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 »
He has just enhanced his political career. Evolution may not be dead but it gasping for air. Its on its way out. It has been taught exclusively in public schools for nearly fifty years, yet the majority of Americans don’t believe it.
They don’t believe it because its incredible. And when I use the word “incredible” I don’t mean that evolution is amazing. I mean evolution is without credibility, beyond belief, impossible to believe. Any five year old knows a car can’t build itself, and indeed that is true.
Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 7:41 PM
The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Okay, well I could spend my entire day digging up examples from the thousands of materials I’ve read over the years, but I’ll just point to an easy one that isn’t all specificy and sciency so we don’t have to go ’round and ’round about it’s merits.
How about how parents in Cobb County, GA signed a petition criticizing the fact that alternative theories weren’t permitted to be discussed, and got school officials to stick a sticker on textbooks noting that evolution is “a theory, not a fact”. Eventually it went to court, etc. and the sticker was removed (if my memory serves me). But there ya go. There’s your example.
Now, I think I’ll retire from yet another ridiculous debate that will go in circles, as they always do. But again, I have to point out how funny the evo crowd is in being outraged about:
Darwinists Unite! We must put a stop to critical thinking an analysis and insist that Darwin never be question. Geez you guys, you’re proving me point.
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Why don’t we just teach that Nobody knows, because nobody does know?
bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Dover v. Kitzmiller.
Please, let’s teach this crap to high school kids.
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 7:45 PM
But that is what you were implying.
“No it’s not.”
OK. You win.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Because that would be smart.
aengus on June 27, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Therein lies a failure to comprehend the point of intelligent design, that intelligence is WITHIN matter, or that matter contains intelligence. Don’t be so limited in your thinking as to constrict “intelligence” to your own awareness or to someone’s God. Intelligence best describes the energy WITHIN that congeals natural structure and function of any element at any level.
Self preservation motivates Darwin disciples to deny the existence of intelligence WITHIN every component of an element, aka “matter”. The current academia is threatened, not only emotionally, intellectually and socially by the open concept of intelligence, but financially threatened for if ID is to be tolerated there is competition not only for disciples but for endowments and grants and funding! To deny that would be delusive.
maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 7:52 PM
It’s better than giving intelligent design equal time, I guess. I’d rather high school kids went ignorant of modern science than have their understanding of science corrupted by the byzantine stupidity of ID.
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Ben Stein made a movie about it called EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, have you not heard?
Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 7:52 PM
This is from my wife:
“evolution = science fiction”
And it’s nopt even good science fiction.
I hope you Darwinists live another ten years.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:52 PM
I was implying that two (charitably) unproven theorists shouldn’t be compared to one of the greatest scientists in science’s illustrious history. Is that fair?
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 7:53 PM
OK, I got slapped down last time I asked, but I’m going to ask again, in all sincerity:
What, exactly, do you teach when you teach ID? I picture a class that has gone through the fossil record, learned the theory of evolution, and then the teacher says, “And, God could have done all this.”
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 7:53 PM
I hope your children didn’t inherit your closed mind. Just what the heck are you afraid of?
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:55 PM
If you think they are “unproven” you’ve not read their works.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Does your wife also believe:
“Earth is round = science fiction”?
“Earth goes around the sun = science fiction”?
“Germs cause disease = science fiction”?
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 7:58 PM
You teach that design requires a designer. God, god, or smurfs. That is up to the student to figure out elsewhere.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:59 PM
No, she’s smarter than you.
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 7:59 PM
So after your “thousands of hours” rigorous study, that’s it? Primary and Secondary Schools insist on teaching only accepted science from approved textbooks. Scandalous! Elementary schools are not where science is tested, reviewed, revised and accepted. On second thought maybe it is in down yer holler. That’s all you have? Elementary school? BWAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAAH! Thousands of hours? BWAAAHHHAHAHAHAH!
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Er. Those things are not theories. They are facts. Evolution is a theory. Even the staunchest supporters of evolution acknowledge that.
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Wow, on the issue of evolution, i totally see how the left can conclude that conservatives are freaking retarded. So many people here claim that evolution is not proven, or on its way out, makes me embarrassed to call myself a conservative. Associating myself with such ignorance and outright stupidity, and denial of the last century of scientific discovery is downright embarrassing. I hope you guys are around for another 10 years so you can see the end of ID, and the creation of yet ANOTHER stupid ass religious theory that claims its not religious, trying to replace ID and creationism before it.
muyoso on June 27, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Gotta go. Going to spend some “quality time” with said wife. ;^)
davidk on June 27, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Perfect timing, troll. Evolution is a theory. Even the staunchest supporters of evolution acknowledge that.
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Why don’t we just teach all of the theories.
Because that is what they all are.
And then say, Nobody really knows….so little Johnny, if you can figure it out, go for it.
Sounds like a surefire way to get children interested and fired up about learning and seeking knowledge.
I can’t believe this is such a problem. But it’s sure a good argument to Homeschool the kids.
bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Well it’s probably not the invisible “Intelligent Designer” I would surmise.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:06 PM
I suggested already that since Jindal signed this, Jindal had better get the ball rolling on the non-religious Intelligent course with his own sense of approved literature. It’s quite a challenge, and I suppose he should rely on the Discovery Institute for some tutorials as they’ve noted the separation of science from religion in the letter linked above.
“What is this a fossil of?”
“When did that live?”
“How did that become a fossil?”
“What changed? What looks the same?”
“What is this fossil made of?”
“What does that atom look like if magnified?”
“What holds the atom together?”
“What does the atom consist of?”
“What job does that portion of the atom have?”
“What makes each portion of the atom do its job?”
“Do the atoms in the fossil move or hold still?”
etc., Intelligent Design, in my opinion
maverick muse on June 27, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Go watch Golden Girls or summin’ you’re embarrassing yourself.
E=MC2 = JUST A THEORY
Fermat’s last theorem
A presentation of one of the most famous theorems ever solved.?
Review: Tormod | link details
Number theory
The Equivalence of Mass and Energy
ThinkQuest has a page which shows how Einstein derived his famous equation e=mc2.?
Review: Tormod | link details
Number theory
Continuum Hypothesis
A detailed presentation of the continuum hypothesis, which implies that there is an endless amount of real numbers in the world.
Review: Lucid | link details
Number theory
The Kepler Conjecture
This is the classic problem of packing spheres into a box, a problem which recently was claimed to have been solved.?
Review: Tormod | link details
Number theory
Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation
This is one of the fundamental laws of modern mathematics. It describes the forces bodies exert upon each other, that is, how gravity works.?
Review: Tormod | link details
Number theory
Faraday’s Law of Induction
Faraday’s law describes how an electric field can be induced by a changing magnetic flux. ?
Review: Tormod | link details
Number theory
Entropy
The equation for entropy, or the amount of disorder in a system, was formulated by the German physicist Rudolf Clausius in 1850.?
Review: Tormod | link details
Number theory
Bernoulli’s Equation
This equation is used to calculate fluid dynamics, that is, the motion, turbulence, pressure, and flow, of fluids.?
Review: Tormod | link details
Number theory
The Drake Equation
This equation is an attempt to show the probability for life in the Universe.?
Review: Tormod | link details
Number theory
Godel on the net
This is a collection of comments on various aspects of Godel’s incompleteness theorem.
== Theory
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 8:08 PM
That right there, is an example of WHY I don’t want to go around in circles in yet another one of these threads. Because people like you are obnoxious douches.
First of all, I never said anything about “thousands of hours”. You may want to work on your own reading comprehension before you go attacking people’s intelligence you f-ing moron. I said I wasn’t going to dig through thousands of materials, because I don’t want to waste around with POSs like you all evening, so I stated (quite clearly) that I just plucked off the top of my head something that was very straight forward and didn’t require a lot of scientific understanding which would spawn tangent debates.
Your pal insisted I cite an example of the “Don’t question Darwin” stuff I spoke of, and I cited one. And you’re just being a little b**ch because you have no argument. This little debate we were having had nothing to do with “testing, reviewing, etc.” science. Nor does the act that is the subject of this post. This is about Louisiana schools, not college and laboratories where the things you mention go down.
The point was, the “this is a theory, not a fact” sticker was so objectionable to the “Don’t question Darwin” crowd, that they took it to court and got it removed (after it was only placed there after parents petition and school officials obliged). And again, I pulled this example as something easy to grasp for even folks like yourself. There isn’t even anything scientifically questionable here, but Darwinists are incredibly insecure and fear people questioning them as we’ve countless times.
Now get back to misquoting me so you have something to attack as well is mixing up the issue (pretending this is a debate about science testings, etc. when in reality we were talking about Darwinists blocking criticisms in k-12 schools).
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 8:10 PM
I thought you’re a libertarian???
aengus on June 27, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Astronomy: Big Bang Theory
Biology: Cell theory — Evolution
Chemistry: Atomic theory — Kinetic theory of gases
Climatology: Theory of Global Climate Change (due to anthropogenic activity)
Computer science: Algorithmic information theory — Computation theory
Economics: Decision theory
Education: Constructivist theory — Critical pedagogy theory — Education theory — Multiple intelligence theory — Progressive education theory
Engineering: Circuit theory — Control theory — Signal theory — Systems theory
Film: Film Theory
Games: Game theory — Rational choice theory
Geology: Plate tectonics[5]
Humanities: Critical theory
Literature: Literary theory
Mathematics: Catastrophe theory — Category theory — Chaos theory — Graph theory — Knot theory — Number theory — Probability theory — Set theory
Music: Music theory
Philosophy: Proof theory — Speculative reason — Theory of truth — Type theory — Value theory — Virtue theory
Physics: Acoustic theory — Antenna theory — General relativity — Special relativity — Theory of relativity — Quantum field theory
Planetary science: Giant impact theory
Visual Art: Aesthetics — Art Educational theory — Architecture — Composition — Anatomy — Color theory — Perspective — Visual perception — Geometry — Manifolds
Sociology: Sociological theory — Social theory — Critical theory
Statistics : Extreme value theory
Theatre : Theory relating to theatrical performance.
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 8:10 PM
If Darwin’s two theories are fiction, they are a fiction that has a lot of corresponding evidence in the natural world.
dedalus on June 27, 2008 at 8:11 PM
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 7:44 PM
I think that you might have missed the very first comment in this whole thread.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Yes, let’s just put germ theories, what causes cancer theories, biology theories and why anesthetic works theories on the same plane as the “Intelligent Design” “theory”. That should work out well … … … if we want to go back to the Dark Ages.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:12 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/27/jindal-signs-intelligent-design-bill/comment-page-4/#comment-1210655
And a quick follow-up to this… I’m sure your argument will be “but they shouldn’t say it’s just a theory” (even though it is) “because that’s misleading”. Well, as you said, these are elementary kids. If they’re going to be grasping any serious science, then certainly they can understand the distinction of “theory” vs. “scientific theory” (even though, as an aside, I don’t consider it to be a scientific theory)
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Actually, E=MC2 is an “equation.” Einstein’s theory of relativity is a “theory.”
Speaking of embarrassing yourself.
And I didn’t say “just” a theory. I said theory, and not a fact, like “the Earth orbits the Sun.”
I wouldn’t say “just” a theory, because theories are important, and powerful, but they are not facts, and they are not proven. Not even Einstein’s theory is proven, which is why they call it a theory, and not a law.
But thanks for your contribution.
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Maybe the Designer was Descartes’ “Demon Deceiver” and he was just messing with us.
phronesis on June 27, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Don’t worry misterpeasea, you aren’t the only one wondering if ronsfi is an escaped mental patient right now. Not only did he embarrass himself with you, he spent an entire post trying to mock me on a quote…. THAT HE MADE UP!
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 8:16 PM
I’m afraid that we’re going to poison the next generation of Americans with politically correct pseudoscience.
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Within evolution theory there is also a huge number of facts, unless you close the eyes of your mind and keep them shut by force. Even the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:17 PM
I will agree that you can google “theory.” Did you have some other point?
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 8:17 PM
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Again, the objection has nothing to do with questioning Darwin I’m sure–at least not from me. Assuming you accurately characterized what the sticker said, my objection is that a) the sticker conflates scientific theory with theories, in general, and could serve to confuse students about what is or is not a “theory”, a “scientific theory”, or a “fact” and 2) the sticker was only being pushed in the first place out of a desire to squeeze religious beliefs into a science class. I would imagine that the actual objections would have been similar.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Oh no muyoso, its the last hundred years of science I’m looking at. Scientists have been zapping fruit flies for about 60 years now trying to make them turn into something else, anything else. Fruit flies have a gestation period of only eleven days so you get a new generation every 11 days.
Using multiple batches scientist have caused the equivalent of millions of years worth of fruit fly mutations but all they get is fruit flies. Sometimes dead fruit flies or flies with no wings or no eyes but never a beneficial mutation, let along an different species.
So I’m looking at the science and all aspects of the “theory” are failing miserably, evolution is on it’s last legs.
Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Why do you bother calling me childish names? Do you think it hurts my feelings? Hehe you don’t even know me. The reason you quit going round and round on these threads is because you get your ass handed to you every time. If you think I waste any time analyzing your vapid ejections as if it were Joyce, then you are more sadly deluded then I guessed.
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Proven? So what you are saying is that the “Theory of Evolution” is no longer theory but proven fact? Did they find all those missing links? Did they create life from primordial goo or a near facsimile of primordial goo in a lab? I wasn’t even aware we knew as fact the goo, the climate or basically anything else about that time. My own opinion is that people, as in the average Joe don’t know the difference between adaptation and evolution. In my opinion I think evolution is still an unproven theory which is widely accepted but acceptance does not equate to fact. Adaptation on the other hand is an observable thing and I would think as such a fact. The thing is that adaptation does not equal evolution. As far as I know we have still to find any hard evidence on species change as in tree to tree frog.
jmarcure on June 27, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
- Charles Mackay
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Not sure exactly what you mean. There are facts. Those facts are independent of theories. No fact belongs to a theory.
And before you folks start calling me names, let me just say that I like the theory of evolution. There is much to support it. It has much explanatory power, and can explain many facts. On the other hand, it’s not very good at prediction.
I’m not as completely convinced about it’s absolute infallibility as I was when I was younger, because I’ve gotten more open-minded, and been exposed to more information, in the intervening years.
But I’m going to have to insist that they call it a theory for a reason. Because it isn’t proven. Scientists are very touchy about proof. Are there any scientists out there who say it’s been proven? Because I’ve never heard the phrase “the law of evolution.”
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 8:23 PM
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Yeah, but the assumption of the equation’s truth follows directly from special relativity.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 8:24 PM
EVOLUTION AND THE POPE
That distinction will, no doubt, displease those who think the theory of evolution not only scientifically false but theologically erroneous. Little can be said to persuade Fundamentalist Protestants otherwise. But Catholics who criticize Pope John Paul II for not condemning evolution should recall Pope Pius XII’s now half-century old teaching, and avoid trying, in their anti-evolutionary fervor, to be more Catholic than the pope.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Nah. If you didn’t understand that then nothing I say will help.
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Let it be known that ronsfi personally attacked me first… by misquoting me. Which invalidates virtually every word of the post in which he did so… and now he whines about me calling him childish names? Oh, and by the way, the rest of the post was a baseless attack because he couldn’t argue against my point. Which he’s proven once again, by completely ignoring it and NOT HAVING THE BALLS TO OWN UP TO HIS OWN MISQUOTING AND MISPLACED MOCKING.
DaveS
You’re still missing the point. The sticker said what it said. Your suspicions about it being a “desire” to sneak religion in to the classroom are irrelevant, because that wasn’t what was done. It was a sticker, that’s it. Similarly, with this case, you told me to read the first comment and I have. So you don’t object because it’s not pushing religion in to the classroom. Then fine, you shouldn’t have a problem with the stickers that were in Cobb County. But the “Don’t question Darwin” folks flipped out and took it to court.
Well, I already know (from your history) what a lunatic you are. But what the hell.
MB4 is a douche.
-Anyone who’s ever interacted with him.
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Huh?
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:29 PM
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 8:27 PM
I’m not sure that you two were actually disagreeing about mucn.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 8:30 PM
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:12 PM
I was only talking about Evolution & Intelligent Design.
sheesh. I’m not intelligent enough to post here. I’m going to shut up now.
bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 8:32 PM
@ jmarcure on June 27, 2008 at 8:21 PM
No they have not found “all” the missing links, as any religious person would demand as evidence, but they have certainly found missing links.
muyoso on June 27, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Your words are vacuous name calling and you are clearly very immature.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Ah, probably where Sting copped the line from his song “All This Time”.
dedalus on June 27, 2008 at 8:33 PM
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:32 PM
And why do men like to call others douches anyway?
lol, One would think that men would think more highly of the douche.
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
bridgetown on June 27, 2008 at 8:33 PM
You fit in very well. We are all quite mad here.
Sigy on June 27, 2008 at 8:34 PM
How do you know? Have you ever seen it? Or…do you just take it on faith. Regarding my E=MC2 = Theory statement. Well it’s clearly hard to read between the lines when you’re a concrete thinker.
So I’ll spell it out for you.
Theory = well-substantiated explanation of data
What you describe is hypothesis or conjecture.
Google it.
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 8:35 PM
muyoso on June 27, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Of course finding any “link” is scientifically interesting, but the demand to find “all” of them is absurd on its face. Finding any 1 link creates 2 more that are “missing”, unless it matches one that is already found, but then it wouldn’t be a “link”.
Basically, they are demanding something that is obviously impossible.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 8:35 PM
I’m not quite sure I understand your point. What other place are you talking about? I think my question may have been badly phrased so here it is again. Why do we not find on earth evidence of or actual life not based on DNA? Now I understand that not finding any evidence of any type of life not based on DNA is not to say that it didn’t exist but that’s kind of like saying that because there is no evidence of life based on pink fluffy sweaters doesn’t mean that there was never any pink fluffy sweater based life.
My basic premise is that because of the odds for life from nothing evolving into every living thing on the planet it would have to be unimaginably lucky or very common. If common then apparently DNA based life was the fittest because we have pretty much zero evidence of life based on any other method.
jmarcure on June 27, 2008 at 8:36 PM
Oh yeah, well then name one.
Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 8:36 PM
I dunno.
Maybe Larry “Tap, tap, tap” Craig knows? Sounds like it would be right up his alley anyway.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Good lord! Are you crying?
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Have they? Last I knew the only thing found was a fish/frog thing that they kind of think may have been a link but really wasn’t sure.
What other “missing links” have been found?
jmarcure on June 27, 2008 at 8:39 PM
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Maybe not, but the religious motivations of the sticker sort of exacerbates the annoyance caused by my other reason, which is clearly a real problem.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 8:42 PM
I disagree. No one with any credibility would assert that it’s true because it’s part of Einstein’s theory. And no one assumes the equation’s truth anymore, because it’s been experimentally proven.
Facts do not belong to theories. Facts are independent of theories. Theories are used to explain facts, and to make predictions about the discovery of facts.
What did I describe that was a hypothesis or conjecture?
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 8:49 PM
That is a perfectly legitimate question, don’t let any of these guys intimidate you.
Your solution would be acceptable to me. But for science to admit “it just doesn’t know” to any question requires more intellectual honesty than Big science has.
And lots of scientist are atheist and they have an agenda, they want to push their atheism to the whole world. They have the perfect platform with the public school system to do that and they are not going to give up that platform without a big fight.
And of course there is the problem that science has been pushing the idea of evolution for 150 years, they would never willfully eat 150 years worth of crow, it’s going to have to be force fed to them. And it’s coming.
Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 8:51 PM
DaveS, whatever you say dude… the point is, you asked for an example, and you got a very simple one.
Ronsfi, great argument again nutjob.
MB4, I was mocking your incessant quoting… and you.
RightWinged on June 27, 2008 at 8:53 PM
well I could spend my entire day digging up examples from the thousands of materials. Fine not thousands of hours. But still you are using that misquote as a straw man to avoid the fact that of all the “examples from the thousands of materials” of the censoring of scientific debate that, you could spend your “entire day digging up”, you chose an elementary school board refusing to modify it’s approved textbooks with a religiously motivated sticker. Hardly legitimate scientific inquiry crushed under the fascist wheels of atheist evolutionist academia. Now wipe your nose you’re blowing a snot bubble.
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Are you sure about the “any”?
I know lots of religious persons and I really can’t think of anyone that would demand “all” the missing links. Wait a sec, my wife is pretty religious so I’ll ask her. I was right, she would settle for one solid missing link to be found.
jmarcure on June 27, 2008 at 8:54 PM
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
This is a link to a detailed discussion of transitional vertebrate fossils. Of course, creationists will dispute that they are legitimately transitional fossils. Probably a few evolutionary theorists dispute which are true examples of evolutionary fossils.
Only a tiny percentage of the organisms that have existed on Earth end up as fossils. A complete record is impossible. However, this is only one line of evidence supporting evolution.
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 8:54 PM
You look foolish rolling your eyes at me, when all I did was point out (correctly) that your germ example showed only evolution within a species, which no one is arguing against, and that it utterly failed to provide evidence for Darwin’s greater theory.
ynot4tony2 on June 27, 2008 at 8:54 PM
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 8:49 PM
No offense intended, but you apparently don’t understand how e=mc^2 is derived. It isn’t true because it’s “part of Einstein’s theory”… it only makes sense because of the implications of the theory.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 8:54 PM
If evolution is finally and fully discredited the scientific community will try to drop it quietly and never mention it again like eugenics. Then lo and behold they’ll have some other theory to take its place.
aengus on June 27, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Heh, this doesn’t prove the theory of evolution, but it proves that all is relative.
Entelechy on June 27, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Then you very much need to improve your mocking skills as you just come off as vacuous and immature.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 8:59 PM
None taken. YET! But the equation was derived before the theory. It didn’t make sense before the theory? Maybe it couldn’t be explained, it wasn’t understood why, but it was true, and known, before the theory.
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Derivation of E=mc^2 for your reading pleasure.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 9:01 PM
I don’t know what you are talking about and I don’t think that you do either. Are you saying that the “Theory of Evolution” has no facts to back it up?
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 9:02 PM
To an extent I agree with that statement. If evolution is true then there should be many, many more transitional forms than stable forms. And not just with humans but with all species and plants and bugs. So there are billions and billion of missing links, and we haven’t found even one. What does that tell you about evolution?
Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Well there is a difference between rest energy and total energy (relativistic)… look at the derivation and it might make more sense.
I did mis-characterize it though. You are correct in that it was derived prior, so it isn’t accurate to say it only makes sense because of relativity. It would be more accurate to say that his derivation only makes sense because of relativity.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Well maybe it will be replaced by Punctuated Equilibrium which I have believed is more on base from even before I knew what it was called. But then it is a variation of Darwinian Evolution though so “Intelligent Design” would still be Stuck in Lodi.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Of course not. I’m saying facts are independent of theories. I’m saying any fact that backs up the theory of evolution would be a fact even if there was no theory of evolution. The same fact can be used to support more than one theory. Is all.
