Bush endorses teaching "intelligent design."

[Upchurch]

You really don't know what a species is?

No. He's trolling to get a rise out of people.

 

[hammegk]

No. He's trolling to get a rise out of people.

Gosh, Uppie, how nice to see you up, about, and as helpful as usual. Got a few links to straighten me out?

As an aside -- just curious -- do you have clue what "boiler plate" means with regards to text? If so, why that snide comment?

WHAM. Damn, setting that final rivet feels so good.

Should we look for you in Stockholm any time soon?

Now do you believe in the theory of evolution?

Things evolve; that's a fact. What they are capable of evolving from, or to (that being rather related to an an actual definition of "species") is by Theory, elegant, but by justifiable scientific fact, disputable.

The Theory makes a great story, that I believe.

 

[Upchurch]

Gosh, Uppie, how nice to see you up, about, and as helpful as usual. Got a few links to straighten me out?

Oh, still upset that I actually support my claims with references and evidence, huh? I hoped you would have gotten past that by now. You'll figure it out someday, I'm sure.

 

[normdoering]

... is by Theory, elegant, but by justifiable scientific fact, disputable.

What justifiable scientific fact?

 

[Silicon]

Hammy resolutely refuses to evolve.

 

[hammegk]

Oh, still upset that I actually support my claims with references and evidence, huh? I hoped you would have gotten past that by now. You'll figure it out someday, I'm sure.

On-point Uppie additions to anything I've ever posted remain at nil, zilch, zero which is the same level of understanding Uppie was able to bring to bear on any of them, iirc.

What justifiable scientific fact?

Read it the alternate way. The scientific "facts" used to support speciation -- whatever that is -- have feet of clay on close examination. The original papers contain more maybes, might-bes, could-bes than any other 'scientific' endeavor other than, perhaps, Medicine.

And on that last one, tell me, are eggs good for us or not?

 

[normdoering]

The scientific "facts" used to support speciation --

You mean like actual observed instances of speciation in the lab and in the wild?

Here are a few examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm

Ring Species:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

... whatever that is --

Ummm, I though that was explained with the horse/mule/donkey/ thing... it's when you can no longer produce viable offspring with everyone who used to be in your species.

...have feet of clay on close examination.

Boy have they been lying to you.

The original papers contain more maybes, might-bes, could-bes than any other 'scientific' endeavor other than, perhaps, Medicine.

And on that last one, tell me, are eggs good for us or not?

I have no idea which papers you are talking about. You're living in your own delusional world it seems.

 

[angst]

Santorums take on Bush's ID

I heard this on NPR's Morning addition on my way to work with regard to Bush's comments on ID. (Hope I'm not breaking any rules pasting this much)

INSKEEP: I want to ask about a couple of other items here. President Bush in the last several days has said that he believes intelligent design, the idea that there is a creator behind the work of the world that we see, that intelligent design should be taught in schools. What do you think of that?

Sen. SANTORUM: I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested, that I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom. What we should be teaching are the problems and holes and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution. And what we need to do is to present those fairly from a scientific point of view. And we should lay out areas in which the evidence supports evolution and the areas in the evidence that does not.

INSKEEP: Why do what you see as holes in the theory of evolution, and there are scientists who will hear on our air that will disagree with the idea that there really are that many holes...

Sen. SANTORUM: Sure.

INSKEEP: ...but...

Sen. SANTORUM: I just think they're wrong.

INSKEEP: ...why does that particular item of the academic curriculum concern you as a United States senator?

Sen. SANTORUM: It has huge...

INSKEEP: Why would those holes matter to you?

Sen. SANTORUM: ...consequences for society and it's where we come from. Does man have a purpose? Is there a purpose for our lives? Or are we just simply, you know, the result of chance. If we're the result of chance, if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us that if, in fact, we are a creation of a being that has moral demands.

Santorum actually had this dumb ass chuckle just before he said: "I just think they're wrong." Heh. I almost spit up my coffee!

Edit: If for some reason you want to hear the whole thing you can find it here.

 

[Upchurch]

On-point Uppie additions to anything I've ever posted remain at nil, zilch, zero which is the same level of understanding Uppie was able to bring to bear on any of them, iirc.

Technically, that may be true because of our discussion in R&P were you conceeded that you can't even know for sure that "I think" is true.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Santorums take on Bush's ID

I heard this on NPR's Morning addition on my way to work with regard to Bush's comments on ID.

I heard that interview. My favorite part is where he complained about people calling him a bigot and how we should respect other people's ideas, which he then followed with a comment about why he didn't want gay people to marry.

 

[American]

If you want real entertainment, watch a debate between creationists and ID-ers. It's like dumb and dumber-er.

Yet, I still trust their vote over any democrat. If government must exist, then religious dorks are far preferable to fairyass pinksters in charge of my life and wallet.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yet, I still trust their vote over any democrat. If government must exist, then religious dorks are far preferable to fairyass pinksters in charge of my life and wallet.

So you prefer theocracy over civil rights, as long as you can pay less taxes?

 

[Ryokan]

Yet, I still trust their vote over any democrat. If government must exist, then religious dorks are far preferable to fairyass pinksters in charge of my life and wallet.

Your problem, sir, is the US de facto two party system.

In Norway, for example, we have a conservative party and a Christian party. So if you're a conservative, but don't care much for the Christian version of it, you don't have to vote for Christian conservatives

 

[SezMe]

Yet, I still trust their vote over any democrat. If government must exist, then religious dorks are far preferable to fairyass pinksters in charge of my life and wallet.

Makes one question the concept of universal sufferage.

 

[normdoering]

If government must exist, then religious dorks are far preferable to fairyass pinksters in charge of my life and wallet.

Why?

You like Bush's billions of debt spending?
You think abortion should be illegal?
You think gays shouldn't marry?
You think oil companies should be given billions in tax breaks subsidies?

 

[President Bush]

I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Take forensic science. I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. Like Palm Reading for Seduction by Derek Vitalio. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

Read my palm. No new tresses.

 

[normdoering]

Future Federal Policy Not So Promising for Science
http://www.osa-opn.org/view_file.cfm?doc=$)LK'KP &id=%(,7-J<0

Soaring federal budget deficits are creating pressures for spending restraint, especially in areas not directly tied to homeland security and national defense
—bad news for basic, nonmilitary research. An even worse federal fiscal train-wreck looms in the decades ahead, making long-term science spending yet more dicey.

Moreover, science advocates remain uneasy about administration, congressional and public attitudes that can burden researchers’ work in controversial areas. And an indifference to science among the young threatens the nation’s ability to develop future generations of scientists.

Americans Barely Pass Science Quiz
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/americans_barel.html#more

Half the population (assuming an unbiased sample) do not accept evolution, do not know that antibiotics are ineffective against viruses, do not know that electrons are smaller than atoms, and do not know that lasers are light sources. Barely more than half know that it takes the earth 1 year to go around the sun.

 

[Elind]

For a man who cannot seem to give a SINGLE speech with invoking a spooky father-figure in the sky, is this a real surprise?

Let's not forget that he can't make a single sentence without saing "Uhhh".

 

[delphi_ote]

So you prefer theocracy over civil rights, as long as you can pay less taxes?

I shall take the wisdom of this post to heart and carry it with me for the rest of my life.

 

[RandFan]

Diane Rehm from NPR put the smack-down on ID advocate Richard Land on her show today. It should be available online at least by tomorrow, if not sooner.

I usually try to avoid her show because her voice grates on my nerves (which is petty, I admit), but I was driving my wife's car and didn't really have another good option. Her guest, ID proponent Richard Land, was making all the classic argumentative fallacies and Rehm and her other guest called him on it left and right. It was very satisfying.

eta: now that I actually read the above site, it'll be available about 1 PM EST.

Great program. Thank you. As a former ID proponent I must say that the message sounds slick and enticing but I have debated on both sides enough to know that it is a facade. Sadly too many people will fall for the seductive idea that there are scientists who believe in ID so there must be something to it.

I really took offence to the guy explaining he was pro ID but against religion in the Classroom. Well what the hell do you think an intelligent designer is? Ask your Rabbi or Priest he says. You see kids, there is this intelligent designer out there but we can't tell you who it is. Go talk to a "religious" leader for the rest of the story.

I so hate being lied to.