Fred Thompson's campaign has announced that the actor and former senator will officially announce that he is running for President on Sept. 6. By officially announcing that you're going to officially announce your campaign, doesn't that mean that you just already officially announced your campaign?
Yes? No? At any rate the official, for real announcement will feature a webcast at Thompson's official campaign website www.ImwithFred.com followed by a five-day whirlwind tour of battleground primary states. It's official. He means it this time.
For the Republican primary that means we can now throw away the World War II-esque "Big Three" reference and go back two decades further in the past to trot out the "Big Four" nomenclature of the Great War.
(With Thompson's tardy entry into the Great Game I suppose that qualifies him as the United States. The falling star which is McCain's campaign earns him a place as Italy. That leaves Romney as Britain and Giuliani as France. If you've done any actual readings of World War I, those very rough analogies are probably pretty accurate.)
So far the Republican primary has been like a three man knife fight in a phone booth. Lots of gouging and biting but no clear winner. After millions of campaign dollars have been flushed away all three are basically in the same spot they were when they started their presidential runs. (Giuliani has picked up a little soft support, McCain has dropped a bit).
The trouble is all three men are essentially the same candidate in the fact that "Rudy McRomney" is well to the left of the majority of Republican voters. Contrast this to the Democrat field where the three frontrunners occupy different and distinct positions on the political spectrum and have wound-up different portions of that party's base.
Keep this in mind. Republicans are not clamoring for Fred Thompson. A year ago if someone said that the actor from Law & Order would be a front-runner for the nomination that person would be accused of hitting the Tennessee sour mash a might too hard.
People are backing him because he's Fred Thompson: Conservative. The tagline is what's important. That and the notion that somehow Thompson "can win". Contrast this to other conservative candidates like - example - Mike Huckabee who, unfairly, has earned the "I-like-him-but-he-can't-win-though-he-sure-would-be-a-nice-vice-president" epithet.
It's casting couch time and Republicans are looking for a Ronald Reagan conservative to play the role. If it turns out that he's only Fred Thompson: Lobbyist or Fred Thompson: Out-of-depth-one-time-senator then he'll be back on the street with the rest of the Hollywood starlets who have their dreams of political glory dashed.
So-called political experts have been ruminating that Thompson has gotten into the race too late or that there's been too much turmoil on campaign. Hint to experts, nobody gives a damn about campaign staffers, well, unless they're caught soliciting sweet bubba loving in Idaho truck stops. Thompson's campaign has been savvy and well orchestrated and suited to the most wide-open GOP primary since 1920.
We've known Giuliani and McCain had their eyes on picking out the new White House china for several years now. Their two competing ambitions have artificially accelerated the campaign cycle. Romney's campaign fell for the trap and must be kicking itself for wading into the quagmire too early.
The post-Labor Day timing for the kickoff is perfect with 2007 elections and primaries just around the corner the political attention of Americans will be piqued now, briefly, before the presidential primary season kicks into full swing early next year.
That leaves around four months of campaigning for Thompson to earn the trust of conservatives. Romney hasn't got it, McCain will never get it and Giuliani doesn't need it having staked out his turf on the moderate wing of the party. If for some reason Thompson stumbles over his lines (or heaven help him postpones his "official" announcement) look for Huckabee to assume the mantle in his stead.
It's over.
Rudy won.
Posted by: John Bailo on August 31, 2007 05:40 PMHowever, people like me are not looking for another Ronald Reagan anymore than we're looking for another another Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson. Only someone who can properly administrate the Constitution in the 21st century.
Posted by: RBW on August 31, 2007 07:24 PMI don't think it's too late to jump in as this years field (D&R) is pretty weak.
Posted by: michael on August 31, 2007 08:17 PMNothing scares the left more than someone that can unite the right. It could be Fred.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 31, 2007 08:46 PMI love this site, but how is this post on Thompson related to politics in the Puget Sound? Aren't there enough outlets for national news? Why is Don-Yawn-Ward still posting?
Posted by: saxa on August 31, 2007 08:51 PMIf Al Gore really 'invented the Internet', then why does it say Dubya, Dubya, Dubya all over it?
Maybe the truth was just 'inconvenient' for the Times, too.
You sound so angry and confused. What went wrong and caused you to snap?
Posted by: headlesslucy on September 1, 2007 12:41 AMhttp://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/03/18390
Steven @ 10: I appreciate a right-wing slant on things as much as anyone, but really, if you want to hang with the cool cats, you gotta move past the "Dubya, Dubya, Dubya," figure that 3x2=6, and say "Sextupleya." I mean, "w-w-w" is just soooooo 20th Century. Or for those cool cats in a hurry, "squiggle dot [domain] dot [extension]."
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming, which was Law & Order, I believe...
A conservative from the South will go a long way in this race and perhaps get the checker flag.
The Kool aid drinkers from the left lack sufficient numbers to elect Hillary or Bama. The country is not ready for their brand of socialism.
Fred brings plain talking contrast to the table. And people enjoy it. He sounds like a person you can trust. And he walks the talk. Should be an interesting campaign.
John and Rudy are damaged goods. For different reasons, conservatives are not pleased with either of them. Romney has too much baggage. Huckabee is a maybe.
If C. Rice can be persuaded to run as VP,now that would be exciting. Thompson and Rice on the same ticket will generate a full head of steam.
Would really enjoy a smart woman on the ticket to offset Hillary.
Go Fred Go.
Posted by: Snuffy on September 1, 2007 06:04 AMMy guess is, they won't.
Posted by: headless lucy on September 1, 2007 06:29 AMThompson has too many Hollywood connections for me.
Ron Paul in 2008. Piss Everybody off.
Posted by: Independent Voter on September 1, 2007 06:55 AMBoth of them are at least as conservative as Bush on tax cuts and abortion and gay marriage and foreign policy, including Iraq and Israel. Romney is more conservative on immigration. Both are more conservative on spending and federal authority. (Those who think McCain is "liberal" on tax cuts because he voted against them are wrong: he only voted against them because Bush and the Republican majority were the liberal ones here, refusing to cut spending, and he was protesting that, and trying to change that, by voting against the tax cuts.)
Sure, McCain had his whole campaign finance reform package deal, but Bush signed it into law. Actions speak louder than words. And yes, McCain had the whole "gang of 14" thing, but without that we might not have Justice Alito today: McCain did the right thing to ensure we'd get conservative justices. We WON because of that. Same thing with the torture stuff: because of McCain's work on the MCA of 2006, we now have a much less controversial and more legally reasonable standard, that still gives the President a ton of authority to act as he sees fit.
Similarly, his vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment is not conservative/non-conservative, since his problem was with the language that infringed on states' rights.
Now, yes, he is to the left of the President on a few things, like stem cell research, and global warming. But these represent a very small percentage of legislative activity, where overall he remains one of the most conservative Senators we've got.
Calling Romney and McCain "well to the left of the majority of Republican voters" while they are mostly to Bush's RIGHT, and Bush has been enthusiastically supported by those same voters for two terms in office makes not one lick of sense, as best I can tell. Surely, many Republicans dislike McCain and disagree with him on many issues, and they SAY it is because he is too liberal, but I see no evidence to support that. And even less so with Romney.
Oh well.
Posted by: pudge on September 1, 2007 07:15 AMerrr ahhh, how does he stand up to the Demo candiadtes?
Why not be honest ... Bush is a failure, Rove damaged the party. The time has come for new leadership.
Look around the US for popular, successful Replicans. Romney, S'negger stand out. Why? because they are rational conservatives.
Relpicans are going to loose, just as the uS is coming to the end of the nightmares caused by an incompetent pres. The answer???
Renew the party. Seek new leadership built around Whitman, the Bush Is, Schwartznegger. Draft businmess leaders into politics instead of second rate demaguougues like Rove.
Assuming that this theread will get no where here in Shark infested waters,k I am going to repost it at SeattleJew
and start a regular post on SJewish advice to the nut right.
Got booted from the HorsesAss for your idiocy, did you?
Posted by: ERNurse on September 1, 2007 08:19 AMA conservative from the South will go a long way in this race and perhaps get the checker flag.
NEWT GINGRICH
MIKE HUCKABEE
Fred brings plain talking contrast to the table. And people enjoy it. He sounds like a person you can trust. And he walks the talk.
NEWT GINGRICH
MIKE HUCKABEE
He just better actually run, officially.
Posted by: Cydney on September 1, 2007 10:47 AMWe need a candidate who can express him/herself without a speech writer. All it takes is conviction and knowing what those convictions are and Fred can do that in spades. So can Huckabee (he surprised me on that, his radio interviews are pretty damn sharp). Rudi isn't bad but he's not ideal. He can be tripped up and he's had his rough spots. All the others are flub-dubs.
I suspect that GOP supporters are keeping their powder dry until somebody distinguishes themselves. Or maybe they really are waiting for Fred. Hard to say. I know that up until Fred got on the scene, I wasn't to crazy for any of the GOP runners. And I still have my check book closed.
The media is going to pull out all the stops to kill any GOP candidate. They have a lot of making up to do to the left and they know it. Some of the stuff that Rudy and Mitt have had to endure is just incredible. Think some of the Matthews questions during those "debates".
Hillary would be the best candidate for the GOP. She has unprecedented general negatives and enough baggage to fill a 747. A couple of heavy Demorats have admitted to me that they won't even vote if it comes down to her. At least that's what they tell me. How far has that spread amongst Dems?
Fred could do it I think. I just wish he's hurry up and do something before people run out of patience. Thompson/Huckabee . . . hmmm, that smells like a pretty good ticket.
Will you answer my question? I am not going away.
Posted by: pbj on September 1, 2007 12:01 PMI am not opposing the Republican stand here, I am trying to point out that the GOP has fallen into the hands of people who, imo dishonestly, promote fantasies. As a result valid GOP stands are tied to fairy tales making it increasingly difficult for serous people to run as republicans.
There is no sensible tie between creationism, right to life, gay marriage, border fences, the 10 commandments to support for the traditional family, pay-as-you go economics, low taxes, limited immigration, etc.
Bush is a disaster nOT because of his views but because the Republican party has willingly and knowingly supported a man way out of his depth. This hurts any genuine effort t suport "right" concepts.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 1, 2007 01:56 PMI agree, Huckabee is worlds more impressive than the likely candidates and he seems ot actually believe in what he says.
Gingrich, however, is a three dollar bill. He is a political opportunist very mush in the Rove mold. Could he win? I doubt it but that main issue is Republicans need to replave the Roves with true conservatives.
When Clinton took over the Dems, he used the DNC to urge the party of extremists. Today's Demo party is a realistic, generally centrist group. In contrast, the Republican party has hung itself, so to speak, on a cross of extremist views.
Here is an example, very few Americans support the idea that abortion should be outlawed. Making this a litmus issue means that a fiscally conservative, patriotic republican needs to carry a fetus around his neck.
I apologize for the extreme simile, but forcing Romney and Guiliani ot dissemble on this issue is just stupid.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 1, 2007 02:09 PMOMG Ha ha ha ha LMAO!
They groveled at the feet of the Kos brats and shunned the Democrat Leadership Council!
And even though Billy was their former chairman Hilly turned her back!
LMAO! Is that the realistic centrism you're bragging about???
Hilly, the most funded NARAL candidate swinging her faux-Bible and calling for a socialist agenda... Is that the realistic centrism you're bragging about???
WAKE UP!!! You're living in a dream world.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 1, 2007 02:18 PMBill and Hillary are by almost any standard conservatives. Under bill our economy was managed by a very conservative treasury secretary.
