argument was not only weak, it made you look foolish!
William2006 on June 27, 2008 at 7:13 PM
The global warming = evolution analogy is appropriate if you understand that POLAR ICE CAPS MELTING = LOOK AT THE FOSSIL RECORD when evidence is requested.
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 7:13 PM
I thought the bill passed with a veto proof majority?
flenser on June 27, 2008 at 7:16 PM
I would think you would at least shoot for the appearance of neutrality since this is a conservative blog. But no.
Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 7:17 PM
davidk: I’m not sure what you think to accomplish by posting quotes from other people.
That’s a bit like saying “Dogs are poodles. See? This dog is a poodle.”
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious, unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind and keep them shut by force.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson:
“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 7:17 PM
“Conservative” does not equal “scientific illiterate”.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 7:21 PM
You are being disingenuous and dishonest.
It is clear what is accomplished by quoting scientists. It shows that people with knowledge and credentials are speaking truth to power, challenging Darwinism-evolutionism propaganda and dogmatism.
DavidK’s contribution of those quotes is an effective tool. I enjoyed reading the quotes, and they are right on!
William2006 on June 27, 2008 at 7:22 PM
One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat.
- Mark Twain,
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 7:22 PM
That right there’s an appeal to authority fallacy. I don’t care where you’re from.
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Jesus died to save men, a small thing for an immortal to do and didn’t save many, anyway; but if he had been damned for the race that would have been an act of a size proper to a god and would have saved the whole race. However, why should anybody want to save the human race, or damn it either? Does God want its society? Does Satan?
- Mark Twain
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Robert A. Milikan, in a speech before the American Chemical Society:
“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:24 PM
I am not religious, yet I am aware of the BS which is dogmatic Darwinism-evolutionism.
William2006 on June 27, 2008 at 7:24 PM
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Citing a fallacious argument for two things does nothing to advance the argument that the two things either are or are not comparable. All you have done is establish that advocates of either are capable of making a fallacious argument, but, then again… who isn’t?
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 7:24 PM
In other words, no he can not.
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Getting nervous?
You complained that the ID peole were scietists so what they have to is null and void.
So I tought you’d be interested in what evolutionist are saying. Guess not.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Ooops “were not scientists”
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Darn you logicians. :^]
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:29 PM
William2006 on June 27, 2008 at 7:22 PM
No, it shows that there are people who say things that you agree with. Nothing more, nothing less.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 7:29 PM
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Why would I care what “evolutionists” are saying?
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Clearly they do science? Why do you think that? Only because they agree with you. It’s remarkable that after the years Dembski and Behe have been writing intelligent design books they’ve never gotten around to performing a single experiment.
Look at Dembski’s universal probability bound, and his ideas of complex specified information. What has been his impact on information theory? Other than giving his colleagues a good laugh?
Behe seems to have a two word vocabulary - “irreducible complexity.” He almost did some science. He predicted that there wouldn’t be in nature a functional, simplified version of the flagellum or the blood clotting cascade. He was wrong on both counts.
So yeah, I’m appalled that they’re being compared to the father of modern astronomy. Make them earn it. If they’re right, eventually they should be able to convince their colleagues in the biological sciences (Behe’s colleagues, anyway). If that ever happens they have my sincere apologies.
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 7:30 PM
But I’m not trying to prove anything–by logic or science.
Just sayin’.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Alright, I’ll be gone for a while… today is the last day for the big boss who started the company.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Oh, I get it. You don’t care what anyone says.
You got your head in the sand, and that’s your @$$ talking.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Darn.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM
It’s called thinking for one’s self.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 7:34 PM
“If the results of evolution were unimportant, one might require less proof in support of the hypothesis, but before accepting a new philosophy of life, built upon a materialistic foundation, we have reason to demand something more than millions of guesses strung together.”
- William Jennings Bryan
aengus on June 27, 2008 at 7:36 PM
I thought it was called flatulence.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:36 PM
No, it’s not. An ad hominem argument would be if I said Dembski and Behe are wrong because they’re a couple of con-men with delusions of grandeur.
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »