Pharyngula

Posted by: Walton | February 14, 2009 2:10 PM

I must say, I'm unimpressed with Jindal lately. I had previously considered him the best choice for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, but I'm less and less convinced that he can genuinely unite the party.

Posted by: E.V. | February 14, 2009 2:13 PM

Wait a minute. Louisiana is too irrational, so the meeting is going to be held in UTAH instead?

Posted by: Carlie | February 14, 2009 2:14 PM

If this keeps up, we may be having all of our scientific meetings in Canada.
I see nothing wrong with that. Go Canada!

Posted by: Phaedrus | February 14, 2009 2:18 PM

I'm always curious about this strategy. Isn't it a form of collective punishment? I'm sure there are lots of people who believe in Science that live. Not saying I'm for or against, I'd like to hear it discussed.

Posted by: DrBadger | February 14, 2009 2:23 PM

Wait a minute. Louisiana is too irrational, so the meeting is going to be held in UTAH instead?

"Utah, in contrast, passed a resolution that states that evolution is central to any science curriculum."

Yeah, I'm surprised that Utah would pass a pro-evolution resolution.

Posted by: Scott | February 14, 2009 2:26 PM

Phaedrus: Yes, it is collective punishment. It's punishing the majority of people in Louisiana who voted for these politicians. These politicians aren't operating as solitary actors.

Posted by: Paguroidea | February 14, 2009 2:33 PM

Spot on, Scott! You're right that the politicians aren't operating as solitary actors. Too often I think citizens forget that.

Posted by: Jason | February 14, 2009 2:36 PM

Perhaps it's better off for Louisiana to NOT invite every idiot convention to our state. If your supposed "scientists" can't see past their noses, then Utah can have them. Science is about exploration.

You're saying that because Louisiana opened up the classroom to further scientific exploration and discussion (which doesn't fit your worldview), you're just going to take your bat and ball and go home. Well go right ahead. Go pat each other on the back and cry on each other's shoulders and say mean things about the mean old Louisianians. See if we care.

Posted by: dean | February 14, 2009 2:39 PM

Jindal is a moron, and rather ethically challenged, from the get go. I think the boycott is a fabulous idea, and deserved, but I don't believe for one second that it will bother the governor and the no-nothings to whom he panders. Watch for spin about "folks from outside trying to dictate education and free discussion in our fair state" to begin flying from whichever orifice he has closest to a microphone.

Posted by: dean | February 14, 2009 2:43 PM

Jason, your comments are incredibly foolish. If you think there is anything scientific about intelligent design, that's a pretty good sign you don't fit that incredibly poor description.

Intelligent design is not now, and never has been, about science: the people pushing it know that. It is about a way to get their incredibly narrow religious views into a classroom, nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: Walton | February 14, 2009 2:47 PM

Douglas Adams: Jatravartids are small blue creatures of the planet Viltvodle VI with more than fifty arms each. They are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

Many races believe that the Universe was created by some sort of god or in the Big Bang. The Jatravartid people, however, believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief". The theory of the Great Green Arkleseizure is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI.

Maybe we should abandon both evolution and intelligent design, and teach the Great Green Arkleseizure theory instead.

Posted by: JM Inc. | February 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Canada, are you kidding me?

What about this?

Posted by: www.10ch.org | February 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Perhaps it might be a good time for mass emigration from Louisiana for all good scientists... ? Then again, it might do more harm than good; I am not very sure.

Posted by: Gotchaye | February 14, 2009 2:58 PM

-1- Is there a list somewhere of the states and their creationist inspired education problems?

Isn't it a form of collective punishment?

Posted by: Walton | February 14, 2009 3:03 PM

Matt Heath: Hypothesis: there are two Waltons. The one that say things like #2 with the flammable stupid and the mildly amusing and self-aware one @#22.

No, I'm just rather unstable.

And what is "flammable stupid"? Did you mean "inflammatory"? Or were you actually expressing a desire to burn my comment?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 14, 2009 3:11 PM

It isn't even necessarily "punishment." It could be looked at as a lack of reward for their anti-science stance.

Boycotting is always problematic in my book, since one hits at both the pro-science and the anti-science factions with such a clumsy tool. Really, though, how do you hold a meeting in a state that just poked science in the eye?

Utah? Sure, it's not a pro-thought state. Mostly its collective idiocy directly involves the Mormon religion and doesn't spill over into science. Staying away because they're heavily Mormon does not seem appropriate, so long as they're not inflicting their woo into science or education (I'm sure it happens, only not as official policy).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: Sastra | February 14, 2009 3:12 PM

Jason #16 wrote:

You're saying that because Louisiana opened up the classroom to further scientific exploration and discussion (which doesn't fit your worldview), you're just going to take your bat and ball and go home.

Do you really think that cutting edge scientific exploration and research takes place in public school classrooms? No, children only learn what is already established through legitimate science forums, such as labs and peer review.

I would think the last thing you'd want is to devote public school class time to discussions on whether or not God exists -- with emphasis put on the view that, if evolution happened, then there is no God. Very bad long term strategy for you, if nothing else.

As for whether SICB is correct in boycotting Louisiana, consider how you'd feel if one of the states tried to mandate that churches should be forced to have children in its Sunday schools learn different views of Biblical exegesis, so that they can then "make up their own minds" on whether or not to take the Bible either literally, or as legitimate history. Sunday school classes should be places for "open debate" on ALL "worldviews" -- including atheism.

Surely churches would refuse to hold their national conventions in such a state, as a message that government has no right to intrude on how churches choose to teach the Bible. (Not an exact analogy, of course, but you get the idea.)

Posted by: Muffin | February 14, 2009 3:18 PM

Beaten by *Utah*? Ouch. That's adding insult to injury (for Louisiana). :)

Posted by: E.V. | February 14, 2009 3:22 PM

I'm sorry to have to repeat myself for the umpteenth time here but you yanks have only got yourself to blame for voting these idiots into power...

So where are you from Porky? ("yanks?") Last I heard the UK and Australia have their fair share of elected idiots too.

Posted by: Prillotashekta | February 14, 2009 3:24 PM

In related news,

Another one of those "Academic Freedom" bullshit bills is before the Iowa legislature now.

Spread the word!

Posted by: steve | February 14, 2009 3:27 PM

Why not ask all teachers of all sciences to withdraw from Louisiana and let them have full creationism and no science in their classes - and in all the other creationist States, as well. Let's see where that lands them. It would be an interesting experiment, at least.

Posted by: Nicole | February 14, 2009 3:33 PM

Unfortunately, if this keeps up in the United States, Canada may not be a safe-haven for science. Our PM, may not be 'out' as a Christian but he is Conservative. For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, Conservatives are our right wingers, with politics similar to those of the Republican party: bribing voters with tax cuts, opposing government spending, with thinly veiled nostalgia for 1950s ideology and macho mentality.

At their best, they're immune to all but the simplest logic - at their worst, they're actually allergic to it. Their votes come from the self-serving rich and the undereducated poor so it is in their best interest to keep the rich rich and the poor undereducated.

Science may not be on their hit list right now but if they can do enough damage this time around, the next generation of voters won't know how to spell evolution much less define it or defend it.

Forget safe havens and fight like your back is to the wall.

Posted by: Maus | February 14, 2009 3:45 PM

"Go pat each other on the back and cry on each other's shoulders and say mean things about the mean old Louisianians. See if we care."

Sez you, sniffling and crying all the way over to a site you don't regularly post on.

Posted by: eddie | February 14, 2009 3:46 PM

What a stinker!

Posted by: James F | February 14, 2009 3:49 PM

Here's a list of current anti-evolution legislation:

Mississippi - textbook disclaimer bill - dead in committee
New Mexico - “strengths and weaknesses” bill - in committee
Iowa - “academic freedom” bill - in committee
Oklahoma - “strengths and weaknesses” bill - in committee
Alabama - “academic freedom” bill - in committee

and

Texas - "strengths and weaknesses" - at state board of education

The Texas situation is complicated - the strengths and weaknesses failed by vote of the SBOE (8-7) but blatantly creationist additions were made to the state science standards. Final vote is in March.

Posted by: raven | February 14, 2009 4:02 PM

Jindal is just Sarah Palin in a suit. Plus his kids aren't old enough to get knocked up and have shotgun weddings yet.

The main advantage those two have is that they were new. When you look closer, the prince(ss) turned into toads.

Oddly enough, he has a degree in biology from Brown U.

But it isn't entirely fair to blame Jindal for being a toad governor. Without the electorate he would be just another Jason troll babbling away like an idiot on the internet.

Posted by: Chad | February 14, 2009 4:10 PM

As a Tulane graduate, an employee of the Tulane National Primate Research Center, and a member of a local secular humanist association (NOSHA), I find this legislation an embarassment. However, please don't paint the whole state and everyone in it the same color. There are good schools and research institutions here just as in other states but we also suffer from a loud and obnoxious minority that wishes to turn back the clock on progress. We fight it. Sometimes we fail. We could use your support, not your reckless criticism. We atheist, scientists, and freethinkers should unite and stand side by side together whenever these issues threaten us because they threaten us all.

Posted by: Liberal Atheist | February 14, 2009 4:14 PM

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, 13 promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or 14 promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

Posted by: KL | February 14, 2009 4:32 PM

Hmmmm..the National Science Teachers Association convention is in New Orleans next month-I suppose it's too late for them to pull out.

Posted by: Tom | February 14, 2009 4:33 PM

The last I checked the United States was a representative democracy (though who is actually represented is certainly debatable). That being said-- yes, punishing the entire state and all institutions therein is exactly the right thing to do.

Posted by: Liberal Atheist | February 14, 2009 4:41 PM

The reason why "evolution, the origins of life, global warming" are included is because they are the latest issues to have alternative, independent views on, no matter how much those views are contradicted by evidence and common sense.

Posted by: Anton Mates | February 14, 2009 4:45 PM

Vanya,

Wait, the act says only "scientific theories" may be studied. That leaves out ID/creationism, doesn't it?

Unfortunately not, because the act doesn't say who gets to decide what theories are "scientific," nor does it give straightforward criteria to make that decision, nor does it give examples of scientific vs. non-scientific material. It's not going to stop any teacher from introducing ID or creationism, because the supporters of those positions have always argued (in the classroom, the legislature and the courts) that they are scientific.

And it's pretty obvious that the act's authors and supporters are well aware of this. Once the act was passed, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education had to adopt a policy to guide school districts in implementing it. The Louisiana Dept. of Education proposed a policy which contained the line:

“Materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science classes.”

The act's supporters successfully lobbied BESE to remove this line before the policy was passed, and the DI praised them lavishly for doing so. Now why do you suppose they did that?

You can read a summary of the shenanigans surrounding implementation of the LSEA here.

Posted by: Liberal Atheist | February 14, 2009 4:50 PM

@64 Anton Mates

They have always argued it is scientific, but they have always been unable to show it is. We know it, they know it.

Posted by: MadScientist | February 14, 2009 5:14 PM

I pity the lovely folk of La - now that school kids' time will be wasted on creationist garbage, how much longer before more obvious tenets of religious bigotry are mandated in school teaching?

Posted by: Free Lunch | February 14, 2009 5:19 PM

The folks from Minnesconsin feel of two minds about anything Iowa does to make fools of themselves. It's like when your kid brother does something really dumb. It's a bit embarrassing because it's your kid brother, but there's also the schadenfreude because it's your kid brother.

Posted by: Anton Mates | February 14, 2009 5:23 PM

Ditto, by the way, for that "Don't construe this as promoting religion or non-religion" disclaimer found in this and most other "Academic Freedom" bills. Without a clear attached definition or a list of examples of "promoting religion," it's useless--when's the last time an ID supporter admitted publicly that ID promotes religion?

It's clearly just a fig leaf to give them a bit more legal coverage if they're taken to court...and though I have no legal expertise whatsoever, I really can't imagine that strategy working. You can't deflect charges of violating the Constitution by adding "And by the way, we're really not trying to violate the Constitution!" at the end of your law.

Posted by: Chris | February 14, 2009 5:29 PM

Hey wait!!!! Not all of us here in Louisiana are religious dumbasses.....please for the sake of those of us with a brain...don't give up yet. Help me find a scientific way to rid the world of TPS (Trailer Park Syndrom).

Posted by: Menyambal | February 14, 2009 5:37 PM

I think you'll find that, in terms of the level of attainment in mathematics and the sciences by high-school students, the United States has already fallen a long way behind most of the other industrial nations of the world.

My wife gets snarly every time she hears that truth trotted out. She is a school counselor in an American public school system. She explains that the facts of the case are we (the USA) are being held to a different standard. Thanks to the "No Child Left Behind" program, ALL American children are in the system and being tested, regardless of learning disabilities, retardation or just general screwed-upness. Other countries shunt their worst and dimmest students off to learning tracks that are more tailored to their needs, and that keep them out of national testing.

Yes, the USA education system is less than optimal, in many ways, but it is not the same as the system in other nations, and a direct comparison is not accurate or fair.

Posted by: Free Lunch | February 14, 2009 5:39 PM

I think you'll find that, in terms of the level of attainment in mathematics and the sciences by high-school students, the United States has already fallen a long way behind most of the other industrial nations of the world.

As far as I can tell, our top high school students are still doing quite well. Our universities reflect that. Of course, our best universities who already import a lot of kids, can just increase the number they import if our top students lose their edge. Since many students of non-American origin stay around after graduation, the US isn't likely to suffer from stupid political decisions nearly as much as it deserves to.

Posted by: Barfy | February 14, 2009 5:46 PM

When our greatest weapon is free speech, then I say let's boycott boycotts!
What greater misery can we inflict on the LA creationists than having a multi-day convention spewing press release after press release decrying the stupidity of making the children of Louisiana (including Jindal's kids) even more stupider by teaching them creationism.
If WE were as politically astute as the creationists, we would come up with all sorts of cockamamie theories to gunk up the science classes in LA.
How about the THEORY OF COCKAMAMIE THEORIES?
That is, that for every theory of merit/predictive value/falsifiability there is an equal and opposite theory of superstition and unfounded belief.
Many of the greatest scientists in history life's work attest to this very THEORY OF COCKAMAMIE THEORIES.
For example, Newton and his decades long foray into alchemy.
We need to teach the controversy.
Or how about Kepler and his noted work in astrology.
Astrology needs equal time.
For that matter, Kepler's idea that the Earth had an attractive force he called its 'soul'...to hell with Newton re-defining the soul by calling it "gravity," thereby taking God out of the schools.
That bastard.

Students in LA must be given the choice. No more THEORY OF GRAVITY.
It's now the SOUL THEORY. James Brown would be so proud.

Posted by: LDT | February 14, 2009 5:57 PM

"I'm sure there are lots of people who believe in Science that live..."

I'm pretty sure a key point here is that science is not a matter of faith.

Posted by: Cannabinaceae | February 14, 2009 5:57 PM

Sorry N.O. and the rest of LA. I know there must be rational evidence-acknowledgers, living there.

However, if the prominent among us (and who more rightly prominent than scientists and their organizations?) decide to punish offenders, rightly or wrongly, well or poorly, we must help in the punishment or be ostracized or punished ourselves.

You have to tough it out, you LA R.A.E.s.It's not about whether you do or do not deserve this treatment (and life's nonfair anyway). The hypothesis is that punishment will alter future behavior.

Posted by: Teacher | February 14, 2009 6:03 PM

I'd also be willing to bet that New Orleans make all the money we're missing from a five-day convention by next Wednesday. However, it will soon be swallowed up by corruption. You guys are doing us a favor by not making low-level officials any richer. Thank you. Seriously.

Posted by: AnthonyK | February 14, 2009 6:08 PM

That's so sweet of you bornyesterday.
God loves us all, and you popped by to tell us.
Errr...shouldn't you be a prayin'?

Posted by: Bobber | February 14, 2009 6:31 PM

Teacher at #83 said:

This law seems to only clarify that the state is letting students choose what to believe instead of shoving it down their throats.

I myself, being a former (and perhaps future) teacher, wonder why it is that such topics as mathematical formulae, grammatical rules, and human anatomy don't merit such attention by Louisiana officials.

Students do not get to choose what to "believe" about factual information. The fact of evolution is not controversial to those who prefer education over indoctrination. If students want to believe in foolish notions, they are free to do so - but they should not have their ignorance unchallenged in school. Indeed, that is partly what schools are for - to bring light to minds that would otherwise exist in darkness. There's enough darkness outside the halls of academia. All this law does is allow someone to turn off the bulb.

Posted by: Tom | February 14, 2009 6:41 PM

Utah? How about the states like NY that have never even considered putting ID in the classroom? Funny thing but I went to a Catholic elementary school back in the 60's and we only learned Darwinism. There wasn't the slightest hint about ID.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | February 14, 2009 6:43 PM

here's a tip to understanding legalese: whenever a bill seems to makes legal something that's already legal, protect a right that's already protected, or otherwise "clarify" already existing laws, it's a pretty sure bet that there's some bullshit somewhere in it. it was that way with the nasty "conscience" screed that was "clarifying" the right of godbots not to perform abortions, but was in fact a permission to lie by omission, deny women basic medical supplies, and crippling federally funded clinics byby applying for and hogging positions at clinics which would require them to deal with contraception and abortion, and then refuse to actually do their job (and they couldn't get fired or not-hired for it)

it's that way with this one. since ID'ers hold that they're not peddling a religious idea the last paragraph supposedly doesn't apply to them, but it's rather interesting that they felt the need to list those scientific theories as debatable which go directly against the religious belief of American Protestants. but I'm sure that's just coincidence [/sarcasm]; it also permits using "additional textbooks" not provided by the school system, i.e. any number of ID screeds would make legal teaching material.

Posted by: dean | February 14, 2009 6:59 PM

"By the way, you appear to have no idea how many of your fellow citizens believe that the world is between 6000-10000 years old."

Oh, I think he does - I think he himself probably believes this, and threw the "millions of years ago" comment into his post just as an attention getter.

Posted by: Fernando | February 14, 2009 7:01 PM

I think its a very bad idea this boycott.

If scientists leave Louisiana, the creationists and similar idiots gain free terrain for their stupid ideas.

Its the same thing as a company with insuficient marketing stops selling a good product, and leaves the market, and the market will be quickly ocupied by bad products, with a strong marketing.

Sorry the poor english, its not my language! :)

Posted by: raven | February 14, 2009 7:51 PM

teacher:

Who cares what stance each state has on things that don't matter to everyday people? Is every student going to be affected by things that happened millions of years ago? Some will be doctors and scientists, but some will be plumbers and farmers. They don't care.

People can get by in this society without knowning anything. Near where I used to live, some good old boys are illiterate. They endorse their paychecks with an X, rather than bothering with those funny little lines and squiggles called "letters".

But at what level are they functioning?

What if everyone in the USA was illiterate?

You are entitled to your own beliefs but not your own facts. Should we outlaw teaching astronomy because many fundies (26% of them) believe the sun orbits the earth like it says in the bible?

Posted by: TheBlackCat | February 14, 2009 7:57 PM

@ raven, do you have a source for that 26% statistic? It would be a good statistic to have on hand, but I don't like using statistics without a source.

Posted by: Gotchaye | February 14, 2009 8:09 PM

BlackCat - it was a GSS question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey). There's a wonderful java app for playing with it here: http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss06

It's the EARTHSUN variable, and it looks like about 20% of respondents said that the sun goes around the earth. You can try plotting that against religiosity, if you like.

Posted by: abeja | February 14, 2009 8:22 PM

The flaming idiot who calls itself "Teacher" spewed:

"Who cares what stance each state has on things that don't matter to everyday people? Is every student going to be affected by things that happened millions of years ago? Some will be doctors and scientists, but some will be plumbers and farmers. They don't care."

Okay, I see...

Some students may want to be doctors and scientists, but they're not entitled to a quality science education because some students want to be plumbers and farmers. Since "teacher" (!?!?) believes that plumbers and farmers don't need to learn science, then science is obviously a waste of time. Who cares what kind of education those silly scientist- and doctor-wannabes need? If the future farmers of America don't need to learn it, then NOBODY needs to learn it!

Also, science is very important to farming.

Posted by: abeja | February 14, 2009 8:26 PM

That last line should have read:

Also, science is very important to farming, and he's an imbecile for not knowing that.

Posted by: raven | February 14, 2009 8:43 PM

@ raven, do you have a source for that 26% statistic? It would be a good statistic to have on hand, but I don't like using statistics without a source.

Yes. I've posted the primary source something like 20 times and not going to do it anymore.

The original data is from the Gallup social survey (GSS) polls, mid 2006 or thereabouts. Google is your friend.

Wikipedia has an article on geocentrism that references some of that data and probably links to the survey. The numbers are 20% for the general population, higher among the fundies.

Posted by: regroce | February 14, 2009 9:08 PM

I wholeheartedly understand the objection of hte society over Jindal; I don't find it appropriate to penalize the one non-jindalish part of the state for Jindal's mistake, though. Moreover, to object to such prudery by going to another city already established for such prudery is a bit hypocritical. Want to make a change to the mistakes of Jindal and Louisiana? Then GO TO LOUISIANA - make your objections present right there, and with aid from the non-hypocritical city of New Orleans. Otherwise, your defeating your own cause.

Posted by: mayhempix | February 14, 2009 9:22 PM

to jindal:
verb
to appease the religious right for political gain at the expense of your own constituents.

He jindaled the scientists and lost the convention and its associated spending for the hurricane battered city of New Orleans.

Posted by: fyngyrz | February 14, 2009 9:44 PM

Nice to see a little clout being used for a good purpose.

When it is politically correct to tolerate institutionalized ignorance, political correctness has become a disease.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 14, 2009 10:31 PM

Our esteemed host's "It's Alive" link is, well, dead.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | February 14, 2009 10:39 PM

Farmers don't need to understand science, because pests never evolve resistance to pest control measures.

Posted by: Hrafnkell | February 14, 2009 11:10 PM

I never thought I'd live to see the day when a US state voted to return to the 13th century. This all seems very surreal to me.

Posted by: Anton Mates | February 14, 2009 11:54 PM

This law seems to only clarify that the state is letting students choose what to believe instead of shoving it down their throats.

Whereas in the past, of course, students were taken out and shot if they expressed their own beliefs.

The question of whether there are any students and teachers suffering for their dissent from evolutionary orthodoxy has occasionally come up--it came up in Alabama in 2004, the first time an Academic Freedom bill was proposed, and again in Florida in 2008. Both times the state departments of education looked into the matter and concluded that, no, there just haven't been any such cases.
This law corrects a non-problem.

It's merely a Civil Rights law, designed to keep teachers from offending parents by pushing their personal beliefs.

"Gagging teachers to avoid offending parents" is not generally considered an advance of civil rights, and this law conspicuously fails to protect teachers in the one area they report needing protection--namely, in teaching evolution without pseudoscientific "alternatives."

The National Science Teachers Association did an informal survey of teachers in 2005; almost one in three respondents reported significant pressure to avoid teaching evolution, or to include intelligent design or creationism. Most respondents said that pressure came from students and parents.

Thanks to this law, those teachers lose their primary defense against that pressure: the state and district requirements that they teach good science. Hooray.

Posted by: C. M. Baxter | February 15, 2009 12:44 AM

Teacher:

I think you’re getting most of the heat here because you’ve credentialed yourself as a teacher, which makes your imbecility even more inexcusable.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | February 15, 2009 1:47 AM

I just looked at the law again. [Hand thunking head]. At the bottom, the summary cuts through the legalize enough for me to glean another bit of information:

Requires a teacher to first teach material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and then authorizes him to use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials. [emphasis mine]

The devil is in the details, or in this case, the supplemental materials. Depending on the teacher these can be the sort of crap that Freshwater used in his classroom.

Posted by: Monador | February 15, 2009 2:04 AM

Well, no one else has mentioned it, so I will.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

Posted by: Notagod | February 15, 2009 2:48 AM

Does anyone have a reference for the Utah law "that states that evolution is central to any science curriculum", I would like to read it.

Its not that I don't trust mormons..., well OK, it is because I don't trust mormons. I have found them to be virry virry sneaky!

Posted by: Aquaria | February 15, 2009 3:57 AM

I support the boycott, but I don't know how much effect it will have.

The one thing you always have to know is that Louisiana had a governor's race between a KKK wizard and a womanizing, racketeering lizard. The lizard won, thank goodness. And when you can say thank goodness for an openly corrupt politician winning, things are pretty damned bad in your state.

A cousin of Edwin Edwards (said lizard) who worked in the state penis--er statehouse, once told me that all Baton Rouge is is a shakedown operation. The outcome of a lot of bills is determined by who's willing to pay the most to get it passed (or defeated). Churches tend to have deep pockets, so they get their way a lot.

Until Baton Rouge changes, or unless science is willing to grease the palms of a bunch of fucktards, I doubt this boycott will have an impact. Maybe if enough conferences boycott them, then yes. It will mean less money to go around to the pols, and they can't have that.

Posted by: Fitz | February 15, 2009 4:32 AM

@Monador

See Zeno's post at #57

Posted by: SEF | February 15, 2009 4:40 AM

I'm not impressed with the choice of SLC. A couple of years ago they almost passed an ID style bill

Someone (ideally several competent someones) needs to be in charge of keeping an official list of anti-science-ness among states up-to-date. A list (with good citations and links to sources) which everyone else can then check when picking a short-list of relatively science-friendly states.

Posted by: Anton Mates | February 15, 2009 5:28 AM

Dunno about the rest of science, but you can get a quick idea of a given state's treatment of evolution on the NCSE website. Just go to our news page, filter by state, and glance at the headlines.

Posted by: Matt Heath | February 15, 2009 6:17 AM

@Walton: "Flammable" as in "The stupid; it burns"

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 15, 2009 7:43 AM

Says the "Science" "Education" Act (yes, two pairs of scare quotes):

open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

How is human cloning a scientific theory? TSIB.

Is every student going to be affected by things that happened millions of years ago?

The past is the key to the present, and to the future.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 15, 2009 9:52 AM

Walton - er, what species are you? It would seem from your # 143 that it's one in which a generation

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 15, 2009 9:58 AM

Double damn! The remainder of my #146 was whacked by my having forgotten the html codes necessary for using angle-brackets in a comment here.

Let's start over: ... [Walton's apparent species is] one in which a generation is less than 8 years - more likely, less than 8 weeks ...

Time for breakfast!

Posted by: carolyn hazelwood | February 15, 2009 12:14 PM

What is mind blowing about this is that this man was voted into office. This shows that idiocy is self perpetuating in an ever continuing downward spiral gaining dangerous momentum. Having lived in Louisiana before and being well aware of it's (oddly internally accepted) corruption, I am sad to say I am not surprised. I wonder which cousin won the lottery around this time? Just curious.

Posted by: kimwim | February 15, 2009 12:42 PM

Come to Connecticut! We love science here, despite our Republican Gov. She did help create the Connecticut Stem Cell Initiative, in Farmington we are building a whole Stem Cell Center.
We'd love to have you.

Posted by: Nikolai | February 15, 2009 2:27 PM

Yeah, but I bet they'll miss the gator po' boys and drive-thru Margaritas!

Posted by: Dean | February 15, 2009 3:04 PM

" That would put money back into people's pockets, improving national morale and enabling them to spend more on consumer goods, stimulating the economy - surely?"

Not surely, because, you moron, it has been shown that cutting taxes does not increase economic stimulus - didn't work for Reagan, for example.

No doubt there is some pork in the new bill, nobody (I hope nobody is that stupid) would argue that. There have been a good many lies told about it too (witness the moron who blathered on about "money in here for mice - we've got money for mice", as one example of massive stupid and dishonesty). You give yourself away, and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the real world, with your comment about welfare. You a really are blowtorch stupid, and most likely dishonest to the core.

Posted by: raven | February 15, 2009 4:41 PM

My feeling at the time was that the mormon officials wanted the bill to pass but were unwilling to make an official statement. They prefer to do their "work" in non obvious ways. I'm serious when I state that they are very very sneaky.

The Mormon or Catholic church for that matter are not monolithic assemblies of eloi marching in lockstep. They keep trying but herding humans is like herding cats.

No doubt some factions in the LDS church would like to get rid of evolution. I'm sure they would also like to get rid of all those annoying pagans that keep moving to Utah as well and have some real power to deal with the high flow of apostates. Some more reeducation camps in the Mormon Gulag would do nicely.

But there are likely to be other factions with different views. If you read enough LDS or Catholic literature, not that I've spent a huge amount of time on either, you find a diversity of views. The large majority of Mormons don't even live in Utah anyway.

As to a Mormon being president someday. The fundie cultists consider them seriously heretical. OTOH, who would have thought a half kenyan would ever be president?

Posted by: Diane | February 15, 2009 7:09 PM

Scientists are welcome to hold their meetings in Seattle. Its a beautiful city (even in the rain). Washington has an awesome governor who wouldn't think of supporting a law to teach creationism in the classroom. Sure we have the Discovery Institute, but don't hold that against us. And we have Eastern Washington, but we here in Western Washington consider them our inbred cracker cousin and don't talk about them among decent folk.

Posted by: Notagod | February 15, 2009 8:58 PM

Diane,

I intend to visit the museum and aquarium within the next two weeks. I've only driven by Seattle in the past, can't wait to see it!

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 15, 2009 9:20 PM

I accept the reality of biological evolution, and recognise that current "intelligent design" theory is fundamentally lacking in scientific rigour and evidential support

It's also lacking the actual "theory" part.

all it is is a lace doily (an expensive one at that), glued on top of the previous moniker (which also lacked the same elements) of "creation science".

nothing more, nothing less.

we proved it in court.

the only way to make it into anything remotely resembling a testable hypothesis would be for YOU (yes, you, Walton), to go track down a putative "designer" and discover exactly how said designer functions in the material world.

good luck with that.

until then, ID is no better a speculation regarding how life evolved than is your average Dungeons and Dragons manual.

Posted by: Walton | February 16, 2009 5:11 AM

Saveau:

Unless you were actually referring to the hundreds of billions that got funneled to Bush's favorite golfing buddies over the previous years...? Nah. Didn't think so.

I wasn't, but I find that equally as despicable. As I said, I have little or no regard for the Bush administration. I just don't support the Obama administration either.

I don't understand why you seem so committed to this simplistic worldview in which everyone is either "left-wing" or "right-wing", and anyone who disagrees with you must be an evil right-winger. I am neither; I am an anti-statist. I support any government or party only insofar as
they reduce the size and scope of government interference, and I oppose them insofar as they increase it.

What we need is transparent and accountable government of, by, and for the people.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as "the people". Rather, there are millions of individuals, all of whom have different views, ideals, interests, desires and choices. The fact that policy X is supported by a majority of those people who happen to live in a certain arbitrary geographical area does not make it the "will of the people", because there is no such thing. Democracy is marginally preferable to dictatorship, but it is not a legitimising force.

Government is the power to destroy. It rests, ultimately, on coercive force; and democratic governance, therefore, rests on the coercion of the minority by the majority. In an ideal world we would have no government. In practice, we need one in order to delineate property rights, arbitrate contracts, and keep us from killing each other. But when government goes beyond its proper boundaries and starts spending our money in massive quantities, screwing up our currency and interfering with the way we live our lives, it needs to be stopped.

Posted by: barasawa | February 16, 2009 7:10 AM

A few points...
Science has Theories, not Laws.
Evolution is as accepted and important to Biology as Gravity is to Physics.
Intelligent Design is Creationism with a global search and replace. (Actually their first release still had the editing metadata in the pdf that proved that exact action.)
Science is based on theories based on the observed facts and backed up by repeatable experiments with predictable results.
ID/Creationism is based on belief, no experimentation, no predictable results, and no observed facts, just faith...
Science does not attack religion, it does however seek to understand the universe and it's functions.
Religion often attacks science, due to both ignorance, and an inability to give up unfounded and irrational beliefs and social power. (The ignorant are easy to manipulate while science seeks to cure ignorance.)

Science and Religion can peacefully co-exist. I've talked and listened to a number of top scientists in various fields over the years. Many of them are very religious, but they don't for a second let that interfere with reality. (If your religion tells you the world is 20,000 years old, and you are studying 40,000 year old cave paintings, you either go atheist, or you realize the religious writings are spiritual and metaphorical but not literal, or you shoot yourself.) And from those I've spoken with, I would say they are more religious and have stronger faith than virtually all of the 'religious' people I've talked with.

Now a question for those who won't accept evolution.
Why is it that you think your God is so incompetent he can't even create a self adjusting system to automatically compensate for the dynamic universe in which it is intended to reside when even we lowly mortal humans can think of that? Seems to me you don't hold your God in very high esteem. Oh, and if you wonder why some primitive rock banger from thousands of years ago didn't write about such things, that's an easy one. He was so bloody primitive and ignorant to understand such a concept. And no, ignorant means lacking in knowledge, not stupid. Ignorance is cured with knowledge and education. Stupidity is for life...

Posted by: FB | February 16, 2009 7:23 AM

#16, #167: ID belongs in a Philosophy class, not Science class.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 16, 2009 8:57 AM

Stay out of Canada we have enough idiots up here trying to convince the general population about this evolution bullshit.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 9:05 AM

Stay out of Canada we have enough some idiots up here trying to convince the general population about this evolution creationism bullshit.

fixed

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 16, 2009 9:15 AM

barasawa, apparently you know nothing about creationism to warrant a comment such as the one you posted above. Ignorance does not always carry merit in something a person does not understand. Ignorance can be derived from people who do understand, yet refuse to accept any opinions but their own. Evolutionists are that kind of people. Just because they refuse to accept creationism as fact does not make evolution a conclussive topic that all of us thinking homo sapiens need to submit to. Scientists who carry out experiments to try to prove their issues of evolution used controlled enviroments and regardless of failures, will proceed until it is made to work according to their theories. There are more discrepancies just from indifferences with evolution than there are in creationism, but when you are on the receiving end of a subject, challenges from opposite opinions are generally met with defensive arguments. You sir are proof of that.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 9:24 AM

Just because they refuse to accept creationism as fact

Hilarious

Give us one piece of scientific research that supports creationism.

Scientists who carry out experiments to try to prove their issues of evolution used controlled enviroments and regardless of failures, will proceed until it is made to work according to their theories.

Prove that statement.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 16, 2009 9:28 AM

Gee Rev. BigDumbChimp...you are proof also. How long have you had your "narrow minded syndrome" problems. You should for the sake of argument get yourself fixed, it is quite contagious you know, especially among the educated.

Posted by: Thorn | February 16, 2009 9:32 AM

Evolution is NOT bullshit. Anyone who thinks it is JUST a theory needs to learn about science more.
---
A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.

A scientific law is a statement of an observed regularity among facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship.

A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones.
---
Every section of science has a theory, law, and fact, even gravity. These "gaps" we can fill in by looking at DNA. DNA shows not only what the current animal is, but what it used to be as well.

Embryology, though with a flawed start, with a current research shows that in the development in the womb or egg the animal shows it's evolutionary history.

Radiometric dating shows the age of fossils, which is backed up by layers in the Earth given our knowledge of geology through tectonic movements, volcanic activity, and the layering process. These fossils are also EASILY comparable to other fossils to show slow transitions and follow the rules that evolution sets down. Which roughly says that human and dinosaur bones will NOT be on the same layer.

If you want to deny all of these sciences, plus anything that rooted from them directly because of the theory of evolution, by all means refuse medical treatment and expect your God to help you without the intervention of science/medicine. A study was done with people who prayed and did not pray for individuals with terminal illness. They study shows a slightly higher death rate for those that were prayed for, and it was determined that it has no affect at all. I am not saying that this disproves God, but that some people may want to rethink how deeply they depend on literalistic religions.

Religion is great, and has it's uses, but take it beyond stories with lessons and the support system for people who need emotional support, then you are tracking outside the realm of religion. If you want to teach ID or Creation, do it in your churches, because it has no play in our schools. Nor does anything religious based.

If you want to push religion into the schools, science will go toe to toe against religion and point out it's historical and scientific flaws. It isn't a bad thing though. If you know the history of these religions you know the main point of them is to pull together the community and basic lessons of morality and judgment to the forefront of people's minds.

In the US though, if you do not want Evolution, FSM, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and other views jammed down your throat then don't push Christianity down others'. This includes, not forcing your non-scientific crap down people's throat in an educational setting. Science was separated from religion because of religion, and ever since science has started excelling exponentially. So if you want to complain about this stuff, you need to learn about it enough to debate about it with someone that actually knows what they are talking about WITHOUT pulling ANYTHING from the Bible, because it has no stance in the world of science for a reason.

Posted by: clinteas | February 16, 2009 9:33 AM

Oh nice,the delusion is strong in that one....

Just because they refuse to accept creationism as fact does not make evolution a conclussive topic

WTF?

There are more discrepancies just from indifferences with evolution than there are in creationism, but when you are on the receiving end of a subject, challenges from opposite opinions are generally met with defensive arguments

Now my head hurts.

Posted by: clinteas | February 16, 2009 9:38 AM

What if there really is a God and What if during his "creationism" he created "evolutionism".

What is it with this thread? Where are all these uneducated dimwits coming from? Its funny,but in a freak show way....

Posted by: Alex | February 16, 2009 9:42 AM

We need to get a petition going, so they understand the amount of people behind this.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 16, 2009 9:49 AM

Nerd Of Redhead,OM...I never said that evolution was false did I, but you should know that the opinions with different scientists throughout the last 50 years have been exaggerated beyond fact. Opinions concerning evolution have had so much indifference in that same time period that its obvious that guesswork and speculation is their main tools in which to feed off of.
Changing of millions of years to billions is enough right there, I would say that's quite a gap from any realist.
Creationism can be seen from the study of the human anatomy, to plant life, to how the planets stay in perfect harmony as they journey around the sun. If you think all this started from chance, I'd suggest you remove yourselves from your academic world of higher education and get down to some practical living experience.

Posted by: Dross | February 16, 2009 9:52 AM

I think boycotts are the wrong idea. The last thing our country needs is more reason for the informed and the uninformed to polarize. I think the boycott will only make certain Louisianans even more depressed (like me), and will make those who favor the state bill even happier.

Question, did the Renaissance occur because the enlightened boycotted the ignorant?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 9:58 AM

Good Job Governor! I'll be pushing for Tennessee to adopt the same legislation!! About time we got this fairytale darwinism nonsense OUT of the classrooms as fact. The whole evolution THEORY is so full of holes that theres very little to grasp hold of. It's complete nonsense! Creationism should be taught first and foremost as the Holy Scriptures is the number one source that archeologist refer to in there work, as far as determining time of events.

wait

what?

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 16, 2009 10:01 AM

clinteas...If you head hurts, take two Tylenol, drink fluids and get plenty of rest

Posted by: raven | February 16, 2009 10:07 AM

raven:

The Mormon or Catholic church for that matter are not monolithic assemblies of eloi marching in lockstep. They keep trying but herding humans is like herding cats.

notagod:
Haha! Can't speak for the catalicks but the mor[m]ons do indeed march to the agenda to their trumpet player.

Your either don't have a clue or you know you are defending a position that is not supported by the evidence.

Check their voting record. Check the audio of the meeting I referenced, if you have the guts to do it that is.

Yeah, I do know that. You seem to hate Mormons. Understandable, some of my relatives live in Utah and I've been there many times. Where LDS are a majority, the gentiles and pagans are always second class citizens discriminated against.

You are also making a blatant category error. For starters, a lot of Mormons are Jack Mormons and will talk all day over a 6 pack of beer about the peculiarities of their religion. There are also splits in the leadership like any other political organization. They try to keep in hidden but it is there for anyone to see.

You keep mentioning that hearing like it proves anything. IIRC, the bill was introduced by Chris Jensen?, the kook creationist Mormon with an ugly history. It failed. The legislature in Utah is overwhelmingly majority LDS. That should tell you something right there.

Posted by: brad hart | February 16, 2009 10:14 AM

I have been saying it for a long time that our economy is being hurt by the attack on science. People wonder why all the hi-tech jobs go to foreigners and foreign countries and this is exactly why. Of course the Christian demagogues pushing creationism and the denial of real science actually prefer the economy to be in bad shape. They rightly believe when the economy is bad more people flock to church, so destroying the economy is the best they can hope for.

Too bad power corrupts isn't one of those christian values they try and teach.

Posted by: abeja | February 16, 2009 10:34 AM

We've had several creationists who seem to all be new here (I don't recognize their names as regulars) all show up within a few hours of each other.

Are they all the same person?

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | February 16, 2009 11:00 AM

There were no witnesses to the evolution theory, yet there were witnesses to Biblical accounts.

I've seen Penn and Teller shows, too - but I'm not building a religion out of the fact that they were able to fool me.

You're silly when you say you don't accept the after-the-fact and highly consistent evidence of evolution (which is everywhere) but are willing to accept anecdotes written by people who weren't there long after something supposedly happened.

There is science in the Bible, maybe not given in detail, but its there.

Yeah. You're right. They rounded Pi off to three. Not detail, but - it's there.

You, sir, are a dumbass.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 16, 2009 11:04 AM

Leon's got a point. If it's not just a theory, why is it called the Just A Theory of Evolution?
gotcha!
At least Newton came up with some Laws and chewy cookies. Darwin sucked!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 11:11 AM

Nothing in this world is proven wrong more often than science.

Not really, but what has been changed in science is called progress.

Science is the pursuit of truth not the truth itself.

Please explain what the hell you mean there.

I think it is funny when people that should be seeking truth are so quick to deny anything they do not want to hear. Evolution and creation are THEORIES. You cannot prove either of them. The fact is in a few years we will find something else "scientific and know for sure that is truth". Then we can talk about how ignorant you are now. Have fun being an ostridge.

Surprise. Someone who doesn't know that the word theory means.

Shouldn't there be an internet law about this?

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 16, 2009 11:14 AM

Rev.BigDumbChimp...what do you mean, "no, no it can not?" It sure as hell can. From a evolution perspective human survival would be impossible regardless how many more billions of years you tact on to the exaggerated numbers they have now. Nothing happens by chance, absolutely nothing. The planets never came together and started rotating around the sun without a powerful and intelligent creator controlling them. Our delicate ego system on earth would not exist if it weren't for a creator keeping everything in check.
Except for man who is messing up this earth with his so called wisdom of scientific research. I mean think about it, can you really trust the word of a creature that is sole bent on detroying his water & air (essentials for life) all for the sake of the almighty buck.
The last I heard scientists are paid a good wage, so coming up with new innovations whatever the subject can also be profitable.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 16, 2009 11:18 AM

Still no peer reviewed scientific papers from the creationists, which means no evidence whatsoever for their inane ideas.

Posted by: Thorn | February 16, 2009 11:43 AM

Leon Flamick

You totally avoided what I said.

"A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones."

That is why it is called the Theory of Evolution. A scientific theory is not the same as theory in common day use. Like I said, if you do NOT know anything about the science, you should not talk about it. If you knew ANYTHING about science you would know that in science a theory is different than common day use of the word. Evolution isn't only a scientific theory, it has more evidence than almost all other theories in science today!

NO reputable scientist disagrees with evolution, and not reputable scientist agrees with intellegent design. Anatomy sides with EVOLUTION not ID. The reason for this is the appendix, tonsoles, and other organs that current man no longer needs. (Appendix used to be used to deal with bacteria, mainly from eating raw meat.) The tailbone is not needed as well. If we were designed, then the muscles could just as easily attach to the end of the hip instead of the tail bone, which is another reason why anatomy supports evolution, not ID.

I dont know where you get that the planets go around in perfect harmony around the sun, because they definitely do not! There are things smashing into each other constantly. I suggest that you look into the academic world and realize that you are using simple explanations for things far more complex than you want to realize.

Every religious text says it supports only one religion, one faith, and it the one truth. So don't feed me that load. I have read the whole Bible, and also found sites with the earliest texts of the Bible, and translated them. If your Bible is in English, it is wrong. Most of the stories keep to the same concept, but it is EXTREMELY different from the text it originates from. You should be wiry about that. You really should research the origins of the Bible, and the changes it went through. The English version we have in the US are no where near what the original text says mainly because of the dark ages.

Scientists that dated back humans dated beyond 10,000 BC. So that is 12,000 years ago. These are humans as we know them today too. Genetically and with the concept in tools that native Americans had.

As for the pray research, the people praying were people of FAITH, and were praying for loved ones. That is how they were found to begin with, while the people who did not pray were not people of faith.

You are right, most people do not want that challenge to their lives, and most people are religious. They do not study their religion and learn what the original texts say. Seriously, go back and research your religion, the origins of the Bible, what the original text says, and you will be amazed.

Posted by: Rob B. | February 16, 2009 12:00 PM

Before you know it, acts of science will be banned within Louisiana, as with other anti-science states.

Posted by: Paguroidea | February 16, 2009 12:14 PM

#217 - The legislators' action certainly has given Louisiana a lot of bad press. I wonder if it could affect general tourism as well as science organization conferences. And when job applicants are looking at the science position ads, they might have second thoughts about applying to Louisiana.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 12:17 PM

From a evolution perspective human survival would be impossible regardless how many more billions of years you tact on to the exaggerated numbers they have now

Source?

Nothing happens by chance, absolutely nothing. The planets never came together and started rotating around the sun without a powerful and intelligent creator controlling them.

Care to back that up? Just saying something doesn't make it true.

Our delicate ego system on earth would not exist if it weren't for a creator keeping everything in check.

I assume you mean ECO system. Once again, just saying something doesn't make it true. Back it up with something that demonstrates what you are claiming. Do a search on pubmed or PLOS for evolution. Then show me the competing creationism, or ID if you prefer, science.

Except for man who is messing up this earth with his so called wisdom of scientific research. I mean think about it, can you really trust the word of a creature that is sole bent on detroying his water & air (essentials for life) all for the sake of the almighty buck.

You're an idiot. You do realize you too are a human?

The last I heard scientists are paid a good wage, so coming up with new innovations whatever the subject can also be profitable.

Meaning exactly what?

Posted by: Matt | February 16, 2009 12:23 PM

Freedom of religion is great... so is freedom of speech. But creationists really are a stubbornly ignorant bunch.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 16, 2009 12:33 PM

Well Marcus Ranum, I might not be the sharpest knive in the drawer, but a dumbass, maybe after a few snorts of Snapps possibly, but in all relative issues...not a chance.
You say I'm silly because I don't accept the after the fact and highly consistant evidence of evolution (which is everywhere) and creationism is not? Evolution is not consistant. I've been on this planet 62 years and I've seen, heard and read many changes to the evolution theory, not just in years and numbers, but scientists themselves who cannot agree on all matters. Too bad I didn't keep a reference on some of that information.
I accept facts, not specualtion on controlled experiments. Now with the accounts given in the Bible, Moses, who delivered his people out of captivity in Eygpt knew he camped out in the desert below Mt Sinai, enough to write it down. Noah knew enough about the conditions on earth during his time when God brought a deludge upon mankind. Man was very violent in those days (same today), yet people still went about their businesses, marriages, etc. He recorded that also, before & after the fact. Now, what makes you think these facts are no more fictious than the Constitution of the United States drawn up in 1776, or Columbus discovering America in 1492 as being hard pressed to accept. You weren't there...were you?
Scientific facts, how about Isaiah 40: 22 and there were some people who thought the world was flat. Deuteronomy 23: 13 gives advice for good hygiene, yet look what happened during the middle ages when man ignored that scientific fact. It rains on righteous people's crops as well as unrighteous.
There is a saying, maybe not as popular as the original, as it reads..."it takes a dumbass to know one"...of which we can both be fortunate that we do not know each other,... at least keeping the labelled vulgarities to a minimum. Isn't that an evolutionary great idea.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 16, 2009 12:41 PM

@Walton #166-
I don't understand why you seem so committed to this simplistic worldview in which everyone is either "left-wing" or "right-wing", and anyone who disagrees with you must be an evil right-winger.

Then you demonstrate multiple levels of failure in understanding – first, in believing that I am “committed to this simplistic worldview” when I am merely utilizing widely used labels that usually have at least a fair degree of accuracy; second, in mistakenly thinking that I have described the continuum of worldviews as being merely left- or right-wing when I have not; third, in assuming that I simply ascribe any disagreement with me as being “right-wing”; and fourth; in failing to realize or acknowledge that the specific libertarian/conservative views you explicitly espouse are the exclusive province of those who, at least in America, self-identify as right-wing (and count as “left-wing” any who disagree with them).

Bullshit. There is no such thing as "the people". Rather, there are millions of individuals, all of whom have different views, ideals, interests, desires and choices.

Yes, and there is a term for that body; it is called “the people”. To argue that differences among individuals mean that there is, or can be, no larger collective interest that serves them as a whole, or that such interests can or should be administered by something other than a strong governmental body that both enforces, and is bound by, the rule of law is to choose naive fantasy over clear reality. You would be well served by reading the works of America’s Founders; you might gain an understanding of the historical basis for the principle which you ignorantly dismiss as “bullshit”.

Government is the power to destroy. It uses sonic death rays against the Noble Capitalists who are the highest form of life on Earth and the evil government denies us the use of Rearden metal through coercion and property rights and contract rights are the only rights we should care about and John Galt fucked Dagny Taggart with his motor in order to expiate your sins blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzz…

Government, at its most basic, is the result of the need to create and enforce laws for the maintenance of public security and social order. In a democracy, in principle government rests on the consent of the governed. The degree to which it succeeds or fails depends on the degree to which an informed electorate engages in informed participation. In practice, there is always a concerted effort on the part of reactionaries (typically self-identified as “conservatives”) to do away with the “informed” part of consent and participation with a two-pronged attack that consists of propaganda (i.e: Fox News and talk radio), and the erosion of public education (often specifically targeting science education). This paves the way for the gross mischaracterization of taxation as being somehow evil and of the private sector as being somehow more efficient and capable of promoting the public good than any practice of government. Obviously no practice of government is perfect, and no proponent of strong government has ever claimed otherwise, but we don’t need to ascribe to any such notion in order to recognize that the conservative/Libertarian dream of “shrinking government to the size where it is small enough to drown in a bathtub” can only result in a society where the strong and wealthy few can impose their will upon those whom they keep weaker and poorer than themselves with no restrictions and no fear of reprisal. The attempts by conservatives/Libertarians to pretend otherwise do not fool us; we remember well the warning that “we must guard against the Excesses of the Monied Interests”, and so we know that your goals are selfish and destructive and need to be stopped.

Posted by: The Great prophet Zarquon | February 16, 2009 12:41 PM

Excuse me, but as a deity, I can probably clear a few things up for you Intelligent Design believers.

Yes, evolution is how it happens. It's a lot easier for me to let life sort itself out instead of meddling with every single strand of your DNA; I mean, the Earth is one HELL of a crowded place, there's billions and billions of you, and that's just the humans. Don't even get me started on the insects. Intelligent Design? More like extra work I don't have time for. DNA is great stuff, it knows what should go where after a lot of trial and error and experimentation. It's slower, but more reliable. Plus it leaves me more time to work on my tan.

Second, I'm getting tired of people endlessly debating this. If I'm supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, then don't I know my system a lot better than you guys do? Stop making me look like an idiot and arguing for me; you ID guys are wrong. I like your enthusiasm, and I hope that eventually you'll use it on my behalf, instead of against science.

And lastly, I appreciate you religious guys trying to get my name out, but can you please be a little LESS ridiculous about your methods? I mean, I don't want wars started in my or any other God's name; it's bad for business, you see. I don't want people tearing each other apart because they can't be bothered to focus on the message of religion (which was boiled down nicely by the philosophers Bill and Ted: Be Excellent to Each Other), but instead focus on making everyone else believe as they do. Stop that, it really annoys me.

Just be good people, stop trying to advance incorrect theories in my name, and stop complaining because the facts are against you and you don't want to give up an antiquated belief that has no real place in this modern world of scientifically-proven fact.

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 16, 2009 12:46 PM

Now with the accounts given in the Bible, Moses, who delivered his people out of captivity in Eygpt knew he camped out in the desert below Mt Sinai, enough to write it down. Noah knew enough about the conditions on earth during his time when God brought a deludge upon mankind. Man was very violent in those days (same today), yet people still went about their businesses, marriages, etc. He recorded that also, before & after the fact. Now, what makes you think these facts are no more fictious than the Constitution of the United States drawn up in 1776, or Columbus discovering America in 1492 as being hard pressed to accept. You weren't there...were you? Leon Flamick

What a complete load of bilge. Two hundred years of biblical scholarship has established that Genesis and Exodus were written, by many people, in the first millennium BCE - centuries after Moses lived, if he ever did. Geology has established conclusively that there was never a global flood - and that the Earth is around 4.65 billion years old. Genetics shows conclusively that we do not all descend from a single family. Both the writing of the Declaration of Independence and Columbus's voyages are attested to in multiple independent sources, and neither is shown to be false by contradicting scientifically established facts.

One more thoroughly established fact: you, Leon Flamick, are an ignoramus.

Posted by: mike | February 16, 2009 12:53 PM

If a Louisiana science teacher, teaches a "non christian" creationist theory, the law will get dropped from the books, faster than you can say, Noahs Ark. The christian creationists will freak out, but will have boxed themselves into a logic hole they can't dig out of, without repealing their stupid law.
It would really be funny if Johnny comes home with a tale of how Vishnu created the Universe and sits on a lotus pad. LOL

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 12:57 PM

so called Anti-Creationism Scientists

I believe that is called the League of Anti-Creationism Scientists.

And no you can't see the secret lair.

Posted by: PBM | February 16, 2009 12:58 PM

JesusCreatesEvenScientists, America is NOT a religious state. Using your standard, then everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do should just get the hell out of your country-sized church. This is exactly the sort of thing about religious nuts I can't stand: anyone who doesn't share your exact beliefs is a threat to society and must be removed, or some stupid shit. Get over yourself, Science is right and can be proven right.

Posted by: JoeGreen | February 16, 2009 1:01 PM

It is comforting to see these groups revealing that they have more interest in Politics and 'getting in the news' than in real Science.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 16, 2009 1:03 PM

Leon, I'm still waiting for my peer reviewed scientific journal articles showing creationsim/ID are viable scientific theories, and not just religious theories pretending to be science. Show some evidence or shut up.

Posted by: Chris | February 16, 2009 1:05 PM

Did anyone actually read the bill? I'm not sure I see anything really wrong with it, I'm an atheist if that matters at all.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=472973

"Proposed law provides that the legislation only protects the teaching of scientific
information, and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine,
promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote
discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."

Posted by: Bryant Edwards-Smith | February 16, 2009 1:10 PM

As a non-American, I am totally shocked that such extreme people have actually been elected to positions of public office in America. Are the inhabitants of the state of Louisiana really ignorant enough to elect politicians who favour medieval. fundamentalist. extremist religious dogma over our best attempts at substantiating the actual facts governing the physical make-up of our world?
I really fear for the inhabitants of Louisiana now. We all can see what other religious extremists have done to their countries' standing in the world. Who thinks the Taliban were a sensible regime? Who thinks George Bush and his regime were a sane government? Who supports the Israeli racists' attempts at lebensraum, as they ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from their own land? Does anyone think that the Ayatollah is sane?
Religion is universally bad, and has proven itself to be so.
Religion is religion, because it is impossible to substantiate any of the extreme claims of its leadership. Delusional people who make such claims can be highly dangerous, and should be subject to psychiatric observation. If you spew ideas that can't be substantiated by concrete verifiable fact, expect severe ridicule. Expect mockery. Why is less than 30% of the UK population now afflicted by this disease. Simply put, medieval mumbo-jumbo simply doesn't wash with those who have more than a peanut between their ears.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 16, 2009 1:13 PM

WOW, this entire concept of creationism and evolutionism sure got the old hair rising didn't it.
Hey, I believe in creationism, if you people believe in evolutionism, then that's fine, do your thing. If the prophecies are correct all of you will find out very soon anyways and the subject will be dumped...forever.
I would love to stick around and dole on this computer, but with all the resistance, its hard for an old guy like me to keep up, so I'll bid you all a good day and I think I'll go out into the garage and work on my 1962 Chysler 2 dr htp and finish painting my 1940 Chevy sedan. I do know both these vehicles were created, they didn't evolve from a bucket of bolts, screws and metal.

Posted by: Sastra | February 16, 2009 1:17 PM

Leon Flamick #239 wrote:

The world stays precisely on it's same course, it spins around on its same axis ever since it was created. After billions of years you'd think it would swerve off course, after all there was, according to you, no creator to keep those facts in balance.

I don't understand this. Why would the earth stop spinning and swerve off course for no reason at all? You don't require extraordinary miraculous interventions into the ordinary course of nature -- if you're only talking about the ordinary course of nature.

Oh yes, meaning that there are people out there who will do and say anything for money, there is no discretion among scientists, after all, wasn't there a famous person who quoted..."the wisdom of man is foolishness in the eyes of God!"

The nice thing about the system of science is that it's deliberately set up to catch cheaters. Not only does everything have to be replicable, but if any scientist can show that some respected scientist was wrong, then he gains in credit and stature himself, and aids in progress. Scientists have all the same flaws and foibles as other people, though I suspect few of them are stupid enough to go into science "for the money."

Contrast this with religion, where you begin with a guru or wise man who can't be checked on, and then try to hand down his teachings as carefully as possible, without 'improving' them. They need no improvement.

Of the two systems, only the first one assumes that man is 'foolish' enough to need checks and balances. The second system is based on trust that at least one man is perfectly wise, and that all those who agree with this man are perfectly right.

Posted by: TonyC | February 16, 2009 1:22 PM

Does anyone else get fed up with kooks who can't spell, can't write legibly, and conflate unrelated issues endlessly - yet manage to quote chapter and verse from their favorite story book?

If they are such damned good scholars as to have almost encyclopaedic knowledge of their babble - they should have the ability to at least spell correctly!

But back on topic:

Chris: The worrying component of the bill is that it allows ID & other religiously motivated controversies a free ride into the classroom at the sole discretion of the teacher to provide that

no public elementary or secondary school governing authority, superintendent, administrator, or principal shall prohibit any teacher from discussing certain scientific evidence; to prohibit certain content-based censorship

The definition of scientific is whatever the teacher chooses it to be. I'm not at all sanguine about the prospects for science education in Louisiana as a result of this bill.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 1:23 PM

I do know both these vehicles were created, they didn't evolve from a bucket of bolts, screws and metal.

When you get to the house of failed ideas, tell Paley we all said hello.

Posted by: Walton | February 16, 2009 1:38 PM

Saveau: No. It isn't. Rand is the milk that the Milton Friedmans and Alan Greenspans and Grover Norquists of America drank deeply of and then vomited all over the rest us. The fact that Rand had some views do which you do not subscribe has no bearing on the her economic fantasies or their starring role in your own free-market porn.

No one is denying that Rand was and is a profound intellectual influence on the libertarian movement - just as Marx was and is a profound intellectual influence on the left. But just as many leftists are extremely far removed from Marxism, so too many libertarians are extremely far removed from Objectivism. And, indeed, Rand thought, and many of her followers today still contend, that moderate libertarians like myself are worthless scum (just as Lenin thought the Mensheviks were scum).

Objectivism is a philosophy of life based on the twin tenets of objective reality and rational egoism, and rejecting altruism. It's more comparable to a religious and ethical code - like those of Christianity, say, or Confucianism - than to a political ideology. By contrast, libertarianism is simply a moral position on a certain issue - namely, the morality of state coercion.

Conflating Objectivism and libertarianism is, therefore, rather like conflating, say, Jainism and pacifism. The former is a religious and moral belief system, whereas the latter is an ethical position on a particular issue and tells you nothing about a person's other beliefs. Whereas all Jains are pacifists, not all pacifists are Jains; one can be a Christian pacifist, or a Buddhist pacifist, or an secular humanist pacifist. Likewise, libertarianism is compatible with a number of different religious and moral belief systems; Objectivism is not.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 16, 2009 1:48 PM

No one is denying that Rand was and is a profound intellectual influence on the libertarian movement - just as Marx was and is a profound intellectual influence on the left.

Er, no. Marx is regarded by liberals as a very specific product of the nineteenth century, a man with arguably noble intentions crippled by naive wishful thinking. Some of his thought is worth a nod, but he is hardly the influence on modern liberalism that Rand is on libertarianism. To claim otherwise is to lie.

The rest of your reply is your standard incoherent reguritation of other people's talking points, and therefore ignored.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 16, 2009 1:51 PM

Why not? You read the bible don't you?

Posted by: Helfrick | February 16, 2009 1:57 PM

So Leon why are you even here? You take pride in the fact that you are ignorant. You have proved to be a liar. What can you possibly gain by continuing to make an ass of yourself?

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 16, 2009 2:07 PM

And stop appropriating the word "liberal". You leftists have no claim on any word which stems from the same root as "liberty", because you don't believe in liberty.

We will not stop using the word (we have not "appropriated it" it), because liberty is most definitely something we cherish, in stark contrast to freedom-hating conservatives such as yourself. Have the courage to call yourself what you are - that is, a corporate supremacist and a child-raping fascist. I see no need to continue this at your blog or mine, since you continue to make it very clear that the only thing you know how to do is lie.

Posted by: Walton | February 16, 2009 2:19 PM

Saveau,

You are a complete maniac.

And you're right, on reflection - there is no point in continuing this discussion. Trying to reason with you is as futile and painful as trying to demolish a brick wall with one's skull.

You clearly have a deep-seated, partisan hatred of the "political right" (which you appear to see as some kind of monolithic conspiracy, rather than, as it actually is, a loose umbrella term for a diverse array of movements).

The rest of us try to be more open-minded. I don't hate the left; I have many left-leaning friends. I also have traditionalist/conservative friends. I am personally neither (though I have been both during the course of my life); I'm a free-market neo-liberal. But I respect the fact that there are legitimate and rational arguments for other viewpoints.

You, sadly, seem to believe that socialism (I refuse to call it liberalism) is The Truth, and that everyone who dissents from it must be either stupid, deluded, or a corrupt liar.

Posted by: asmiller-ke6seh | February 16, 2009 3:08 PM

No where in that legislation is there even a minor mention of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or of His Noodly Appendages - I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I SAY! That an enlightened state such as Louisiana would update its science cirriculumn, and yet surely they would want to tell the truth about how the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world.

I shall join the Science community in its boycott of Louisiana and New Orleans.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 16, 2009 3:30 PM

You are a complete maniac.

A hysterical pronouncement, coming from a deluded git like yourself.

And you're right, on reflection - there is no point in continuing this discussion. Trying to reason with you is as futile and painful as trying to demolish a brick wall with one's skull.

Irony can be really ironic, sometimes.

You clearly have a deep-seated, partisan hatred of the "political right" (which you appear to see as some kind of monolithic conspiracy, rather than, as it actually is, a loose umbrella term for a diverse array of movements).

It's more accurate to say that a lifetime far longer than yours, spent paying attention to what actually has been happening in America, has made it very clear that the self-described "Right" actually is pretty monolithic (at very least, compared to the diverse array of movements that it sweeps into the convenient but ill-fitting label of "the Left") and that that fact has been one of the central factors in its successes and excesses.

The rest of us try to be more open-minded. I don't hate the left; I have many left-leaning friends.

"I have nothing against the Jews; some of my best friends are Jews."

I'm a free-market neo-liberal.

The ghost of Pinochet salutes you, comrade.

But I respect the fact that there are legitimate and rational arguments for other viewpoints.

A statement that stands in contrast to everything you've written since your first appearance here.

You, sadly, seem to believe that socialism (I refuse to call it liberalism) is The Truth, and that everyone who dissents from it must be either stupid, deluded, or a corrupt liar.

You, sadly, have no idea what socialism is, or you would never imagine that it is found anywhere in America. You don't get it, Walton; you are treated with varying degrees of scorn and contempt because that's what you've earned. Whether you are ignorant, stupid, a liar, or all three as I maintain makes little difference; your kool-aid will not be consumed here by anyone other than those who already mimic your glassy stare. You do not fool me. Your brand of economic poison has been pushed for decades and has always failed to produce the results you print in the sales brochures; the real goal has always been government of the people, by the lackeys of the wealthy and powerful, for the wealthy and powerful. Early in the Reagan years you could sometimes catch their people admitting that until they realized that such honesty didn't play well. I could believe that you are ignorant of the consequences of your delusions if you were much younger, perhaps twelve, but if you've had occasion to study any history at all then you have no excuse, and no excuses will be accepted. You are part and parcel of the problem, not the solution. If the resulting way I deal with you bothers you, so be it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 3:44 PM

I suppose next you want to teach Rapture Readiness to kids in social studies classes.

I wonder how that would work? Kind of the anti "duck and cover" campaign.

Posted by: Walton | February 16, 2009 3:50 PM

Eric Saveau: I apologise for calling you a maniac. It was baseless and over the line, and I shouldn't have said it.

I can understand your point of view; and, incidentally, I agree that the "left" (just like the "right") is a diverse range of movements, not a monolithic entity. (This, indeed, is why I don't think the traditional left-right distinction is remotely useful, and why I think it should be abandoned.) And it was perhaps inappropriate of me to characterise you as a socialist, though I note that you haven't explicitly repudiated the label.

I agree with the American left on a number of things. I am strongly pro-civil liberties, and I applaud the fact that Obama is closing Guantánamo, and appears to be more committed than his predecessor to natural justice and due process. I am also in favour of marriage equality, and would have voted against Proposition 8 (and similar initiatives elsewhere in the US) were I a US citizen. And there were many races last year, both at the congressional and state levels, where I would certainly have voted Democrat.

Where I differ from you is on economic matters, because, ultimately, I believe in small government and the free market. This is not blind idol-worship of the likes of Friedman, Hayek and Rand, as you seem to believe. Rather, it's a considered philosophical and economic standpoint, standing in a rich intellectual tradition that goes back to Adam Smith and J.S. Mill.

Ultimately, I believe in the immorality of coercion. It is my view that what my fellow man (and woman) produces for himself, or obtains through mutual voluntary transaction, is his to keep, and that I have no right to take it from him for my own benefit or for the benefit of others. This is not, of course, an absolute and immutable principle, because some government services are genuinely necessary (as, indeed, Friedman and other libertarian intellectuals acknowledge), and thus we cannot avoid some taxation. I would also assert that, where private charity cannot provide for the needs of the poorest, humanitarian welfare is a legitimate state endeavour - as is education, since it's essential to social mobility. So my ethical standpoint is not a doctrinaire one; rather, it's a starting-point for my political thinking. Nonetheless, I would argue that state coercion of the individual (whether or not approved by the democratic majority) is prima facie immoral, unless there is a very compelling moral reason why such coercion is necessary.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 16, 2009 3:59 PM

Walton, we agree on everything except the precise meanings of "genuinely necessary" and "very compelling"…

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 16, 2009 4:17 PM

Irony can be really ironic, sometimes.

LOL

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 16, 2009 4:34 PM

The Louisiana Family Forum, a prime supporter of the bill, can make life and re-election very difficult for a legislator who crosses them.

..and I say the Louisiana legislative body are a bunch of fucking cowards.

all they had to do was decide to NOT cave to the pressure of LFF as a complete body, and that would be the fucking end of it.

btw, John McCain essentially said the same thing to the entire republican party in 2000...

...and lost the nomination because they were all such fucking cowards they couldn't see past their own noses far enough to see how he was not only right, but how easy it could have been to change their dependency on the religious right as a voting block.

No. I say the Louisiana legislature, and the governor, are a bunch of fucking cowards.

Posted by: J. Micahel Malec | February 16, 2009 5:18 PM

Ichthyic,

There's political courage, and there's political prudence. When I asked a legislator for his support on a bill the LFF opposed, he turned me down, saying, "Last time I crossed them it cost me $60K!" That was because they put up a candidate against him when he otherwise would have been unopposed for re-election. The bill in question (not this one) just wasn't important enough to him to go against them.

That's why this bill passed almost unanimously.

Legislators just didn't see it as important enough to defy the LFF. To be fair to them, most didn't understand the implications of the bill. Only the legislators who sat on the committees that heard the bill can be faulted. They did hear the arguments on both sides, and voted the wrong way.

The LFF is a well-oiled political machine, capable of generating hundreds of e-mails and letters to every legislator. The scientists by contrast, are, well scientists, not political operatives. They were just plain out-gunned. They somehow thought that if they just explained the logic of their position, they would win. That's not how politics works, in Louisiana, or anywhere.

Posted by: Heather | February 16, 2009 5:27 PM

J. Micahel Malec - Thanks for your comments that let us know what is going on in Louisiana. Do you have any suggestions on what we can do to help?

Posted by: J. Michael Malec | February 16, 2009 5:39 PM

Heather,

Letters to the Editor are always good. Here's the links to the submission pages for the New Orleans Times Picayune and the Baton Rouge Advocate:

Times Picayune:

http://www.nola.com/mailforms/standard/letters.ssf?LetterstotheEditor

BR Advocate:

http://www.2theadvocate.com/help/letters

And here's the link to the Louisiana Coalition for Science, which is leading the fight against this nonsense:

http://lasciencecoalition.org/

If a repeal bill is filed in the 2009 session, it will be on the website.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 16, 2009 5:52 PM

@Walton-
Eric Saveau: I apologise for calling you a maniac. It was baseless and over the line, and I shouldn't have said it.

[throws hands in the air] Gah. If you’re trying to make me feel like I just kicked a puppy, you’re having at least some success…

I can understand your point of view; and, incidentally, I agree that the "left" (just like the "right") is a diverse range of movements, not a monolithic entity. (This, indeed, is why I don't think the traditional left-right distinction is remotely useful, and why I think it should be abandoned.) And it was perhaps inappropriate of me to characterise you as a socialist, though I note that you haven't explicitly repudiated the label.

Then I hereby repudiate the label, and further note that the word “socialism” has, in conservative usage over at least the last thirty years or so, been continually redefined to encompass anything and everything that stands in the way of greed. Insofar as I have a political identity, it is simply that I am an American who values the principles laid out in the Constitution. As to the “left-right distinction”, I find it archaic but as long as the self-indentified “right-wing” (along with those who do not so identify but whom nonetheless echo right-wing rhetoric) places anyone who refuses to bow to their pogroms in the “left” camp, its usefulness is unfortunate but real.

I agree with the American left on a number of things. I am strongly pro-civil liberties, and I applaud the fact that Obama is closing Guantánamo, and appears to be more committed than his predecessor to natural justice and due process. I am also in favour of marriage equality, and would have voted against Proposition 8 (and similar initiatives elsewhere in the US) were I a US citizen. And there were many races last year, both at the congressional and state levels, where I would certainly have voted Democrat.

I note for the record that you said the following in your second to last comment -

“You leftists have no claim on any word which stems from the same root as "liberty", because you don't believe in liberty. You believe in collectivism and coercion.”

- and I further note that this quote is the exact opposite position of what you said immediately above. So be clear, Walton: Do you find that liberals-leftists-Democrats-whateverlabelyouareusingatthemoment are pro-liberty, or anti-liberty? Man up, choose your position, and be prepared to stand on it.

Where I differ from you is on economic matters, because, ultimately, I believe in small government and the free market. This is not blind idol-worship of the likes of Friedman, Hayek and Rand, as you seem to believe. Rather, it's a considered philosophical and economic standpoint, standing in a rich intellectual tradition that goes back to Adam Smith and J.S. Mill.

I, too, have read Adam Smith, and am pretty sure that modern conservatism would repulse him. Liberals do not believe in any particular “size” of government; we merely want our government to be functional and accountable and rmindful of the law. We note that though the record of Democratic administrations over the last few decades shows them to be uneven in this regard, the record of corresponding Republican administrations is one of unalloyed disaster. We further note that this Republican record gives every indication of being the result of intent, as exemplified by, for one example, the practice of placing government agencies in the hands of individuals who are hostile to the mission of said agencies, who then run these agencies into the ground, and then declare the failure of these agencies as evidence of the inefficiency of government and condemn any who point out that it was a result of their malfeasance. It’s a game we’ve watched played out over and over again in every Republican era from Nixon onward.

Ultimately, I believe in the immorality of coercion. It is my view that what my fellow man (and woman) produces for himself, or obtains through mutual voluntary transaction, is his to keep, and that I have no right to take it from him for my own benefit or for the benefit of others. This is not, of course, an absolute and immutable principle, because some government services are genuinely necessary (as, indeed, Friedman and other libertarian intellectuals acknowledge), and thus we cannot avoid some taxation. I would also assert that, where private charity cannot provide for the needs of the poorest, humanitarian welfare is a legitimate state endeavour - as is education, since it's essential to social mobility. So my ethical standpoint is not a doctrinaire one; rather, it's a starting-point for my political thinking. Nonetheless, I would argue that state coercion of the individual (whether or not approved by the democratic majority) is prima facie immoral, unless there is a very compelling moral reason why such coercion is necessary.

If you insist on viewing a broadly applied system of progressive taxation as coercion, rather than the most fair and rational way that a civilization can provide for its own necessary investments, then there’s nowhere to go from here. Nowhere. It is the most wealthy who gain the most benefit from the workings of our civilization, yet they insist that they must not be expected to pay for it. Over the last several years we have been hemorrhaging wealth and blood in the sands of the Middle East, yet the wealthy interests who insisted that we must have this war proudly declared, with no apparent sense of irony, that they care about nothing so much as their precious tax cuts. President Teddy Roosevelt would shred them with far greater eloquence than I can muster.

A number of threads back I got into a fairly venomous exchange with Africangenocide on the subject of tax policy and what it meant in real world terms; AG demonstrated the ability to quote abstract principles of economic gamesmanship, but none whatsoever to understand how economics works in the real world. Is it ignorance? Is it malice? Doesn’t matter. Either way, the application of such abstractions to the real world has always proven destructive. Reagan ran up huge deficits that could only be addressed by looting the Treasury and blamed everyone but himself. Bush the First made a good start on that before failing re-election, and Bush the Second far exceeded his allies’ fondest dreams or our darkest fears. By contrast, Clinton’s economic stimulus actually worked and made liars of the doomsayers who are repeating the same objections with regard to Obama now. They have been proven wrong over and over again; the policies they decry have been proven to work. Since I am a practical man, I choose to support that which has been demonstrated to work, and to dismiss and deride that which has consistently shown itself to be false and dangerous. It’s that simple.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 16, 2009 5:57 PM

Gah. If you're trying to make me feel like I just kicked a puppy, you're having at least some success…

like a puppy, Walton often pisses on the floor around here.

I rather suggest a rolled up newspaper would be better suited to him than rational discourse.

far be it from me to spoil your fun, though.

:P

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 16, 2009 6:10 PM

Leon you have proven yourself to be a liar, so we don't need to. Godbots always lie. They can't help themselves.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 16, 2009 6:11 PM

The Bible is not a science book so it cannot be explained in scientific terms. So its no surprise why people accept something as lame as the theory of evolution.

Posted by: Walton | February 16, 2009 6:21 PM

Eric Saveau: It is the most wealthy who gain the most benefit from the workings of our civilization, yet they insist that they must not be expected to pay for it.

I don't quite understand why you equate "the workings of our civilisation" with the workings of government. "Civilisation" is not the same thing as the State. Most of the achievements of our civilisation have been created not by the State, but by free and voluntary exchange between individuals. Global trade has been the driving-force behind an astonishing expansion in everyone's standards of living over the last century; the average person, a century ago, would have been amazed at the living standards enjoyed by even the poorest among us today. (Astonishingly, for the first time in human history there are now more overnourished than undernourished people in the world. This, if nothing else, is testament to the great economic benefit that can be derived from international trade.)

"The wealthy" are those who - whether through skill, mere luck, or a combination of both - have benefited more than the average person from this process of free exchange. This does not mean that they owe the State anything in particular. If a person establishes a successful business, he relies on many other people - his suppliers, his employees, his customers. But each of these people have entered into free contracts with him, for their own gain. His supplier agrees to sell him goods, in exchange for money; his employees agree to work for him, in exchange for money; his customers agree to pay him money, in exchange for goods. In no case is any of these relationships created by the State.

So I fail to see how the wealthy owe any greater debt to the State than the average person. I suppose it can be said that, since they have more property, the State incurs a greater cost in protecting it from crime and natural disaster; but in the context of the vast, bloated government budgets we see in most countries, this is a negligible amount.

I will concede that the wealthy in certain industries use public infrastructures significantly more than the average person; a trucking tycoon, for example, will rely on public roads and bridges to a much greater extent than the average person. But this is not an argument for a progressive income tax; rather, it is an argument for charging user fees, where possible, for such services. In the case of roads, many countries, including the UK, charge road tax per vehicle - which addresses this concern, because it means that those who use the public roads more pay more. Similar arrangements have been, or can be, adopted in many other areas of public service.

Thus, I don't see how one can argue that the wealthy owe a greater debt to the State merely because they are wealthy. They may owe such a debt because they have benefited more than average from public infrastructures and services - but this is an argument for user fees, not for progressive income tax. The wealthy have indeed benefited greatly from our civilisation - but our civilisation is not built solely, or even primarily, on governmental intervention. Yes, it certainly needs governmental intervention in order to work; without law and order, defined property rights, and the arbitration of contracts, there could be no civilisation. But these things are, in a free society, available equally to all citizens, not exclusively to the wealthy.

And, btw, there is no need to keep expounding your hatred of the Bush administration and the modern GOP in general; I don't substantially disagree with you. The Bush administration divided the conservative movement, abrogated civil and personal liberties, and deployed the rhetoric of economic freedom while in fact curtailing such freedom. While I'm not a fanatical Bush-hater, I'm certainly no supporter of his.

Posted by: Sastra | February 16, 2009 6:30 PM

Leon Flamick #291 wrote:

The Bible is not a science book so it cannot be explained in scientific terms. So its no surprise why people accept something as lame as the theory of evolution.

If the Bible is "not a science book," then why are you apparently taking its stories as scientific truths?

I'd also like to ask you another question:

IF it turns out that the vast majority of scientific experts are correct, and evolution is not "lame," but really did occur -- and you came to accept this through study and evidence -- would you still be a Christian?

Would you then consider the possibility that "God works through evolution" in some behind-the-scenes-way, and become a theistic evolutionist? Or do you think that evolution is a make-or-break deal for God, or at least for Christianity?

Thanks.

(I am of course assuming that you agree that, if your study of the evidence lead towards evolution, you'd go where the evidence leads, no matter how hard it might be emotionally.)

Posted by: Walton | February 16, 2009 6:35 PM

Further response to Eric Saveau at #288:

Very well, I apologise for characterising you as a socialist. It's difficult to know what label to use for people in general; but the term "liberal" is far too ill-defined and widely-abused to be a useful descriptor of a specific political ideology (though it is useful in the context of constitutional theory, but that's another discussion).

In response to your question: to vastly oversimplify and generalise, one could perhaps say that the mainstream "left" (to use the term very broadly) are pro-liberty on social issues while anti-liberty on economic issues, whereas the mainstream "right" are the other way around. Bush was the worst of both worlds, pretending to be committed to the free market while not really understanding it. I do hate generalisations like this, however, and I appreciate that there are lots of counterexamples one can point out.

I would also accept that since I'm using the word "liberty" in a partisan and contestable way, I need to define it. I would contend that "liberty" is not synonymous with absolute autonomy of action; rather, we ought to take it to refer to freedom within the law (which, I believe, is close to its original classical meaning). True liberty cannot exist without a well-defined system of individual property rights (which is why left-anarchists' version of "freedom" is not one to which I can subscribe).

Fundamentally, I would rely on a modified version of the "liberal harm principle": a person should be entitled to do as he or she wishes with his or her body and private property, provided he or she does not (a) interfere with another's autonomy by force or fraud, (b) deprive another of the enjoyment of his or her property, or (c) break a binding contract into which he or she has entered voluntarily. (The more traditional formulation, "do as you wish as long as it harms no other person" is, of course, far too simplistic; 'harming' others is in many cases legitimate, e.g. by setting up a competing business and pricing them out of the market. Harm only becomes illegitimate if it interferes with another's personal autonomy or property rights, or breaches a contract.)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 16, 2009 6:37 PM

SwampCat, please give me five citations to the peer reviewed primary scientific journals that back any other theory than evolution is a scientific theory. No citations, no other theories. Creationism and ID are religious theories, and should only be taught in religious courses.

Posted by: Anton Mates | February 16, 2009 7:11 PM

Ichthyic,

Are you really saying the LFF is running the entire show in LA?

because i would find that very hard to believe.

No, that's pretty much true. But it's only been true for a fairly short time, and may not be true for much longer.

Basically, as I understand it, it's down to Katrina. The hurricane caused a ton of people from the coastal, bluer parts of the state to leave--not just immediate evacuations, but also people looking for safer places to live and better job markets in the aftermath. Louisiana's demographics took a turn into the red.

At the same time, the governor's incompetence in dealing with the disaster made a lot of Louisianans very pissed off, and the governor was a Democrat. When the next election rolled around, she didn't seek reelection, and Jindal pulled in almost twice as many votes as the two main Democratic candidates combined. (Which is almost unprecedented for Louisiana; even the conservatives there have traditionally been loyal to the Democrats.)

In this climate, legislators are very, very frightened of pissing off the social conservatives. I believe some of the Catholic legislators have said they have to bend over backwards to please the religious right, since they're in danger of being painted as "un-Christian" to the Protestant majority.

But, again, this may not last. To a large degree it'll depend on how Jindal does over the next few years.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 16, 2009 7:18 PM

No, that's pretty much true.

ugh.

Posted by: J. Michael Malec | February 16, 2009 7:43 PM

Anton,

Some of the factors you mention are quite true, but the main reasons the LFF is so successful is that they are organized, well-funded, politically savy, and ruthless. I have watched their rise over the years, and while part of the reason for their success is the election of more and more extremist legislators, the main reason is fear, as I stated in previous posts.

They can create a flurry of e-mails and phone calls from their network of loyalists in a matter of minutes. This makes their importance seem far greater than their actual numbers. Legislators typically judge public opinion on volume, not content of communications.

None of the groups that oppose them have anything like that kind of organization. Only a few groups like AARP and the AFL-CIO can match that kind of action, which may explain why the LFF never goes up against old people or workers' rights.

They will eventually fade, but not until one or several of the following happen: Their opponents match the LFF's organization. They split their followers. Legislators are more afraid of something or somebody else. Their funding drys up. They get over confident and make a serious tactical mistake that kills their credibility. The IRS shuts them down (they are a 501(c)(3), and have a small off-shoot that can lobby, but they are fudging the numbers).

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 16, 2009 7:56 PM

Just wanted to highlight the amusing juxtaposition below:

The Bible was tranlated from the Latin Vulgate by William Tinsdale in 1535 and finally tranlated into the Queens english in 1611 as The King James Version.

Although... Isn't it rumored that King James was indeed a queen, for certain values of "queen"?

Not that there's anything wrong with that (in and of itself...)

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 16, 2009 8:10 PM

If you trust Ryan and Pitman's account,it was actually the filling of the black sea through the Bosporus that is the basis for the various flood myths.

All it takes is cursory understanding of how oral folk tradition works to interpolate that what really happened was that one guy who'd just built a boat saw what was happening and got his family and a few sheep and goats (and, to keep Patricia happy, chickens) on board and floated around for a few days before reaching land safely -albeit somewhat smelly from all the animal crap.

Given a few retellings it became 'God told Noah to build an ark and take two of every animal¹ and so forth; purple monkey dishwasher².'

_{¹Or seven or whatever the heck it was; I can't be arsed checking right now.
² See The Simpsons episode The PTA Disbands. It'll make perfect sense.}

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 8:51 PM

Support your opinion on creationism vs. evolution.

It's either a scientific topic and you should be able to defend creationism scientifically or it is merely a theological one and if that is the case, it has nothing to do with science and makes no claims refuting evolution.

And no

Ignorance is something only a bullheaded fool would take pride in and I'm not gaining anything by commenting on this board.

That is concentrated irony meter destroying idiocy right there.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 16, 2009 9:01 PM

support my opinions on what, on your scientific terms, on something you have no knowledge of, one idiot said I couldn't relate anything from the Bible. Wow, that's like proving scientific facts without reading it from your books, which incidently were also written by men, just in case you try and use that about Bible accounts.

your babble is becoming more and more pure stream-of-consciousness.

suggest you take your meds before you lose coherence entirely.

Maybe they got kicked outta the club for being too unfactual towards the evolution factor...who knows huh!

you mean they were Expelled?

you have MUCH to learn (or unlearn - just remember: brainwashing is bad).

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 16, 2009 9:06 PM

We can go out and verify their accuracy fairly easily

Indeed, science is built around the very concept of repeatability. It's part and parcel of every study published in peer-reviewed journals.

Religion OTOH...

Well, there are a lot of things I'd like to see repeated. Something (everything!) tells me they never happened in the first place, though.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 16, 2009 9:25 PM

Assuming that I hadn't taken any of the more powerful hallucinogenics in the preceding few hours that is.

which is in fact, a much more likely explanation for many religious stories to begin with.

and, strangely enough, eminently repeatable.

;)

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 16, 2009 9:36 PM

What's more, theists have involved explanations as to why their god doesn't do miracles any more.

That theists need 'involved explanations' for everything is a dead giveaway to the weakness of the original claims. The bible is supposed to be enough; that anyone who's prepared to analyse it to any depth requires volumes of various apologetics in order to understand what it really means says a great deal.

Posted by: Helfrick | February 16, 2009 9:36 PM

@Leon, It's Helfrick with an l. You can copy and paste it if it's too difficult to spell.

I'll keep this simple so you can understand.

No one has proven me to be a liar

its hard for an old guy like me to keep up, so I'll bid you all a good day

The 70's were the start of the transitional years where balanced economies, respect and moral values went out the door. And those are the years when evolution started to bloom more, not just from people who aquired higher learning skills, but for independent ones who did not want to be accountable to a God.

I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes: "With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

Posted by: kevin | February 16, 2009 11:31 PM

err great... no to the sciencephobes and yes to the homophobes....

how about NYC? we love science!

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 17, 2009 12:58 AM

Gosh darn, I did say I was leaving didn't I. Just couldn't resist the urge to shut up when most didn't have the sense to shut up either...I guess.
I came here and insulted people on this board, what an understatement. I was stressing an opinion with someone who was cutting up creationism, because most people who mock it are totally ignorant of its facts.
I haven't refused to read anything that I really haven't heard before. Using the Bible for my ill conceived opinion doesn't sound dishonest to me, it just brings out the narrow-mindness in you because if I was to give you factual scriptures, would you really look them up and see for yourself. No, you wouldn't, because that would make a liar out of you thinking the Bible had no base for solid info.
To some extent the world would be a better place without scientists, don't forget it was scientists that developed nuclear weapons. Science in all its applied wisdom certainly didn't make a utopia that they said it would after the war. In fact in my 62 years of life I haven't seen a good enough improvement to boast about. Science has brought out things that has made our lives easier, yes I'll admit that and religion has destroyed the unity of this world, I'll admit that also. But if you think higher knowledge is the key to betterment, I think you might just retract that statement when things start getting pretty rough out there. I've been through more recessions than enough and I'll tell you, this one's not gonna recover very soon. Most people are not aware of the days we are living in, but you'll see shortly, the last prophecy to come about in the chapter of Revelation. The great tribulation will start in New York City, but most people will believe its just a natural phenomena, but mark my words, because on that day all of you will be eating yours.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 17, 2009 1:09 AM

Gee Ichthyic, it sounds like good old Charlie who was a brillant man, but a self admitance skeptic of practicality.
Practicality during recessions and during the dirty 30's when the depression was in its full swing was the key to survival providing there was unification among the masses. Today, like family and moral values, unification has gone out the door and those are the main ingredients that can bring the greatest nations down to ruin.
Don't think so...just watch, have patience, its coming!

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 17, 2009 1:14 AM

Don't think so...just watch, have patience, its coming!

...at 4 o'clock? and all the evil people will be 2 feet tall?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_O%27Clock

ummm... still thinking you're off your meds there, boyo.

whatever.

WATERLOOOOOOO!!!!

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 17, 2009 1:21 AM

Don't think so...just watch, have patience, its coming!

Considering that Christians have been predicting the end of the world since about half an hour after JC's last piece of especially bad performance art went pear-shaped, I don't think I'm going to expend too much energy on being concerned.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 17, 2009 1:32 AM

Most people are not aware of the days we are living in, but you'll see shortly, the last prophecy to come about in the chapter of Revelation. The great tribulation will start in New York City, but most people will believe its just a natural phenomena, but mark my words, because on that day all of you will be eating yours.

Seeing that I am already feeding on my family, how is anyone to tell that society fell apart around me?

That is the hairiest and wartiest troll I have seen in a while.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 17, 2009 1:37 AM

Is this too simple for you?

actually, yes, it is.

using a collection of orally transmitted, poorly cobbled together and translated, short stories tends to be a bit simplistic for my tastes, indeed.

so, will all the evil people like me become 2 feet tall, Krangle, er, I mean Leon?

Posted by: Twin-Skies | February 17, 2009 2:10 AM

I call a Poe on Leon - there is just no fucking way anybody can discuss the book of Revelations as gospel truth (pun not intended) with a straight face.

On the other hand...

Today, like family and moral values, unification has gone out the door and those are the main ingredients that can bring the greatest nations down to ruin.

Yup, your idea of "moral values" was tossed out the door, along with racism, religious fundamentalism, and chauvnism.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 17, 2009 2:35 AM

Good to see all the skeptics coming out of the woodwork.
Ichthyic, that 8 minute and 30 second utube was one of Hollywood's most vivid example of sensationalism to come to the TV screen. The Twilight Zone was one of my favourite shows. Hollywood is really missing the boat on sensationalism. They could create a motion picture that depicts evolution. With all the computer work and special affects that make up the prime of movies these days, they could possibly make a bundle just on affects itself. Of course there wouldn't be any brand name stars in the show, they never had humans during that time.
One noticeable flaw in that skit though, the fanatic was talking about judgement day and if you knew anything concerning scriptures you would know that judgement day does not occur till after Armageddon and not in the rapture sense as these religious fanatics will tell you.
Wowbagger, my mental stability is great, my shrink told me so. Those goat herders that you labelled as writers of the scriptures were most likely writers of the theory of evolution and those writings never got too much exposure until Charlie Darwin came along centuries later and put it all into easily led minds and obvious it worked quite well judging by people today. The Bible was written in reality by men who were inspired of God, something like secretaries who write down what their bosses dictate. Not a big issue for God to perform.
Christians have been predicting the end of the world for sometime, yes, you are correct, but its obvious also those same self professed Christians weren't paying attention to Matthew 24: 36 were they. As it says in the following verses about the time of Noah, as they "take no note!" So in that case you wouldn't be aware of whats happening until its too late.
Janine,IgnorantSlut........hmmmm....."This is the hairiest and wartiest troll I have seen in awhile." Yes, it looks the part, but have you ever heard that phrase of..."truth is stranger than fiction!" There is alot of realism in those words.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 17, 2009 2:42 AM

Are you aware of what scientists think about the intelligence of indivduals who use profanity to address their issues.

Your profound ignorance of sociolinguistics matches your cluelessness regarding science.

If you were actually capable of logical thought then we'd engage you at that level. But since you're a pissant and a fucking clown shoe then there's no point. We swear at you because it amuses us, fuckface, not because we couldn't think of anything else to say - shit-for-brains.

Posted by: verlager | February 17, 2009 2:56 AM

The 6,000 year old Earth is a non-trivial error. Let's see how it plays out:

Distance in miles from NYC to LA = 2,462
Feet per mile = 5,280
Distance from NYC to LA, in feet = 12,999,360
Creationists age of Earth, in years = 6,000
Actual age of Earth, in years = 4,500,000,000
6000 / 4500000000 = .00000133
.00000133 * 12,999,360 = 17.332479

This means that the distance from NYC to Los Angeles, using the error factor of Christians' estimates of the age of the Earth, is 17' 4"

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 17, 2009 3:02 AM

Gawd, I hope for your sakes that most of you commentors on this board are actually uneducated, because with your sarcastic remarks that is the equivalent to a grade 2 level it's starting to make my credibility look good.
Ichthyic...it really is too simple for you isn't it? For one thing the Bible was not orally transmitted, it was inspired. Translating the Bible was a long tedious job that required many man hours and years to complete by skilled copiests. There were many corrections to repair throughout the years as archeologists began finding original copies of the dead sea scrolls. Today the restoration of the holy writings are almost complete.
Concerning the 2 foot tall scenario, please Ichthyic..."its only a movie," its not, just like evolution, supposed to be taken literally!

Posted by: Kel | February 17, 2009 3:04 AM

It's amazing to think that anyone could believe the world is but a few thousand years old when we have peered billions of light years into space and have vast geological strata with layer upon layer which would require at least hundreds of millions years to be accounted for - though with radiometric dating we can put that in the billions. Hooray for science!

Posted by: Kel | February 17, 2009 3:31 AM

You do realise that evolution has moved on since Darwin right? He got it way wrong on genetics. But that's what that annoying thing called evidence does - it changes eloquent theories into something more accurate. Damn you Darwin!

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 17, 2009 3:39 AM

Wowbagger...everytime you open your mouth I assume ones who actually agree with you on your terms must think that your logics sink way below my level, if not, there isn't much credibility here either. Incidently, the negative remarks do not bother me, but what amazes me is you have the gull to call me stupid and you're playing the part. You are supposed to be the intellect one aren't you, the intelligent players have all left the board.

I could write more coherent sentences on craft paper with a crayon clasped between my butt cheeks. Here's a hint Leon - consult the dictionary for the meanings of the words 'logic', 'credibility', 'intellect', and 'intelligent'. Using them in the way you do demonstrates your ignorance.

Oh, and a 'gull' is a bird. The word you're after is 'gall'. Yeah, you're showing me how it's done alright. Fucktard.

Janine..."wow, just wow" I guess I sorta got carried away with the goat herder writing the evolution fiasco, so ok, along came Charles Darwin in the mid 1800's and made it all up by himself, so I give your hero the credit for the entire brainwashing segment that has lasted 150 plus years and growing.

Leon, arguably the dumbest sack of pig crap to be deposited at our outhouse door, doesn't know about Alfred Russel Wallace - colour me unsurprised.

Posted by: Walton | February 17, 2009 3:51 AM

Leon Flamick: Those goat herders that you labelled as writers of the scriptures were most likely writers of the theory of evolution and those writings never got too much exposure until Charlie Darwin came along centuries later and put it all into easily led minds and obvious it worked quite well judging by people today.

I'm sorry, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Explain?

I'm no scientist, and I'm not going to attack you like most people here. However, I would like to point out the principal reason why I'm sceptical of the existence of any kind of "intelligent designer". It is, of course, the fact that the human body and the natural world are in many ways poorly-designed. How do you explain the fact that there are so many diseases and parasites which cannot live without debilitating or killing their host organisms? Or the fact that so many children are born with congenital disabilities? Or the fact that we are so easily-injured?

Our bodies are fit for purpose, but are a long way from being perfect. This is entirely consistent with the theory that they have evolved through a lengthy process of natural selection. It is not, by contrast, consistent with the theory that they were created by a God who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent; why wouldn't he have designed them a bit better, so that fewer children die from diseases?

I'd also be interested to know what, precisely, you propose as an alternative to evolution, since there's a very broad range of viewpoints. At one end of the spectrum, hardline young-earth creationism is simply self-evident nonsense; the notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old is disproven by carbon-dating and masses of other evidence, and the fossil record shows that species were not created all in one go but rather changed and developed over time. So that form of creationism is simply not intellectually sustainable. At the other end of the spectrum, of course, you can accept mainstream natural history but simply argue that, rather than species evolving and changing over time, they were altered by the intervention of God, in such a way as to merely appear that they were evolving naturally. That's an unfalsifiable statement, so no one can prove you wrong; but in practical, empirical terms, it's functionally indistinguishable from evolution, meaning that we have nothing to argue. (And it begs the question of why an omnipotent God would go to so much trouble to disguise His handiwork.)

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 17, 2009 3:54 AM

Hey now, maybe Walton has a use after all.

can you translate gibberish as well as speak it, Walton?

you and Leon can go head to head, and we'll just sit back and snicker watch.

Posted by: Kel | February 17, 2009 3:56 AM

Kel, I believe this was directed my way, but to set the record straight, I referred to the recorded history of humans as far as secular was concerned was approximately 6000 years plus.

Its like evolution, the idea of billions of years is only exaggerated to cover their own tracks of discrepancies that has always plagued the evolution theory for decades.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 17, 2009 4:19 AM

Wowbagger...hey, I did say up wind there that "I wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer," I have admitted that, but your escuse overwelms anything I can come up with. Its shows vividly in your intelligent choice of words, (I hope that's appropriate for you). You will have to forgive me, my english are terrible.
Yes you're right, again I stand corrected, gull is a bird and gall is the word I was seeking. Atually I was going to use the excuse that the "a' and the "u" were so close to each other that it was a typo error.
Wow, very impressive article about Alfred Russel Wallace, its very considerate of you to direct my attention to articles that relate to evolution, but for the sake of argument and narrow-mindness, why don't you give me some links that are contrary to the subject. Surely you must be aware that there are just as many articles out there that dispute evolution as there are ones who support it. But I understand that you keep your sense of integrity if its all one sided.
Here again, I have to hand it to you with your great choice of words. "The dumbest sack of pig crap to be deposited at our outhouse door." I guess that's better than depositing it downstairs where you live huh, lol!
Come on, you left yourself open on that one.
Well you been a good sport, hope you have a good day and good fortunes to you, good night We gone bye bye!

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 17, 2009 5:28 AM

but for the sake of argument and narrow-mindness, why don't you give me some links that are contrary to the subject.

You'll find them right next to the articles contrary to gravity, flight and germs causing disease - in the section set aside for cranks, whackjobs and loons. If you ask nicely they'll give you a tinfoil hat.

Here again, I have to hand it to you with your great choice of words. "The dumbest sack of pig crap to be deposited at our outhouse door." I guess that's better than depositing it downstairs where you live huh, lol! Come on, you left yourself open on that one.

Here I was thinking that there wasn't anything you'd prove to be worse at than science and logic, but it turns out I was mistaken; you're also useless at humour and insults. Utterly pathetic.

Go away and stay gone, you sniveling deluded cretin. I've thrown up more entertaining messes than you.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 17, 2009 7:54 AM

Wowbagger, my mental stability is great, my shrink told me so. Those goat herders that you labelled as writers of the scriptures were most likely writers of the theory of evolution and those writings never got too much exposure until Charlie Darwin came along centuries later and put it all into easily led minds and obvious it worked quite well judging by people today.

Leon, seriously that's seriously the dumbest thing I've read this week.

Brain meltingly stupid.

You have yet made even an attempt to defend your book. All you've done is talk about how you could defend it but you have not done so.

We've given you plenty of links to support evolution which you have ignored.

Are you determined to remind willfully ignorant or are you just lazy?

Posted by: Kel | February 17, 2009 8:03 AM

OT, I just found out today that if you google banana vagina, my blog is in the top 10 hits.

Posted by: Helfrick | February 17, 2009 8:20 AM

"OT, I just found out today that if you google banana vagina, my blog is in the top 10 hits."

I'm afraid to ask how it is you know that.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 17, 2009 9:27 AM

Leon, still no physical evidence for your imaginary god, no physical evidence showing the bible is anything other than a collection of fairy tales, and failure to cite any peer reviewed primary scientific literature to show that any theory other than evolution is scientific. Utter and total fail all around. Now you are a total liar and bullshitter, and everything you say is considered a lie. You want that to change? Start showing some evidence and quit preaching.

Posted by: Helfrick | February 17, 2009 11:07 AM

"I recently installed an add-on that shows me what traffic I get, and one person from the US turned up from google.com to my post about Ray Comfort called "A Banana Also Fits Well In A Vagina..." I added 2 and 2 together then decided to google search to see if the answer really was 4."

Oh, ok. I was thinking about all the possibilities. This one didn't come to mind. Not as spicy as I had hoped. Oh well, back to daydreaming.

BTW congrats on the good ranking bangina man :)

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 17, 2009 12:26 PM

Apologies to all for the missed italics tags above.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 17, 2009 1:09 PM

To block quote and to ease everyone's eyeballs when trying to discern between quoted passages and your own words

<blockquote>I think your opinion isn't worth lizard spit</blockquote>

Shows up like this

I think your opinion isn't worth lizard spit

Posted by: dean | February 17, 2009 2:58 PM

... bovine fecal matter?

how is that different from libertarianism?

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 17, 2009 3:07 PM

how is that different from libertarianism?

LOL

Posted by: Bob King | February 17, 2009 3:36 PM

I note the possibility of unintended consequences.

"A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board."

This seems to mandate the teaching of the critical facilities required to "Understand, analyse, critique and review scientific theories." The disciplines of logic, rhetoric and critical analysis have long been neglected, and I can think of no better introductory matters for the evaluations of arguments than the comparison and contrast of the arguments for and against Evolution and Intelligent Design.

By the way, a teacher who actually did that would become a test case courtesy of useful idiots on some school board in about 15 seconds. Or in other words, how hard could it be to ***outsmart*** these people?

I watched the Nova episode, Intelligent Design on Trial, and it's quite amazing to me that the ID people clearly thought they were walking into court with a persuasive case, and were genuinely surprised they did not prevail.

Of course, the problem with ID is not actually the position that some design executive might be involved in the process - though proof or disproof is currently impossible.

The problem with "Pandas and People" is that it teaches things that are false to fact, presuming not only to teach that there is a Designer, but that he designed things as they say, in the way they say, in complete contradiction of all sorts of factual evidence.

One would fairly assume that they have an alternate interpretation of the data that is testible and arguable. Not so much. Nor - more troubling - do proponents see that without this alternate explaination of facts in hand that provides as good or better predictive results - eg, continental drift, the progression of various models of the internal workings of the atom - it is neither a theory nor a science.

Oh, and it's pretty symplistic as a philosophical system, too. Hell, it's pretty damn silly from a theological viewpoint. After all, in both schema - "thinking about stuff and the logical consequences of accepting one thing or another as truth" is rather fundimental.

Come to think of it, I cannot think of any genuine intellectual discipline, with or without religious aspects, that would allow "The Bible Says it, I Believe it, That settles It" as credible.

Actually, Jesuits taught me that was evidence of credulity.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 17, 2009 5:10 PM

Oh, for fuck's sake, Walton. We’re still doing this, are we?

What government should not do is guarantee jobs, living standards, or other material benefits to private individuals; because it cannot do so without itself initiating coercion, in the form of taxation, against its subjects.

Job creation and the maintenance of a high standard of living are of broad benefit to civilization. The assertion that government shouldn’t be involved in this because Oh NOES! Taxus! is not a coherent statement.

You are, in short, repeating one of the common fallacies about libertarians: that we worship corporations and businesspeople, and believe that they should have absolute power to act as they wish.

We do not claim that you “worship” these entities; we only note that the policies that you advocate historically result in increased advantage to them at the expense of everyone else’s well-being and security. Results speak for themselves.

Corporations and businesspeople are no better and no worse than anyone else, and like everyone else, they must act within the law, meaning that they must not be permitted to use coercive force or fraud. A State which allows them to do so is not a libertarian state; it's simply a failed state. Your references to Somalia demonstrate this conflation; Somalia is not a libertarian state. Rather, it is the absence of an effective state.

This looks suspiciously like you are deliberately missing the point. I did not specifically claim that Somalia is a libertarian state; my point was that policies of deregulation and reduced taxation, championed by conservatives and libertarians with the promise of great benefits for all, have historically proven to be at best ephemeral and at worst horrifically detrimental. Therefore, a failed state, of which Somalia is an example no less real for being extreme, is precisely the worst case outcome. But the results are undesirable even far short of a worst case outcome: In America, lowered taxes and deregulation were hailed as a great boon by libertarians during the Reagan years, but what they wrought was reduced employment, reduced wealth for most people, an overall lack of economic security, massive national debt, and greater ability for the wealthy and power to exert influence over everyone else.

After Clinton pushed through his economic stimulus bill (which, it bears repeating, was quite successful and yet ran counter to Sound Libertarian Doctrine) libertarian hero Newt Gingrich seized the Speaker of the House position in a mid-term upset and filled America’s ears with stories of all sorts of privately run homeless shelters, rehab centers, and other avenues of service to the disadvantaged that were more effective than publicly funded alternatives and required less money. These tales were so stirring that several journalists went looking for these places… only to find that they didn’t exist. Gingrich had simply made them up; reality sacrificed for ideology.

So, there is no evidence to support libertarian claims regarding taxation and regulation, whereas a vast body of history has shown that taxes have successfully created and supported numerous programs and institutions that have benefited our civilization greatly. Your claims simply don’t match reality; ours simply do.

We libertarians do not advocate that government should do nothing. Rather, we advocate that it should have certain limited tasks (protecting people from force and fraud, enforcing property rights, and arbitrating contracts), and that it should perform these effectively.

Yet libertarian hero Milton Friedman quite literally stood at the side of Auguste Pinochet and trumpeted his praises to the world while tens of thousands were seized, tortured, butchered… or simply disappeared.

In a society with a functioning State, the State has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Thus, any person who uses such coercive force on another must be either (a) acting in breach of the law, or (b) acting in a manner authorised, whether expressly or impliedly, by government. A corporation or private entity, therefore, can only use coercive force to intimidate citizens if it is either (a) acting illegally, or (b) acting under a government authorisation. In either case, the government is at fault (in case (a) for failing to enforce the law, in case (b) because it has authorised the use of force). In a libertarian society, government would protect all citizens against force and fraud; so your Pinkerton detectives would have been arrested and imprisoned, as they should have been.

Congratulations, Walton; it’s safe to say that you have invented the No True Libertarian argument, and that it eerily resembles another well-known logical fallacy. Don’t bother telling us how a libertarian society would or should operate when we have a host of examples of the unfortunate reality of libertarian principles in action. No gods or kings; just an emperor with no clothes.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 17, 2009 5:49 PM

Eric Saveau,

Bravo. Kind of covers everything anyone who - like me - may not have been sure of exactly what it is about Libertarianism that rubs them the wrong way.

I still can't believe that Walton actually wrote Corporations and businesspeople are no better and no worse than anyone else... - that's the sort of delusional detachment from reality one usually only sees in the woo-addled, kind of like 'God isn't capable of evil'.

Two words: Ford Pinto.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 17, 2009 6:06 PM

. But his economic policy was, on the whole, superior to that of any post-war President.

Tripling the national debt is a superior economic policy? Only an economic illiterate (by which I mean you, Walton) would say such a STUPID thing.

Learn some basic economics, boy (notice that's boy with a small "b"). An introduction to economics course is surely offered at that highly rated university you attend.

Posted by: Shaden Freud | February 17, 2009 6:24 PM

tl;dr

Libertarian! *drinks* Ron Paul '08! 9/11 was an inside job! *hic*

Posted by: Steve_C | February 17, 2009 6:49 PM

Didn't PZ put his foot down about the "L" word. No one cares about the damn "Liberts"

Give it a rest. We don't want another thread hijacked by you assholes.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 17, 2009 8:10 PM

GDP growth between 1982-1988 was 3.4% a year

if that stat is important to you, you should have nominated Clinton, as growth was MUCH higher during his tenure. Higher than any US president since the stat was maintained, in fact.

Oh, why am I bothering.

just curl up and die already Walton; your spiel is simply... tired.

Posted by: Walton | February 18, 2009 3:50 AM

I'm teaching about that in a couple of weeks!

And indoctrinating your students with hatred against the evil corporations?

if that stat is important to you, you should have nominated Clinton, as growth was MUCH higher during his tenure. Higher than any US president since the stat was maintained, in fact.

I never said Clinton was that bad a president. In fact, from an economic and administrative standpoint he was one of the better post-war presidents. He didn't have much moral character (though there are plenty of Republicans about whom one could say the same), but his policies weren't all bad.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 4:41 AM

And indoctrinating your students with hatred against the evil corporations?

Showing the truth about how little corporations value human life when their bottom line is at stake doesn't meet any definition of 'indoctrination' that I'm aware of, Walton. It seems like a perfect illustration of what life under Libertarianism would be like - as long as you made sure the people killed weren't rich, of course.

Posted by: Josh | February 18, 2009 5:28 AM

He didn't have much moral character...

Three words, Walton: George Walker Bush.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 18, 2009 6:37 AM

Though I don't want an answer here Walton, if you have one type it on your blog and I'll read it there.

Be sure to enjoy the paean to Rush Limbaugh whilst you're there.

(Be careful though, because if you say Rush Limbaugh's name three times in succession into a computer monitor, then Anne Coulter will appear in your house and dry-hump your leg...)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 7:50 AM

Fucking libertarians ruining threads again.

Walton, why are you such an asshole? Seriously. Why must every fucking thread turn into a libertarian masturbation fest for you?

Can't you get a circle jerk going at your blog? You can even claim permanent pivot man status.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 18, 2009 9:08 AM

So David Marjanovic, OM, you are a scientist, a student graduate who now figures he is the enlightment of all knowledge and everyone else is bottom line. I got news for you son (or dude) if you wish to stay in your frame of thought, you don't know half as much as you think, because for one thing you need practical experience to understand issues fully, academic training does not cut it with practicality and there is no substitute for experience no matter how smart you make yourself out to be.
You say it doesn't matter how you say it that counts, well son (dude) it "does" matter how issues are addressed. If every other word is F... this and F... that, it doesn't show professionalism on anyones part, it shows literally that their verbal faculties are out of control and if they have to resort to swearing to make their point, then its clear the debate or argument would lead to a one sided result regardless.
For a smart fellow, you certainly aren't to observent when it comes to matters that are addressed in a certain way, unless of course it was in your intentions to swerve an issue to gain popularity to your side.
You said that I know the approximate date that the world will end and that's not what I said at all. I said soon it will end, that's not an approximate figure unless you are changing the english language. That could be, as we used to call gay people in the 40's and 50's a happy lot and a fag was english slang for cigarette.
I see your Biblical examples are far from accurate also. That ye, tho, expressions went out years ago, there are more accurate Bible's today that are printed in modern english such as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Another thing son (dude) is Jesus Christ will not return to earth in human form, his sacrifice was initiated only once. There are many Bible's that refer to coming in their verses when actual greek texts that have been found carry the word presence. He is now present in power in his kingdom awaiting for the appointed time to execute judgement on this wicked system of things (not the world) and if you were knowledgeable on Biblical facts and signs as you think you are in science you could recognize those signs quite readily. But because you are puffed up with pride with your years of schooling, it would be impossible for you to see those signs and know how to interpet them.
Take a lesson son (dude) I've got 40 plus years of studying Biblical events and accounts and within those years Christ's prphecies have taken place more than enough to convince any common thinking person that we are indeed living in the time of the end.
But you stick with your own ignorance and see what all those years of education & science will do for you when that appointed day comes. You son (dude) along with all others will get a severe rude awakening.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 18, 2009 9:21 AM

Leon, your god doesn't exist your bible is a work of fiction. Learn the truth and be free. Otherwise, keep your drivel derived from your delusions to yourself. You are merely showing us how ignorant you are.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 18, 2009 9:53 AM

Can we ban Leon already? Preaching gets you banned, does it not?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 11:18 AM

Take a lesson son (dude) I've got 40 plus years of studying Biblical events and accounts and within those years Christ's prphecies have taken place more than enough to convince any common thinking person that we are indeed living in the time of the end.

I hate to encourage Leon, but I am curious what prophecies have come to fruition during those 40 years? I'm assuming you mean the years from 1969 to 2009.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 18, 2009 12:06 PM

I was reading comments from others who seem to have the same judgemental attitute towards Walton as they are to me, so I decided to backtrack on this board and read what actually got the habitutual ridiculers so aggressive.
Even though I found Walton's comments very informative, I wasn't always in agreement, non the lease I found his mannerism as opposed to others very commendable. I have been taught by my grandparents and father that you can tell an honest person by how he conducts himself and by his actions towards his opposers.
Ones who resort to name calling and denying a comment just just for spite because it doesn't coincide with their views are often people who are impatient, lovers of themselves, self assuming, haughty, slanderers, without self control, headstrong and not open to any agreement...all incidently are described perfectly in 2 Tomothy 3: 1-7. So much for an ancient fairy tale book huh!
Walton, regarding your comment #356, if you were to evaluate my comment you would find that I was referring to the recorded history of mankind in general as 6000 years old, no way was I calculating the age of the world itself. Even though the Bible does not give an accurate account of the earth's age, it does give examples that the 6 creative days were not literal 24 hr times, suggesting the earth could be perhaps millions of years old, but unlikely to be billions. No one knows, and even experiments cannot give accurate details, because times indefinite are considerably different compared to times that are conducted in matters brought about by man. They are all speculation and guesswork.
About the goatherders, that was just a sarcastic reply to the person who concluded that all writers of the Bible were just lowdown goatherders of which is not true. Some were lawyers, doctors and prominent people in society at that time. I was just using words to evaluate how stupid and ignorant some people shows themselves to be. For sake of intellectual merit, just ignore that paragraph.
I understand your skeptism concerning the human body also, because I have health issues I have aquired during my decades of life on this planet, but I don't contribute it to poor design, rather to my own careless, carefree lifestyle I had in the past.
I know the Biblical account of sin being introduced by the first couple seems very lame for future generations to suffer from their results, but humans, because of their own lack of cleansing and hiygene habits brought on diseases and plagues upon themselves. And with drugs and other congestive materials that people use for recreation has also brought on defective births and pregnancies. If people were to follow the examples of God's strict standards and moral values you would see those incidents greatly reduced, maybe even eliminated. Governments on the other hand allow moral and family values to fail yet have no way to combat the consequences of those failures, so, demoralization of society continues.
The question of an alternative for evolution does not belong to religion, but it does belong in the scriptures providing a person can interpet them correctly. There is an alternative for Bible understanding that is readily available today, but I will not enclose on that because of narrow-minded individuals who could never understand it in the first place. The trouble is in these times..."truth is not a popular message today." Nor is common sense when it cannot be warranted by instant gradification.

Posted by: GMV | February 18, 2009 12:15 PM

Any organization or individual has the right to boycott a product, service, or location. However, I'm not sure why you are all afraid of academic freedom. The bill states explicitly that "religious" ideas are excluded from the science classroom. There are many scientists (not just Creationists) who doubt Darwin, doubt the science of human-caused global warming, and who are opposed to human cloning or embryonic stem cell research.

Let's get all of the evidence to the students and encourage critical thinking, discussion, argumentation skills, analysis of evidence, debate etc. This can only be healthy. Instead, you seem to want to encourage censorship, which is never a good idea in a free, pluralistic society.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 12:23 PM

Let's get all of the evidence to the students and encourage critical thinking, discussion, argumentation skills, analysis of evidence, debate etc. This can only be healthy. Instead, you seem to want to encourage censorship, which is never a good idea in a free, pluralistic society.

The high school science classroom is not the place where the great remaining questions of science are sussed out. It is the place to teach the most currently accepted science to the students to prepare them for the challenges ahead. There is barely enough time to teach them that let alone introducing unsupported science into the class room.

Creationism / ID is not supported in anyway. There is no reason to muddy up the students minds with garbage.

Once the ID crowd produces science on par with what has been established over the last 150 years since the introduction of the Theory of Evolution, then it can be considered on the same level.

Not only is it not on the same level, it doesn't even have any science supporting it. It doesn't even have a testable theory.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | February 18, 2009 12:27 PM

Oh and not to confuse, the Evolution vs. ID is not one of the great remaining questions.

The only controversy isn't one.

It is a manufactroversy.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 18, 2009 12:48 PM

SC, OM-

PS to Eric Saveau: While I don't agree with you on everything (e.g., re governments), you've done a splendid job attempting to educate the little pisher.

OK, Eric, forget the term "libertarian". I self-identify as a libertarian because it's the closest descriptor to my personal political beliefs. That certainly does not mean that I endorse the views or actions of everyone who calls him- or herself a libertarian. Nor does it make me remotely responsible for General Pinochet. If you prefer, we can abandon the word "libertarian"; I'm happy to call myself a classical liberal, an anti-statist, or any number of other things. But I am not responsible for the beliefs and actions of anyone except myself.

Your arguments get shredded and your response to that is “Okay, I’ll drop the label “libertarian”?!?!? Fuck off. It isn’t about the label. It’s about the lack of substance in your sales pitch. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you call yourself. You can call your religious ideology – for that’s EXACTLY what it is – Masturbatory Unicornianism for all I care, and it will not change the fact that there is a vast discrepancy between the claims of your religious principles and the unfortunate results of putting those principles into practice.

I have told you what I believe. I believe in a system of government whereby the state's role consists solely of protecting citizens from force and fraud, defending private property rights, enforcing contracts, national defence, emergency management, and a few other basic matters. Attack that if you will, but don't attack me for things I have not in fact advocated.

People often blithely assert that during the Reagan years, "the rich got richer and the poor got poorer". But this is empirically untrue. I point out that real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan years; there was a net job increase of 16 million; and real GDP growth between 1982-1988 was 3.4% a year, and the elves praised our names as the One Ring was destroyed, and the forests echoed with laughter, and all God’s chilluns got shoes.

I was there. You were not. You don’t have the faintest fucking clue what you’re talking about. Unemployment went from 7.5 percent to over ten percent at its worst, an over twenty-five percent increase. Homelessness went from something sufficiently uncommon as to be seldom even mentioned to over two million homeless people by the time Reagan skipped out the door. The real income of the bottom one-fifth of American households dropped by 6.1 percent while the top one-fifth increased by 11.1 percent. The number of people living below the poverty line went from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32.5 million in 1988. Much of the manufacturing sector of America was bankrupted under Reagan and never completely recovered. Had the Democrats not gained some additional seats in the ’82 mid-terms and begun blunting Reagan’s attacks on the middle class and the poor, it’s clear that the damage would have been even worse.

Corporations and businesspeople are no better and no worse than anyone else, and like everyone else, they must act within the law, meaning that they must not be permitted to use coercive force or fraud.

I may as well add to what others have already said about this: Corporations are inherently sociopathic in nature. That is not a criticism or complaint, it is merely an accurate label for the way they are designed to function. They cannot be trusted to inherently behave in an honest or “moral” manner; history amply demonstrates that they must be kept on a short leash by someone wielding a club. This does not mean we “hate” corporations, it only means that we recognize that capitalism is a system that does not function in a vacuum and needs to be regulated if it is to function in such a way that actually produces the widespread benefits that it can, potentially, create.

But since you brought up the term “evil” with regard to corporations, we may as well acknowledge some examples of that. For starters, the Bayer Corporation nearly killed my father several years back. His pharmacist was one of many who were specifically paid and instructed by Bayer to switch users of Lipitor to a drug called Baycol. Baycol degraded the myelin sheathing on the nerves, resulting in loss of feeling, loss of motor control, severe pain, impaired senses, and even death. Several hundred people died. My father, fortunately, stopped using it right away and made a fair – though not full – recovery. Bayer had its lawyers whittle the fines down, paid them, and went back to business as usual.

In the 1991 there was a fire in a chicken processing plant in North Carolina that left twenty-five dead and scores injured. The reason all these people suffered was because the owner locked the workers in under the assumption that they were all stealing chickens from him, and there no safety devices to unlock the doors in case of an emergency. This case is notable in that the owner actually went to prison. The lack of safety oversight and enforcement for workers was one of the hallmarks of the Reagan-Bush years.

More recently, Ford sold vehicles equipped with Firestone-made tires that were known to be faulty and hazardous. There were thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths as a result of the failure of these tires under normal driving conditions. Ford and Firestone blamed each other, lawsuits were launched, most of the lawsuits were blocked or settled, or the companies went on. No jail time for anyone.

These examples are not intended to show that corporations are “evil”, but they do give lie to your blithe homily about corporations and business people being no different from anyone else. Clearly they are; they wield vastly greater wealth and power and influence than the rest of us, will frequently pursue their profits with little or no regard for the well-being of others, and will always seek to avoid accountability for their malfeasance before the law (and, by virtue of their wealth, have means for achieving that last point that the rest of us lack). I repeat: On leash, with a club held over them. We want corporations to succeed, and to benefit from their success; but we do not wish to carelessly give them opportunities to turn and bite us.

Something else that bears repeating: Your simple-minded characterization of capitalism above - ”"The wealthy" are those who - whether through skill, mere luck, or a combination of both - have benefited more than the average person from this process of free exchange.

And my corrected version of that statement – ”"The wealthy" are those who - whether through skill, hard work, careful planning, mere luck, deceit, bribery, coercion, blackmail, emotional manipulation, advantageous social or political connections, propaganda, inheritance, threats of violence, actual violence, outright murder, or a combination of many or all these things - have benefited more than the average person from a series of elaborate processes that typically also includes free exchange.”

- is STILL an oversimplification; but is at least sufficient to be a MEANINGFUL description. You show no capability to recognize this unsubtle distinction.

And I’m exhausted again. You show no capacity to learn, or to think like an adult. You constantly invoke “The STATE!” as what an overview of libertarian/conservative rhetoric reveals to be just a code word for "Oh, noes! COMMUNISM!". Your reasoning is woefully shallow, your evasions and denials are pitiful, and I am heartily sick and fucking tired of your sophomoric puling.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 18, 2009 1:05 PM

I give a small example of habitutal ridiculers and low and behold from #409 to #415 yonder comes the words of perpetual foolishness.
Nerd, if you have 40 years of knowing the Bible is fiction, then you have an obstinate heart towards spiritual matters. What did you do, study the Bible in church 1 hour a week and study evolution the rest of your time? Everything is there, how you take it in is according to what effort you put into it.
I know the truth and it has set me free. It frees me from all the propaganda crap that has infiltrated in the educational system, and in this system of things.
Bernard Bumner, you'll find out that your education and academic training will be to no avail once the system collapses and you have to rely on your practical wits in order to survive.
Steve_C...could you ban Leon, od course you can, but that would only falsify any initiative of free speech. I call it opinionated, you call it preaching, do you see me using a church deomination for support, no, I use a Bible, fictional in your mind, but sure one helluva accurate one when it comes to matters of truth.
Notagod...what is it you want me to define? Christian failures of thought are actually true in the sense that the scriptures and religion are not entirely the same thing.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 18, 2009 1:11 PM

Leon, I have factual basis that the bible is fiction. I've read it cover to cover twice, and found it a vile, non god inspired book without a central theme, and it keeps holding abominable acts as moral. You just have your prejudices. Take time to actually learn the history of the making of the bible before you respond like an idiot.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 18, 2009 1:18 PM

Leon, your continual preaching, about your mythological deity and the fictional stories about it, is against the blog's rules.

Your free speech isn't being impugned. Start your own damn blog where you'll be properly ignored.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 1:25 PM

I could show you many things that support Biblical facts,

Jesus man, then get to it for Christ's sake.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 18, 2009 1:27 PM

You mean like Noah's Ark and people turning into pillars of salt and talking burning bushes? Shut up. Now. Please.

Stop babbling about your fictional book. We'd rather talk about Science Fiction, it'd more fun and creative.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 1:34 PM

I see why you educated geniuses use course language and ridicule others who oppose you, it does kinda make you feel intelligent doesn't it. Too bad it wasn't factual.

Quit whining and start producing the evidence.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 18, 2009 1:41 PM

Gawd, must of hit the nail on the head that time. Eric, what kind of troll are you, I assume there are more than one type after reading some of your replys.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 18, 2009 1:43 PM

I hear a dungeon door creaking open...

Posted by: Steve_C | February 18, 2009 2:42 PM

Claiming we need to brush up on the "truths" of the bible is bible thumping. You're bible thumping to a lot of atheists and agnostics.

Cut it out.

I can't remember if you're a young earth creationist or an old earth version. But considering you thing the bible is factual... young earth.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 18, 2009 2:44 PM

Your bible thumping...

you thiink the bible...

proofread, must proof read.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 18, 2009 2:53 PM

Leon, with your religious idiot blinders on, you can't see the 18-wheeler bearing down on you at high speed, but you are a godbot, so that is to be expected. You have shown no evidence to date to indicate that what you say is true, but you just keep making the same claims, which makes you look simple. Why don't you go back to your basement. Your Mommy is calling.

Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 3:47 PM

Even though the Bible does not give an accurate account of the earth's age, it does give examples that the 6 creative days were not literal 24 hr times, suggesting the earth could be perhaps millions of years old, but unlikely to be billions.

No one knows, and even experiments cannot give accurate details, because times indefinite are considerably different compared to times that are conducted in matters brought about by man. They are all speculation and guesswork.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 18, 2009 3:51 PM

the thread that will not die gives us:

Even though the Bible does not give an accurate account of the earth's age, it does give examples that the 6 creative days were not literal 24 hr times, suggesting the earth could be perhaps millions of years old, but unlikely to be billions.

wait... so why is millions more likely than billions again?

what evidence does "6 days of not literal time" provide for determining probabilities of age, exactly?

Oh, you mean you were projecting?

ah.

Now it makes sense.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 18, 2009 4:40 PM

Leon the Flaming Troll said of the Rev. BigDumbChimp -

I don't think I would go as far as giving the BigDumb a metal

I have to ask, Rev. BDC; are you metal? Or are you more industrial? Or perhaps classic rock or jazz?

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 5:24 PM

Eric Saveau,

Yet another great post. Just so you know, I've bookmarked it (#424) for future reference - I tend to use the Ford Pinto as an example of coporate malfeasance leading to people being killed; it never hurts to have a few more to throw in the faces of the Libertopians.

Though it may be to no avail, since the dead people were most likely poor; why, then, would they care?

Posted by: SC, OM | February 18, 2009 6:38 PM

Mostly, I'm just an asshole. An asshole who is right, but an asshole none the less.

MOVE!

Eric Saveau,

I am truly flattered. Thank you. Enjoy your, um, ice cream.

:)

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 18, 2009 10:27 PM

Hefrick...that's not name calling, there is no individuality, nice try though.
CJO...2 Peter 3: 8 reads; However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.
New World Translation.

"But don't forget this dear friends, that a day or a thousand years from now is like tomorrow to the Lord. The living Bible

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The world is 4.54 billion years and you have proof that those many independent lines of consilient evidence point to an incontrovertable fact...is a fact. Its not fact, remember in July 1957 when scientists agreed fully that the earth was indeed 6 hundred million years old, others though more or less, but the majority topped it off at 6 hundred million. Then about 7 years later they made a remarkable discovery and concuded on 1.?? billion. I wished I would have recorded that information at that time, because I have been trying to find articles that related to them but to no avail. Sounds like the science club decided to delete that info just for the sake of ridicule. When dates become that spread out, it points to guesswork and that's all evolution is...guesswork.
If you were paying attention to what my comment was referring to instead of eagerly trying to find fault with it, you'd find that the goatherder scenario was between me and Walton, so actually in a personal sense its non of your business, but since you already stuck your face in it, I might as well answer you.
Matthew was a tax collector, Luke was a physician, John was a writer, even Job was a partial judge and priest. Their means of life were not as important as the good news of God's kingdom. In fact, true Christians are not concerned about materialism in this world, they look forward to the time when this system of things is ended.

Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 10:43 PM

The world is 4.54 billion years and you have proof that those many independent lines of consilient evidence point to an incontrovertable fact...is a fact. Its not fact, remember in July 1957 when scientists agreed fully that the earth was indeed 6 hundred million years old, others though more or less, but the majority topped it off at 6 hundred million. Then about 7 years later they made a remarkable discovery and concuded on 1.?? billion.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 10:47 PM

Once again we return to the fact that science is always open to adjusting what it knows because of the evidence.

Creationist are never willing to adjust anything because of the evidence.

Which is more honest?

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 11:00 PM

Hefrick...that's not name calling, there is no individuality, nice try though.

Congratulations. I didn't think there was anything you could say that would make me think even less of your substandard intellect than I already did, but you've proved me wrong.

Calling one person something is an insult, but calling a group of people that same thing isn't? That's some fantastic logic. Tell you what, find a group of African-Americans and call them 'niggers' and see how far your logic works to stop them from kicking your stupid ignorant ass.

Its not fact, remember in July 1957

It's 2009, Leon. Did that pass you by? Science is cumulative - knowledge increases. That your own worldview is stuck with believing the inerrancy of what some enthusastic ideologues concocted thousands of years ago doesn't mean ours has to be.

When dates become that spread out, it points to guesswork and that's all evolution is...guesswork.

Except for the thousands upon thousands of research papers in numerous fields which support evolution, many of which were predicted prior to the research being done. Go and read about tiktaalik for what an understanding of evolution allowed scientists to predict.

If you were paying attention to what my comment was referring to instead of eagerly trying to find fault with it, you'd find that the goatherder scenario was between me and Walton, so actually in a personal sense its non of your business, but since you already stuck your face in it, I might as well answer you.

You goatherder discussion was actually with me, since I was the one who brought it up in this post - so, even if it wasn't pompously idiotic to tell someone they can't comment on something you've written in an open blog, you've still got me to contend with.

So, I can freely say that, no matter what the profession of the apostles, they were still ignorant of modern science. They probably knew more about it than you do, however - thought that's hardly anything to brag about. And they have the excuse of not having the option to do anything about it while your ignorance is willful.

In fact, true Christians are not concerned about materialism in this world, they look forward to the time when this system of things is ended.

Aye, and nae true Scotsman would put marmalade in his porridge either!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 11:08 PM

Sure Jamine...life has improved for many, but life has also thrown in its increased share of cancers, pestilences, unwanted preganacies, homeless people, sexually transmitted diseases, broken families and homes, mental illnesses, stress and now the whopper of all whoppers a fast approaching depression. Yes sir, life has sure improved hasn't it.

Leon, you sir are an idiot.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 11:14 PM

Recorded history of man only goes back 6000 years and nothing prior is spoken except when some evolutionists start making up exaggerated claims that some skeltons are 100,000,000 years old.

Wrong again, douchebag. Ever heard of Çatalhöyük? Obviously not, because it's a settlement that dates back to c 7500-5700 BCE. That's a lot more than 6,000 years ago, by the way.

How ignorant are you? Maybe you should try reading something other than the bible and your well-thumbed copy of Pissant Apologetics for the Mentally Deficient for a change.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 11:20 PM

What's matter, didn't quite approve about the truths that I quoted Jamine about our so called improved lifestyles.

Are you familiar with the increase in human life expectancy over that time, you cluess dimwit? Your perception is on par with your coherence. And you're 62? Good grief; how teh stupid hasn't killed you by now may actually be evidence of a miracle.

Anyone got the Pope's number?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 11:23 PM

leon seriously you are fucking deluded.

You ignore all the advances in medicine, technology, food preservation, food safety, water safety, transportation, communication, housing, sanitation, entertainment, textiles, agriculture, distribution and a myriad of other things that were brought about by ... what?

Creationism and the celebration of willful ignorance?

no

by science. The evilist of all evil. SCIENCE!

You incredible incredible dolt. You small minded myopic disgrace to the modern human. You, you..

Creationist.




I'm surprised you can turn on a computer being that it is a technological advancement brought about by scientific pursuits.

You fucking, fucking idiot.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 18, 2009 11:28 PM

Wowbagger...No, can't say I have heard of them so you are correct on that assumption. From the beginning to the year of 1657 BCE when Moses penned the first accounts of the Bible, that settlement may have been around at the time of the nephilim.
The dates you quote may not be entirely correct either.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 18, 2009 11:54 PM

Hey Rev...who's denying all those scientific facts that are a part of everyday life, I'm certainly not. I'm just saying your supposively scientific facts about evolution are highly exaggerated and most scientists will even agree on that accord. You sound like a frustrated child.
Ben...interesting transcript from Salt Lake City, but my question within all the quesswork as mentioned, how they came up with that ball park figure. There have been modern archeologists who have found rocks and their estimates of age are no where near the billion mark.
Kel...my opinions carry no authoritive rights whatso-ever, but God's right as creator does and till the day when one proves it over the other, I will stick with creationism. There have been enough events that have occured in the last century up into my time and to the present day that shows the Bible accurately true with its predictions.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 12:02 AM

Hey Rev...who's denying all those scientific facts that are a part of everyday life, I'm certainly not. I'm just saying your supposively scientific facts about evolution are highly exaggerated and most scientists will even agree on that accord. You sound like a frustrated child.

Liar. You're changing the subject of the comment I was replying to.

you specifically said

Sure Jamine...life has improved for many, but life has also thrown in its increased share of cancers, pestilences, unwanted preganacies, homeless people, sexually transmitted diseases, broken families and homes, mental illnesses, stress and now the whopper of all whoppers a fast approaching depression. Yes sir, life has sure improved hasn't it.

So has life improved or not?

idiot

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 19, 2009 12:10 AM

I'm just saying your supposively scientific facts about evolution are highly exaggerated and most scientists will even agree on that accord.

Emphasis mine.

Where do you come by this information, Leon? If this is true then surely you can provide us with links to the relevant articles where all these scientists have indicated they have issues with the data supporting evolution.

On the other hand, if you're lying your ass off, you'll be unable to. While you're thinking about that, here's an article for you that would indicate otherwise.

but my question within all the quesswork as mentioned, how they came up with that ball park figure.

You didn't read it, did you? If you had you wouldn't use the term 'guesswork' or 'ballpark' any more than you would use the terms to describe how a surgeon removes a brain tumour.

There have been modern archeologists who have found rocks and their estimates of age are no where near the billion mark.

Yet another tick in the 'wrong' column for Leon. Archaeologists study people and cultures - not rocks. The people who you're misrepresenting (to put it politely) are geologists.

Kel...my opinions carry no authoritive rights whatso-ever, but God's right as creator does and till the day when one proves it over the other, I will stick with creationism.

You are aware that there are Christians who aren't creationists, aren't you? You belong to an embarrassing minority, even amongst Christians. Heck, even the Catholics laugh at you - that's got to make you unhappy.

Tell you what, though - if you can get your god to show up and tell us what he thinks about it I promise we'll listen.

There have been enough events that have occured in the last century up into my time and to the present day that shows the Bible accurately true with its predictions.

I guess this could be true - if you've got no idea about either the bible or history, and if you apply more distortion than is used at the average Sonic Youth gig, that is.

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 12:14 AM

I'm just saying your supposively scientific facts about evolution are highly exaggerated and most scientists will even agree on that accord.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | February 19, 2009 12:19 AM

Leon,

Moses penned the first accounts of the Bible

Do you honestly believe that Moses wrote the Torah? Even my Catholic high school teachers saw that as ridiculous (and these were people who thought they were eating a Zombie God during Mass).

I remember being presented with two big problems with the idea of Moses writing the Torah:

1) It claims that Moses was the most humble man on Earth, something you don't expect the most humble man on Earth to write.

2) It contains events Moses couldn't possibly have written about, most notably his own death.

I recommend you read Who Wrote the Bible? , which I finished reading a few weeks ago. In addition to the two points above Friedman points out the Torah contains the names of tribes which didn't even exist in Moses' times.
Friedman also makes the excellent point the Bible has influenced Western civilization more than any other book, millions base their life on its teachings, yet we have no idea who exactly the authors are.

We do know a few things. The book discusses how the Torah is simply a hodgepodge of different documents made from different authors, each primarily concerned with their own self-interest.

If you want to base your life on a book consisting of the fairy tales of goat herders, ancient regal propaganda, and absurd priestly legislation, go ahead. Just don't assume we haven't heard it before. Hell, the Bible is probably a better recruitment tool for Atheists than it is for Christians.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 19, 2009 12:26 AM

True Kel, I'm not as advanced on the subject of eveolution as you are, but then you aren't as advanced on creationism as I am, so how can a debate ever be concluded when it is supposively one sided each way. I still say the time factor will prove it. If the Bible is correct about the destruction of this system of things and if the signs of those times are as accurate as they seem, then very shortly we'll all have our answer won't we, but if science can come up with a gadget that can keep me tickin for another hundred years, then you could say and I would willfuly accept..."I told you so!" How's that sound?

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 19, 2009 12:32 AM

Think you thrashed me Wowbagger...just wait, you'll be a winner all right.

Posted by: Rey Fox | February 19, 2009 12:37 AM

I came in late, what did I miss? Oh, Pascal's Wager. Huh. Brahma's gonna be pissed, and you're gonna be reincarnated as a liver fluke.

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 12:43 AM

True Kel, I'm not as advanced on the subject of eveolution as you are, but then you aren't as advanced on creationism as I am, so how can a debate ever be concluded when it is supposively one sided each way.

If the Bible is correct about the destruction of this system of things and if the signs of those times are as accurate as they seem, then very shortly we'll all have our answer won't we, but if science can come up with a gadget that can keep me tickin for another hundred years, then you could say and I would willfuly accept..."I told you so!" How's that sound?

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 1:00 AM

Notice how much in recent times he's tried to turn this into a theist vs atheist debate rather than an evolution vs creation? It's no surprise that he's trying to pull pascal's wager out on us, claim the authority of God (through the bible) and talking about end times as if they were anything more than ignorant fantasy...

Recently I spoke to my youngest brother and he had an astronomy question for me: he wanted to know about the planets, well one: Planet X. And why is that? Because people have tied that planet to the Mayan Calender that people say predicts the end of the world in 2012. So why am I bringing this up now? Because it illustrates one beautiful point, predictions of the end of the world are not limited to Christianity. The destruction of the planet and the obliteration of all life is something that's present in religions and belief systems all over the world, so the Christian end times are none more special than the Mayan end times. People have beep predicting Jesus would come back and signal the end times for almost 2000 years now, so far 0% success rate. I call schenanigans on the whole endeavour!

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 19, 2009 2:12 AM

If the Bible is correct about the destruction of this system of things and if the signs of those times are as accurate as they seem, then very shortly we'll all have our answer won't we,

Actually, if the Bible is correct, the world will not end for a very long time.

See, in Genesis 22:17, God promises Abraham that that he "will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore;"

Now, how many stars are there? Well, one estimate is 70 Sextillion, or 7*10²². That's a pretty damn big number.

How much sand is on the sea shore? Well, one estimate is 7.5*10¹⁸. That's also a pretty damn big number. But I'm going to go with the number of stars, which is bigger.

The current population is 6 billion, or 6x10⁹. That looks like a big number, but it's damn piddling by the standards of the numbers above.

How many of those 6 billion are descendants of Abraham? Well, as far as we know, the only living descendants of Abraham are Jews and Arabs. One estimate of the number of Jews is about 13.5 million, another says 18 million — lets be generous and call it 20 million, or 2*10⁷. The estimate of the number of Arabs is 315 million, for a total of 3.35*10⁸, give or take.

Now, Abraham supposedly lived about 4000 years ago. It took 4000 years to get to 3.35*10⁸ descendants.

I'm too lazy to fiddle with population growth rates just now, but I note that our planet can only hold so many people. 6 billion isn't quite capacity, but let's put the upper limit at about twice that, or 12 billion, 1.2*10¹⁰. In order for there to be 7*10²² descendant-of-Abraham humans alive at the same time, they would have to be spread out over 7*10²²/1.2*10¹⁰ , or roughly about 6*10¹² planets. That is 6 trillion planets, far more than the number of stars in the Milky Way alone!

So however long it takes for the population of Jews and Arabs to grow that large, the humans race still has to spread out and populate 6 trillion planets, with an enormous amount of travel time between planets, before God can even think about destroying the universe.

So there you go: you can relax. God wouldn't lie to Abraham, now would he?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 19, 2009 7:24 AM

Leon ignores everything but his fictional bible. Which is why he has trouble with real facts and real evidence. Leon, Moses didn't write any of the bible. Watch a show that Nova had on last fall, The Bible's Buried Secrets, available at the PBS web site or U-Tube. It indicates that the first five books of the bible were put together over hundreds of years with at least half a dozen major authors and many more minor ones. The whole purpose of the five books were to cement Jewish identity during their exile in Babylon. The exodus never occurred, and Noah's flood is purely fictional. Mental masturbation by reading the bible over and over gains you nothing. You need to understand the cultural climate when it was written. Perspective is lacking without a bigger picture than the one painted by one book.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 19, 2009 7:36 AM

Nerd wrote:
blockquote>The exodus never occurred, and Noah's flood is purely fictional.

I don't know if it's entirely fictional, just the extent of it - part about the size of the ark, God telling him to build it, the pairs of animals, the forty days, the amount of flooding involved and so forth.

That some dude had built a boat just before a big local flood happened and got himself, his family and their three best goats (and a chicken or two) on board and floated around for a few days before reaching shore is perfectly plausible. That sort of thing still happens - and plenty of the credulous want to make it about god; that recent plane crash into the river being a good example.

I suspect at least a few of the bible stories have real-life bases; it's just they, like all folk mythology, have been blown out of over the years. Oral storytelling almost always includes an amount of embellishment to make it 'more interesting' - so something unusual but hardly miraculous eventually became an epic story of survival.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 19, 2009 8:02 AM

Wowbagger, The Bible's Buried Secrets addressed that question, and found a story of a man in the Tigris-Euphrates valley who did throw his family and livestock on a barge during a flood, but he, of course, was washed downriver into the Persian Gulf, and later landed on the south shore somewhere (Bahrain?) Definitely not a world-wide flood with the ark coming to rest on a mountaintop. So the biblical story fails.

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 8:39 AM

Excellent. It's always good to have scientists from different disciplines on here, it really helps having a domain expert to explain things.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 19, 2009 9:30 AM

Welcome Josh. We can use your expertise. My last geology course was back when I was a senior, and needed a science distribution credit to graduate. I've read a few articles over the years in Scientific American and American Scientist on geology, but I'm hardly an expert.

Posted by: Josh | February 19, 2009 10:02 AM

Leon asserted:

The world is 4.54 billion years and you have proof that those many independent lines of consilient evidence point to an incontrovertable fact...is a fact.

In science, no facts are incontrovertible. That word is used to refer to something that’s not open to question or dispute; something that’s indisputable; it refers to absolute and incontrovertible truth. There are NO FACTS in science that are incontrovertible. Period. You’ll find people, even some on this blog, who will argue that point. They’re wrong. Facts are observations with their associated errors. NONE of them are absolute truth. NONE of them are beyond the possibility of being overturned. Science does not provide absolute truth, NOR DOES ANY RESPONSIBLE SCIENTIST CLAIM THAT IT DOES. Stop lying about what we do (and if there are scientists out there running around asserting that we obtain absolute truth, then they need to back to school, because they missed the whole science part of studying science). And you can of course piss and moan about how geology is worthless if it isn't provding us with absolute truth, but again, if you're going to go there, then please stop using the petroleum products that we successfully use this science to provide you with.

I apologize for the yelling, but I’m sick and tired of having to explain this, again and again, to people who appear to have managed to get through school without learning anything. It’s like (bad analogy alert—where’s truth machine?) if I were trying to discuss some aspect of Jesus’s teachings with a Christian and I kept trying to weaken his argument by throwing it in his face that Genesis doesn’t mention Jesus.

Leon then continued:

Its not fact, remember in July 1957 when scientists agreed fully that the earth was indeed 6 hundred million years old, others though more or less, but the majority topped it off at 6 hundred million.

Topped it off at 6 million? Where the heck do you guys get this stuff?

Really--scientists agreed fully in 1957 that the earth was 600 000 000 years old? Seriously?

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/031023/inghram-obit.shtml

http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/190/1/205

http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM46/AM46_606.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2406118

This is just with a quick Google search. And that was simply to respond to your point about the alleged consensus of a 600Ma date for the formation of the Earth among geologists at the time. In that search, I completely ignored the major factual issue with your statement: that we had the age of the EARTH set at 600Ma in the late 1950s.

In the late 1950s we had the base of the CAMBRIAN placed at about 500-520Ma

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v183/n4663/abs/183768a0.html

…and I’m going to go out on a little limb here and assert that NO reputable geologist in 1957 thought that the entire Precambrian rock record was laid down in the 80-100 million years prior.

e.g., see:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a781009244~db=all

http://www.springerlink.com/content/wh32g60m27846547/

You are just simply wrong on this issue.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 19, 2009 11:41 AM

A successful professor from Southern California whom I heard about when contemplating buying crown land in central British Columbia said that people today with their higher education are so smart, they're stupid. He proceeded to explain why he left a stable prominent career and traded it all for a parcel of land and began settling down as a homesteader. I was very comfortable in life at the same time and wondered what would make a person do such an irrational thing, I mean uprooting his entire family and subjecting them to a life such as that.
Although he wasn't detailed about his reasoning, he did say he had enough of a system that was totally corrupt and delusional. He also said that society was slowly becoming adaptable to their version of right and wrong and would become a danger to itself as it became seperated from divine standards. He never mentioned if he was religious.
This was over 40 years ago in a MaCleans magazine as I waited a doctor's appoinment.
I finished reading the article and thought what a crackpot, leaving all this.
That's also about the time I decided to visualize what this life was all about. I never thought it would lead up to where I am now.
Up until ten years ago did I fully conprehend how certain dates in history would make me understand the present.
607 BCE to 1914 CE-- 1879 Pennsyvania and 1935. If I hadn't realized the significance of those dates I probably would have went back to school become educated and delussional like all of you ridiculers on here and attacked this Leon Flamick idiot just as you are now.
I learned all about evolution while in school, creationism didn't come about to much later. My father when he came out of the army in 1945 after Europe was liberated from the Nazi's saw atrocities committed by the churches that cemented a religious free environment for his family. I grew up without God and that's why evolution became so adaptable in my early years despite its discrepancies. In the meantime all I ever knew about religion and God was what I heard.
When I ventured on my own that's when my creationism hunt began. After studying with various religions I became more delussioned than all of you are now, and probably would have accepted the brainwashing effect of evolution if it wasn't for one small piece of factual evidence in scripture at Acts 17: 24.
So I asked God if he was there, where the hell are you and why the confusion in this so called Bible guidance book. It didn't happen over night but eventually he answered.
I know what the true faith is, I know who God is and I know exactly why were here, why the 20th century became more outstanding than in any other time period in man's history. I also know God has an active force that counteracts an entity force that will infuence the minds of even the greatest of men, more-so in these last days.
I am grateful that my heart never became obstinate as all of you, where I would be forced to accept and endorse a lie as great as the theory of evolution. Despite your amazing educational accomplishments, mathematical skills and your ability to use words, this is as far as your gonna go.
You see, Christ spoke of people like you who will ridicule others who have come to realize how corrupt and delusional this system really is, like that professor from California.
When your world begins crumbling around you, only then will you individuals ever see how blind you really are as your decision to turn your back on your creator has sealed your fate. You have already been judged.
When that day comes, you'll be standing around the ruins of this system of things and a message will be related to you..."they will all know that I am Jehovah!" Then as quickly as that message is said, your thoughts of evolution, your loves, your hates, your accomplishments, will be gone......"forever!" If you have time, mark my words.
This will be my last comment on this board, (I know, good ridance) but as a wise man once quoted..."why waste the wisdom of God on the wisdom of fools knowing they'll be a trickle of light today, but gone tomorrow."

Posted by: Josh | February 19, 2009 11:56 AM

I know this will go unanswered, but I'm curious as to how you see me as having ridiculed you. I merely asked you not to be a hypocrite by mocking my science while using the fruits of it. That's somehow ridicule? Wow.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 19, 2009 11:57 AM

Bye bye! Lunatic.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 12:16 PM

I learned all about evolution while in school, creationism didn't come about to much later. My father when he came out of the army in 1945 after Europe was liberated from the Nazi's saw atrocities committed by the churches that cemented a religious free environment for his family. I grew up without God and that's why evolution became so adaptable in my early years despite its discrepancies. In the meantime all I ever knew about religion and God was what I heard. When I ventured on my own that's when my creationism hunt began. After studying with various religions I became more delussioned than all of you are now, and probably would have accepted the brainwashing effect of evolution if it wasn't for one small piece of factual evidence in scripture at Acts 17: 24.

Damn it Leon. That was another Irony meter. That is two you owe me.

this is what you consider factual evidence?

The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.

How is that evidence? That's just one sentence of circular nonsense.

So I asked God if he was there, where the hell are you and why the confusion in this so called Bible guidance book. It didn't happen over night but eventually he answered.

Email or phone?

I know what the true faith is, I know who God is and I know exactly why were here, why the 20th century became more outstanding than in any other time period in man's history. I also know God has an active force that counteracts an entity force that will infuence the minds of even the greatest of men, more-so in these last days.

No, you don't. You've think you know but you do not know.

If you did it would be easy for you to demonstrate it or at least do a better job explaining it.

This will be my last comment on this board, (I know, good ridance) but as a wise man once quoted..."why waste the wisdom of God on the wisdom of fools knowing they'll be a trickle of light today, but gone tomorrow."

But Leon you still haven't provided us one iota of evidence that you claimed you could. We're all very curious.

Please satisfy is Leon!

Don't go Leon.

LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON

On second thought, it's probably just because you can't.

Please clean up the various turds you've left on the floor here before you go.

Posted by: Josh | February 19, 2009 12:23 PM

Be advised also Leon, that Odin has watched this entire discussion and is disturbed at your lack of faith. He will be waiting to have a little conversation with you when you die.

Posted by: Matt Heath, SRU | February 19, 2009 12:34 PM

I don't want to be one of those pompous pseudo-intellectuals (I'm sure you've met people of this type) who thinks his philosophical thought is deep and meaningful, but is actually superficial, boring, and generally mocked behind his back by his peers. If I am in fact one of those people, I'd like to know about it, so that I can do something to change it.

Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 4:42 PM

It's amazing that even after the evidence was brought up, all he could do was preach. Leon you deluded old twit, if you think that your side contains evidence and our side doesn't, then surely you won't mind reading what evidence our side has. Instead what do we get? You preaching that God is true then running off. No response to anything scientific (which despite there being centuries of accumulated evidence you assert doesn't show anything) just preaching your God as if that's a comparable outcome. Silly old man, you know nothing and you'll die ignorant.

Posted by: Helfrick | February 19, 2009 8:53 PM

@SC
I take offense to the portrayal of IT in that skit. Any IT worker worth their salt can abuse end users remotely. There is no need to mingle with yucky scientists. Besides, have you ever had the "pleasure" of being in the same area as a decomposing manatee? It makes tele-abuse a necessity.

Posted by: Twin-Skies | February 19, 2009 9:02 PM

This will be my last comment on this board, (I know, good ridance) but as a wise man once quoted..."why waste the wisdom of God on the wisdom of fools knowing they'll be a trickle of light today, but gone tomorrow."

And as another wise man once said:

Hit the Road Jack

Posted by: dean | February 20, 2009 4:28 PM

"Dean...read the entire chapter of Matthew 24 and take a look at 2 Timothy 3 1-7 of which I have partially covered above."

I have - but you didn't answer the question. Let me try again: how do you know those are facts? What supports the stories?

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 23, 2009 6:16 PM

I'll await your inevitable asinine comments.

Does pointing out the fact that PZ adds a couple of new threads a day and we can't be bothered checking old ones to see if some clueless hack we'd all tired of kicking around has turned up to spew any more incoherent drivel count as an asinine comment?

You want to keep arguing, post in a more recent thread. If people can't see a thread is active, they won't bother looking for it.

Sheesh. It's like I'm teaching remedial blogging for the perenially stupid.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 23, 2009 6:29 PM

Leon is a true, unthinking godbot. We'll have to do science for him. Leon, you are nowhere near the center of our existence. We care zero about your less than cogent opinions. So why do you have to keep expressing them?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 24, 2009 5:42 PM

Leon, your opinion, since it is uninformed, is worth zero. Give it if you must, until you get tired, or PZ bans you for being boring, which you are. We are still waiting for your evidence that your imaginary god exists, and that your book of fiction called the bible is anything else than fiction. We will wait for you to actually prove something. So far, Yawn.

Posted by: Kel | February 24, 2009 5:50 PM

Kel, there's nothing you or anyone else can add to make this conversation anymore than a one sided gang bang.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 24, 2009 5:53 PM

Talk about a perenially stupid Wowbagger, you came back didn't you.

Insult FAIL.

Kel, there's nothing you or anyone else can add to make this conversation anymore than a one sided gang bang

No, Leon. A gang-bang has two sides; the bangers and the bangees. What you're referring to is a circle jerk - and we leave that to you creationist types.

Metaphor FAIL.

Yeah I've read most of those link articles you all were kind enough to give and I find nothing that could relate or support what any of you said on here, just like in the case of creationism.

Your ignorance is not evidence.

Comprehension FAIL.

All these theories came from the minds of men, that's far from proof that anything relating to evolution ever occured.

Every theory we have came from the minds of humans, Leon. Where else would it have come from? Or you you have a bible that was somehow created without any intervention from humans?

Inclusivity and epistemology FAIL.

Posted by: Ben | February 24, 2009 6:14 PM

Leon, I have a theory of my own that I want to share with you. Here are the basics:

1. There is no god or gods; the theory of evolution is accurate.

2. The only supernatural entity in existence is Satan. He didn’t create mankind, but he does have some limited powers than can be quite annoying.

3. Satan wrote the Bible as a means to torment mankind. He wants us to think there is a god and a wonderful afterlife, but there isn’t. He also wrote the Koran, just to stir up trouble. Tricky bastard.

4. Satan planted the idea of intelligent design into some humans’ brains, including yours, as means to create havoc on earth. It appears to be working.

5. Satan occasionally uses his limited powers to create “evidence” of intelligent design. For instance, he might make some organisms appear irreducibly complex.

Leon, I’m pretty sure I have as much evidence for my theory as you have for creationism. In fact, your belief in ID/creationism simply plays into Satan’s hands. You are doing his bidding. You are his unwitting pawn. Please renounce Satan by renouncing intelligent design.

Of course, if you can provide evidence that I’m wrong about any of this, I’m sure we would all be relieved. I know it’s a difficult task to prove the nonexistence of Satan--sort of like asking an atheist to prove there is no god--so I’ll wish you luck in discrediting my theory.

Posted by: sadasaa | February 25, 2009 10:22 AM

I want to know how Leon thinks the bible is not a man-made enterprise. Did God physically come down to earth to write it? Did he force the hand of mortal men, thus negating free will? What about holy books of other religions? How were they written? Is the Koran really the literal transcribed word of God??

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 25, 2009 2:37 PM

Leon, massive failure on your part again. Rule one, your opinion is not evidence. Evidence is something physical that can be examined.
Proof for the bible being divinely inspired. Zip, nada, zilch. Failure.
God existing. No burning bush or equivalent. Zip, nada, zilch. Failure.
Leon, you are the one who is brainwashed by your own ignorance. Come back with some real evidence or shut up.

Posted by: Sastra | February 25, 2009 2:46 PM

Leon #542 wrote:

You people are so brainwashed and so easily led about this evolution crap, it wouldn't matter about evidence, it matters all of what you wanna hear. You wish to discredit God all for the sake of putting yourselves on a petestal & saying, "Look, I'm smarter than your God!"

No; what this is really about isn't evolution, or even the existence of God. It is about method.

Might you be wrong? And if you are wrong, what would it take for you to recognize that, and change your mind?

Apply those questions to both Creationism, and God.

Might you be wrong -- species really did evolve from earlier species? If so, then what kind of evidence would persuade you?

Might you be wrong -- and there is no God, and has never been one. If so, then what, specifically, would have to happen to convince you to change your mind?

Method, method, method. Not the conclusions, but why you arrived at them, and how you hold them.

If you cannot answer those questions, you have no standing in any discussion on that topic. After all, we would all have found the Infallible Being Who Cannot Be Wrong. Not God, but you.

Posted by: Ben | February 25, 2009 3:02 PM

Leon, the great thing about my theory is that you can't refute it--even though it's total nonsense, just like creationism and the bible.

And you don't see the irony when you wonder why nobody can prove that God doesn't exist.

What a pinhead.

Likely your parents are to blame. I'm sure they brainwashed you at an early age. They abused you, Leon, and you should be angry at them for it. Because you had abusive parents, you're replacing them with your imaginary sky daddy. Pathetic.

Posted by: Kel | February 25, 2009 3:44 PM

You people are so brainwashed and so easily led about this evolution crap, it wouldn't matter about evidence, it matters all of what you wanna hear.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 25, 2009 4:17 PM

Considering there is only one religion mentioned in the Bible then following the examples of Christ and his apostles would make all the other holy writings false.

What are the Jews? Chopped liver?

There are two religions discussed in the Bible and several others mentioned in it.

Posted by: Rey Fox | February 25, 2009 5:12 PM

"Nerd, just by looking into a mirror and examining your features as a living being is proof that God exists."

No it isn't.

"Do you think for a minute that humans evolved from any other source other than creation?"

Yes.

"How does the earth spin on its axis and keep temperatures in moderation in order to sustain life?"

It just does.

"none of this ever happened by chance."

Actually, it did.

(Don't mind me, just trying to make Leon's head explode)

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 25, 2009 5:47 PM

Wowbagger, that is not fair. All of the flying rocks could cause some damage and leave a mess. It could harm near by people.

Go, Rey! I am sure you can light the fuse.

Posted by: Matt Heath | February 26, 2009 7:14 AM

The Jews had a covenant arrangement with their God Yahweh, but they vilated it to the point of God's repercussions first in 607 BCE and finally after 70 CE. *citation needed* (from a reliable source, not the bible, and for each of the 2 clauses of that sentence)

Posted by: Kel | February 26, 2009 7:23 AM

Its trully amazing how an old grade 8 dropout can get you university genuises so riled up over such a controversial subject.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 26, 2009 7:50 AM

Its truly amazing how an old grade 8 dropout

Figures. Only someone that ignorant an uneducated could actually believe that these things you have been saying have any validity what so ever.

And just to be clear 8th grade drop outs can make valid arguments, you just don't happen to be one of those.

Posted by: Leon Flamick | February 26, 2009 4:45 PM

A realiable source, not the Bible, that's like saying the same to get a realiable source not from science books.
Nerd...my posts are worthless to you and ones who think along your lines only. Matthew chapter 24 deals with many of the prophecies that have occured during our last century, try and deny that. Does not 2 Timothy 3: 1-7 discribe the attitudes of people living today, especially you posters. Evolution will exist as long as people like you have a vivid imagination. Fron your comments and replies its no wonder Louisiana boycotts science.
Rev.. you are educated and look at the trash you're throwing on here, a real prize work of intelligence. Sometimes truth is a little stranger than fiction.
Ben...is that all you could come up with, when its obvious your parents sure wasted a pile of money on your education.
Just a bunch of puffed up habitiual critics, that's all you people are, even your insult replies do not carry the creative merit from people of your status.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 26, 2009 4:50 PM

A realiable source, not the Bible, that's like saying the same to get a realiable source not from science books.

No Leon it's nothing like that.

Science books contain information that is verifiable, today. Right now. The experiments and research are testable and repeatable.

Your analogy is horrible and once again shows that you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

Posted by: Rev. BigDUmbChimp | February 26, 2009 4:59 PM

Rev.. you are educated and look at the trash you're throwing on here, a real prize work of intelligence. Sometimes truth is a little stranger than fiction.

Ok show me what trash.

Then go back and read all of my comments and actually answer the questions I asked you instead of dodging them, ignoring them or changing the subject.

Also go back and visit the links in comment #245 and tell me that there isn't anything back evolution. Tell me which of those referenced article is wrong and why.

You've done little but dodge and move goal posts this entire thread.

Posted by: Sastra | February 26, 2009 5:06 PM

Leon Flamick #556 wrote:

Sastra...I could say the same to you and say "might you be wrong." If God never existed, then all of us would not exist. Things do not happen or exist by chance. The Evolution theory carries no merit without creationism, what would it take to change your mind.

Yes, I might be wrong, and I could change my mind -- but I asked you first ;)

I didn't ask "what do you think it would look like if God never existed?" I asked a different question.

We're starting out with where we are. The world as we both experience it. Now, here is the question:

Could you be wrong about Creationism? Is it possible that the Theory of Evolution is correct? I'm not asking if you think it is correct, but might it be?

Can you imagine being wrong?

If it is true that evolution occurred -- then what would it take to change your mind? What sort of evidence would you find persuasive?

And I can ask the same question regarding God. Remember, we already know the universe exists.

Might you be wrong -- and there is no God, and has never been one? If so, then what, specifically, would have to happen, to convince you to change your mind?

I'm interested in your answers. Thanks.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 26, 2009 5:21 PM

Gosh, I hope he answers soon, my pearl clutching hand is getting all crampy.

Posted by: CJO | February 26, 2009 5:54 PM

CJO, its rather simple don't you think, that Islam never came into existence till long after the Hebrew God Yahweh established the Nation of Israel as his chosen people.

So, the older the tradition, the more we can trust it? That's your criterion? I guess that explains why you're such a fervent worshipper of Osiris... wait, you are a worshipper of Osiris, right? The sacrificed and risen savior god-man?

Posted by: Peter McKellar | February 26, 2009 6:04 PM

It never ceases to amaze me at the abject stupidity of creotards like Leon when they post stuff like this.

As for the 4 billion years age for the earth, I had thought it was 4.5 billion, but won't quibble over 500 million years amongst friends ;) Leon rejects both 6,000 years (what, maybe its 6,742 - dated from April 15th?).

Leon's "we exist, therefore so does god, so everyone must be wrong WAHHHHH) rubbish gets soooo tedious. Not an original thought in his poor lonely head .

I will reiterate the questions posed above - what would it take to shake your certainty that you are "right"? For all the rants about arrogant, over-educated intellectuals we at least have the honesty to say we can change our minds. I for one will gladly admit my error if god turned up.

Instead you see god in burnt toast as a sign. At least ebay keeps liquidity from trade with nutters outbidding themselves for holy relics. Hey Leon, I have a shroud here and pieces of the cross, wanna make me an offer?

What is your solution Leon, we all drop out of school in year 8 for the greater glory of your fictitious god? Hand medicine over to the clergy and prayer circles? The taliban are doing this in the north of pakistan right now by blowing up girls' schools.

What niggles you deep down Leon is that you know that you hate science for being just so damned right all the time?

I suspect Leon that this is the crux of your problem. It isn't that you deny science, you just hate it. But fear not, science loves you, even though you hate it. We will experiment, publish and peer review for you.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 26, 2009 6:51 PM

How does the earth spin on its axis and keep temperatures in moderation in order to sustain life? Very simple, a highly intelligent being is keeping everything in motion, non of this ever happened by chance.

Keeping in motion?

Can I believe my eyes?!?

Man, Leon, you slept through Newton's discovery that things keep moving unless something stops them! Your physics is four fucking hundred years out of date!!!

Because it's highly improbable to have exactly zero impulse in any direction, all celestial bodies rotate. To stop any from rotating would require an extremely improbable collision.

It would be very surprising if the Earth did not spin! In fact, I'd consider it good evidence for a miracle.

And temperature... having an atmosphere that contains nitrogen and carbon dioxide is normal. In very broadly the distance the Earth happens to have from the Sun, which is an expected place to find a planet in because it's a very stable orbit given the sizes of the bodies involved, this means that liquid water exists. The rest follows more or less inevitably -- the geochemical carbon cycle taking broad control of the greenhouse effect, and the biochemical carbon cycle later supplying the fine-tuning.

You wish to discredit God all for the sake of putting yourselves on a pe[d!]estal & saying, "Look, I'm smarter than your God!"

You mean we start out with the assumption that a god exists?

We don't. That question is completely irrelevant to science.

The Jews had a covenant arrangement with their God Yahweh, but they vilated it to the point of God's repercussions first in 607 BCE and finally after 70 CE. The Nation of Israel is no longer God's chosen people.

That's one opinion. Catholic theology has another. Celebrity deathmatch!!!1!

Things do not happen or exist by chance. The Evolution theory carries no merit without creationism,

Ah, the usual ignorance displayed by, so far, every single creationist I've come across. Mutation is random, yes -- but selection is not! It's determined by the environment.

what would it take to change your mind.

Fossil rabbits in Silurian rock would.

Matthew chapter 24 deals with many of the prophecies that have occured during our last century, try and deny that. Does not 2 Timothy 3: 1-7 discribe the attitudes of people living today, especially you posters.

It describes the attitudes of people living in any century. There's nothing special about this one. And the same holds for Matthew 24. Sufficiently vague prophecies, like horoscopes, predict everything and nothing.

As for the 4 billion years age for the earth, I had thought it was 4.5 billion

4.56. The oldest complete rocks, however, are younger, for reasons such as the moon-forming impact 4.51 billion years ago.

The oldest known zircon grains are 4.4 billion years old, IIRC.

Posted by: Kel | February 27, 2009 12:15 AM

Make note, I have not denied your science

Opinions concerning evolution have had so much indifference in that same time period that its obvious that guesswork and speculation is their main tools in which to feed off of.

No one knows, and even experiments cannot give accurate details, because times indefinite are considerably different compared to times that are conducted in matters brought about by man. They are all speculation and guesswork.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 27, 2009 12:33 AM

False religion had been cropping up ever since the time of Cain.

How do you know false religion is false?

Why would false religion "crop up"? If God is real, wouldn't people just stick with God? Why would they switch to something false? If God is real, wouldn't he end the false religions as soon as they "cropped up"? Is God too weak to make the effort? Does he just not care?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 27, 2009 8:51 AM

Hilarious, Leon talks about false religions, but his, which is also false. Leon, get a clue. Question everything, including your religion. Your god doesn't exist and the bible is a work of fiction.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 27, 2009 9:01 AM

Leon Flamick,

These 'false religions' that you speak of - how do you know they are false and not your own? Exactly how much examination of other religions did you undertake before you decided, based on the evidence you had gathered and the investigation you had made, that Christianity (specifically your sect out of the many thousands) was the 'one true' religion?

Or did you, like the overwhelming majority of the religious, happen to adopt the religion of your parents and/or culture you were raised in?

If the latter, do you consider it good fortune that you weren't born into a family who worshipped the wrong god - or the right god in the wrong way? Why do you think your god - assuming yours is the right god - hates certain people so much he makes them have to grow up in the wrong religion, where they may never even get a chance to know they're wrong?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 27, 2009 4:06 PM

There is not one of you skeptics on this comment board who knows anything about the Bible or creationism to warrant an opinion either. Just because you say the book is a fairy tale or God does not exist does not automatically make it right.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 27, 2009 5:49 PM

Leon - You must really be new here. The last thing you want to do is start a Babble quotin' contest with us. We will make you and gawd cry.

How many medals for Scripture Knowledge have you won?

Posted by: Steve_C | February 27, 2009 5:58 PM

The Courtier's Reply... yet again.

Posted by: Kel | February 27, 2009 6:07 PM

Evolution to you people was acceptable as an alternative to religion

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 27, 2009 6:11 PM

There is not one of you skeptics on this comment board who knows anything about the Bible or creationism to warrant an opinion either.

I know Hebrew, some Greek, and I've read up on the Documentary Hypothesis, which pretty clearly demonstrates that the Old Testament bible is a mishmash of ancient legends and propaganda and laws written by priests. I know that there is no archeological evidence to support anything in the Old Testament earlier than King David... and even that evidence is very spotty at best. Even then, the bible clearly has propaganda and wrongly attributed actions to various of the Israelite kings.

Just because you say the book is a fairy tale or God does not exist does not automatically make it right.

That's true... it's not just because we say so. The book is a collection of fairy tales because the book contradicts itself and reality. God does not exist because God does not demonstrate his own existence.

So didn't get wind of the scriptures until I decided to ask the author of the holy scriptures himself. Even though I wasn't answered immediately my questions eventually started to become clear. Until he introduced me to the one and true faith mentioned in scriptures did the Bible begin to make sense and evolution was on the back burner.

So, you claim that God talks to you...

Say, does God sound exactly like the voice inside your own head; the one you think with? Just asking...

Posted by: Kel | February 27, 2009 9:11 PM

Watch The Bible's Buried Secrets on PBS

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 27, 2009 9:42 PM

Now Nerd, you are just being naughty. You know that Brother Leon is out gathering stones to join us for the Sunday stoning of Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ted Haggard for adultery.

For jezus said - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fullfilled. Matthew 5:17-18

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the enforcement of tittles.

Posted by: Ben | February 28, 2009 9:57 AM

"I've yet to hear of an athiest who hasn't faced death kicking and screaming. Why wouldn't they."

Yes, the old kicking-and-screaming atheist phenomenon. Well-known throughout the scientific world.

Hey, I have an idea. Let's make up some more bullshit!

Posted by: Ben | February 28, 2009 10:23 AM

Isn't it fun to make unfounded generalizations?

Here's one: I've yet to hear of a Jesus freak who wasn't a smug, delusional fuckwit.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 28, 2009 1:43 PM

Ah, more mendacious garbage from Leon. Leon, you god doesn't exist and your bible is fiction. Prove me wrong. So far, massive failure on your part. First, prove god with physical evidence that can be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers to confirm divinity. Second, prove the bible is historically accurate via third party verification, and a signed letter from god stating it is his word. Only then, can you legitimately quote bible for being authoritative. You have a lot of work to do. Get cracking.

Posted by: Kel | February 28, 2009 5:40 PM

Leon, I couldn't care less about "God's word," all I want to know is what evidence there is behind a certain idea. Show evidence as to why evolution is false, why the earth is young, and why saying Goddidit is anything more than an expression of your own ignorance.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 28, 2009 5:53 PM

You conclude: "So, you claim that God talks to you...." With your sarcastic jester set in your mind to impress your peers, you failed to understand a simple logic. I decided to ask the author of the Bible. Since non of you have any accurate knowledge concerning scriptures you would know that it would consist of a silent prayer between you and God. He doesn't answer prayers from folks who have obstinate heart's towards his standards and purposes. (I put that in there just in case you mentioned you prayed)! Since God created the human mind, he would have no problem putting the correct answers to simple logical questions concerning his word in there.

Cool. Great. Fantastic.

Can you ask God to put the correct answer in your mind to the simple logical question of whether all of the animals were created after man, or before man... and why the bible has it both ways? And while you're at it, could you ask why the bible says that insects go on four legs?

I have a few more simple logical questions, but let's see how God does with those.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 28, 2009 6:11 PM

Evolution to you people was acceptable as an alternative to religion,

Are you really this dense Leon?

Evolution says nothing about religion. Nothing. It is, in simple terms, an explanation for the biodiversity on earth and how it go to be this way. Period.

The more you say things like that, the more you expose the fact that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I don't need an alternative to religion. I do without. I see to reason to replace silly irrational beliefs with something.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 28, 2009 6:26 PM

jesus. I've been at an Oyster Raost all day and it is showing.

"I see NO reason...."

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 28, 2009 6:29 PM

sigh

roast

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 28, 2009 6:30 PM

Leon, I have read all those verses, over, and over and over. Like about half the people here, that's how I ended up an atheist. The bible is crap.

Posted by: Rey Fox | February 28, 2009 6:31 PM

"Anyone who can't see that this mad world isn't in need of a mighty purging just isn't worth wasting time on. "

And you'll know they are Christians by their love.

So who should be in charge of the purging? And will they be using nuclear or conventional weapons?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 28, 2009 6:38 PM

How was is the beer?

Good!

Posted by: Kseniya | February 28, 2009 6:42 PM

The way I understand it, oysters and beer work at cross-purposes.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 28, 2009 6:47 PM

One thing that has come from this discussion is quite obvious. For the most part, theists have no idea of what it even means to be an atheist - let alone have the capacity to talk to an atheist on a level that works.

Which is, in and of itself, bizarre - because every theist is, by definition, an atheist to all the gods other than their own. And, as Silver Fox demonstrated after making his egregious error regarding disproof, they have no argument to refute that.

So it all comes down to 'I'm right about my god because I really, really, really want to be right and feel special because I have an invisible best friend' - and that's it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 28, 2009 8:36 PM

Leon, still no evidence for your imaginary deity, and not proof your bible is inerrant. You like lying and bullshitting. We aren't scared of creationism, the religious idea. We merely want it to be taught where it belongs, which is in a class of comparative religion or mythology. Since creationism isn't scientific, it has no place being mentioned in science classes, except as an example of pseudoscience.
Quit lying to yourself, so you can quit lying to us.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 28, 2009 8:58 PM

Oh my, technology of any sort can be so bad. With a stick with a dull point, I can kill a person. With a two feet long piece of twine, I can choke a person.

Oh, Leon, doubt very much you would have any desire to swim in the Thames in the fourteenth century.

Also, Leon, you a gibbering idiot not because you lack a PhD. It is because you are very dumb.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 28, 2009 9:02 PM

I've yet to hear of an athiest(sp?) who hasn't faced death kicking and screaming.

You have lacked much experience in your life. What a sheltered life you must have had up to this point.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 28, 2009 9:27 PM

Patricia..."why am I here?" Well there was a misinformed individual on here that was completely denying creationism, so I decided to comment in support of it.

Patricia, he may have answered you but it is not much of an answer. That excuse would work on almost any semi respectable science site. I think Leon was trying to be snarky but fell short.

Posted by: Josh | February 28, 2009 9:42 PM

tell me there hasn't been earthquakes in greater intensity that have not taken place.

More intense than what? Over what time period are you referring to? What the hell are you talking about?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 28, 2009 10:02 PM

Oh, kack!

I beg everyone's pardon for speaking fundie here. There's no excuse for such foul mouthed behavior. Sorry.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 28, 2009 10:08 PM

Sadly, it is not just old fundies like Leon. Think of all the moronic young men who like to shout "Shut up and make me a sandwich" at women in a position of power. I wish I could feel aghast but I know better.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 28, 2009 10:29 PM

I'm also here to prove that just because you have a well advanced education and a PHD up the wingwang doesn't always mean you are correct.

For the umpteenth time, Leon - everything in science can be demonstrated, by anyone and to anyone, whether they have an education to PhD level or otherwise. Anything anyone's claimed here has been tested, re-tested and analysed hundreds, if not thousands of times.

We don't hang around labs with a guy in a white coat up at the pulpit saying 'I have demonstrated evolution is valid' and just accepting it without anything to back it up. We leave that kind of unburdened-by-evidence credulity to the religion, which praises ignorance and loathes learning - just like in the fairy tale of Adam and Eve.

You may accept things because people - your minister/priest/padre whatever you want to call them - say so, either in person or in the bible. We don't.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 28, 2009 10:39 PM

Thanks, Janine, for the lyrics. They were running through my head when I made the post about the Cuyahoga.

Posted by: Kel | February 28, 2009 11:39 PM

Thanks for sharing, it's always curious how these things work. Relationships tend to complicate everything :P

My grandfather thundered over my marrying a heathen, and - you'll love this - someone that didn't own land near ours.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 28, 2009 11:44 PM

So becoming a heathen turned you into a biker babe? Too cool! At the Chicago Dyke Marches, my fav part is always the Dykes On Bikes. Not saying you are a dyke, just that it does make my heart flutter.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 1, 2009 12:03 AM

Well sort of a biker babe. We went to Sturgis and Commander Cody concerts. When Steppin Wolf came to Independence, Oregon we were there.

My life has been a very weird trip. *grin* I was at the last Grateful Dead concert at Autson Stadium, hugely chopped up salad.

Spelling sucks. Blame the Chimp.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Blame the chimp

just because I've been to sturgis and seen over a hundred and some odd dead shows is no reason to blame me.

Jerry doesn't have anything to do with it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 1, 2009 12:31 AM

Biker "chicks"

teh awesome

Posted by: Leon Flamick | March 1, 2009 1:33 AM

Janine...of course I can be dumb, can't we all. Its just I don't have such a classy name as you. Actually Janine, as much as you want to believe, if the individual would just have said nothing about creationism, I probably wouldn't have responded.
Patricia...I commend you for your mannerism, even though we do not agree on spiritual matters. I understand your motivations for becoming an atheist. Can you honestly tell me one thing, have you ever studied the scriptures totally free of church taught religions. I know that may sound almost impossible, because after all, where would you learn from? But its true, you must cut off all influence from religions, every single bit, pray to the true God in private to give you insight on the scriptures. Once you show sincereity in heart, he will answer you...gaurantee.
"Leon is giving the typical sit down and shut up you damned god cursed woman routine." Sorry dear, you're no where near the truth of the matter. I treat my wife the way the Bible actually demands a man to treat her. The Bible says in Gen. 3: 16 To the woman (God) said:.....your craving will be for you husband, and he will dominate you. This verse was not to be taken literally as a command, rather it acknowledges God's insight of what man will actually do, once the full implications of sins are applied and man becomes selfish and power dominate.
Rather the Bible requires the husband to treat his wife as he would want to be treated, with love and respect. I can get you scriptures that back up those words if you wish. A husband who trully loves his wife will praise her for her accomplishments and sometimes in remote cases seek her advice as the family headship role.
Men who dominate their wives is wrong, because it leads to many selfish abuses that are not deserving of her. Striking a woman for whatever reason is forbidden in my eyes and as well as God's.
Tis Himself...the lake water was burning from the source of pollution only, the lake at that time was not polluted anywhere near what it is today. Were you there on the beach at Port Burwell Ont. in 1952...I was buddy.
Patricia...just changing the subject a little, my uncle Jack in 1967 after he murdered my aunt Donna, gave me two basket case hogs he had been working on for years, because he knew he was going away for a life sentence. I knew nothing of bikes being a car guy and sold both of them for $300.00. One was a 1955 1200 CC Panhead, hardtail and the other was a 1947 Knocklehead, hardtail with springer front end. The front end on the 55 was raked 10 degrees. I googled both those bikes to see what present day restoration values of them were worth. I could pay my mortgage with the 47 itself. Both were in pieces, but all complete. Decided to share that with you, just a change of pace...you understand.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 1, 2009 1:47 AM

Well I'll say it to your face..."No...no you did not." If you did read them, you would have known those prophecies did indeed take place in the last century and are taking place to this very day. Give ya simple facts that actually occured and you deny it. Try and tell me World War I and WW II didn't take place, tell me there hasn't been earthquakes in greater intensity that have not taken place.

Yeah, right.

Since there were "wars and rumors of wars", "nation rising against nation, and kingdom against kingdom", and "famines and earthquakes" centuries before Jesus and centuries after Jesus, it obviously follows that Jesus meant "there will be all the usual crap".

Hey, when it says that "THE STARS WILL FALL", does that mean all 70 sextillion of them?

Posted by: Kel | March 1, 2009 1:57 AM

Leon, I ask again. When all evidence points to an old universe, an old earth, and a gradual accumulation and diversification of life on earth, what does this tell you about God? Do you think the holy book may require a more allegorical interpretation, or do you believe that God is deliberately being deceptive?

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 1, 2009 2:54 AM

Leon spurted:

...if the individual would just have said nothing about creationism, I probably wouldn't have responded.

Have you read anything in this blog or, going even farther, read any biology site. You will find creationism attacked or, at the least, frowned upon.

A husband who trully loves his wife will praise her for her accomplishments and sometimes in remote cases seek her advice as the family headship role.

You, sir, are truly a prince among men. Makes me wish that I was straight.

...the lake water was burning from the source of pollution only, the lake at that time was not polluted anywhere near what it is today. Were you there on the beach at Port Burwell Ont. in 1952...I was buddy.

You have a hard enough time with facts. I will not trust your memories from over a half century ago.

Fires plagued the Cuyahoga River beginning in 1936 when a spark from a blow torch ignited floating debris and oils. The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats and a riverfront office building. Fires erupted on the river several more times before June 22, 1969, when a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays. Wikipedia

I doubt it was clean when you were a child. And it probable is cleaner now (I will not say clean) as a result of The Clean Water Act. And that was enacted because of the 1969 Cuyahoga River Fire.

Posted by: Kel | March 1, 2009 3:12 AM

Leon, I'm having a little trouble with your position. This thread is about science, and what scientists are doing. The current scientific concensus - the overwhelming concensus, is that all evidence points to evolution; something you admit you lack knowledge on. Now you said when you want to learn something you'd go to an expert in that field. Almost without fail all scientists say that the evidence supports an old universe, old earth, and a gradual emergence and diversification through the process of evolution.

Yet at the same time you are mouthing off that people are calling creationism anti-science. This puts you with two options: either admit that creationism is suseptible to science, or admit that you have no case to be here. If creation is susceptible to science, then bring the evidence. No holy books, no preaching. Quite simply show how the evidence supports creationism. Otherwise, just what the fuck are you doing in a science thread preaching?

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 1, 2009 3:46 AM

Patricia, it seems that Randy wants to reserve some time on your couch with the fork. But it also seems that the troll does not pay a lot of attention, many of us were believers at some point in our lives.

Posted by: Intelligent Designer | March 1, 2009 4:04 AM

Hi Janine,

I am not sure what you mean by "Randy wants to reserve some time on your couch with the fork". Also I don't consider myself to be "a believer". I am probably more like you that you realize. However, one difference is that I wasn't pressured into Christianity by my parents. I became a convert at 14. No one was shoving Christianity down my throat and I have no resentments or regrets about being a Christian for some 20 years. So you were a believer too?

Posted by: Intelligent Designer | March 1, 2009 4:06 AM

Sorry about the triple post. My internet connection was doing something weird.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 1, 2009 4:12 AM

Err... beliefs.

Posted by: Kel | March 1, 2009 4:27 AM

lol, you all once believed in a magic sky daddy ;)

Posted by: Josh | March 1, 2009 7:03 AM

Sturgis, fuck ya.

I wrote the following text a couple of weeks ago, but it got held up because of extensive link usage. I'm reposting it here (edited) because no one has addressed the point I was going to try and make during the intervening time. I have indicated the links, but disabled their linkiness. Just add the "http://" in front of the text line.

Leon wrote:

The world is 4.54 billion years and you have proof that those many independent lines of consilient evidence point to an incontrovertable fact...is a fact.

Leon, in science, no facts are incontrovertible. Period. That isn't how science works. This word (incontrovertible) is used to refer to something that’s not open to question or dispute; something that’s indisputable; it refers to absolute truth. Science does not provide absolute truth. I will say it again: there are NO FACTS in science that are incontrovertible.

You’ll find people, even some on this blog, who will argue that point. They’re wrong. Science simply doesn't work that way. Facts are observations with associated errors. The error bars can be so small that even discussing those errors is kind of silly, but even then, NONE of those facts represent absolute truth. And they are still, always, open to being reinterpreted (even if the likelihood of that happening is stupidly small). Science does not provide absolute truth, NOR DOES ANY RESPONSIBLE SCIENTIST CLAIM IT DOES. There is no mechanism in science to guarantee that you're not making a mistake. Facts are NOT truth. Please stop spreading misinformation about what we do.

I apologize for the yelling, but I’m really tired of having to explain this again and again to people who blither on about science but seem to have managed to get through school without learning anything. It’s like (bad analogy alert—where’s truth machine?) if you and I were trying to discuss some aspect of Jesus’s message and I kept trying to weaken your argument by throwing it in your face that Genesis doesn’t mention Jesus. And I'm throwing the snark in here because you've been ridiculing geology in this thread for weeks now without apparently having the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Call me elitist or make snide comments about my degrees all you want, but if I were going on and on making completely foolish and wrong comments about auto repair, I suspect you'd take issue with it.

Its not fact, remember in July 1957 when scientists agreed fully that the earth was indeed 6 hundred million years old, others though more or less, but the majority topped it off at 6 hundred million.

Topped it off at 6 million? Where the heck do you get this stuff?

Really, scientists agreed fully in 1957 that the earth was 600 000 000 years old?

LINK: chronicle.uchicago.edu/031023/inghram-obit.shtml

LINK: sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/190/1/205

LINK: www.jstor.org/pss/2406118

Posted by: Kel | March 1, 2009 5:06 PM

Leon, scientific knowledge changes as more information comes to light. Even IF scientists used to think the world was 600,000,000 years old or 1.8 billion, it doesn't change that now with more information that we have gotten a better age. Notice though that it keeps getting older - 6000 years is now off by a factor of almost a million. It's like saying that to walk between New York and San Francisco you only need to cross the room.

Scientific knowledge is tentative and changes as more evidence comes to light. Notice though that none of this evidence has ever demonstrated the world to be 6000 years old.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 1, 2009 5:18 PM

Leon, scientists have looked at creationism, which is a religious idea. It doesn't fit the requirements to be a science, and it contains no facts to back it up. So scientists rejected that religious idea in favor of evolution, which had facts to back it up like science requires. Creationism is still ignored because no new facts have come to light to make creationism a science. What part of this are you having trouble with?

Creationism is a religious idea. It can never be a scientific idea. Religion cannot refute science, nor can science refute religion. But, religion looks awful silly when its ideas are at such odds with science. The religious need to understand their bible is not inerrant, but is a collection of fables, stories, and some history. So, start talking to your fellow church goers about the need to update their interpretation of the bible.

I'm still waiting for you to provide physical evidence for your imaginary god, and physical evidence that the bible is inerrant. Opinions don't matter. Physical evidence does.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2009 5:26 PM

holy crap! I'm gone for 10 days and this thread is STILL going?

*sigh*

...*looks to see where I left off*...

ah, I see Leon never even bothered to answer why millions was more probable than billions.

just pulled it out of his ass, like everything else.

here's Leon, searching for his next nugget of wisdom...

Posted by: Leon Flamick | March 1, 2009 5:36 PM

Wowbagger...you call me irrational, take a look in the mirror, your reply comment #658 is completely false. In your case, its a down right lie!
The Bible was written down by historical figures that had no affiliation or associated with any church demonination whatsever, in fact the Bible was concluded by the last memember of Christ's ministry, the apostle John who penned the chapter of Revelation.
What church did Christ and his apostles attend? I'll give you a clue Einstein..."NONE!" Christ's teachings were totally contrary to the teachings of the scribs, Pharisee's and the Sanhedrin. Not one word of the original scriptures was penned by any church. The churches adapted the holy writtings early during the time of Constantine in the 3rd century and they corrupted the word of God with their own man-made doctrines and remain corrupted all through history until 1879 when a group of International Bible Students from Pennsylvania began noticing the discrepancies that were being taught in the churches and started the Bible on its way to total restoration, with considerable revised editions from the years 1961, 1981 and 1984.
The world has a complete restored copy of the original texts from original dead sea scrolls as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2009 5:45 PM

I've yet to hear of an athiest who hasn't faced death kicking and screaming. Why wouldn't they.

Is lisa in the common practice of slaughtering atheists to see if they kick and scream?

Can I slaughter some christotards to see if they go with big shit-eating grins on their faces?

no?

damn.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2009 5:50 PM

"...remain corrupted all through history until 1879 when a group of International Bible Students from Pennsylvania began noticing the discrepancies that were being taught in the churches and started the Bible on its way to total restoration, with considerable revised editions from the years 1961, 1981 and 1984."

so, if the bible was corrupted up until 1984 (Orwellian?), then that means there were no true xians (TM) until after 1984, right?

funny, I thought the Mormons had fixed the corrupted bible, and added the "correct" additional texts and revisions.

no?

Posted by: Wowbagger | March 1, 2009 5:56 PM

Leon, demonstrating his ignorance yet again, wrote:

The world has a complete restored copy of the original texts from original dead sea scrolls as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Which, unless you can read the languages they are written in, are going to be translated, edited, approved, proofed and printed by people who belong to churches and have their own agenda, you fucking clueless douchebag.

And, as I mentioned upthread, even if you could read them in their original languages*, it is a fact that meanings of words and phrases may vary over short periods of time, let alone two thousand years; almost anything in them would therefore be unreliable for any purpose beyond that of a quaint folk mythology.

*_{Considering you much you struggle with English, apparently your first (and only) language, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can't.}