NARAL is not the democratic party. But, even it were a major partner,.comparing NARAL with Dobson is just plain silly.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 1, 2007 02:31 PMThough I agree with you that today's Democratic party is mostly controlled by its extremist wing, far moreso than the GOP is, and you're right that their bowing at the feet of the Kossacks is a great example of this truth.
Independent Voter: you prove you are not worth listening to by saying you won't vote for someone because they have "too many Hollywood connections." That's just stupid, even if you ignore the fact that Reagan had even more Hollywood connections than Thompson does. You don't sound very independent to me, if you can be swayed so easily, by such meaningless things. Unless you're just being dishonest ... ?
headless lucy: actually, Condi Rice is one of the most popular Republicans *among Republicans* in the country. We love her, almost unanimously, across the board. (I know how some of you liberals really hate facts, so sorry in advance if my giving you facts offends you.) And if we can forgive Reagan for being pro-choice, we can forgive Thompson for working for a few hours for a pro-choice firm (if it actually happened, which has not yet been proven, last I saw: as the Good Book says, a man seems right, until he is examined by another; in other words, listen to the other side first, lest you be made to look like a fool).
Schwartz: Thompson stands up extremely well to all the Democratic candidates, although he may have some trouble with Hillary (but likely, no moreso than anyone else). Thompson would almost sweep the South, including Florida, and might even be able to pick up some of the "purple" states in the West and Midwest.
What's funny is that your definition of "rational" is, by definition, irrational. You define "rational" as "what I agree with," which means it is defined subjectively, rather than objectively.
Posted by: pudge on September 1, 2007 05:38 PMRudy: for a libertarian-oriented person like me, he's too much of a police-state guy. If we're going to keep expanding the police state, I'd just as soon let Hillary do it. He'll never make it past the Christian conservatives in the primaries anyway
Romney: his core value, much like Colin Powell's, is excellence as opposed to, say, liberty. That translates to bigger govt, because doing better tends to mean doing more.
Huckabee: Guy whose main claim to fame is a weight-loss program. The one thing I remember about him from Arkansas is that he once declared a 'marital state of emergency' because of the high divorce rate.
McCain: The guy who threw the 1st and 2nd Amendments overboard. Military background a big plus in time of war, though.
And the rest: no comment.
That leaves by default Thompson, the only guy I can get remotely exited about. I wish Condi Rice would have run.
Posted by: russell garrard on September 1, 2007 06:13 PMOn rationality. No. I am quite willing to recognize ideas that I do not agree with as rational. For example, although I am an atheist, I think belief in God is rational. Similarly, I think not taxing dividends can be rational and even understand how opposition to abortion is a rational POV.
What is NOT rational:
1. Intelligent design/creationism
2. Belief in Bush's competence
3. Belief that our healthcare system is sustainable.
4. Belief in debt as opposed to taxation as a way of financing our society.
5. Disbelief in global warming.
6.
etc.
There are indeed some absurdities on the left too, but none of them are as doctrinaire as this. Voting Publican is becoming like voting Luddite.
You can see a lot more of my thoughts at SeattleJew
You are, indeed, quite irrational. Let's take the steps one by one.
You do not understand Intelligent Design, or you do not understand rationality. Intelligent Design is not inconsistent with any scientific theories, nor does it attempt to dismiss or explain away any scientific theories. All it says is that one way or another, we were designed to be what we are. It does not require an interventionist God who meddled along the way. It's true that many IDers are also creationists of one form or another, but that does not mean that's what ID is.
So, you're wrong there.
As to Bush's "competence," that is a perfect example of what I was talking about: it's a purely subjective claim, based on a purely subjective measurement, based purely on what you think is right and wrong, not what is true and not true. It's not remotely interesting to even talk about in terms of objectivity.
So, you're wrong there.
The health care thing is a straw man: I've never met a single person in either party who thinks the current system is sustainable. It's a common logical fallacy (read: irrational) to suppose that just because someone don't want government health care, that therefore they want the status quo.
So, you're wrong there.
The "debt" thing is largely a straw man too, since the majority of Republicans are against deficit spending, and the loudest voices against deficit spending and the trade deficit and climbing debt are all conservative (fiscally, if nothing else). But even if they weren't, why do you (irrationally) juxtapose debt OR taxation as THE ways of financing society? I think both are irrational. We can completely fund all of the Constitutional powers of the federal government without a single direct tax on the people. We just want to violate the Constitution. While that desire may be rational, that we do it is not. And FURTHER, while I disagree with our fiscal policy, it is certainly not objectively proven one way or another that it's wrong, so to call it "irrational" is to irrationally claim as fact something you cannot, in fact, prove.
So, you're wrong there, too.
As to global warming, again, it's a straw man: I know of hardly anyone who claims the globe is not warming, and certainly no Presidential candidates do. The questions are what is causing it, what will the results be, and what we should do about it. And on those questions, of course, it is irrational to say that you know the answer. The IPCC itself stating, quite clearly, that they are not certain that man is causing any significant amount of global warming, and they have even less certainty about what the effects will be over the coming years.
So, you're wrong there.
Not a single thing you said is "doctrine" of the GOP. You are, instead, attacking positions people don't have in order to try to elevate yourself above them, but instead, you've only done the opposite.
Sorry you are wrong here. I am a biologist and do understand the ID theory. There is no rational basis for it.
Bush's "competence," ... a purely subjective claim, based on a purely subjective measurement... It's not remotely interesting to even talk about in terms of objectivity.
Competence can only be measured by ability to handle one's job. Bush was poorly prepared and by any estimate has made huge mistakes. If you do not see that, well???
health care thing is a straw man: I've never met a single person in either party who thinks the current system is sustainable. It's a common logical fallacy (read: irrational) to suppose that just because someone don't want government health care, that therefore they want the status quo.
I never said anything about gov. health care. If the Publicans are aware of the crisis, why is Romney the only one with a health care plan?
The "debt" thing is largely a straw man too, since the majority of Republicans are against deficit spending, and the loudest voices against deficit spending and the trade deficit and climbing debt are all conservative (fiscally, if nothing else).
Well, the pattern seems pretty clear. Publicans in office borrow and then deny the debt is an issue. That rational? BTW I do think Snegger is rational.
The questions are what is causing (global warming)
There are issues here, but no serious scientist I can find believes our current us eof the environment is sustainable.
Not a single thing you said is "doctrine" of the GOP. You are, instead, attacking positions people don't have
Realy. So how many Republican candidates are willing to come out against ID, against creationism, against the bush debt, for heakth care reform, for CAFE standards, for gays in pubic life, etc
Look man, I would support a rational republican against Gregoire, but how an Rossi run wiht Guzzo aorund his neck.
Bill governed like a centrist in his last term, but not at the beginning when there was democrat majority. They are the epitomy of political opportunists - ruled by ambition. Hillary is more of a leftist ideologue, as she demonstrated with her Universal Health Care plan that would allow the Federal Government to control this from cradle to grave - since when is socialized medicene and income redistribution centrist ?
"Today's Demo party is a realistic, generally centrist group. "
What meds are you currently taking ? You must be speaking of another time, because it is clearly not now, when the progressives (aka the far left) are in the leadership control the agenda and Hillary calls herself a progressive. I will say that the mainstream Republicans are too far to the right as well and their is not much company in the center. However, there are few candidates (McCain and Guilliani) who are closer to the center than most of the Democrat candidates are - Sen. Clinton is trying like hell to run toward the center, because Bill successfully used that ploy to get elected, but that is a smoke screen and talk is cheap.
Posted by: KS on September 1, 2007 09:20 PMAs to competence ... dang, I question your abilities as a scientist, because you do not understand subjectivity vs. objectivity. You say, "Bush was poorly prepared and by any estimate has made huge mistakes," except that there is no possible way to come to such an objective conclusion.
I never said anything about gov. health care.
I didn't say you did. But I guessed that was the fallacious reason why you thought Republicans don't want to do anything about health care.
If the Publicans are aware of the crisis, why is Romney the only one with a health care plan?
He's not. Why are you so ignorant about the people you are attacking? Huckabee, Giuliani, and McCain all have health care plans.
Well, the pattern seems pretty clear. Publicans in office borrow and then deny the debt is an issue. That rational?
It's not a Republican thing. Both parties do it, and Republican voters hate it as much as Democratic voters do. This sort of thing by Democrats was the #1 reason the Republicans won in 1994. Here in WA, the Democrats are denying their deficit is an issue. At least they aren't borrowing right now, but they ARE borrowing from future by increasing the budget so much that we are already projected to be in the red for future years.
There are issues here, but no serious scientist I can find believes our current us eof the environment is sustainable.
Now you are committing the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts: changing your argument slightly so you don't have to defend your previous claim. And it's a straw man anyway, since no serious scientist -- or politician -- believes that our current use of the environment will remain the same. It's mostly Republicans, for example, that want to shift back to nuclear generators.
So how many Republican candidates are willing to come out against ID, against creationism, against the bush debt, for heakth care reform, for CAFE standards, for gays in pubic life, etc
Well, you do not understand ID, and no serious scientist who understands ID could possibly have a scientific problem with ID. I don't even know why you keep bringing it up, since it is a non-issue. And why would anyone come out against creationism? What harm has it done to you? What possible political reason is there to come out against a religious belief like creationism? Do you want people to come out against the transsubstantiation, too?
Perhaps you mean come out against teaching creationism in school ... ? Well, since most Republicans believe that such things should be decided by local school districts, I don't see how it is any business of the President's.
As to the debt, are you KIDDING ME?!? You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Republicans, both Presidential candidates and voters, are nearly uniform in their criticism of the high government spending and national debt. If immigration wasn't so big, this would be the biggest issue right now in Republican circles. But it's pretty big even still.
And again, why the hell would ANYONE come out against health care reform when EVERYONE agrees we should have health care reform? It's like you're just saying things without thinking about them at all.
You never mentioned CAFE standards or gays. Again, this is the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts. That said, again, you are grossly ignorant: several candidates have come out in favor of having tougher CAFE standards, most notably McCain. And, again, there is no clear cut "rational" choice here, since there's plenty of studies showing that tougher CAFE standards result in more deaths, more miles driven (thus no less pollution), etc.
And as to gays, my goodness, since when has any candidate been against "gays in public life"? I saw no outcry from the Republican masses over Cheney's lesbian daughter being active in his campaign, and when the leftwing rumors circulated about Ken Mehlman being gay, the response from Republicans was a mixure of "ho hum" and "I thought you Democrats were tolerant: guess not."
SeattleJew: you just have no idea what you are talking about on pretty much any issue.
Posted by: pudge on September 1, 2007 10:22 PM"Today's Demo party is a realistic, generally centrist group"
What!?! Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.
Hillary, to anybody who has followed her statements and positions is a huge leftist. Her latest example is that she has stated that she wants to confiscate the profits of entire sections of the economy for christ sakes! [here]. What about Hillary Care that featured a selection process for who and who can't be a doctor? What about The Daily Kos? Thier influence and genuflecting by the major Demorats is well documented. On all major issues (abortion, guns, gay marriage, etc.) the Democrats are out of step with the majority of Americans.
The problem is that your views are so far left that the leftists in the DNC look mainstream to you.
Her medicine program was well within the norm of every other industrialized nation. Are they extreme left too.
Maybe YOU are extreme right?
By your standards I assume Romney, Guilianii and McCain are alos extreme left?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 1, 2007 11:14 PMI think Romney isrartional too, but a slong as the GOP is domoinates by the religous right, he is not going to be President unless he gets reborn.
Creationism, unlike transubstantiation, is more tha just religous mysticism. It is an effort to place an irrational hypothesis on the same plane as scientific fsct. Teaching this sort of thing hurts me because it undermines MY country's ability t compete ina real world.
I am aware that the Repubs have health care plans but so far, except perhaps for Romney's plan, none of these is extensive enough to addresses the central issues. Moreover the4s eplans are irrational in the sense that they deny the seriousness of the problem.
I did not move the goal posts at all in re glocal warming and man's role. Given the space, I tried to put it in context of central fact about the human impact. CO2 is ohnly one reason we need a strategy for moderating our energy demands.
You want more Republican fanatasees?
Space Station: we are now scheduled to spend billions but nver set up enough to use it for science, then we are suposedly going to Mars. No scientist supports this waste of dollars.
You really ought to go look t SeattleJew. Like a lotm of folks on HA, you seem to see only two colors. I see itas more complex than that. I respect S'negger and Buffett and Romney and Mccain. I do not care about their colors. BUT, if these folks are going to be able to promote their ideas they need a party that ois nto humng up on fatnasies.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 1, 2007 11:32 PMYou claim ID, a mere idea that you concede is neither for nor against evolution, "attempts" to undermine evolution. You contradicted yourself in the span of just a few verbs!
You go on to "clarify" (that is, "change") your irrational statements by then implying that your problem is not with ID, but with "people who propose ID as an alternative to evolution." Yet those two are not the same thing. One is an idea, another is a group of people. You are committing the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts again, since before you were talking only about the idea, not its proponents.
But at least now I got you to admit you were wrong, that ID is not irrational. But you still have the problem of claiming Creationism somehow "hurts" you. No, it does not. Maybe you believe its proponents do, but, again, that is not the same thing (to a rational person, anyway). You were not complaining about teaching Creationism in schools, you were complaining about the existence of Creationism. You wanted Creationism itself attacked. Now you are, once again!, moving the goalposts, saying your problem is it being taught in schools.
Why do you keep moving the goalposts? You are doing it all the time.
And as to undermining your country's ability to complete ... I call bullshit. There is not one drop of truth to that in any way whatsoever. There is no evidence of any kind to back it up. You are being irrational again, claiming things as fact that you cannot possibly objectively know. I can claim with far more reason that sex education and new math and new history and a lack of discipline and other liberal inventions in our schools have harmed our ability to compete. "Creationism" is way down on the list of things that are hurting us, if it is hurting us at all.
And I will also call bullshit on your claim that those health care plans are not "extensive" enough to adress the problems: first, because you said they did not have plans, and now you are saying you knew that (so you lied?); second, because this is the question-begging fallacy. It's the same one you started out with: they are wrong because they disagree with me. That is inherently irrational, and you are falling back to it once again.
And hm, McCain is "usually rational," yet he has a lifetime rating of well over 80 percent from the conservatives. So you are therefore telling me that conservatism is in fact usually rational ... ?
And no, you are lying when you say you didn't move the goalposts on global warming (like you've done with almost everything else). You (erroneously) said that Republicans deny global warming, then you changed that to talking about CAFE standards and sustainable use of the environment. Not only are those very different things, but they are only tangentially related: the latter do not flow from the former, as I already proved (indeed, some global warming activists are against raising CAFE standards, because they believe it doesn't work). Moving the goalposts is precisely what you did, and there's no taking it back. I call bullshit on you once again.
More irrational claims from SeattleJew.
I don't see only two "colors." This has nothing to do with partisanship or even which ideas are right and wrong. What it has to do with is your nonsensical bullshit about how only people who agree with you are rational, and everyone else isn't, and then your pathetic attempts to back that bullshit up, while in the process you only proved yourself to be as ignorant as you seemed from the beginning of the thread: not knowing what ID is, conflating ideas with proponents of those ideas, not knowing that other candidates have health care plans and then lying about your lack of knowledge (or knowing that they had them and lying by saying they didn't) ... the list goes on, and you've become tiresome.
Posted by: pudge on September 2, 2007 01:31 AMI have summarized your points as well as I can in a thread at SeattleJew
For anyone who cares, my point is that the conservative principles are being sunk by Rovian conflation of irrational beliefs . I am calling for you guys to reform your party.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 2, 2007 08:49 AMHow can you call on the GOP to "reform" when you don't even know how you want it to "reform"? You want it to change beliefs it doesn't even have!
You are a poor judge of what is "rational" or "irrational." And I therefore won't bother to look at your silly little site.
One might give this sentence a mite more proof-reading.
Posted by: Freelance Pedant on September 2, 2007 09:37 AMOf course, Chavez is extremer. He should be denounced whenever he spews hate propaganda about the US Other than that, nothing as long as they don't invade us. He is a totalitarian dictator and also a communist.
If you were objective, I might take you more seriously, but your comments show the contrary and an distinct anti-Republican bias, that you fail to coherently support with facts.
Posted by: KS on September 2, 2007 10:04 AMKS beat me to it: although he can certaibnly affect America, Chavez isn't IN American politics, but Hillary, who could be his love child with Eva Peron, IS and she can do as much damage here as he has done in Venezuela... MORE actually because we have so much more for her to screw up.
And SJ, stop hawking your website like a damned street walker waving a sign. I, for one, have no more interest in reading your rantings there than I do here and I refuse to help you rack up some hit numbers for whatever reason you may need/want them up. Pony up some cash and pay SP for advertising.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 2, 2007 10:41 AMIf thats all that ID is then it is nothing more then a metaphysical gloss over real science. It would have no barring on how one does experments, makes observations, etc.
However thats not what the proponents claim. They argue that certain things could not have resulted form observable predictable process like natural selection. True to creationist form they pick things that we don't fully understand yet and argue that in those case, some 'intelligent actor' intervened. Of course as our knowledge expands we figure out how such things could have evolved. For example flagella. They then pick something new and make the same points. The problem is that one cannot do science on an intelligent actor such as that. By definition a God is rather unpredictable and so far has not been observed.
Thats why ID is irrational and unscientific. It does not begin with observation, data, etc, but instead takes an a priori assumption and molds the data to fit it. Thats why almost no biologists, especially evolutionary biologists support it. Personally I care what non-biologists have to say about evolution about as much as I care what my car mechanic has to say about my health.
You want to believe that God created the process of evolution go right ahead. I could honestly care less. However, I do take exception to trying to dress that up as some sort of scientific theory. Its not, and it honestly was never meant to be. To do so damages both.
Posted by: Giffy on September 2, 2007 11:17 AMPssst. Clean up your own back yard first.
And this? Today's Demo party is a realistic, generally centrist group.
That statement says far, far more about where you stand politically than any slam against conservatives.
Posted by: jimg on September 2, 2007 11:30 AMThe problem I have is when they use that to argue against empiricism in science. So whether you say god used evolution to create life, or that evolution is simply one in a long line of natural processes, should have no barring on how you investigate the observable universe. The goal of science is to explain the how and the what. Philosophy and religion tell us the why.
Posted by: Giffy on September 2, 2007 02:17 PMHow do you know anythihng about Chavez/ What have you read?
Yes he is a communist but he is not a dictator (yet).
As for hate speech, we have done our share of that too. When did you last read antyhing objective Cuba?
Igtnore the facts, they will go
SeattleJew away.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 2, 2007 02:31 PMSome good studd here.
You all might read Francis Collins' book (head of the genome project) he is a fundamentalist who has figgered out how to separate the rational world of science from religion.
But, can anyone tell me why this should be a partisan issue? Irrationality belongs in the beer hall or church and sometimes in a hospital bed. but it really is out of place in a political party.
@49 FWIW, if you reas SeattleJew you will see that I anyhitng but a knee jerk liberal.
I vited for Rossi and have worked for Republicans whenhj I respected them. I am..geez an American.
a. I am an atheist
b. I support first semester abortions and stem cell research
c. I beleive in paying taxes rather than borrowing money.
d. I fully support the Bill of Rights, fully!
e. I believe in equality of opportunity for all Americans.
f. I accept scientific knowledge in issues like global warming unless I have greater expertise or hear a real debate form others that do.
g. I believe all debts should be paid, inclding collective debts we owe when, as a society, we do something wrong.
Now what of this means I am NOT a Republican?
You fall into the same trap SeattleJew did: attacking ID by attacking some of its proponents. That's fundamentally irrational. It's like attacking conservatism because Ann Coulter said that not applauding for the President is treason. You cannot -- using logic anyway -- say "[some] proponents of ID say such-and-such" and then "therefore ID is irrational."
Stop pretending you are against ID when you are really against certain proponents of ID, and certain things they are pushing. It is ... well, irrational.
And you appear to drastically misunderstand either science or ID here when you say, "If thats all that ID is then it is nothing more then a metaphysical gloss over real science." That makes it sound like metaphysics is somehow subservient to science, or irrelevant to science, but the fact is that science cannot exist without metaphysics, as the scientific method relies on the metaphysical. Without thinking about what reality is, we could not have decided on how to physically observe it.
The funny thing is that you claim to not care about what "non-biologists have to say about evolution," but yet you think what biologists have to say about ID matters: ID is not science, according to you, so why ask a scientist about it? As was written about 100 years ago by biologist and theologian George Frederick Wright (apparently criticizing Richard Dawkins long before his birth): "... a great mistake is made when the dicta of specialists in scientific investigation are accepted in religious matters as of any particular value. Indeed, the concentration of specialists on narrow lines of investigation really unfits them for duly weighing religious evidence."
Posted by: pudge on September 2, 2007 05:50 PMAs to Francis Collins, while I admire the work he does, he, too, often conflates ID with what certain proponents of ID say.
And YOU are the one making this partisan. YOU are the one who is holding up YOUR personal views as "rational" and dismissing anyone who disagrees with those views as "irrational." You're the one spouting the bullshit.
And no, you do not support the Bill of Rights, fully, since you want federal CAFE standards, which violate the 10th Amendment. Most federal health care reforms also violate the 10th Amendment, as does any federal role in primary education. You can say you support the Bill of Rights fully, but you do not. I do, however.
And the problem with "global warming" is that the scientists often lie. Literally. I saw Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, part of the IPCC, in April on NewsHour saying that the IPCC report "concluded that there's a broad, manmade climate change afoot, and this report says that that manmade climate change is already having significant effects."
But that's not true. It concluded no such thing. It said, rather, that manmade climate change is "very likely" and that its having significant effects is "likely."
The scientists often lie. We need to look past what the scientists say and evluate it for ourselves. Being a Republican or a conservative means, in part, questioning authority, not accepting it blindly.
Posted by: pudge on September 2, 2007 06:00 PMScience to some extent has its own metaphysical underpinnings. That being that we observe, test, and predict. Now this is hardly controversial when it comes to how to build a bridge or how to design a computer.
However to some the results of this enterprise conflicts with other metaphysical commitments they have, i.e. biblical literalism. The fact that they do not reject these tenets when it comes to other pursuits shows that either they don't reject them and are in fact exhibiting cognitive dissidence or they feel these methods have been wrongly applied. The latter not being a solid position given the vast weight of evidence and the huge percentage of experts that accept the Darwinian account (with some minor variation).
As for your last paragraph I agree. Evolution or science tells us little about religion or philosophy. Like I said repeatedly I have no problem with religion. I respect that others have different answers to the "why" question then myself. However if we are to accept science, which we do when ever we go the doctor, hire a contractor, or use a computer, we must accept what it says about the "how" and the "what" questions relating to our origins. We can answer the "why" however we see fit. For example many Christians see evolution as the method God created humanity, while I personally do not inject a god into the process. Either allows for the same scientific pursuits.
To paraphrase, if you mean ID solely to mean that God created scientifically accepted processes like evolution, then you are dealing with metaphysics and religion. If however you are arguing that ID contradicts accepted tenets of Darwinian evolution, i.e. natural selection then you are in the realm of science, though not in rational or evidence based manner.
Why try?
nudge can not tell the difference between intelligent design and an accident.
Worse, it people like him that will kill the GOP.
sad.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 2, 2007 08:14 PMNo, I am NOT making it partisan. If you think being a Republican means drinking the ID lemonade, then the future of your version of the GOP is dim.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
?? what does this have to do with public schools or a federal health plan? Cafe standards??? Tne mind boggles. I could however see YOUR point if you mean Republican efforts to enforce morality, outlaw marijuana, etc.
Sorry ... scientists rarely lie for one reason ... we make our living catching each others lies. It is hard for a scientist to lie!
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 2, 2007 08:26 PMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/02/AR2007090201422.html?hpid=topnews
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 2, 2007 08:50 PMYou were not attacking ID, but ID as proposed by certain people. ID is an idea that's been around for millennia, and has many proponents of different types. You are only against *some* ID proponents who are in favor of *some* views you disagree with, only one of which is inherent to ID: a belief in a higher, designing, power. But that one idea didn't get the bulk of your criticism.
You say: "if you mean ID solely to mean that God created scientifically accepted processes like evolution ... ." No. I mean ID the same way it's been meant since long before it was called ID and then appropriated for various ends today: to mean simply that however we got here, it was by design. If that was evolution, then fine. If it was something else, that's fine too.
Indeed, I'd say that any claim we did not evolve through natural selection is a non-ID statement: a statement well outside the boundaries of what ID says, or can say. It's a blending of ID and Creationism. ID itself is agnostic on such things.
Now, of course, it depends on what you mean by "evolution." If you mean, as some people do, that it was undirected, "random," and godless, then yes, ID says that is wrong. But I don't take that to be your meaning. So ID does not, cannot, say that what you've been saying is wrong. But ID proponents certainly can make that claim, but it doesn't make it "ID."
And as such, I'd say you're also wrong that ID proponents rarely have degrees in a relevant field, because I'd say you're wrong about what's relevant. This IS about philosophy, far more than science. But that's a minor point in this discussion. I'd add also say you're wrong that there's any conflict with biblical literalism and science. To quote Wright again: "It is ... impossible to get any such proof of evolution as shall seriously modify our conception of Christianity." Again, a minor point in this discussion.
This is also problematic, for two reasons: "However if we are to accept science, which we do when ever we go the doctor, hire a contractor, or use a computer, we must accept what it says about the 'how' and the 'what' questions relating to our origins."
The first reason is not so much that the statement is wrongly, but that it falsely implies that science actually DOES say what our origins are. It doesn't. It has an excellent theory, one I believe is very likely to be very close to the truth (similar to how Newtonian physics was very close to the truth).
But it doesn't come to a certain conclusion, because as you well know, science is about observing, testing, and predicting, and while we can observe some of what happened, and to some small extent we can predict, we can't test what actually happened to us in the past. We can only observe it. This may be sufficient in many cases, if our observations are fairly complete, but of course, they aren't in this case.
(Incidentally, this is why I don't trust scientists: because this sort of philosophical observation ABOUT science is really necessary to evaluate the science, and most scientists are not very good at it.)
The second reason is less obvious to some, perhaps, but more obvious to others: there is no obligation to accept what anyone says about anything. First, let's not pretend evolutionary science is nearly as well-understood as construction science or computer science. As was stated in an excellent essay by Lee Harris: "This, after all, is a theory complicated enough in its implications that a philosopher of the stature of Daniel Dennett could attack a paleontologist of the stature of Stephen Jay Gould over its correct interpretation -- and the farmers of Dayton were expected to be able to make up their own minds about it? On what possible basis? Should they have collected funds to take an excursion of the Galapagos Islands and seen the finches with their own eyes?"
By any estimation there's a lot more we don't know about our own origins, than what we do. So please don't tell me I should just accept what someone says about it. And perhaps more importantly, even if we did know precisely what happened ... why should I even then be obligated to accept it? Lots of people have gotten by just fine without it for -- I think you'll agree -- hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. There's no logical reason I need to accept it. Logic only dictates I accept it if I take the time to research it and am convinced by the evidence, not that I accept it blindly just because someone tells me to (as I already noted, scientists often lie -- or more diplomatically, stretch the truth -- just to get people to agree with them, and even when they are not lying, they are still fallbile).
Posted by: pudge on September 2, 2007 10:33 PMa. I am an atheist
b. I support first semester abortions and stem cell research
I think that colors the prospective a bit, just as the fact that I am a conservative Chrisitan colors my perspective. I support Inteligent Design. Must admit, I agree more with Pudge on this one.
A couple of questions to Seattle Jew:
1. I thought that evolution, like intelligent design was a theory? When did it become absolute fact?
2. You are a biologist and aren't there patterns in nature that cannot come about due to just random occurance?
The following article is a really interesting read:
"'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution, intelligent design, and the meaning of life
By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 17 June 2005
BERKELEY - Religion and science, faith and empirical experiment: these terms would seem to have as little in common as a Baptist preacher and a Berkeley physicist. And yet, according to Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor in the Graduate School, they are united by similar goals: science seeks to discern the laws and order of our universe; religion, to understand the universe's purpose and meaning, and how humankind fits into both...."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/08/30_protest.shtml
Since both evolution and intelligent design are theories, why not teach both. What are the atheists afraid of?
It is interesting Seattle Jew that you call yourself an atheist, are you a Jew because of ethnic heritage? In my personal experience, I get along better with Orthodox Jews for some reason.
Posted by: WVH on September 2, 2007 10:40 PMAnd as to health care, the issue I specifically referenced was government control of health care.
SeattleJew: sigh. When you ask, "what does this have to do with public schools or a federal health plan? Cafe standards???" that is precisely the point: nothing. Therefore it is unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in those things. Setting aside the CAFE issue, which I addressed above with Giffy, there is nothing allowing the federal government to control health care or public schools, THEREFORE it is not allowed to do so. That is the clear meaning of the Tenth Amendment.
It's sad to me that you said that you support the entire Bill of Rights but don't even know what the Tenth Amendment *means*.
As to "Republican efforts" to "enforce morality" and "outlaw marijuana" ... the "War on Drugs" is more a Democratic creation than a Republican one. It primarily stemmed from various things going on in the 1980s that our Democratic-controlled Congress decided to act on. And "enforcing morality," please: the Democrats do this far more than the Republicans, on everything from gun control to environmental regulations to government-run charity (such as Social Security, Medicare, public education, and so on) ... not to mention all of the blue laws I've lived with in MA and WA regarding alcohol and doing things on Sunday ... these are all Democratic inventions for "enforcing morality."
As to scientists lying ... the problem is they will often lie about the analysis of the data, rather than the data itself, which makes it harder to catch someone in a lie. But I gave you an example of Oppenheimer lying, so ... *shrug*.
Posted by: pudge on September 2, 2007 10:43 PMWhile it is true that there is nothing in evolutionary science which precluded the possibilty of supernatural intervention, I am currently disinclined from believing that's what happened. In part, I suppose, because I don't see the point: why would God have intervened if it wasn't necessary? And the science we have shows that it wasn't.
There are two cases I can see for divine interventionism, the two areas where not only have we not shown how two events have occurred, but we don't even have reasonably good theories: the creation of life itself from non-life, and the spark of sentience. So I leave open in mind the possibility of intervention there, though for the physical evolution of man ... I just don't see it. But of course, I could be wrong.
Either way though, my point is that while I have no problem teaching ID or anything else (the local people should get to decide, we are a republic after all!), I don't see how one-or-the-other-or-both is a reasonable option, since the evolution and ID are so different ... I just don't get it.
Oh and while we're on about scientists being stupid (or I am, anyway) ... something else I don't get: that court decision a year or two ago where a judge ruled that ID isn't science. Most scientists APPLAUDED this decision, because they are so completely ignorant about law and philosophy. Stop and think for a minute: scientists, who love to tell us how science is done by scientists and arrived at by consensus, were applauding a JUDGE deciding what is and is not science! Just because they agreed with the result doesn't mean they should be happy with the means, because next time, it may be a judge deciding that, say, global warming isn't science, and they'd be pretty ticked off at that point.
And even worse was the case about removing a sticker that ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH. It said simply that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." That verifiably true statement is all the sticker said, and scientists were applauding a court's removal of it!
Scientists should not be given special privilege in our society, treated as some sort of exalted class of people. They are just as stupid as everyone else.
Posted by: pudge on September 2, 2007 10:58 PMOn this one, you are talking to the choir. If both are theories, why not teach both. I await comment from Seattle Jew and others, but I think in the minds of many secularists, evolution is fact and not a theory, so that is the problem.
Seattle Jew, am I wrong?
Evolution is a theory just as gravity, quantum mechanics, and are theories. The word theory is used by scientists to describe a concept that can be tested. Some theories, like evolution and gravity are proven.
ID is not a theory because it does not offer a testable hypothesis. It is a rational to propose that the earth rides through space on an invisible turtle as it is to imagine that there is intelligence in evolution.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 2, 2007 11:53 PMI a, not hawking the site. I use it to post more thoughtful ideas than are possible in this sort of repartee.
@64 WVH
1. I thought that evolution, like intelligent design was a theory? When did it become absolute fact?
ID and evolution are very different because the latter is a specific, testable hypothesis that has held up. Modern genetics itself is based on evolution and we can "read" evolution in the genome itself.
2. You are a biologist and aren't there patterns in nature that cannot come about due to just random occurance?
First, evolution is not random. It follows rules dictated by the underlining chemistry of DNA.
If you mean are these issue in evolution that are not fully resolved? Yes. BTW that is also true of the theory of gravity .. we really do not understand why things have mass.
3. Townsend
I agree with the post. Science in many ways is the same thing as religion. Both are efforts to find order in the universe. can you imagine the thrill when I, as a scientist, learn something new? Einstein regarded the process of disacovery as a kind of worship.
Since both evolution and intelligent design are theories, why not teach both. What are the atheists afraid of?
First, evolution has nothing to do with atheism vs theism. I now devout people who work in evolutionary biology.
Second, ID is not a theory in the sense of evolution because there is not testable hypothesis.
It is interesting Seattle Jew that you call yourself an atheist, are you a Jew because of ethnic heritage? In my personal experience, I get along better with Orthodox Jews for some reason.
If you ask a knowledgeable OJ. she or he will tell you that there is no credo in Judaism. We are a people, not a religion one chooses to believe in. Beyond that, an OJ will tell you of the mitzvot, thye 613 laws Jews are supposed to follow. Judaism, unlike Christianity, is a system of laws.
We call the laws "mitzvot". One can be very pious, follow all the laws, without a belief in Hashem (Jews do not presume to give the deity a name. Hashem means "the name"). BTW, under Jewish law a pious non Jew need folow only 7 laws.
My religious beliefs are complex but very much derived from Judaism, esp the great teachers Hillel, Maimonides and Spinoza. In part they relate to the struggle of Jacob with Hashem and my own solution to that struggle.
Like you, I find myself drawn to our OJ. I admire their following the law and most I have met are wonderfully ethical people.
Tx for asking.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 12:19 AMMy life got easier when I realized:
1. I was not that smart
2. There is a lot that I don't know
3. There is a lot I will never know
4. I don't know if you will get this, but the Evangelicals will - I know that I know that I know.
You have me at a disadvantage, you are a biologist and I am not, but here is what I found:
Book results for intelligent design and theory
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe - by William A. Dembski, Michael J. Behe, ... - 180 pages
The Theory of Human Progression, and Natural ... - by Patrick Edward] [Dove - 528 pages
Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics - by Robert T. Pennock - 825 pages
Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[7] Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory, ...... Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design - 264k - Cached - Similar pages
Intelligent Design Theory: Why it MattersJay Richards examines a new scientific orthodoxy that challenges Darwin's materialistic views. From Intelligent Design, February 25, 1999.
www.speakout.com/activism/opinions/3116-1.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
Intelligent DesignHe also claims that "the conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ (Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science ...
skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html - 83k - Cached - Similar pages
Intelligent Design Network :: Seeking Objectivity in Origins ScienceThe theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather ...
Map of 4429 Rio Trumperos Ct NW, Albuquerque, NM 87120
www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
Intelligent Design TheoryIntelligent Design Theory - Does design necessitate a designer? Is the design inherent in biological systems merely an accidental product of natural ...
www.allaboutthejourney.org/intelligent-design-theory.htm - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
Intelligent Design TheoryThis page will bring together information on the growing scientific field of intelligent design (ID), also known as the Intelligent Design Theory (IDT).
www.geocities.com/darrickdean/ID.html - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
AAAS News Release - Intelligent Design TheoryResolution on intelligent design theory which rejects the theory as an inadequate competitor to evolution.
www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: Dembski, William A.But in fact intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. ...
www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm - 58k - Cached - Similar pages
What is the Intelligent Design Theory?What is the Intelligent Design Theory? Does the universe and life show signs of being intentionally designed?
www.gotquestions.org/intelligent-design.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Try Google Desktop: search your computer as easily as you search the web.
Intelligent design is referred to consistently as a theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2007 Google - Google Home - - Business Solutions - About Google
Wiki defines theory and it seems that intelligent design is as much a theory as evolution according to their definition:
Theory
• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research &bullFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Finally, you are an atheist, is is possible for you to be a Jew as well? Correct me if I am wrong but God established Covenants with the Jewish people, one with Abraham and another with circumcison. But, it is my understanding that having no other God and believing in Him is paramount. Am I wrong?
Posted by: WVH on September 3, 2007 12:26 AMwe don't even have reasonably good theories: the creation of life itself from non-life, and the spark of sentience.
You are rather ignorant if you really do not know that the origin of life is certainly well explained by existing theories. There arem however, multile theories.
I am not sure what you mean by the spark of sentience. If you mean human sentience, this evolved about 100000 years ago and appears now to be closely related to our excellent use of speech.
Have you read Jared Diamond?
I a, curious. You want to distinguish evolution, a well proven theory, from a "fact." What is better proven than evolution?
Since you want to argue that ID and evolution are different things, what would you teach as ID?
BTW, science is not settled by consensus. It is settled by experiment. For the last 150 years or so we have successfully done experiments to test evolutionary theory. They have all worked. About the only evidence I know for ID is tje question I explored at SeattleJew about the development of dalmatians. Clearly, these animals did not arise by antural evolution.
Anyhoooo. Tell me again WHY is ID a Republican issue? Are Leprechauns also Republican?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 12:37 AMThis quote you had from Wiki is pretty good:
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
This evolution is a theory because it can be and has beemn tested. There is no test of ID.
Finally, you are an atheist, is is possible for you to be a Jew as well? Correct me if I am wrong but God established Covenants with the Jewish people, one with Abraham and another with circumcison. But, it is my understanding that having no other God and believing in Him is paramount. Am I wrong?
Yes you are very wrong. Note your own post .. Hashem created a covenant with the Jews .. i.e. we were a people before we accepted the covenant.
Christians ahve very poor understanding of Judaism, in part because the Christian scripture presents a very odd view of Judaism. If you want to learn a lot more there are podcasts by a guy named Tovye Singer that attempt to explain the differences between us.
Again, nice talking with you.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 12:49 AMRead this site. . Predictable
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 12:53 AMI accept the critique of lack of understanding by Christians of Jews, and me in particular. I will look up Singer. Time to turn in now.
Posted by: WVH on September 3, 2007 12:58 AMI hope you do not find Singer too strong. A mre moderate voice is Karen Armstrong.
Be good.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 01:06 AMThere are lots of "controversies" in science. For example there are those that argue the world is hallow, gravity is merely electro-magnetism and that the moon landing were false. Should we teach those too. The middle of those might actually be the case, but as of this moment lacks the sort of consensus and evidence that would land it a place in high school science. Honestly probably as many scientists believe the 9/11 Truth idiots as believe in ID.
ID should be debated in the proper place, our universities and science labs. There people with the relevant grounding in science can examine it and other theories. For example, despite what you hear the components of evolution theory are not universally agreed upon. There are significant debates for example between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. Unfortunately for ID that debate is not coming out in their favor so they have turned to the State with sympathetic religious types.
To reiterate there are theories like gravity that have been tested though experimentation and prediction and there are theories like ID which have done neither. Not say that science has disproven an intelligent actor, only that the existence of one is irrelevant to our pursuits. In fact the only thing that science can tell us about a deity is that if one exists it acts through regular, predictable, repeatable means.
@pudge, I think we are talking about different meanings for ID. Sort of like Democrat/democrat. By ID I don't mean any theory which preports to explain existence though an intelligent actor, but instead mean the particular strain being widely discussed in the media. i.e. the ID put forward by the Discovery Institute. One has a definite place in philosophy, which is unfortunately rarely taught in high schools, however neither belong in a science classroom.
I agree that one never has to accept anything. However when attacking an idea one can attack it premises or the analysis form premise to conclusion. So with evolution you cna attack science or you can attack the use of science to get ot evolution.
I don't see you doing either. You see God as acting through evolution. Thats fine with me and with science. Like I said science is only concerned with the how and the what. For example science can tell us how to build a nuclear weapon, but it has to tell us about when to use it.
I really don't see us disagreeing about much. Personally I would love for schools to teach philosophy writ large. Lets expose kids to all kinds of thought about the whys of life from Marx to Rand and from Aquinas to Dawkins. But lets do in the proper place and in science class lets not pretend that there is any other accepted theory other then evolution. There is not and to tell kids otherwise puts them at a disadvantage.
Posted by: Giffy on September 3, 2007 02:00 AM"Fred Thompson has done the seemingly impossible. He has gone from 'unknown' to 'boring' without stopping at 'interesting'."
Posted by: Rey Smith on September 3, 2007 08:14 AMGood post.
I too have thought about the idea that schools should teach a broader perspective. The idea is good but I am skeptical that the teachers exist.
As one example, I am very impressed by Theravada Busshism. Although I am not a Buddhist, I have nefoited a lot from learning the concepts.
Imagine though we wanted Theravada taught in grade schools? First you would need to have teachers who were able to set aside their own beliefs long enough to understand Theravada. How many such teachers are there and mightn't some object that THEIR beleffs would not allow them to teach Theravada?
My wife and I have argued about this in re Judaism. She is against any teachng of religion in the pubic schools. I would like to see balance. BUT, few Christians understand the fundamental differences between Judaism and Christianity. Moreover, some of those differences would require casting doubt on one or the other of these religions.
Any ideas?
BTW ..
As a registered, card carrying HA member, one thing I like here is meeting folks lkke you and KVH. Good on!
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 08:17 AMI think the key is a good text book. While ideally you would just give kids the original text and tell them to have at thats an awful lot of book buying and dense reading for the youngins. A good text book would have key excerpts from text with well written analysis of meaning.
You also need to encourage discussion in class. That minimizes the bias of the teacher. When the kids read the works themselves and have to talk about it, they actually have to THINK. This also might encourage them to explore thinkers more fully, which would further minimize the affects of bias.
finally I think teachers are much better then we like to think. Like most things the media focus on a few bad apples skews our thinking. I think that given the right resources most schools have at least one teacher who can teach very diverse ideas with a minimum of bias.
Posted by: Giffy on September 3, 2007 08:59 AMNo, "evolution" is proven only in some sense. It's proven that to some degree, species on Earth have evolved from other species. It is not proven -- not even close -- that this is the sole mechanism for the creation of species on Earth.
Also, no theory has to be "testable." That's nonsense. I think what you mean is that a "scientific theory" has to be testable, and well, no, you're wrong there, too! Again, this shows how many scientists (meaning: you) don't understand science very well. Testability has two components: falsifiability (the property that something can possibly be proven not-true), and practical feasibility of conducting a test.
I will concede immediately that ID is not falsifiable. However, the problem is that despite Karl Popper's insistence to the contrary, falsifiability is simply not a proper line of demarcation for science. Many things in science are not falsifiable, including, of course, the scientific method itself. Paul Feyerabend did some of the most interesting work refuting Popper and others, noting that many of our scientific advances in history would not have happened if we only attempted to work within the bounds of what we thought was falsifiable.
However, more practically, evolution itself may indeed be non-falsifiable. So you're only hurting yourself here. Evolution, broadly, is testable and falsifiable. And common descent is obviously falsifiable. But when you get to specific examples, such as man, it is at best only barely falsifiable, and absoultely non-testable.
And natural selection is even worse: even Popper himself, the primary advocate of falsifiability as a line of demarcation for science, stated that while common descent was a scientific theory, natural selection was not (though he later slightly modified this view).
So: yes, ID is not testable, though you're wrong that it is not a theory (though your later claim that is not a theory *in the sense of evolution* is accurate). However, natural selection is also not falsifiable, and therefore not truly testable, either.
And no, there is NO GOOD THEORY for explaining the origin of life. I know there are theories, but none of them are *good*. Most of them have major holes left unexplained such that they are not useful, and the few that have specifics have never been able to even come close to duplicating the event.
And no, there is NO existing scientific evidence for what sentience even IS, let alone how it originated. There are some theories, but none of them are significant.
I a,[sic] curious. You want to distinguish evolution, a well proven theory, from a "fact." What is better proven than evolution?
Shrug. Many things. Newtonian physics (which, incidentally, has been largely disproven, but it still has been better proven than evolution).
Since you want to argue that ID and evolution are different things, what would you teach as ID?
I never talked about teaching ID. What are you babbling about?
BTW, science is not settled by consensus.
I know that. But that's what the scientists have been telling us for several years, in order to convince to just go along and accept anthropogenic global warming theory. My point was that scientists are just as capricious and stupid as everyone else: they pretend that science is whatever happens to agree with their point of view. A court defines science? Fine, as long as it agrees with me. Science by consensus? Sure, as long as it agrees with me. But if either one disagrees with me, then, dammit, science is only what is proven in the lab!!!
That is what Karl Popper did too, incidentally: this whole testable/falsifiable nonsense "evolved" as a way to combat "pseudoscience" like Freud's psychoanalysis.
It is settled by experiment. For the last 150 years or so we have successfully done experiments to test evolutionary theory. They have all worked.
Yes, we have done many experiments. No, they have not all worked. Stop with the bullshit, please. Many experiments failed along the way, as with everything else.
That said: the point I keep coming back to, which I clearly stated previously, is not that evolution isn't proven, but that evolution AS THE MECHANISM FOR OUR EXISTENCE has not been proven. No one has ever done an experiment proving that.
It's very similar to anthropogenic global warming. We know that increased CO2 in an atmosphere can have a "greenhouse" effect. But we have not a single bit of evidence that this is what is actually happening. We have only correlations, but because -- as with origins of species -- our information and understanding is woefully inadequate, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that those correlations represent causation, because there very well could be other factors at play that we don't yet understand.
Tell me again WHY is ID a Republican issue?
I didn't say it was. You did.
Are Leprechauns also Republican?
Shrug. Judaism teaches Intelligent Design. Feel free to attack that if you like, I suppose.
Posted by: pudge on September 3, 2007 09:13 AMAs the authors of the report on all this in the British journal Nature noted, "We know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes."
LOTS OF LINKS IN THE ARTICLE- FOLLOW THEM!
The Latest Problems with the "Man Evolved From Apes" Thesis
"Cavemen are popular once again."
"No, I'm not talking about those successful Geico commercials that won their own series on ABC starting October 2, (view the trailer here)."
"I'm talking about the two discoveries that came out in August that should force all those "man evolved from apes" evolution charts in schoolbooks to be redrawn. You know the ones. You've got the knuckle-dragging, club-wielding ape on the left hand side and a businessman carrying a briefcase on the right hand side, with all the hypothetical evolutionary links filled in between (as in this one)."
"What's been discovered is a 10.5 million year old gorilla and that two of our "ape men" ancestors actually lived together."
"Let me explain."
"See, the problem is--these two discoveries render all previous human evolution charts wrong."
"But, the bigger problem is--unless you're a scientist--you've likely never have heard about it outside of this column or at least until you'd see the trailer for Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" coming out in February 2008."
"As Stein exposes, there's been a virtual Inquisition by Darwinian fundamentalists against anyone who dares challenge The Book--Darwin's infamous 1859 "Origin of the Species." No longer about following the bread crumbs of inquiry in pursuit of truth, Big Science is now all about enforcing doctrinaire dogmatism."
"Dare question the problems with naturalistic evolution--as I do here--and be guilty of blasphemy."
"Ask for explanations about the still missing "missing links," the absence of transitional forms, the sudden Cambrian Explosion, or the gaping gaps in the fossil record, and be branded an unbeliever--one who must repent of their sins, recant and do penance or be damned to academic hell for all time."
"As I learned long ago, if you can believe the first sentence of the Bible, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth," you won't have much trouble with the rest of the 66 books."
"Make no mistake. Fundamentalists are those who censure skeptics and prohibit inquiry. Today's fundamentalists are not the Christians who, like me, are eager to examine the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution, but those who deny that opportunity from ever happening."
"The real fundamentalists are those who chair the various science departments at our major universities--those unwilling to allow dissent."
"Nonetheless, they're losing. Their program to indoctrinate students into scientism is failing. According to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll (here), 66 percent of Americans believe man is the product of creation, not evolution."
""Evolution" is a term that can be so broad so as to mean simply "change through time," which no one disputes. Or, it can be so narrowly construed so as to mean "all life originated from a single living cell," and "man evolved from apes," which Americans reject by a margin of two to one."
"No. We are no closer today proving those last two theses than we were in Darwin's day, a century and a half ago. In fact, we're actually farther away."
"So, what were these two important recent discoveries?
"First, as reported here on August 9, two alleged ancestors of man, Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis, were found to be living together about 1.5 million years ago (MYA). This is a big deal because Erectus was supposed to have evolved from Habilis before later evolving into Sapiens (us)." -**OUCH! that hurts the single-minded Darwin fundamentalist!.** -
"Think of it as finding out dad and grandpa were actually brothers, not father and son."
"This chart on Early Human Phylogeny at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, will have to be revised--again. The mythical evolutionary tree of life with man's ascent from ape is looking more like a patch of thousands of blades of grass with the passing of each generation. Sapiens ends up all by himself--an evolutionary orphan--almost as though he just appeared in the fossil record fully formed--as though he were created and placed here. Imagine that."
"The second discovery, reported here, pushed the hypothetical human-ape split back another 10 million years, to now around 20 MYA. How so? The traditional theory is that man evolved from chimps about 6 MYA, chimps evolved from gorillas about 8 MYA, and gorillas evolved from orangutans about 14 MYA. But, with the discovery of a 10.5 million year old gorilla in Africa, this pushes the human-ape split back to at least 20 MYA."
"But between 15-20 MYA, there were dozens of primate species in Africa, and the hominid trail goes completely cold after 7 MYA. It looks like a dead end--or to the true believer, at least a serious detour over uncharted territory."
"Bottom line, not only do we find that dad and grandpa were brothers, but now we find out that we were adopted--or created."
"As the authors of the report on all this in the British journal Nature noted, "We know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes.""
**MY COMMENT
As the authors of the report on all this in the British journal Nature noted, "We know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes."
LOTS OF LINKS IN THE ARTICLE- FOLLOW THEM!
The Latest Problems with the "Man Evolved From Apes" Thesis
"Cavemen are popular once again."
"No, I'm not talking about those successful Geico commercials that won their own series on ABC starting October 2, (view the trailer here)."
"I'm talking about the two discoveries that came out in August that should force all those "man evolved from apes" evolution charts in schoolbooks to be redrawn. You know the ones. You've got the knuckle-dragging, club-wielding ape on the left hand side and a businessman carrying a briefcase on the right hand side, with all the hypothetical evolutionary links filled in between (as in this one)."
"What's been discovered is a 10.5 million year old gorilla and that two of our "ape men" ancestors actually lived together."
"Let me explain."
"See, the problem is--these two discoveries render all previous human evolution charts wrong."
"But, the bigger problem is--unless you're a scientist--you've likely never have heard about it outside of this column or at least until you'd see the trailer for Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" coming out in February 2008."
"As Stein exposes, there's been a virtual Inquisition by Darwinian fundamentalists against anyone who dares challenge The Book--Darwin's infamous 1859 "Origin of the Species." No longer about following the bread crumbs of inquiry in pursuit of truth, Big Science is now all about enforcing doctrinaire dogmatism."
"Dare question the problems with naturalistic evolution--as I do here--and be guilty of blasphemy."
"Ask for explanations about the still missing "missing links," the absence of transitional forms, the sudden Cambrian Explosion, or the gaping gaps in the fossil record, and be branded an unbeliever--one who must repent of their sins, recant and do penance or be damned to academic hell for all time."
"As I learned long ago, if you can believe the first sentence of the Bible, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth," you won't have much trouble with the rest of the 66 books."
"Make no mistake. Fundamentalists are those who censure skeptics and prohibit inquiry. Today's fundamentalists are not the Christians who, like me, are eager to examine the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution, but those who deny that opportunity from ever happening."
"The real fundamentalists are those who chair the various science departments at our major universities--those unwilling to allow dissent."
"Nonetheless, they're losing. Their program to indoctrinate students into scientism is failing. According to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll (here), 66 percent of Americans believe man is the product of creation, not evolution."
""Evolution" is a term that can be so broad so as to mean simply "change through time," which no one disputes. Or, it can be so narrowly construed so as to mean "all life originated from a single living cell," and "man evolved from apes," which Americans reject by a margin of two to one."
"No. We are no closer today proving those last two theses than we were in Darwin's day, a century and a half ago. In fact, we're actually farther away."
"So, what were these two important recent discoveries?
"First, as reported here on August 9, two alleged ancestors of man, Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis, were found to be living together about 1.5 million years ago (MYA). This is a big deal because Erectus was supposed to have evolved from Habilis before later evolving into Sapiens (us)." -**OUCH! that hurts the single-minded Darwin fundamentalist!.** -
"Think of it as finding out dad and grandpa were actually brothers, not father and son."
"This chart on Early Human Phylogeny at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, will have to be revised--again. The mythical evolutionary tree of life with man's ascent from ape is looking more like a patch of thousands of blades of grass with the passing of each generation. Sapiens ends up all by himself--an evolutionary orphan--almost as though he just appeared in the fossil record fully formed--as though he were created and placed here. Imagine that."
"The second discovery, reported here, pushed the hypothetical human-ape split back another 10 million years, to now around 20 MYA. How so? The traditional theory is that man evolved from chimps about 6 MYA, chimps evolved from gorillas about 8 MYA, and gorillas evolved from orangutans about 14 MYA. But, with the discovery of a 10.5 million year old gorilla in Africa, this pushes the human-ape split back to at least 20 MYA."
"But between 15-20 MYA, there were dozens of primate species in Africa, and the hominid trail goes completely cold after 7 MYA. It looks like a dead end--or to the true believer, at least a serious detour over uncharted territory."
"Bottom line, not only do we find that dad and grandpa were brothers, but now we find out that we were adopted--or created."
"As the authors of the report on all this in the British journal Nature noted, "We know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes.""
**MY COMMENT
I'm sorry for the double.... but, hey!, it IS worth repeating! :)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 3, 2007 09:24 AMpudge, I think we are talking about different meanings for ID.
Giffy, well, yes, YOU are. I was clear before you jumped in what I was referring to. You are talking about a specific branch of a movement. The problem is that you kept conflating the movement for one of the ideas the branch of the movement is based on.
By ID I don't mean any theory which preports to explain existence though an intelligent actor, but instead mean the particular strain being widely discussed in the media. i.e. the ID put forward by the Discovery Institute.
But even there you are not doing what you think. For example:
Exactly. So let's look at what Discovery Institute fellow and director Stephen Meyer has to say: "We're not absolutists, we're not fundamentalists in the sense that we want to commit to a certain story and we're not young Earth creationists. We're fairly minimalist. What we want to say is that however life arose, design is certainly detectable from the things we see."
That's a far cry from your claim that "[t]hey argue that certain things could not have resulted form [sic] observable predictable process like natural selection."
I really don't see us disagreeing about much.
I agree. Our primary disagreement is that you think ID -- even the Discovery Institute's form of it -- is something it is not.
Personally I would love for schools to teach philosophy writ large. Lets expose kids to all kinds of thought about the whys of life from Marx to Rand and from Aquinas to Dawkins. But lets do in the proper place and in science class lets not pretend that there is any other accepted theory other then evolution. There is not and to tell kids otherwise puts them at a disadvantage.
So too is it a disservice to kids to tell them that we know that evolution is the way that we got here. We don't know. Evolution is the only practical theory we have, and it seems to fit very well, but that doesn't mean that it's how it happened.
As to "science class," I recognize no such distinction. Such compartmentalization is, I believe, what gets us into a lot of our educational difficulties. It's part of the reason I'm homeschooling. History and science and philosophy and language and math are all one, as far as I am concerned.
Posted by: pudge on September 3, 2007 09:24 AMHow far will you go with this? high school too?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 09:34 AMYou misunderstand the significance of the recent discoveries.
Human evolution is studied int wo complementary ways. On such way is paleontology ... looking forn fossils, Of course finding fossils is a matter of luck and then one tries to piece the puzzle together, Not all aspects will be correct, even though the overall pattern works.
The issue raised by these new fossils is the nature of the earliest ancestor of modern man. We know she was ape like, but we do not know when she speciated, that is became different enough to bhe a species.
The other sort of data comes from genetics. You and I both have about 6 billion letters of code and we know how that code changes. So, by reading the code and knowing the chemistry, we can outline a lot of what happened as humans and apes separated.
BTW, the debate you mention is NOT about you and I. The debate is about ancestors who neither of us would be able to breed with or consider "human." Our present species is (from both paleontology and DNA) about 100,0000 years old.
If you want a "miracle" to think about, something wodnerful happeend then that, apparently gave ur ancestors the ower of speeach. The evidence is that older humans were probably the same species but lacked speech. So, of you want to think about an analog in evolution ot Genesis, think about our first speaking ancesters, sitting in cave by the sea near Capetown!
In Judaism, w eare taught that science is revelation so jews look for reconciliation between Torah and science. In this case there is an intriguing relationship between the image in Genesis of the tree of knowledge and our modern evidence that speech was what distinguished us form earlier "animals."
If you have a chance, read jared Diamond's great book. It is very much like a bible .. just based in science.
You said:
" @WVH,
Surely you are not saying that because people can write books that means anything. We live in an age of easy publishing.
There are lots of "controversies" in science. For example there are those that argue the world is hallow, gravity is merely electro-magnetism and that the moon landing were false. Should we teach those too. The middle of those might actually be the case, but as of this moment lacks the sort of consensus and evidence that would land it a place in high school science. Honestly probably as many scientists believe the 9/11 Truth idiots as believe in ID."
At least Seattle Jew is a scientist. I am a bit out of my depth here because I am not a biologist or chemist, are you? Last time I did research on ID which was a couple of years ago there were numerous scientists with Phds which questioned many aspects of the THEORY of evolution. ID is a THEORY and because you don't happen to like it doesn't mean that it isn't. Since most doctoral students and grads are familar with the concept of THEORY, I feel comfortable arguing that point.
Now, let's talk about opinion. You seem to be inferring that because, in your opinion, many people do not want to accept ID as a THEORY you are correct. Just because at a particular time groups of people believe something doesn't make it corrrect. At one time many in this country, many believed slavery was correct, including many of your beloved scientists. In fact, many of them wrote papers saying people like me had inferior intellects. The Bell Curve, a recent publication argued that point as well. In some parts of the world today, many still believe slavery is correct.
Here is my THEORY about why atheists and secular progressives do not want ID classified as a THEORY along side evolution. It opens up a Pandora's box of moral issues. My pal, Cato the recent had this definition "morality is in the eye of the beholder." Suppose there are universals and moral relativism is the inferior philosopy. Kinda rocks your world, doesn't it?
I refer you to the Wiki defintion of THEORY posted above. So, Giffy, ID, like evolution is a THEORY and there it is.
Posted by: WVH on September 3, 2007 09:59 AMYou misunderstand the significance of the recent discoveries.
Pay attention SJ, I reported what OTHERS interpreted... and I have far more confidence in the conclusions of the authors of the report on all this in the British journal Nature than I do a nameless, self acclaimed atheist and supposed biologist in whom I have NO confidence. You hang yourself on your own petard of stubborn anti-anything conservative stridency SJ because you show no objective thought.
No, I can find out your VIEWS on any number of subjects, but NOTHING about YOU, your CV, your resume or any reason whatsoever to accept/believe you are what you CLAIM to be.
Your claim does not equal FACTS.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 3, 2007 10:15 AM@88 Ragnar .. yes I did read your lengthy paste. I just wanted t be sure you understood the significance of these new fossils.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 10:17 AMAnd if you actually scientists the questions about transitional fossils and the Cambrian explosion, you would be surprised at the depth of the response. Sure we don't know everything, but we have some great and well established theories.
@WVH, Your right knowledge can change. However high school class are not where that happens.
Personally I would rather go with the theory that has the evidence and predictive capability right now. If that changes so be it. When my doctor tells me to keep my blood pressure down I don't argue that next year we might overturn that consensus, I avoid salt.
I don't that us secular types are against talking about morality. Like I said above I want schools to teach more philosophy and most of my secular friends feel the same. In fact that lack of certainty of religions often makes us quite interested in exploring ideas. However these things don't belong in science, they belong in philosophy.
Still ID is not a scientific theory. It has made no predictions, it is not falsifiable, and lacks evidence. External unpredictable actors are not subject to the scientific method. Psychology is hard enough pursuit with out adding unrestrained super powers :)
Posted by: Giffy on September 3, 2007 10:24 AMWhereas those of us that do believe in God have no need to prove that He exists, they are heavily invested in proving He doesn't.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 3, 2007 10:25 AMThe Wiki manipulation is most likely to occur when individuals and political ideas are discussed. For simple definitions, like THEORY, they are very good. Probably, after reading this thread, I'm sure there may be an attempt to manipulate the THEORY definition. Still, rmember a stopped clock is right twice a day and sources can be evaluated for credibility. I never rule out any piece of information, I just evaluate its worth. The Wiki definition of THEORY is quite good.
Posted by: WVH on September 3, 2007 10:33 AMMany used to argue that accepting that the Earth was not the center of the universe was deadly to Christianity, but we all know how that debate turned out. We accept that the Earth orbits the sun and religion is alive and well.
I would add that you see a lot more Christians and religious types out trying to convert others then you do atheists. I can't remember the last time I saw an atheist with a bull horn and large sign proclaiming there was no god, but I sure did see a lot of Christians doing the same at Bumpershoot.
Posted by: Giffy on September 3, 2007 10:43 AM
Posted by: KS on September 3, 2007 10:49 AM
Am I the only one who is wondering what happened to Ethel, Fred's first wife? Did she dies or did he divorce her? Or am I confusing two Freds?
http://seattlejew.blogspot.com/2007/09/right-flight-iii.html
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 10:54 AMGo back to the blog and look for the about me or use this link
http://www.blogger.com/profile/03849767590616329008
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 10:56 AMI challenge you to find any scientist who is trying to "prove" there is no God? Science only works with testable hypotheses. BTW, there is a sizeable reward out there from a believer, I think $1000000 for the first scientist to design an experiment that tests the existence.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 11:02 AMWhat is wrong with teaching all types of theories other than the fact that some THEORIES make you personally uncomfortable?
As for conversations, I don't try and convert any one. In my opinion, we have enough watered down phony Christians and we don't need more. Besides, I have enough trouble keeping me on the straight and narrow and curbing my tendency to swear. Literally, when the Spirit moves them, they will come. Bumbershoot is a huge festival and I am sure there were all types of groups out there seeking converts, not just us Christians. What I and others are critiquing is the tendency of secular progressives to focus solely on what Christians do as evil. If there were Wiccans seeking converts would you have the same objections? Goodness, if one listened to some of the posters on this site Christians could be compared to the evils of Atilla the Hun or Mussolini or Mugabe. This country was founded by Chrisitians and isn't it interesting that all the groups that hate us are free to worship and express themselves. Try having a gay rights parade in Saudi Arabia and see what happens.
Posted by: WVH on September 3, 2007 11:46 AMPersonally, I think that spouses, partners, and whatevers should stay the heck out of the public's business. This two for one crap, well, I would rather have one decent candidate. Anyhow, Fred doesn't seem to be as much of a slug as Newt. Here is what Novack says:
"....The archetypal "trophy wife" (a phrase coined by Fortune magazine 18 years ago) conjures up the image of a rich corporate executive who tires of and abandons the woman he married when they both were young and has grown old with, and turns to a young, chic new wife, usually seen as a home wrecker. Mrs. Thompson does not fit that mold. Thompson had been divorced for 17 years and was on friendly terms with his first wife when he married Jeri Kehn in 2002. They also have two small children -- not the trophy wife caricature either...."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/08/02/fred_thompsons_wife
HAPPY LABOR DAY!
@ 45
Dough! I mean, doe! D'oh! Will get around to correcting my "fonetic" spelling error. Or not.
@ 25
Ka-ching!
As for Bumpershoot. It was mostly Christians, Ron Paul supporters and 9/11 Truthiots, with a spattering of health care and enviro types. I have not problem with any of them, though the Christians were being kind of loud with megaphones and the like. Aside from being a bit loud I think its great.
I was just responding your statement that it seems like atheists try to prove there is no god more then Christians do the opposite. In my experience it is religious types that are more "out there" trying to win followers. But, like I said, I think its fine that they do so. A democracy without debate is no democracy at all.
Posted by: Giffy on September 3, 2007 12:11 PMBarring glaring ethical issues, I completely agree that spouses, children, family pets are irrelevant to selecting a candidate for office. The two things that matter to me are issue positions and the ability of the candidate to accomplish them.
Happy Labor day to you as well!
Posted by: Giffy on September 3, 2007 12:41 PMFor example, I personally do not care that Romney is a Mormon, BUT I am very ware of the moral issues this raises. For example, he claims his kids should not serve in Iraq, in oart, because they have served as Mormon missionaries. That raises issuew worth discussing.
Another Mormon issue is their fantasy/mythology about the origins of Americans. Of course, having been born a Mormon, Mr. Romney may regard all this as myth. OTOH, if he does believe in this sort of thing it would worry me for the same reason I would have trouble voting for a creationist.
The hard issue here, of coourse, is privacy. Most of us never have to fess up t what parts of uor religions we d and do not accept. But a cnadiate for the UW Presidency, in our current environment, must claim religious conviction and it is, therefore, fair to ask what he or she believes.
As for Fred and Ethel, my only point was that "Call me Fred" is not a clever campaign tactic .. roughly the same as MrEdewards encouraging foks to call him Johnny ...e.g. Herrrres Johnyyy! If Thompson is going t make it he needs to convince the pubic of his gravitas.
WVH ..
actually Chrsitians HAVE committed atrocities well in a league with Atilla the Hun and more recenlty. I have cute story:
Minister: So Sam, tell me how many Jews are there?
Rabbi, Err about 6 million.
Minister .. and you knowthere ar 2 billion Christians?
rabbi, yeh, so?
Minister: Doesn't that impress you?
Rabbi: Well, what about all those bad things Christians have done .. slavery, KKK, the iNquisitiion, Crusades, Bisnia, etc.
Minister: Those were not REAL Christians.
Rabbi: OH HO! So tell me John, how many of the 2 billion are "rea" Chrsitians?
YOU are home schooling? Thats [sic] is sad.
Why is it sad? Go ahead, tell me. I don't think you have the guts to dare explain yourself honestly on this, and if you surprise me and you do, I have no doubt your explanation will be rampantly ignorant. But go ahead, I could use the laugh. Since you're the one who can't spell, can't say what he means, and doesn't even understand rudimentary philosophy of science despite being a scientist ... I don't think your opinion on the matter is worth squat, but I am interested to see how your tiny little mind works.
And please stop dishonestly saying that evolution in this context -- origin of species -- is "testable." It's not. I don't give a damn if you are a biologist, you couldn't be more wrong on this point. We cannot test common ancestry at all, and while we cannot test natural selection of (from our perspective) pre-existing species (including homo sapiens).
And simple: Richard Dawkins is trying to prove there is no God. What do I win? Now granted, he admits he cannot prove there is no God. But he keeps trying to do it anyway.
Also, you are lying when you said Romney claims his kids should not serve in Iraq.
Giffy:
When my doctor tells me to keep my blood pressure down I don't argue that next year we might overturn that consensus, I avoid salt.
I do neither. I question what salt actually does and what role it has to play, and I act based on what I decide for myself. In fact, I was diagnosed with mild hypertension, and I decided I would not cut back on salt (though the doctor agreed with that decision).
Also Giffy, you make the same error that SeattleJew made. The line of demarcation between science and not-science is a myth, constructed by people (like Popper) with a subjective agenda. Predictability and falsifiability are NOT rational criteria by which to judge something as science, or not. History is replete with examples of where these criteria fail.
There is no methodological way to define science and not-science. None. Zip. You can say ID is not science, but you can't say it is for certain objective reasons, because that is not how science actually works, in theory or in practice.
Giffy, however, more practically speaking, you said:
One that note, we teach Newtonian physics in high schools and rarely teach quantum physics. In this case the consensus is that Newtonian physics is a flawed theory, BUT it underpins most large scale physics.
Yes, and that is where I put evolutionary science right now. We don't know nearly enough about what happened, or even the processes involved, to really be sure about what happened, but it's an excellent theory that fits available data and understanding, just like Newtonian physics did for hundreds of years. I've little doubt that something will come along someday that will radically change our understanding of origin of species, but likely, evolution as we understand it today will still be more-or-less accurate from a high-level perspective, like Newtonian physics is today.
There are thousands of experiments testing evolution. None for ID because it is not a testable hypothesis.
BTW, the genome independently confirms paleontology.
Other than creating a new Earth and repeating six bilion years of evolution, I am not sure what else you would want done.
True I spell poorly. Actually I TYPE poorly.
Oh pleeeze, Christians are the only evil group in the whole history of the world? Gee, those women who have been raped at Darfur probably missed that and those slaves in Africa whose freedom was purchased at $100-150 per person by Bread of Life Ministries probably missed it as well. In fact, I am so evil that I am planning to torture all non-Christians and those Christians I don't like. What shall it be- blow torch to the armpits, oh, wait, Wayne Newton is coming to town-front row seats for Wayne, that will do it.
There are many heroes that came out of the Nazi oppression and one of those was a devout Christian woman named Corrie Ten Broom:
"Corrie credits her father's example in inspiring her to help the Jews of Holland. She tells of an incident in which she asked a pastor who was visiting their home to help shield a mother and newborn infant. He replied, "No definitely not. We could lose our lives for that Jewish child." She went on to say, "Unseen by either of us, Father had appeared in the doorway. 'Give the child to me, Corrie,' he said. Father held the baby close, his white beard brushing its cheek, looking into the little face with eyes as blue and innocent as the baby's . 'You say we could lose our lives for this child. I would consider that the greatest honor that could come to my family'" (Ten Boom, 1971, p. 99).
Corrie's involvement with the Dutch underground began with her acts of kindness in giving temporary shelter to her Jewish neighbors who were being driven out of their homes. She found places for them to stay in the Dutch countryside. Soon the word spread, and more and more people came to her home for shelter. As quickly as she would find places for them, more would arrive. She had a false wall constructed in her bedroom behind which people could hide."
http://www.tlogical.net/bioboom.htm
Yeh, that Corrie, what a dispicable human, that girl.
Now, regarding homeschooling, I know quite a bit about that. All segments of society including persons of color are moving their children out of public schools and homeschooling is increasingly an option. There are homeschool co-ops that provide a variety of resources for the parents and children. Homeschoolers do quite well in standardized tests and are often accepted to top colleges. Parents home school for a variety of reasons both academic and because of values. Many parents do not want their elementary children putting condoms on bananas.
School choice is a real threat to the secular progressive cabal that governs in education, the media and the permanent government bureaucracy. I can see why you are threatened.
Oh, about me torturing non-Christians, if Wayne doesn't send them into the streets screaming, I hear Yanni is coming to town.
FOR EXAMPLE, I know a family of 13 kids, (yes I said 13) and every one of them was entirely homeschooled. Dad is a physicist, so guess who taught them physics at the appropriate time?
It's well know that folks like Kirby Wilbur who teaches American History are supportive and make themselves available to homeschoolers. I have a pal who is a retired Chemistry teacher... guess who teaches them Chemistry. I would venture to say that those kids were exposed to far more "intellectual interactions" that some poor chump whose parents stuck him in a failing government school.
Regarding that family with 13 kids: the oldest graduated from Notre Dame, UW Med School and is now a resident.
The next graduated from American University and is very involved in community theatre.
EVERY single child in the family has mastered a musical instrument and volunteered their time and talent with their church, amongst many places.
EVERY single child participated in sports programs, both through the community or as part school team in the district in which they live.
When you are introduced to the children, down to the youngest who is now about 5, they look you straight in the eye, firmly shake your hand and introduce themselves.
Your notion that homeschoolwer suffer from a lack of diversity or "intellectual interactions" is naive at best and bigotry at worst.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 3, 2007 06:25 PMI know a family with 13 kids (yes I said 13) and every one of them were/are totally homeschooled.
Homeschool families usually belong to a coop where the strengths of each are brought to the kids. For example Dad in the family of 13 kids is a pysicist. Guess who teaches physics when the time comes? I have a pal who is a retired chemistry professor who also makes herself availble to homeschoolers (her kids were not homeschooled). Kirby Wilbur of KVI fame teaches history to homeschoolers.
The oldest child of the 13 kid family graduated from Notre Dame, followed by UW Med School and is now a resident. He volunteers his time in pro-life causes.
Another graduated from American Univerisity and is heavily involved in community theatre.
Each and every one of the 13 excels with a musical instrument (including one with a harp and several on violin) and volunteer their time and talent to their church as well as other places.
Each and every one participated in sports both through community programs and school teams in the district in which they live.
Each and every one, down to the youngest, when meeting you will look you in the eye, firmly shake your hand and properly introduce himself.
I would venture to say these kids have far more "intellectual Interaction" than the poor little slugs whose lazy unimaginative parents stuck them in poorly run failing government schools.
For you to charge that homeschoolers suffer from a lack of diversity or "intellectual interactions" is naive at best and ignorant bigotry at worst.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 3, 2007 06:40 PMI never said Christians were the only bad folks. However, I do feel Chrisyinas are very bad accepting guilt when they do something wrong. It si always "They weren't us..."
You might be surprised that oi also favor school choice. I even think religous schools are oK. I just want to be sure kids get a well rounded education.
I also fee in the country it is importnat fr kids to learn about diversity.
My favorite scheme is charter schools.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 3, 2007 07:37 PMMy comment is not at all bigoted. I have no prejudices against the kids you describe. I also know kids who were tutored all the way up to college. Wealth achieves these things.
That said, the dangers of home schooling are as obvipus as the dangers of any other system with no qulaity control. You friend with the baker's dozen may be marvelous, but howsa about some 'pro with an assortment f kids by say ans assortment of dads? Or howsa abut some real bigot who wnats to teach his kids hatred?
As a society we need to deal with how to serve us all as best as we can while respecting individual rights. No easy answer is likely to be correct.
My own pref. is for small districts that maximize parental control. I would like to see Seattle have a complete contract system.
Christians are no better or worse at accepting responsibility for their mistakes than any other group. Many individuals are also do not accept reponsibility and that is what the secular progressive culture has brought. It is never anyone fault and if it is my fault then I need to go to rehab. Bad behavior comes in all flavors.
Many homeschooling parents are members of co-ops and many have their kids enrolled in activities and sports where they mingle with other children.
There should be a variety of education options and thankfully most parents attempt to do what is best for the child and not have child sacrifices on the PC altar. Homeschooling can be one option.
My emphasis is on a quality education for all children at the K-12 level. There is phony integration which secular progressives are fond of touting. In many schools, not all, kids occupy the same building, but do not mingle. In America the issue of class is not as in your face as it is in Europe, but it does come out from time to time. The Madrona school situation is a case in point. Race and class intertwine in this country and it is quite a mix. Have you noticed that Asian Indian children, many of whom have dark complexions mingle with the elite children of a school. The reason is that the Asian Indian children are perceived to be of the achievement oriented class and thus they have entree. Hip hop stigmatizes even wealthy Black children. There are some interesting studies of Black children in Shaker Heights, Ohio which make this point.
The problem is not those claiming to be Christian, it is bigotry which also comes in all flavors.
Posted by: WVH on September 3, 2007 08:04 PMYou are still being illogical. Of course "kids benefit from a wealth of intellectual interactions." That is why home schooling is GOOD, because it provides the ability to have MORE of such opportunities.
I just want to be sure kids get a well rounded education.
Then you should be in favor of home schooling, where children provably are far more likely to get a well-rounded education. An overwhelming majority of our public schooled children don't learn the first thing about philosophy, and barely get past the basics of grammar and math, and only touch on the surface of most history.
I also fee in the country it is importnat fr kids to learn about diversity.
I think that's dumb. What is important is to teach children about the world around them, and how to learn about that world. "Diversity" is an inherent part of that.
That said, the dangers of home schooling are as obvipus as the dangers of any other system with no qulaity control.
You are wrong that home schooling has no quality control. For starters, in WA, you are required to fulfill various requirements to make sure the child is learning what the government thinks they should. More importantly, however, the parent is the best quality control there is. You illogically think that "quality control" means "government (or perhaps some other institutional) control."
You friend with the baker's dozen may be marvelous, but howsa about some 'pro with an assortment f kids by say ans assortment of dads?
What about them?
Or howsa abut some real bigot who wnats to teach his kids hatred?
Shrug. They will be no worse off than public schools, which teach children all sorts of life-damaging lessons: how to shut up and fit in so you won't get in trouble, how to be incurious, how to be mediocre, how to submit most of your life to government authority.
I was lucky. I was one of those kids who was strong-willed enough to not give a damn what anyone thought. I specifically remember in sixth grade making the conscious decision, after a particularly rough day of school, that I would no longer care what anyone else thought of me. And it worked.
Now, it got me into trouble sometimes. In ninth grade I was given an assigment to say who I would throw out of a lifeboat for three people, when five people needed it, and instead I wrote about how that was a terrible exercise I wouldn't participate in. I got a D.
Then there was 11th grade, AP History, and our teacher told us to pair up and work on a project that night for turning in the next day. I told him I had plans, and he asked what they were, as if it mattered. I told him it was none of his business: he can't give us no notice for an out-of-class requirement. He didn't like that very much, but I was right.
There was also a 7:30 a.m. Intro to Ethics class where I fought with the professor every day. He said I was "not a very careful thinker" (although another philosophy professor said I was a very careful thinker, so go figure).
I have been fortunate enough to reject false authority without being taught to do so. Most kids aren't so lucky, and I don't know if my kids will be like that or not, but I'll be damned if I am going to teach them from the age of five how to give in.
There are thousands of experiments testing evolution.
So? My complaint was that you incorrectly said all of those experiments "worked." Reiterating that the experiments exist is beside the point.
Other than creating a new Earth and repeating six bilion years of evolution, I am not sure what else you would want done.
This is a great example of what I am talking about when I say scientists are just as stupid as everyone else. Yes, what you say is true: but it DOES NOT MATTER. There are no excuses for not being testable. Either you are testable, or you are not. There's no "it is not testable *but* ..."
You said it is testable. You are wrong.
A good place to start is here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
That page lists a good deal of the evidence for macroevolution and common decent, including how it has held up to testing. For example predictions were made regarding the existence and nature of DNA, the order of species in the geological column, and molecular markers such as, my favorite, the affects of endogenous retroviruses.
And no, there is no testability for common descent. Predictability is not the same as testability. To be testable we'd have to be able to test that we DO HAVE common descent, not that future species WILL HAVE common descent. Even SeattleJew, our resident "biologist," conceded this.
Come see my at my blog some time, I am sure you would find lots to argue with. Maybe some to agree with.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 4, 2007 09:07 PMSee you
Posted by: derono on September 7, 2007 11:08 PM