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 9:05 PM
The complaining against ID is a clear visceral lurching from the bowels of the human soul when it doesn’t want to entertain the remote possibility that a higher being had a plan and design. To me it clearly takes a whole lot more faith to believe this all just “evolved!” The human eye-why two? So many species of birds-different colored feathers, eggs, they can build a strong nest…and on and on it goes.
Sorry AP I don’t see your point in pointing out it is depressing & predictable. Can you even take 1/2 hour and think about the earth in orbit around an exploding hydrogen bomb but it only absorbs enough heat (except on Al Gore’s planet) to grow things and the seasons and times are as “predictable” as clockwork to the point the Mayans and Aztecs could make sophisticated calendars? The leaves on my trees come out the same time every year? Picked 2 gallons of cherrys off my tree this year. Even the birds got a couple of gallons. Nothing “depressing” about that. Must be an awesome designer. I can’t even tune my car right with the manuals!
wepeople on June 27, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Heh. I can say with all honesty, DaveS, that I completely, totally, and wholeheartedly agree with you.
And could I just point out what a friggin’ out-of-this-world genius Newton was? “Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another…”, 1704. It’s mind-blowing that he could grasp this 200 years before and with much, much less knowledge than Einstein.
And yet. Newton’s Laws. Not laws. Theories, since disproven. Oh well. Still an incredible genius.
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 9:11 PM
I am not a supporter of Intelligent Design but I certainly do not believe in Evolution. I’m not against teaching either of these theories in schools but would prefer both if at all.
aengus on June 27, 2008 at 9:11 PM
But Punctuated Equilibrium is just one-step evolution, which sounds a whole lot more like creation.
Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Fixed
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 9:12 PM
But only for very, very large/small masses, or very, very large velocities. And, of course, back then the technology didn’t exist to measure the flaws. So he gets a pass from me. :-)
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Teaching so called “Intelligent Design” in order to be able to teach evolution would be like having to teach astrology if you taught astronomy or like having to teach evil spirits and exorcisms if you taught germ theory and medicine. That is oh so Dark Ages.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Not really. It is rapid change punctuated by a substantial period of no change and then rapid change again, etc, rinse and repeat, not just one-step/one-time.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Evolution is not true. It is a load of hooey.
And the term “Dark Ages” has fallen out of use by serious historians who once thought the Early Middle Ages were bereft of culture but now know it was only lack of their own historical knowledge/evidence.
I’m going to watch TV. Goodnight.
aengus on June 27, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Well we certainly aren’t in disagreement on that, however given facts do support some things far more than they do others and in fact dis-support some things.
MB4 on June 27, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Eugenics was as controversial in the scientific community as in any other community. Eugenics isn’t even a scientific theory, any more than affirmative action is a scientific theory. It’s a social philosophy, and it was around long before Darwin.
RightOFLeft on June 27, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Good Lord. I agree yet again! This is getting boring, let’s try to find something to disagree about.
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Granted but still the idea is rapid evolution, like from one species to another in one-step or just a few…. correct?
I don’t know how that theory is anymore plausible than slow evolution, it seems even more impossible. Especially given the fact that so called micro-evolution (which isn’t evolution at all but just adaptation within a species) happens slowly.
If mico-evolution is at least a model for macro-evolution then it would seem to rule out or at least make less probable very fast evolutionary steps. Agree?
Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Argh. More agreement. You people are disappointing me.
misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Well said.
I’ll just add that I’m going to watch “Dr. Who” Scifi channel 9:00pm ET
Have some Friday’s brand snacks, Popcorn Chicken and Onion Rings.
Washed down with Rum and Coke made with Sailor Jerry’s Spiced Rum.
Enough blantant product placement for tonight.
Good night.
jmarcure on June 27, 2008 at 9:34 PM
aengus on June 27, 2008 at 9:23 PM
That’s precisely why it was called the “dark ages”… it has nothing to do with a lack of culture, but the fact that the culture was such that it left very little for us to study.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »