Nick Matzke posted Entry 2249 on April 28, 2006 12:22 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2244

Everyone has probably heard that the new White House Press Secretary is Tony Snow, formerly a talk show host on Fox News. Those who were paying attention last year may remember that he is also pretty clearly a straight-up creationist, or at least credulously repeats their talking points. See:

Tony Snow (2005). “Why can’t we have a rational debate.” TownHall.com. August 12, 2005

Media Matters (2005). “Tony Snow’s evolutionary falsehoods.” Media Matters for America. August 12, 2005.

Media Matters (2005). “The many falsehoods of Tony Snow.” Media Matters for America. April 19, 2006.

What got Tony Snow writing essays about ID and how hard it was to have a rational debate? I may have had a wee bit to do with that.

Way back on August 6, 2005, I was invited on the Fox News show “Weekend Live” with host Tony Snow. ID ringleader Stephen Meyer was the other guest. The show description is still in the Google cache if you search on the rather unique search string “Fox News Motzke“, since they misspelled my name. President Bush had just made his famous comment about ID and NCSE was getting a flood of media calls.

Anyway, although the odds of communicating much of anything on cable are pretty slim, particularly on Fox where you are likely to be battling both the guest and the host, it is pretty fun to get the free limo ride to downtown San Francisco to the Fox studio to be a guest. From previous experience I knew I would be lucky if I could get one single point across. As it happened, the Buell hearing in the Kitzmiller case had just occurred. At this public hearing in July, plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild introduced into evidence a partial draft of Of Pandas and People, showing how it was originally a creationist book. We knew this would eventually be huge news and crucial to the Kitzmiller case. So I had a pretty decent single point to go for: ID is creationism relabeled.

I’m not sure if I successfully communicated this to anyone except Stephen Meyer, but it sure was fun for me personally, especially looking back at the subsequent events of 2005. The Discovery Institute has handily put the recording of the segment online, and I have typed up a transcript of the approximately 90 seconds where they actually let me talk a bit. For posterity I post it below. Note that half the time we were talking over each other, and I have attempted to sort it out, although it is impossible to do perfectly.

Tony Snow began by introducing the show, the guests, etc. He then lobbed a softball question to Stephen Meyer and let him blab his talking points for half the segment:

Tony Snow:….I’ve heard many different descriptions of intelligent design…give me a nutshell description of intelligent design:

Stephen Meyer: Thanks for asking, Tony. [standard ID talking points for half the segment]

Tony Snow: Nick Matzke, lemme ask you. One of the key sticking points has been the theory of evolution, and the one thing that’s notable about the theory is it is characterized primarily by missing links, rather than real links. Do you think there are weaknesses in the theory of evolution, and do you think it is suseptible at least to the notion that human life was in fact the byproduct of design rather than random accident.

Nick Matzke: There’s many misconceptions in what you said. The theory of evolution is simply the idea of common ancestry, and there’s no real doubt about it in the scientific community. Intelligent design was invented…

Tony Snow: Wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo, wait a minute…

Nick Matzke: …was invented in 1989, it’s just a form of creationism. It was relabeled. They just took the word creationism, and put the words intelligent design into this book [holding up Of Pandas and People] in 1989. And this is a book…

Tony Snow: Wha wha wha…let me interrupt you…OK, you’ve come up with a…

Stephen Meyer: That’s wildly innaccurate. I was there when the theory was founded, that’s wildly innaccurate.

Tony Snow: OK, you two have it out and I’ll listen.

Nick Matzke: It’s been reported in the newspapers already. It’s a, been reported in the newspapers, and that’s just the way it is.

Tony Snow: OK, I’ll tell you what-

Stephen Meyer The news – the newspapers don’t report what we tell them.

Nick Matzke: It doesn’t matter what you tell them, it’s what’s come out in court.

Tony Snow: Alright, lemme just very quickly, Mr. Matzke,

Stephen Meyer: Go ahead Tony, sorry.

Tony Snow: Yeah, because we’ve just got time for one more question here. So what you’re saying is, that you don’t think that there’s design behind the Universe.

Nick Matzke: I – The question of whether or not there’s design behind the Universe is a theological and philosophical question.

Tony Snow: No it’s not, it’s a scientific question as well, is it not?

Nick Matzke: What Stephen Meyer is arguing for – what he’s arguing for is divine intervention in the history of life, you know just maybe a million years ago when humans evolved from other species. That’s what he’s arguing for.

Stephen Meyer: Actually, Darwinian evolution holds much more than what Nick Matzke is saying. It’s not just the idea of common ancestry. It’s the idea that the appearance of design is the result of an undirected process namely natural selection.

Tony Snow: OK…

Stephen Meyer: There is a raft of scientific literature about the inadequacy of natural selection to produce these complex systems –

Nick Matzke: There is a raft of scientific literature …

Tony Snow: OK, Gentleman, Gentleman, Gentleman, Gentleman, Gentleman, Gentleman…

Nick Matzke: …against your view.

Tony Snow: I hate to do this - Gentleman…you’re talking past each other anyway. We’ll try to figure out some way to get a direct conflict in the future, but I thank you both for joining us.

I may not have gotten the most talking time, I might have only gotten in a few complete sentences – and afterwards, I was advised that saying basically that the host was wrong about everything was perhaps not the best way to start off a reply (but man, that was one loaded question from Tony Snow) – but I must say that I told Stephen Meyer what was coming. He certainly can’t say he was surprised by subsequent events. And I did kind of get the last word there. If not profound, it was at least satisfying to say.

So anyway, that was my encounter with the guy who now the spokesman for the leader of the free world. I’m sure we can expect the same straight talking from him on other issues as he gave his viewers on “intelligent design.” FYI.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #98992

Posted by Fernando Magyar on April 28, 2006 5:00 AM (e)

http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/beavis.html “Learn Logic from Beavis and Butthead”

That photo of the Good Mr Snow and our Illustrious President… Nah! the resemblance must be purely coincidental.

Comment #99000

Posted by Daniel Morgan on April 28, 2006 6:06 AM (e)

I can’t find the recording on the Disco Institute site. Did they remove it?

Ah, how I love Faux News. They, uh, report, and you get to, like, decide! Nevermind that Faux News allows the side of the story they like the best to have a run at persuasion for a good long minute or two, while interrupting the “reporting” of the other side midway through the first sentence or two. It’s fair and balanced, baby!

Comment #99011

Posted by Bob Maurus on April 28, 2006 6:51 AM (e)

Gives a whole new meaning to the concept of “snow job”, eh?

Comment #99012

Posted by buddha on April 28, 2006 6:53 AM (e)

Worst. Administration. Ever.

Comment #99018

Posted by Laser on April 28, 2006 7:30 AM (e)

Stephen Meyer The news — the newspapers don’t report what we tell them.

This is the most telling line from the transcript.

Comment #99030

Posted by Richard Blinne on April 28, 2006 7:54 AM (e)

I understand that what I am asking is impossible because it is FAR FAR easier to just say this on a computer versus the scream sessions of cable news. The way I would have answered Tony’s first question is as possible:

There are no major weaknesses in evolution. Evolution does not teach human life is a random accident or that the process of evolution is “undirected”. Rather, it teaches that human life arose via common descent with modification. Belief in a creator is not necessarily in conflict with belief in evolution as a means how that creator brought about human life. Some evolutionists do not believe in a creator but others do. Ken Miller is such a person and is a practicing Roman Catholic.

This completely undercuts why “normal people” support ID. They support ID because a creator is possible – not necessarily proven – in such a system. It is not the proof part that is relevant. That’s just an extra. What they hear you saying is the strawman that a creator is impossible if you believe evolution because that’s what the ID proponents pound in their heads (cf. Meyer’s comments above). They don’t care if you personally believe in a creator or not. They just don’t want their kids proselytized by atheism just like the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller didn’t want their kids proselytized by crypto-creationism. If you say evolution is silent about the existence or non-existence of a creator and religion or irreligion should be taught by parents rather than the school system especially in a science class, then I predict people like Snow would listen. He was a teacher when he lived in Detroit. Because Ken Miller took this approach is one of the reasons why you were successful with a conservative judge in Kitzmiler IMHO. I predict a similar approach would work on Snow and it wouldn’t surprise me if he read Kitzmiller that it would have a positive influence on him.

Comment #99032

Posted by Richard Blinne on April 28, 2006 7:56 AM (e)

Oops.

The way I would have answered Tony’s first question is as following:

Comment #99037

Posted by Miguelito on April 28, 2006 8:27 AM (e)

Wow. A whole 90 seconds to discuss evolution vs. ID. Fox is quite generous with their airtime.

Comment #99047

Posted by mark on April 28, 2006 9:17 AM (e)

My colleagues and I have had similar experiences when a reporter would ask us to comment on dowsing (water witching). Although we might speak uninterupted for a while, what actually made it on air was usually a long interview with the water witch, and a brief, meaningless comment by a skeptical scientist. The media realize that their audiences prefer magic and shiny objects to rational explanations.

Comment #99052

Posted by Morgan-LynnLamberth on April 28, 2006 9:55 AM (e)

Lennie ,Matzke makes my point that the appearance of design is due to an undirected process ,namely natural selection[not to mention the neutral theory andd genectic]drift.Unlike the theistic evolutionist , I cannot posit a god doing ayn planning . [any]Lennie, you do us evlolutionists proud.

Comment #99054

Posted by lurker on April 28, 2006 10:04 AM (e)

Hey Nicky did they need a wide angle lens to get all of your fat ass on the screen at one time?

Comment #99056

Posted by Morgan-LynnLamberth on April 28, 2006 10:20 AM (e)

Lennie ,Matzke makes my point that the appearance of design is due to an undirected process ,namely natural selection[not to mention the neutral theory andd genectic]drift.Unlike the theistic evolutionist , I cannot posit a god doing ayn planning . [any]Lennie, you do us evlolutionists proud.

Comment #99059

Posted by Morgan-LynnLamberth on April 28, 2006 10:27 AM (e)

Lennie ,Matzke makes my point that the appearance of design is due to an undirected process ,namely natural selection[not to mention the neutral theory andd genectic]drift.Unlike the theistic evolutionist , I cannot posit a god doing ayn planning . [any]Lennie, you do us evlolutionists proud.

Comment #99065

Posted by J. Biggs on April 28, 2006 11:12 AM (e)

Poor Lenny.

Comment #99067

Posted by afdave on April 28, 2006 11:17 AM (e)

So Creationists ARE taking over the world as I have been hoping for a long time …

Excellent.

Maybe … just maybe that’s because Evolutionists employ “Voodoo Science” MORE than Creationists do … which would be directly OPPOSITE of what they say …

Hmmm … naaah … I’m sure that couldn’t be it …

Anyway, I just posted a nice long piece called “AFDave’s Creator God Hypothesis” here …

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4451f34ec8bee957;act=ST;f=14;t=1952;st=0

Come on over … maybe you can convert this poor, deluded engineer to be an Evolutionist! I’m told it happens all the time … come on give it a try!

Comment #99073

Posted by Walter Brameld IV on April 28, 2006 11:31 AM (e)

mark wrote:

The media realize that their audiences prefer magic and shiny objects to rational explanations.

I disagree with this slightly. I think the media believes that their audiences prefer magic to reality. It is up to us brights to disprove that belief. Contact the television networks and tell them what you think about nonsense shows. There are more of us than you might think; we need to stand up and be seen.

Comment #99074

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 28, 2006 11:36 AM (e)

Looking at the photo I worry that hair gel is all that’s holding anything together at the White House.

Remember back in the good old days when the job of a press secretary was to get the news out, instead of trying to keep it hidden?

Comment #99077

Posted by chunkdz on April 28, 2006 12:05 PM (e)

Whenever I debate about flagellar evolution, the argument always shifts to something like “Matzke disproved flagellar IC - just look it up.”

To which I respond “Wrong. Matzke came up with several guesses at how he thinks it might have happened, but by his own admission it would have required something ‘radical’ to pull it off.”

All he did was take a couple of guesses, all unsubstantiated, all unproven, all unobserved, all unprecedented.

