"Darwin Day" Topic

Off topic, semi-rant follows:

I for one am embarrassed about my membership in the Fez. Right wing political opinion masquerading as truth and that detritus overflows into every part of the BF. Even the "Meaning of Life", a board that started out with some redeeming qualities.

Just look at the evolution discussion started by Gunfreak or look up relatively scientific topics like global warming and you will see that the level of discussion rarely rises above grade school level. If your taste runs to uninformed and dogmatic vitriol, then it is the place for you.

Embarrassing.

I'd be happy to hand over my membership to TJ. He belongs there.

Ralph

Im with Ralph on this one. I didnt visit for some time, and when I did the best thing on offer was a thread on whether Barack Obama was gay. Not been back since.

I'm actually quite a regular there now…I enjoy getting Rocky cross !!

Remember:

"the beatings will continue until morale improves!"

:-)

Pete

Sorry guy, my misinterpreation.

I am not now and never have been a member of the Blue Fez.

I am proud of being sent to the dawghouse for defending science against trolls.

I notice that you are much more likely to be sent to the dawghouse if you aspouse political views that are not of the right and defend science against superstition. I continue to be conflicted as to whether I renew my supporting membership.

Whoa! Ralph, POLITICS will get you DHed as readily as RELIGION or TFW. I hope no one rats you out. But it probably won't matter. Bill is known to DH people many months after the faux pas was uttered. It's just a matter of time.

TBF would be better if people with opposing opinions inhabited it, instead of complaining how lame the denizens most numerous are….

Hi

I am a Fez memeber and I don't remember the thread that Obama might be gay as a thread or even "typical".

In essence, you have done a TJ reasoning from the specific to the general.

All to often people see any disagreement with their politics not as discussion but a reason to dismiss any concept that everyone might have a nugget of truth! "You don't agree with me, you must be a right wing nut" is a bad choice. A better one, as we do here with Doug and TJ is "you disagree with me, and this is why I think you are wrong.".

Rocky

They did have a thread about Obama beeing gay and even that he might have HIV

::whistle:: You guys, even dropping political NAMES. This forum is going to have far fewer denizens for a while, or I am very mistaken (or Bill is too busy)….

I am a Fez memeber and I don't remember the thread that Obama might be gay as a thread or even "typical".

Rocky, maybe that is because it is hard to find a needle in a stack of needles.

Doug, even you must admit that the political drivel is overflowing into "The Meaning of Life". It was the one philosophical oasis on TMP. The people that used to make it interesting are now long gone. You and Volstagg are the exceptions that still remain.

Otherwise, I stand by my comments of yesterday.

Ralph

Disclaimer: the opinions presented above are mine and mine alone and were not cribbed, copied or otherwise plagiarized from a Creationist website.

Rocky – not sure if its me you think has "done a TJ" – but for me its no such thing, just that TBF doesnt seem interesting or sensible most of the time, and I dont think its my job to try to fix that. There are other forums I prefer to participate in with my availaible time for such things.

One of my Favorite videos from AronRa
YouTube link

Great use of Youtube Gunny. very informative

Our sometime 'contributor' who is "not trolling" will not approve though.

BTW I notice that this same individual still hasn't answered my question of January 15th, which repeated my question of December 19th, which repeaded my question of December 12th and so on……

Hi

imrael, TJs usual approach is to take a specific objection and reason to the general. It is a variant of the old saw:

George wears an orange shirt, George is a man, all men wear orange shirts.

JJ invents a dozen discussions a day. I am sure that one of them seems silly, it doesn't follow that ALL or most are silly.

Like the rest of TMP, one is not obligated to read ALL the posts.

Similarly on the Fez you have a majority on the right. It doesn't mean that the right is the only post, or that the right is always wrong. Too often at least on the Fex, the left takes a simple position. "if you agree with me most of the time, but not all the time, I can dismiss all your points as you being a right wing nut."

I fear Ralph has fallen into that logic trap. Notice how Pets says he only posts to wind me up, but the reality is that most of the time we agree!

Few political points are black and white, most of them have some correct point, the issue is often a matter of cost versus benefit. A variant of "killing the goose that laid the golden egg". So often there are various positions, all have a good point, but too often would end up destroying the idea they promote.

And that applies here. the IDers see things in black and white, would destroy science to protect what they see as the greater good of moral perfection in their religion. And as this thread indicates, gunfreak and I argue, not on evolution which we understand, but on his suggesting that it is religion which must be driven into the dark…for the greater good.

Rocky

Notice how Pets says he only posts to wind me up, but the reality is that most of the time we agree!

Rocky is right, I was only joking about winding him up!

I have found that although slanted to the right the guys on TBF are more than willing to listen to a counter view if you are willing to discuss it logically and incorporate facts, simply saying X is wrong because you are a Republican/Democrat/English won't get you anywhere. If you are going to argue your point you had better know what you are talking about! I have also found the cultural difference between the two English speaking nations surprisingly broad!

I would find it dull debating with somebody who agrees with everything that I say, and of course would learn nothing new. I have learnt a lot about the US and other peoples views on politics/history/buying gold and for that it is worth a little going over every now and again!

:->

Pete

Possibly I'm just too impatient to appreciate the experience – it takes me a while to find topics that
1. Arent sily
2. Havent already degenerated into name calling
3. Arent too US-local for me to have an opinion on

I'm sure they are there, but I'm not willing to put the time in nowadays.

Too often at least on the Fex, the left takes a simple position. "if you agree with me most of the time, but not all the time, I can dismiss all your points as you being a right wing nut."

I fear Ralph has fallen into that logic trap.

No Rocky I don't think you are being fair to me here. Politically I'm left of center on social issues and right of center on fiscal issues. First off, a simple skimming of the Fez shows that the members are overwhelmingly right wing. Thats fine by me.

I will have to disagree with you and Pete's categorization of the level of discussion on the Fez. Just compare the thread that Gunfreak started on the Fez, with this behemoth we are on now. Sorry, there is no comparison.

I'm with Imrael. Most of the topics are silly and petty. Most give off more heat than light, as the old saying goes. And finally, most are too US-centric to keep my attention.

Here is some food for thought. Check how that media darling of the far right, Miss Ann Coulter is treated by the denizens of the Fez. As you may know, she has published an anti-evolutionist book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, where she attributes evolution as "bogus science". It is the left wingers "….obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death." Uh-ha?

link

Has anyone read this book? At best she is grossly ignorant and misinformed, at worst she is a liar. Some scientists wanted to review the scientific points she puts forward, but most said they couldn't find anything worth attacking. Her book and her scientific viewpoints were worthless. Let me know when Rocky and Pete bring this up on the Fez.

Here are some of her quotes on this Wiki link:

link

go about a 1/3rd of the way down on the page.

If this crap was put forth on the Science board it would be rigorously attacked by all of us (TJ excepted). If it found its way to the Political Affairs board it would be almost universally lauded and fawned over (Rocky and Pete, the exceptions).

QED

Ralph

And the evidence of political speech increases.

I wish that Bill wasn't such a pansy about this, but he has established rules, you guys. And it is both boring IN the DawgHaus or waiting for others to get out of it. I wish you'd knock it off. I can't say "before it's too late," because it already is….

No one is discussing politics here. Bill, and everyone else can see that. Give it a rest.

I'm comparing and contrasting what passes for intelligent scientific discourse on this board and the Fez. You can choose not to read it.

You're not raising politics like I wasn't raising religion. Yet merely expressing a concept of what constitutes existence in the first place got me DHed more than once. Above, I see names, discussions of books, authors, titles, and commentary/opinion on the same. If that's not CA discussion, aka politics, then I am an ox and a moron….

Above, I see names, discussions of books, authors, titles, and commentary/opinion on the same.

Well I discussed a well known author, Miss Coulter, who wrote an anti-Darwinist tome, full of poor science. Where but a Darwin thread on a science board would this be more appropriate? I also contrasted how these scientific topics are treated differently on a Fez board and on this board. I thought the level of discussion is much, much better here.

You almost sound sad that Bill didn't come down on anyone.

So, you are neither ox nor moron. Just mistaken.

Ralph

Hi

Ralph, you are right, more heat than light. Actually pretty typical of all online posting. Notice how, for instance, in ancients, my discussing bow physics and various head designs versus armor at range gets pasted off as "longbow fanboy".

Similarly, I have no idea why you quote Ann Coulter, unless you are reinforcing my point about some on the left being extremists. Ann is wrong a lot. bush was wrong a lot. Therefore, they are always wrong? As with "heat but no light" you have fallen into "tarring with a broad brush".

I have not read Ann's stuff about evolution. She is a political commentator, not someone I look to for science. Is it the idea you have that someone cannot quote Ann where she has a political point without then listing where you think she iw wrong on OTHER SUBJECTS?

pretty extreme. And, being fair, one could then dismiss Obama because of Rev. Wright's attitude about revising the history of the US and "revolutionary theology".

This is attack on the "fellow traveller" model. It was wrong to do so when McCarthy in the fifties tarred people by association from the right, and your tarring the Fez based on some post about Ann Coulter is just as off base.

Pete, JJ and I have regularly disagreed, left and right, on various ideas. we have a few people who are always left and are always right.

If you start a thread about ann coulter in general, that would be different.

If you were really left here and right there, as Pete and I usually are, then you wouldn't see the FEz as "right only".

Actually, someone who gets mentioned a lot in the press is that famed Right Winger Bill O'Reilley. Course they ignore that about half his positions are extreme left. These includ advocating gun control and no death penalty. You might be a lefty if you see people with a range of opinions as only Right Wing because they disagree with SOME left positions.

Rocky

Discussing TBF, its political mixture and threads, here, could be considered a violation, since the references are all political.

I guess Ralph, et al. yous like walking a fine line. That's probably because you haven't been DHed, repeatedly, for saying less than others contributing to the same conversation who seem immune to getting DHed. "C'est la vie"….

@Rocky

1) I would wear the epithet "longbow fanboy" with pride. You sound like you know what you are talking about.

2) Miss Coulter decided to write a book attacking current biological science and thereby amply illustrated the fact that she is totally ignorant on the topic. For me that would raise flags that the rest of her "writings" should be taken with a grain of salt. You may feel free to disagree.

3)

……and your tarring the Fez based on some post about Ann Coulter is just as off base.

Hmmm…….you totally missed the point. That's not what I said.

@Doug

I've been doghoused twice. The first time I felt I didn't deserve this and wrote to Bill. He agreed with my explanation and had me sprung. The second time I totally deserved it. Mea culpa.

Ralph

Fresh video explening diffrence beween micro macro evolution
YouTube link

@ Ralph, only twice? you tyro…. ;)

Hi

I try not to post where I have no data. Most people do not and part of the fun of commentary is "opinion" not "reason".

I have read Dawkins, and his book raised "red flags" for me as I think I mentioned about 20 pages ago. He did a reverse "TJ" in an interview I watched a while ago. In short he said as he was educated, he found genesis had it wrong THEREFORE, all religion is wrong and there is no god.

I hold a simpler position that is similar to the Catholic church. The bible is for moral lessons and inspiration, not literally true. Dawkins goes for "not literally true, therefore completly wrong".

What is the story behind genesis? Lets accept, for the purpose of discussion, that God told the story to a proto-jew ca 4000 years ago. Let us notice that the bible story was entirely verbal until the 9th century BC when it was first written down. In the first part, a stone age shepard with no number in his head beyond a thousand is hearing a story that involves, for discussion sake, abolutely true facts involving the big bang.

the shepard condenses that to "let there be light".

God then explains the fish in the sea leading up to people, inolves evolution over billions of years….and the shepeard having no idea what such big numbers means……

See where this is going?

Then verbally tells his tribe. And they tell others for 1200 years as family myths until it gets written down during the Babylonian captivity. STILL no one has a number in the vocabulary bigger than 10,000 and that is a borrowed greek word.

Dawkins is expecting too much from Genesis.

And as a scientist having an opinion about the validity of religion, it is outside his area of expertise. Thus, I follow his science, but not his religious pronouncements.

Ann coulter, a political observer who shows some expertise in how politics works, some history of politics. But she isn't a biologist!

I think Doug has memorized every word of Runcimen's History of the Crusades. I NEVER argue with him about that era. Not ever. But in our relationship, I am the guy who does the physics. My knowledge of bow physics doesn't make me an expert on medieveal commetary, his doesn't make his an expert on airflow dynamics.

To me this is a variant of the "Mr. Natural" aphorism "Use the right tool for the job".

Rocky

Rocky as I've said atleat twice, dawkins dosn't base his views on "geneis was worng" there is much more to it, but it's about religion and so we can't talk about it.

Ann Coulter, might not be an biologist, but thats not an excuse, I'm not an either but I know tones more then most, in fact som of the brain bunch on youtube aren't formaly educated biolgists, they just happen to be smart people that can read.

I think Doug has memorized every word of Runcimen's History of the Crusades.

I wish! I have read it all the way through several times (but not for many years, and we all know what happens to memorized things after many years).

Because of Bill's rules, this conversation is too "dangerous" for me. Carry on….

Actually I think Professor Dawkin's position is that as you study the bible – religious education being a compulsory subject in the UK – the more doubts it raises in your mind. When the answers you receive to your queries do not satisfy you those doubts grow rather than go away.

Now at the risk of walking into the Dawghouse with my head held hight, again. The Old Testament has some "interesting" view of morality and I do not take moral compass from this source. Then of course there are all those rather angry letters from Paul and the Revleations of St John the Deranged in the New.

The problem that biologists like Profs. Dawkins and PZ Myers is that they know their science and yet they come up against, time and time again, are people who refuse to take accept the science because they rely on the a bronze age creation myth. This is frustrating, Kipling expressed it rather well:

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

We have encountered the same issue on a smaller scale; but biologists are on the front online of the kulturkampf. Atleast they don't get shot for their views by the fundimenats, yet.

(And the game of William Roulette continues :) ….)

The bible is for moral lessons and inspiration, not literally true. Dawkins goes for "not literally true, therefore completly wrong".

Sorry Rocky, I will disagree with your second sentence. In fact I will challenge you to back it up with any quote of Dawkins you like. I don't believe he says that.

I have read his books (except for his newest) and I would say he wholeheartedly agrees with your first line.

Ann coulter, a political observer who shows some expertise in how politics works, some history of politics. But she isn't a biologist!

I'll agree with Gunfreak here, you are giving her too wide a pass. If you are not a biologist, don't care about biology, and don't understand biology, then don't write a book attacking Darwinism. Don't you wonder how she arrives at the consensus that "evolution is bogus science"?

BTW, most of the IDiots and Creatards such as William Dembski, Philip Johnson, Stephan Meyer, Bruce Chapman, and George Guilder are also not biologists or scientists. When they push their crap upon school boards and policymakers should we give them a pass too?

Ralph

@ Ralph, only twice? you tyro…. ;)

Oh-oh, I feel like my street "cred" has just dropped.

Ralph

Now, I've been in the dawghouse to, it lasted only hours, before I had begged and nagged Bill to letting me out, but it was not fun.

To my suprise it was not for anything in this thread, but for a what I thought was an inocent joke that turned out to be a whole thing.

Hear is a piece on the Creation "Museum" from 'Vanity Fair', not a science journal I know, but a nice atmosphere article. It may save you time and money if you're in the Cincinnati area:

link

BTW I notice our sometime 'contributor' who is "not trolling" still hasn't answered my question of January 15th, which repeated my question of December 19th, which repeaded my question of December 12th and so on……

To remind you this is what I want answered:

When a Prof. of Biology gives a lectures on Youtube then the contents can be rejected because of it appeared on Youtube. So in what circumstances would that lecture be acceptable to the creatists? Could such a format also be shared with the rest of the TMP community?

Hi

My Dawkins was based on attending a lecture where he said that. Remember, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I am not religious, my background is in Science. But the logic gap is "genesis is wrong, therefore…". Just as TJ keeps insisting that "god is in the gaps".

Logic? If Ann cannot comment on Biology not being a biologist, then Dawkins not being a theologian cannot…"

The thing in our democratic republic is the free forum of ideas. So, I will oppose Ann's views on evolution, but defend to the death her right to state them.

And, in the case of this forum, notice that Ann being wrong here is using a tool to dismiss whole groups of people by reasoning from this stand:Ann is a conservative, Ann is an idiot about evolution, therefore all conservative americans are ….." Another False Syllogism.

Seems to me that the extremes on both sides have untroubled minds when it comes to the politics of the situation involving the suppression of thought, speech. I understand Dawkins resentment, and he is right here, the UK school system should NOT be teaching the official state religion. I did not know they were still doing so. I seem to remember on the BEEB recently the archbishop insisting that evolution was science. Dunno'.

Rocky

I understand Dawkins resentment, and he is right here, the UK school system should NOT be teaching the official state religion.

As far as I am aware, UK State schools teach Religious Education (it is possibly called something else these days) that encompasses all religions, not just C of E. My 6 year old daughter was particularly keen on Divali last year as she got to play with candles!

I seem to remember on the BEEB recently the archbishop insisting that evolution was science

You are right Rocky! He was on a documentary last year about Darwin (can't remember what it was called) and stressed that evolution was accepted by the Anglican Church. There was also a documentary series on BBC Radio 4 in December called "The Infinite Monkey Cage" where a representative of The Church of England was quite accepting of the Scientific Method. They don't have that particular episode on YouTube but you might enjoy the preceding ones:

YouTube link

Pete

Hi Rocky,

My Dawkins was based on attending a lecture where he said that.

Well I can't comment on a lecture you went to. I haven't heard him say anything remotely like that when I have seen him, neither did I read anything remotely like that in "The God Delusion". I'll leave it at that.

Logic? If Ann cannot comment on Biology not being a biologist, then Dawkins not being a theologian cannot…"

Please don't fabricate a straw-man argument just so you can shoot it down. No one said Ms Coulter cannot comment on biology. You are making stuff up.

Any casual reader of both books will easily see that Miss Coulter is grossly ignorant and willfully misinformed about evolution and Dr. Dawkins is VERY well informed about Christian theology. Read the books.

And, in the case of this forum, notice that Ann being wrong here is using a tool to dismiss whole groups of people by reasoning from this stand:Ann is a conservative, Ann is an idiot about evolution, therefore all conservative americans are ….." Another False Syllogism.

Except no one has said that on this forum. I certainly didn't. Only Rocky Russo has said this. (He tends to extrapolate on the things actually written down).

Ann says this too. Remember her book is called "Godless: the Church of Liberalism". Apparently she has a "bye" when it comes to broad brush strokes. Is this the "tool" used to dismiss whole groups that you are talking about?

The thing in our democratic republic is the free forum of ideas. So, I will oppose Ann's views on evolution, but defend to the death her right to state them.

Another bogus argument. No one is contesting anyone's rights on free expression.

Seems to me that the extremes on both sides have untroubled minds when it comes to the politics of the situation involving the suppression of thought, speech.

What does this mean? The extreme view on MY side of the argument is adequately represented by Dr. Dawkins. Where does he display an "untroubled mind" involving the "suppression of thought and speech"? Are you making this up?

Ralph

Here is a BBC interview with Richard Dawkins where he talks about his changing views on competing magisteria and includes some real science:

YouTube link

YouTube link

YouTube link

Sorry to our 'non-trolling contributor' it came from Youtube. But since you still haven't told us what you consider an acceptable alternative I can't help you.

Hi

Ralph, " If it found its way to the Political Affairs board it would be almost universally lauded and fawned over (Rocky and Pete, the exceptions).

QED"

Except no one did.

"Her book and her scientific viewpoints were worthless. Let me know when Rocky and Pete bring this up on the Fez."

Meaning what? First you imply we praise Ann, or that I have even talked about her. I don't think anyone has mentioned her in relation to science, just political commentary. And it is illogical to hold that her science is bad, therefore, her politics are bad.

"I'll agree with Gunfreak here, you are giving her too wide a pass. If you are not a biologist, don't care about biology, and don't understand biology, then don't write a book attacking Darwinism. Don't you wonder how she arrives at the consensus that "evolution is bogus science"?

Why not? She is a political commentator, and I don't read her books. But I have seen her on TV. And her point seems to be the politics that results from the opinion.

Earlier in this thread, Gunfreak among others suggested that ID should not be taught in Schools. I agreed, but then he went further and suggested that it should not even be allowed to be advocated in public. I pointed out that this was looking like treating his athiesm as a religion that would force christians to go back to meeting in secret.

How can you expect to change minds with bad opinions if you insist that they not publish? Censorship as you imply above is always wrong.

R

The only reason I don't want ID talked about in public is that nobody can talk about it in a positive way with out lieing their ass off.

And I'm not talking about "no new taxes" kinda lie, total extreme lieing, the kind that is Perjury, that kind that if you tell it in court(and they do) they should be thown in jail for 5 years.

And if they can't tell a single truth, then why should we let them spread their lies.
They can do want they want on the public air, but but they are comiting perjury and thats iligal

Gun, perjury is only IN a law court. Outside, it's called lying. Or, repeating tales. Or, telling stories. Or, making an asseth of yourselfeth. Let the IDers alone to spread their "good word". Leave them alone. Let them hoist themselves on the petard of their own illogical, circular reasoning, without empirical evidence, without scientific method to back up a single thing that they say. In this world of increasing scientific method, reason, INFORMATION, how long, do you think, can this kind of silliness survive? I give it the better part of this century, then it will be effectively dead. The sheer weight of scientific proof and reason will kill all religious bogus claims to "truth" that don't fit the facts….

Doug I wish I was as optimistic. The problem is that excepts of Stalinist Russian, possibly Nazi Germany, and the United States the advanced states of the world had accepted Evolution by the 1930 and it was taught in schools. The world, especially in the US seems to have a group that wants to turn the clock back.

Yes the IDiots/Creatards are lying about science. I'm afraid that they drank the Kool Aid and believe their myths. They then have to invent a psuedo-science to counter real science. They will, then stoop to any lengths to win there care

Lets deal with a common lie for them. Stalin was specifically did not accept Evolution (I refuse to use the IDiotic name 'Darwinist'). Here is someinton our 'non-trolling contributor' MIGHT accept, but we don't know because in not being a troll he refses to asnwer a civil question, asked on numberous occasion. In this we have three Professors (two of history one of genetics) discussing the work of Trofim Lystenko:

link

Evoultion gradually slipped into the US school system, but opposition to this science it is a issue that energies the base of one of the two main US parties. In the view of politicians, specifically those relying on this support, science is too important to be left the scientists.

I disagree with these experts. Somebody's gotta stand up to experts that are… I don't know why they're doing it."

– Texas State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, R-College Station, in a rambling defense of the creationist arguments he used to attack evolutionary theory during the final debate over new public school science curriculum standards, TFN Insider, March 27, 2009

"I pray for my three friends, Pat Hardy of Ft. Worth, Bob Craig of Lubbock, and Geraldine ‘Tincy' Miller of Dallas. They voted against the Republican Party platform and allowed themselves to be constantly lobbied by prominent atheists and secular humanists. These three Republicans will now have to stand accountable before their constituents."

– Texas State Board of Education Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, criticizing fellow Republicans on the state board who didn't support watering down instruction on evolution in public school science classrooms, San Antonio Express-News, February 9, 2009

"The culture war over science education, the teaching of evolution, is going to be there, no matter what. Education is too important not to politicize."

– Texas State Board of Education member Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, finally being honest about turning public schools into political battlegrounds, Texas Tribune, November 3, 2009.

"Am I a religious fanatic? Absolutely. You'd have to be to do what I do."

– Texas State Board of Education member Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, Texas Tribune, November 5, 2009

"While state legislatures haggle over the words science, theory, and weaknesses, American schoolchildren continue to rank poorly in science education among the nations of the world. Pouring more money into the status quo of evolution-based science education isn't the answer. Teaching the truth is."

– Henry Morris III, a prominent evolution denier and CEO of the Dallas- based Institute for Creation Research, which has sued the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for refusing to grant the organization approval to offer master's of science education degrees in the state, U.S. News and world Report, February 2, 2009. This, of course, overlooks the fact that the countries beating US school children in international league tables accept the science of evolution.

"When the Universe was smaller, the gravitational effect was huge and the time on Earth would have been a billion times slower."

– Robert Carr, a retired chief executive and contributor to the Creation Museum in Kentucky, offering his thoughts about how God created the earth in six days, AFP, February 5, 2009. Now maybe TJ will provide the psuedo-science behind this reference.

"The obvious problem here is that it is simply not possible to be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, and at the same time, embrace the tenets of atheistic evolution."

"What kind of monster parents teach their children that they're descended from rodents and reptiles?"

"What do these apostate morons celebrate at their Sunday services, the lies about humanity's origins told by Moses, Jesus, and Paul?"

– Robert Bowie Johnson Jr., writing in his book Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences' Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They're Descended from Reptiles, which Texas State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy heartily endorsed

Quote mining? Maybe, but this comes out of one of the most influential states in the US when it comes to purchasing text-books.

BTW It's interesting to note on the Napoleonic Boards Kevin Kiley the historian is 'pulling a TJ' in respect to direct questions from myself and Dr. Stephen Summerfield requarding the removal of the Spanish Royal family by di Buonaparte. He's not fallen to the depths of our 'non-trolling contrubtor' but we hear from Kevin more frequently that we do from TJ….

"…it is simply not possible to be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, and at the same time, embrace the tenets of atheistic evolution"

Well, duh. Except that evolution has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT TFW, period. It is a theory observing how life continues on this world -- it doesn't even offer an explanation about how life got started here. TFW has nothing to do with evolution theory. So, as many religious people do, it is completely reasonable to both believe in biological evolution and in TFW. There's nothing godless about it either….

The said thing is that they have been very effective at spreading that partucalr lie, (about atheistic evolution)

They realy have people eating out of their hands on this one.

Even in liberal atheistic norway you will find a small minority that belives it.

Lets hope the atheist word dosn't get my dawg housed.

It won't. Atheism isn't religion. And only religious discussion is verboten on TMP….

The creationist Texas State Board of Education under Don McLeroy has become an institution right out of Orwell's 1984.

Christina Comer was the Texas Director of Science at the Texas Education Agency for nine years. This was after a long and distinguished career as a secondary school level science teacher. In late 2007 she received an email from Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education. Glenn wrote her about an upcoming lecture tour by Dr. Barbara Forrest.

Dr. Forrest is the co-author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". She was also a witness for the plaintiffs at the Dover trial. She is a Fellow at the Committee for Sceptical Inquiry and a Professor of Philosophy of Science at S.E. Louisiana U.

Ms.Comer forwarded this email to her superiors and to some science education groups in Texas who would be interested in sponsoring Dr. Forrest's lecture. This was part of her job and she had done so hundreds of times before.

Within a half an hour of her sending this email, she was informed that a Lizzette Anthony, the deputy commissioner for Statewide Policy and Programs, saw the emails and was calling for her termination. Christine Comer had never met Ms. Anthony, who was just appointed to this position by George W Bush. Ms. Anthony complained to the Chair, Don McLeroy who promptly ordered a retraction sent and that Ms. Comers services were no longer needed.

According to a Texas Education Agency internal memo, written by TEA employee Monica Martinez, who wrote the termination letter:

"The forwarded email states that the speaker (Barbara Forrest) is a board member of the science education organization (NCSE), and the email clearly indicates that this group opposes teaching creationism in public education."

Doug says:

Let the IDers alone to spread their "good word". Leave them alone.

Their "good word" ruins careers of conscientious workers who are doing their jobs. Ms. Comer lost her first wrongful dismissal lawsuit in 2009. After which the Discovery Institute gloated on their website:

"Thankfully, a clear minded judge has now tossed this publicity stunt from court".

Luckily Christina Comer is appealing to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals.

Doubleplusgood.

Ralph

Yes, it is. And Comer will WIN. You know it and so do I. If, that is, she's determined enough to take this right to the SCOTUS. Sooner or later, that's what this will require in order to expose the one-sided thinking in high places going on.

Look at this from the broader picture of recent history. The examples of other non evolution regimes has been mentioned. It is obvious, for instance, that Russia's top leader (Putin) is no evolutionist. When you take religion out of the culture, and the gov't is occupied by godless people, that evolution or no evolution is not the issue: control is. And religious and non religious alike can opt for totalitarian control. That's the danger here, not ID taught in schools. That's the Trojan Horse here, not the fact that this particular Trojan Horse happens to be ID promoters. You're being blinded by their public agenda. And so are they! It is the control freaks in high places who need slapping, not the ID. Gov't control, totalitarianism in any form, is what needs eradicating. If the IDers use gov't control to push ID, then they are totalitarians. If it is supression of religious free speech that is being quashed by gov't control, then the totalitarians are anti religious control freaks. Either one is bad, and their real agenda (total control) is being manifested by the confrontation: in this case IDers with a fanatical world view of "protecting Christianity"….

Hi

ya…so what?

"they should not be allowed…" sounds like tyrrany!

A couple people in Texas acted like idiots and lost. You would have a world that would solve this by what means?

Oddly enough, last night at dinner with slot racing friends, this came up. One had stumbled across the ID sight that TJ mentioned, and was puzzled. Instead of hiding in the dark, he asked, I explained, ID gets dismissed. Much more dangerous would be these guys hiding in the dark nursing a grudge that no one ALLOWS them to even speak.

You end darkness by shining light on it, not by driving it into more dark.

R

ya…so what?

Sheesh!

A couple people in Texas acted like idiots and lost.

No Rocky. A couple of people in Texas acted like idiots and won.

Here is an assessment By a Steve Schafersman of the Texas Citizens for Science (which I assume is a pro-science lobby group):

"The real reason Comer was forced to resign because of the top TEA administrators and some SBOE (State Board of Education) members wanted her out of the picture before the state science standards were reviewed, revised and rewritten….. beginning in Jan. 2008, and she would have some influence to make sure the standards were scientifically accurate and of high quality"

You would have a world that would solve this by what means?

Luckily for me I don't have to worry about that. Thankfully, I'm not a Texan. I think her dismissal is a travesty. The real losers are the tax payers and children of Texas. Who is looking after them now?
Those creationist ideologues in power have won……this round at least.

Ralph

"…real losers are the tax payers and children of Texas."

dunno for sure, but I think the large number of books purchased by Texas schools drives the content of those published -which means everyone ends up using the stuff Texas wants, which means the tax payers and children of many (if not all?) states suffer from the machinations of a small group of zealots in the Lone Star state.