“Normally, if Pat Robertson said the sun was shining, that would mean it's the middle of the night. But he's finally said something that makes sense. Now to see how much of a firestorm he has ignited and how the other fundagelical scientific illiterates react.”
“The scientific illiteracy of creationism is a shameful embarrassment in our 21st century civilization. The willful ignorance of the fundagelicals is appropriate for the Dark Ages they want to return to, but most of us are too infatuated with our technological toys, our longer lifetimes and lower infant death rates, our plentiful food and clean water and medical breakthroughs to give it all up and live in caves like the savages the creationists' dreams want to make all of us live in. No thanks!”
SueZbell on Sep 20, 2013 at 18:26:21
“If the fundie's reach the degree of political power they seek -- control of government, which includes control of its military -- and continue to pursue their self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon, most of "civilization" and humanity will be destroyed so they can have their thousand years of peace -- living in primitive squalor.”
Brbr2424 on Sep 20, 2013 at 17:33:24
“They seem content to turn back the clock on women for now. I don't think they are going for prehistoric but 1600's maybe, or 2013 Saudi Arabia.”
Overd0g2 on Sep 20, 2013 at 16:40:37
“Actually you've hit upon something there. If we return to the dark ages, billions will die of starvation, and we'll have solved global warming. It's a win/win.”
“I wish the headline had been "The Scientific Illiteracy of Young Earth Creationism Is a Threat to America's Survival" - because it is. The fundagelicals seem to believe their willful ignorance of science is a sacrament of their religion, just as the Republicans obviously believe it is a sacrament of their politics.
Karl wrote "...our leaders need to be either scientifically informed or skilled at finding authoritative voices..." Our leaders most assuredly need to understand that when asked about scientific matters, one consults scientists, not theologians! Rubio has hopefully lost the vote of every voter who understands that. But he has probably earned the vote of the millions of knuckle-dragging Americans who think that the sun revolves around the earth every day.”
“Senator Rubio continues the dialogue of ignorance described in Chris Mooney's books "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality", "The Republican War on Science" and "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future." The dangers to America of the willful ignorance of their fundagelical base is becoming as apparent as the fading star of the Republican party.”
EQ8Rhomes on Dec 1, 2012 at 23:33:00
“How many theologies have come and gone, become outdated and irrelevant to be replaced by others? But, of course, my own brand of theology IS the RIGHT and Final one, right? It is everlasting, in spite of real historical evidence!
The tooth Fairy, Santa,(used to St Nicklaus, Sinta Klaas but too long for kids), the egg-laying Easter Bunny (Eostre), etc. are still popular with kids and merchants.
Without these, life would be dull. However, when do we tell kids about mythology? When do adults begin to think critically?
Is there an attempt to infantalize people perpetually?”
“Contrary to Theo's lies about the Catholic Church and evolution, here's what the Pope said in 1996: "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
So who are you going to believe? The Pope or a lying creationist who thinks Kent Hovind is a "science teacher"?”
taoistpunk on Jun 11, 2012 at 13:30:28
“birds of a feather flock together.. the pope doesn't have a chance.”
“Excuse me? "Kent Hovind (science teacher)"? Kent Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist tax dodger who will be held in a Federal prison for another five years. Hovind is about as much of a "science teacher" as is Ken Ham, of the infamous Creation Anti-Museum in Kentucky.
Hovind's bogus "teachings" have been criticized by both Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists as fallacious and self-refuting. Your support for Hovind's ignorance and scientific illiteracy has destroyed every last of credibility you might have had.”
theot58 on Jun 11, 2012 at 15:13:56
“If Hovind is a silly as you assert, then how could he destroy a myriad of evolutionary professors in the debates?
Have a look at some and decide for yourself. Try the debate Evolutionary professor William Moore at Wayne State university.
Scoffing and sarcasm is a poor substitute for scientific evidence.
What evidence is there, which proves beyond reasonable doubt, that our great .... Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?”
“While evolution denialists in this country are almost all Christians, they are not uniformly from all different branches of Christianity. Essentially all evolution denialists are Protestant fundamentalists, mostly evangelicals. Many are loosely associated with radical groups such as Christian Reconstructionists and Theocratic Dominionists, who want to overthrow not just evolution, but biology and geology and all of science, because it disproves their Bronze Age creation mythology.”
“Many, if not most, creationist statements are blatant falsehoods. Most of them are based on nothing but scientific illiteracy and willful ignorance. As a Federal judge ruled in 2005, "It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses who are creationists), who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise (their) real purpose..." Bottom line: Creationists lie.”
bbailey123 on Jun 11, 2012 at 14:53:17
“i have always wondered about all those "good christians" who "bear false witness" with a straight face a joy in their hearts. Is this another cases of selective editing of the old testament?”
“This isn't a complete surprise, as South Korea is about 30% Christian - about 10% Catholic and 18% Protestant, including the Unification Church (known to some as the "Moonies"). Does anybody know yet which particular group of scientific illiterates is behind South Korea's creationist movement?”
“Should atheist teachers be allowed the academic freedom to discuss the controversies about the numerous falsehoods in the Bible? Should communist teachers be allowed to teach the relative merits of communism over capitalism? Should the children be provided with both sides of the arguments for and against gay marriage or the virtues of unprotected sex versus birth control? One wonders how far this "academic freedom" thing can go.”
Paul Junior on May 25, 2012 at 01:46:15
“Let them give it their best shot. If conservative values and principles that are the cornerstone of Creationism are allowed to be properly presented... the arguments for the opposing side will be too weak to survive... :)”
Linda Burris on May 14, 2012 at 00:18:12
“Hi Paul. I think all ACADEMICIANS should have freedom to teach. How else would children know there are differences or be able to make decisions about different theories if they are not presented to them? Sure there may be many debates about the different theories, but isn't that what this country is all about? The freedom to choose what theory works for a certain person and what doesnot work for a certain person can oly be debated if there are different perspectives to look into.”
creationscientist on May 9, 2012 at 21:37:12
“Liberals and atheists are already imposing their belief systems on public school students. Evolution is currently being taught as fact... without providing the evidence that offers reasonable proof that God created life as we know it on Earth. If Biblical "falsehoods" can be cited and honestly and openly discussed... that would be a fair trade-off for allowing argument against evolution to be presented. Gay lifestyle is currently being protected by "political correctness" guidelines without the presentation of the opposing viewpoint that it is a sin. Abortion is all part of the curriculum without information on the virtues of abstinence. If an honest comparison of Communism and Capitalism was presented... I see no problem with that study as well.”
hp blogger David Moshman on May 9, 2012 at 09:47:13
“Good questions. Academic freedom goes pretty far but it is limited by the obligation of teachers to present the curriculum and the right of students not to be indoctrinated. Teachers don't have a right to discuss controversies about the Bible simply because they are atheists but in a course on comparative religion it would certainly be appropriate to discuss controversies concerning the holy books of various religions. Similarly, it would be appropriate in a course that covers economics to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a variety of economic systems. A gay math teacher can't decide to teach about gay marriage instead of teaching math but in a course on current social policy issues it would be fully appropriate to discuss arguments for and against gay marriage. Similarly, a math teacher cannot decide to teach about sex rather than math but a course or unit on human sexuality could certainly address the relative virtues of various forms of birth control.”
“Santorum didn't write the "Santorum Amendment" - it was (mostly) written by a born-again lawyer, Phillip Johnson, recognized as the godfather of intelligent design creationism, the stealth pseudoscience drafted by the Dishonesty Institute and other creationists after the US Supreme Court outlawed the teaching of Genesis in the public schools under its previous incarnation, "Creation Science." Santorum and his support of intelligent design creationism alone makes him unfit for the presidency.”
“Herman, if you could tone down "the Universe's greatest expert on Genesis and Moses" rhetoric a bit, more people might listen to you. We agree with you on the foolishness of Focus on the Family, Stephen Meyer, the Dishonesty Institute, the Texas BOE and other fundagelical enemies of science and the United States and its Constitution. Keep up the good work.”
“"unequivocally historical accuracy of the bible"?!?! Remember, you started this.
A talking serpent and a talking donkey; stopping and re-starting the rotation of the earth; four-legged insects; a human being eaten by and living inside a large fish; a wooden boat carrying every human alive plus all known human pathogens and yet having the humans survive - the list is much longer, but do you actually insist these are unequivocally historically accurate?
While we're at it: Is the earth flat or spherical? Does the sun go around the earth or vice versa?”
“The article mentions "As expected, the show did feature the usual array of patented historical fabrications." You should have mentioned more about pseudohistorian David Barton, who is fabricating Christian American "history" as prolifically as Joseph Goebbels fabricated Aryan "history."
The spectacle of "honesty and integrity" being used by a F-Word News demagogue just demonstrates how gullible Beck's followers are. How long do think it will be before the book-burning rallies start?”
“"Sheldon101" proposed that the blurb at the top should have said: "David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which is an organization/think tank supporting intelligent design."
That's much too politely neutral. The blurb should have been:
"David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which is an organization/think tank supporting the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism."
After all, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and essentially every actual science organization in America have agreed that intelligent design creationism is not science but pseudoscience. This disclaimer should have been made before Klinghoffer was allowed to spew his poisonous propaganda.”
“Adolar, now that you have discovered the Dishonesty Institute and its anti-science agenda, are you convinced they are right or wrong? Have you read their "Wedge Document" or observed their behaviors associated with the execrable movie "Expelled" and the Dover Trial (which gave us the deliciously illustrative term "cdesign proponentsists" - Google the term if you're unfamiliar with it)?
Or do you accept Klinghoffer's premise that Darwin influenced Hitler more than Martin Luther?”
Adolar on Jul 8, 2010 at 00:34:16
I'm going to answer you by quoting ItsAD, who in another post summed up the IQ of Creationists by saying “If you think the world is 6,000 years old, you're 31 different flavors of stupid and that's that.”
And those are my sentiments exactly on that subject!
I'm not into debating the influence Darwin did or did not have on Hitler; others have that subject well in hand and do not need my limited opinion.
My new found interest is in the current influences exerted by the "Dishonesty Institute", its agenda and others you mentioned. They certainly have a fine way of 'turning the phrase', so to speak (and write). However; I am well adept at comprehending what's over, under and between the lines. This movement, with their slick web designs and play on words do not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Thank you for all the additional information and leads to check out. I will be doing just that in the next few days.”
“Creationists have been connecting Darwin and Hitler for decades, long before the current crop of intelligent design creationists got started following the US Supreme Court's 1987 Aguillard decision. The intelligent design creationists are just playing to their fundagelical base when they tell their lies about Darwin.
Martin Luther played a far greater role in defining German anti-semitism - look at the Wikipedia article "On the Jews and Their Lies" in which Luther laid out Hitler's program for him - in the year 1543.”
“Most scientific illiteracy is self-imposed, by the willful ignorance of the scientifically illiterate - or sadly, in more and more cases, by the willful ignorance of parents "home-schooling" their children. The American ideal used to be that parents would sacrifice so their children could become smarter. Now there are some parents who apparently want their children to be just as dumb as they are, ignorant of science and 21st century technology. Something must be done to counter the fundagelicals' attempts to reverse the Enlightenment and return to the Dark Ages. Articles like this one are a good start.
hp blogger Jeff Schweitzer on May 26, 2010 at 12:22:06
“The Texas Freedom Network is dedicated to the very goals you have articulated: fighting right-wing extremism in all of its forms. We need such groups to proliferate around the nation to counter the ever-growing religious fanatacism infecting our country. It's trench warfare now.”
“Lee Bowman wrote: "NAS has a history of oppression of ID."
Well, duh - the National Academy of Sciences has a long history of oppression of all pseudosciences posing as science. This is not news. That's part of its job.
And speaking of lies in the Dover trial, Judge Jones famously commented, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the Intelligent Design Policy."
Intelligent design creationism supporters Buckingham, Bonsell and Buell lied under oath - it's a matter of public record - do you deny that, Lee? The intelligent design creationists lost in the Dover trial - just as creationists always lose when they get taken to court - and they did not appeal that decision. Judge Jones' decision stands: "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Intelligent design creationism is simply not science - and nothing that the dupes and minions of the Dishonesty Institute do can change that fact.
What could change that is if intelligent design creationists did some actual science and made some predictions about their unpredictable supernatural designer. But they don't (can't) do that - they carp about evolution, invoking the logical fallacies of "argument from incredulity" and "argument from ignorance." Sorry, but "I'm scientifically illiterate, therefore God exists" is not”
leebowman on May 26, 2010 at 23:41:29
“The above citations taken from:
"Taken to School: An Interview with the Honorable Judge John E. Jones, III"
by Jane Gitschier, 12/5/2008, PLoS Genetics, online edition”
leebowman on May 26, 2010 at 16:49:04
“"Judge Jones' decision stands: "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Jones stated several times in a PLoS interview that he gleaned his 'data', solely from the trial. From the interview:
"I think laypersons apprehend that when we get a case, it's incumbent upon us to go into an intensive study mode to learn everything about it. Actually that is the wrong thing to do. The analogy is that when I have a jury trial in front of me, I always instruct jurors, particularly in this day and age when you can Google anything, not to do that. I don't want you to do any research or investigation. Everything you need to decide this case you'll get within the corners of this courtroom."
Perhaps this is viable for a jury, but certainly not for one whose ruling is to be considered law.
His revelations are quite telling. He essentially admits getting his biology enlightenment from testimony, primarily from lecturer and text book author Ken Miller, as it were. Fortunately, this ruling only applies to Dover PA.
To summarize, he ruled correctly regarding the school boards motives and actions (first part). But to accept his ancillary second-part ruling that ID is not science is ridiculous. Properly considered viewed from the skewed, biased and limited testimonies, but plainly ill-conceived.
Moreover, the defendants in the case, as well as Judge Jones had no real familiarity with ID. Quotes from an interview:
" ... although I consider myself reasonably well-read, I could not remember hearing about ID before, so I really didn't know what it was."
"I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind."
"Did you Google intelligent design?"
"No. I got what I needed in the context of the case."
So did the witnesses lie? Of course. Did they use the 'ID' term fallaciously? Let's let Judge Jones decide that point:
"In the realm of the lay witnesses, if you will, some of the school board witnesses were dreadful witnesses and hence the description “breathtaking inanity” and “mendacity.” In my view, they clearly lied under oath. They made a very poor account of themselves. They could not explain why they did what they did. They really didn't even know what intelligent design was. It was quite clear to me that they viewed intelligent design as a method to get creationism into the public school classroom."
“"Whirlpool" wrote: "I don't think it is worthwhile to even talk about ID anymore. Why waste time on it."
It is extremely worthwhile to talk about intelligent design creationism, because there is a very well-funded propaganda effort pushing it, primarily among the scientifically illiterate and the willfully ignorant masses (most of whom don't read HuffPo). The "cdesign proponentsists" (look it up if you don't know this wonderfully illustrative term) have given up that their tame "research scientists" will ever come up with any actual scientific support for intelligent design creationism, so they have applied most of their efforts to the faith community.
It is not a waste of time to counteract the fundamentalists' attempts to destroy science and retract the Enlightenment and return our species to the Dark Ages. Read Dr. Barbara Forrest's paper, "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" to see what this is all about.”
leebowman on May 26, 2010 at 00:53:22
“" "Whirlpool" wrote: "I don't think it is worthwhile to even talk about ID anymore. Why waste time on it."
Short answer: It gives Paul, Rick and Lee something to spar about. Longer answer, ID is viable science. You could have also asked in the early 20th Century why oppose fascism? Many of its intellectual supporters were real brains, but again, 'motive driven' and in favor of authoratorian dominance. But that kind of subjugation has no place within science.
Now let's talk about 'motive drivel'. Barb Forrest has written extensively on the subject, and along with Paul Gross popularized the term IDC, a false conflation. I feel that most of the current day design theorists are for objectivity and honesty in science, certainly not its demise.
In this piece and others, Forrest hammers on Phil Johnson, and unfairly I feel. While religious, I view his motives were for the fair and honest treatment of ID, and of science in toto. The ten year old Wedge idea strategy was aimed at moderating materialism in a way that would allow teleology a seat at the science bench, but not to mandate it.
ID is a hypothetical adjunct to evolutionary theory, and subject to falsification if natural processes alone can be empirically demonstrable. There is a good chance however, that neither NDE or ID will ever be proven beyond doubt. But stay tuned ...”
“Lee Bowman doesn't think the NAS or the AAAS or other actual science organizations should define what constitutes "science." Then who should? One of the Dishonesty Institute's superstars, Michael Behe, has testified under oath that for science to be so dumbed down to accept intelligent design creationism as "science," it would also have to accept astrology as "science." Is that what you want, Lee?
Do you want churches to define what constitutes "science"? Speaking for the actual scientific community, I think we would accept that, IF the churches would allow us to explain evolution and biology and geology and all the other sciences that utterly disprove the myths of creationism (including, of course, the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism) in all the fundagelical Sunday Schools and churches every Sunday. Think they would go for that?”
leebowman on May 26, 2010 at 00:19:26
“" Lee Bowman doesn't think the NAS or the AAAS or other actual science organizations should define what constitutes "science." Then who should?"
NAS has a history of oppression of ID. The publication, 'Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences', originally released in 1984, conflates design theory with Creationism, a false dichotomy. It is available as a .pdf file here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024
The popular press and blog city spewed that during the Dover trial, Behe stated that astrology and intelligent design must be considered scientific theories according to his definition." This is blatantly false.
Rather, he termed it an archaic (antiquated, no longer relevant) definition, stating, " ... let me direct your attention to the archaic definition ... which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events ... ."
Q - And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?
A - That's correct.
Q - Not, it used to be, right?
A - Well, that's what I was thinking ... [but] I was thinking of it in its historical sense.
Q - I couldn't be a mind reader either. [conceding that Behe meant otherwise]
Behe clarified his intended meaning during testimony. Yet critics continue to quote mine a single question and answer to further a bald lie.”
“Giberson commented: "For millions of Americans belief in ID is tied to belief in God."
A fair-minded person could think that since intelligent design creationism officially denies that their intelligent designer is God, they would issue a position statement to all the willful ignoramuses and scientific illiterates who keep mistakenly conflating the intelligent designer with God that they are wrong.
Any guesses when that might happen?
Or you can keep intelligent design creationism in the churches, where it belongs. But at the very least, have the common decency to stop pretending it has anything to do with science.”
Lon on May 18, 2010 at 15:57:33
“This is a misstatement of the intelligent design position. Their view is that Intelligent Design does not establish the existence of the God of any particular religion, but that it is consistent with the Christian God. They therefore have no reason to be bothered by people who believe in the Christian God seeing some confirmation in ID.
Again, it is not that I think ID works as a scientific theory. But if people are going to argue against the theory, they should not get the theory wrong.”
“It is truly shameful that the National Research Council did not address the creationism issue - even though it is true that there is no controversy within the realm of actual science about the reality of the fact of evolution. The unfortunate fact is that there is a concerted propaganda effort underway to sabotage science teaching in America. The various flavors of creationism - from the unapologetic Young Earth Creationism of such ignoramuses as Answers In Genesis, to the stealth creationism of the Dishonesty Institute, mothership of the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism.
The National Research Council should issue a position statement condemning the teaching of creationism (including intelligent design creationism), like those already issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Science, the National Association of Biology Teachers and all the other actual science organizations in America. Until the willful ignorance of creationists and their pride in their scientific illiteracy is put to an end, America will be in danger of losing its leadership in science and technology. Creationism has no legitimate part to play in the 21st Century, and the National Research Council should do its part to help. Its silence on creationism does not help.”
Luftigus on May 2, 2010 at 15:57:51
“No controversy about evolution? See my 12:35 p.m. post.”
Sirius Knott on May 2, 2010 at 15:49:45
“Wow. You do realize you're actively advocating scientififc fascism, right?”