That’s not disproving IC.

Don’t let anybody ever tell you that flagellar IC has been disproven.

Comment #99078

Posted by PaulC on April 28, 2006 12:05 PM (e)

I know this is really superficial of me, but there is something deeply disturbing about this picture of Snow. I’m not a Fox News watcher, so this is one of the few cases in which I’ve seen him, so I don’t if it’s just this one picture.

Anyway, the top of his hair is freakishly high. There. I’ve said it. His skull has the proportions of a circa 1957 B-movie space alien. Either that, or he is concealing something under there (and I don’t think it’s a super-sized brain).

I thought the effect might be subjective, but go into an image editor and see for yourself. I took two vertical measures: chin-to-eye and eye-to-top. I get 40 pixels up to the eye and 45 pixels from the eye to the top of the hair. Bush, by contrast, comes in at a fair less disturbing 37/37 proportion (and it’s a strange day when anything less disturbing about Bush).

It’s also not just the effect of having kind of a long face. John Kerry was of course the target of many puerile attacks from wingnuts on the right (and I open myself up to charges to lowering the level of discourse to this level, which is probably true) but Kerry still has his eyes closer to the vertical center http://www.johnkerry.com/front/images_new/jk_debate1.jpg
This is a larger image, and though Kerry’s hair is a little puffed up, he gets only 65 pixels up to the top contrasted with 70 down to the chin.

What is under there? A little satellite antenna maybe?

Comment #99082

Posted by AD on April 28, 2006 12:14 PM (e)

Definitely laughable, as always, to see who is in our government.

But, to address AFDave:

So Creationists ARE taking over the world as I have been hoping for a long time …

I must say with the thousands of deaths of our soldiers, skyrocketing gas prices, repeated staggering diplomatic failures, loss of respect around the gloabe for our nation, an economy where workers wages are not keeping pace with inflation, a rapidly growing gap between the rich and the poor, a record deficit being run by our government, abject failure of even a modicum of social security reform, repeated unpunished corruption by public officials, unchecked corporate theft by senior executives, and a public primary education system that has fallen off the map in terms of quality among first world nations, they are doing a great job of it as well.

Three cheers for creationists running the USA, right Dave?

Comment #99083

Posted by Tyrannosaurus on April 28, 2006 12:19 PM (e)

Some chum wrote;
Posted by chunkdz on April 28, 2006 12:05 PM (e)

Whenever I debate about flagellar evolution, the argument always shifts to something like “Matzke disproved flagellar IC - just look it up.”

To which I respond “Wrong. Matzke came up with several guesses at how he thinks it might have happened, but by his own admission it would have required something ‘radical’ to pull it off.”

All he did was take a couple of guesses, all unsubstantiated, all unproven, all unobserved, all unprecedented.

Why are you whining? Is not that exactly the same strategy you Creos use to disprove evolution? I see you are judging by your own condition…. HE HE HE HE HE HE
Keep your snotty nose out of the fray unless you really like to get burned.

Comment #99084

Posted by afdave on April 28, 2006 12:23 PM (e)

Oh, silly me. I forgot all that bad stuff was caused by Creationists … you’re right … let’s get rid of Bush/Snow

Comment #99087

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on April 28, 2006 12:31 PM (e)

This is the funniest thing I’ve read all day. (And that is saying something, in my line of work.) Speaking of the Big Flagellum Paper, chunkdz writes,

Posted by chunkdz on April 28, 2006 12:05 PM (e)

Whenever I debate about flagellar evolution, the argument always shifts to something like “Matzke disproved flagellar IC - just look it up.”

To which I respond “Wrong. Matzke came up with several guesses at how he thinks it might have happened, but by his own admission it would have required something ‘radical’ to pull it off.”

All he did was take a couple of guesses, all unsubstantiated, all unproven, all unobserved, all unprecedented.

That’s not disproving IC.

Don’t let anybody ever tell you that flagellar IC has been disproven.

Have a look at this to see how my most radical, unsubstantiated, unproven, unobserved, unprecedented hypothesis in that paper is doing.

Comment #99091

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on April 28, 2006 12:45 PM (e)

Stephen Meyer: That’s wildly innaccurate. I was there when the theory was founded, that’s wildly innaccurate.

That’s just odd, I thought the latest line from the DI was that ID went back “to Socrates and Plato”. Seriously, at least these guys should agree on what is the best spin to feed the media, and stick to it. Unless, of course, Meyer is carrying his 2500 years of age really well.

Comment #99093

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on April 28, 2006 12:53 PM (e)

Stephen Meyer: That’s wildly innaccurate. I was there when the theory was founded, that’s wildly innaccurate.

That’s just odd, I thought the latest line from the DI was that ID went back “to Socrates and Plato”. Seriously, at least these guys should agree on what is the best spin to feed the media, and stick to it. Unless, of course, Meyer is carrying his 2500 years of age really well.

Maybe when you’re officially agnostic on the age of the earth, the difference between 18 and 2500 years doesn’t seem so important.

Comment #99099

Posted by J. Biggs on April 28, 2006 1:13 PM (e)

AFDave wrote:

Come on over … maybe you can convert this poor, deluded engineer to be an Evolutionist! I’m told it happens all the time … come on give it a try!

I don’t think very many creationists can be converted made to accept the evidence, because they are sure that somehow ToE, as well as other scientific theories, are a contradiction to the Bible. If the Bible is taken literally this is true, however, there are many scientists of many different religions who understand the usefulness of ToE in particular, and science in general, and still maintain their faith. It’s the difference between having an open mind or a close mind.

Comment #99101

Posted by PvM on April 28, 2006 1:17 PM (e)

Nick wrote:

Have a look at this to see how my most radical, unsubstantiated, unproven, unobserved, unprecedented hypothesis in that paper is doing.

Wow, that deserves a posting by itself…

Evolutionary links between FliH/YscL-like proteins from bacterial type III secretion systems and second-stalk components of the FoF1 and vacuolar ATPases

Of course the ID hypothesis of the flagellum has never been disproven because there is none. What has been disproven is the simplistic idea that our ignorance should lead us to a conclusion of ‘design’ while lacking any comparable hypothesis.
In other words, as long as Nick’s hypothesis stands, the IC hypothesis has been blocked.

Comment #99104

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on April 28, 2006 1:30 PM (e)

Wow, that deserves a posting by itself…

Yes, after I finish the immune system stuff, the Dover stuff…

Comment #99107

Posted by chunkdz on April 28, 2006 1:38 PM (e)

Matzke wrote:

Have a look at this to see how my most radical, unsubstantiated, unproven, unobserved, unprecedented hypothesis in that paper is doing.

So now you only have to explain five subsystem cooption events, each requiring new binding sites, coupling the pre-existing subsystems (what subsystems? - are you sure TTSS is ancestral to the flagellum?), and simultaneous coevolutionary optimization of all other components. Oh, and where did FliG come from?

You know, using gradualism as the hypothesis, you could pretty much explain anything.

Comment #99108

Posted by AD on April 28, 2006 1:43 PM (e)

Maybe when you’re officially agnostic on the age of the earth, the difference between 18 and 2500 years doesn’t seem so important.

They’re all just a bunch of arbitrary positive integers anyways. How dare you assail his statement at such a pathetic level of detail?

I hope your +3 battle axe from the last thread turns out to have a backbiter curse.

/sarcasm

Comment #99109

Posted by AD on April 28, 2006 1:50 PM (e)

So now you only have to explain five subsystem cooption events, each requiring new binding sites, coupling the pre-existing subsystems (what subsystems? - are you sure TTSS is ancestral to the flagellum?), and simultaneous coevolutionary optimization of all other components. Oh, and where did FliG come from?

Was this supposed to be sarcastic? I think I broke my meter on AFDave’s earlier comments.

Seriously, dude, explaining complex details is precisely what science is about. And if that’s “all” (despite my restraint in not pointing out some pretty amusing inconsistencies in your post) Nick has to explain, isn’t that a lot more work than doing “all” the work ID does?

Watch: “God did it!”

There’s all the work for ID. I did it for them already.

Assailing Nick on the basis that “all” he is doing is actual science is like railing at your auto mechanic when “all” he does is fix your broken car.

Comment #99112

Posted by steve s on April 28, 2006 2:00 PM (e)

Oh, and where did FliG come from?

This kind of 4-year-old’s-logic pervades discussions with creationists. I had a discussion with a catholic friend one time that this reminded me of. It went something like this:

Him: where did fish come from?
Me: some kind of primitive multicellular aquatic organism perhaps?
Him: Where did that come from?
Me: maybe like a, you know, kind of algae which had some group behavior? (yes, yes, I know this is incorrect, that’s not the point here)
Him: Where’d the algae come from?
Me: Some kind of single-cell amoebas?
Him: Where’d that come from?
Me: Some kind of replicator which took to hiding in phospholipid bilayers?
Him: Where’d the replicator come from?
Me: Maybe a self-catalysing protein in aquatic pools of amino acids?
Him: Where’d the protein come from?
Me: well, proteins are amino acids strung together
Him: where’d the amino acids come from?
Me: Well, they can form spontaneously from elements
Him: Where’d the elements come from?
Me: Well, stars make them in supernovae, from hydrogen and helium.
Him: Where’d hydrogen and helium come from?
Me: The big bang
Him: Where’d the big bang come from?
Me: nobody knows.
Him: AAAAA-HAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! So you admit nobody knows how all this came about!

Comment #99113

Posted by Jeannot on April 28, 2006 2:00 PM (e)

chunkdz wrote:

,Don’t let anybody ever tell you that flagellar IC has been disproven.

It has not been proved either.

Comment #99114

Posted by Rob on April 28, 2006 2:02 PM (e)

“Come on over … maybe you can convert this poor, deluded engineer to be an Evolutionist! I’m told it happens all the time … come on give it a try!”

Implicit in your revelation that you are an engineer, I suppose, is that you are a smart fellow capable of understanding complex things. I’m so impressed.

Sorry, afdave, but I’m content to allow you to remain a Bible-believing Christian; that’s what you are, isn’t it? I think you are happier that way.

If you really want to be convinced, go to an expert; visit the Smithsonian Museum of Natural history, read National Geographic’s fine article, “Was Darwin Wrong?” from a year or two ago, or read a recent book on the subject.

Comment #99115

Posted by steve s on April 28, 2006 2:02 PM (e)

That was, just by the way, a guy who also one day asked me how exactly fish which mimicked the appearence of dangerous fish knew how to evolve to look like that.

Comment #99119

Posted by chunkdz on April 28, 2006 2:19 PM (e)

AD Wrote:

Assailing Nick on the basis that “all” he is doing is actual science is like railing at your auto mechanic when “all” he does is fix your broken car.

Matzke hasn’t done anything but make a postulation based on gradualism. And there’s still a lot of pieces missing. I applaud Nick for doing ‘actual science’, but I am confused as to why everyone is holding up his draft as a proof against IC. It’s just a couple of hypotheses with a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of missing data.

Again, gradualism explains absolutely anything. But it usually explains nothing. Tell me where FliG came from, how all these simultaneous cooptions ocurred, how the binding sites changed just right and at the right time, how the mechanism for constructing the flagellum outside the cell was coopted from an existing subsystem (that’s a huge hurdle), and how all of this happened simultaneously.

Matzke was given a very tough job, and did a pretty fair job of gathering the data and putting it together. But it is not anywhere near complete, nor feasible yet. At any rate, no one should consider the case closed.

Comment #99122

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on April 28, 2006 2:39 PM (e)

So now you only have to explain five subsystem cooption events, each requiring new binding sites, coupling the pre-existing subsystems (what subsystems? - are you sure TTSS is ancestral to the flagellum?),

The current phylogenetic data says that flagellar and non-flagellar Type 3 secretion systems are sister groups, and that non-flagellar T3SS are *not* nested within flagellar systems. This appears to now be the majority opinion in the literature.

So, that part of the model is actually getting better as well – back in 2003, I assumed that the non-flagellar T3SS was derived from the flagellum.

and simultaneous coevolutionary optimization of all other components.

Those events aren’t simultaneous in the model. Read the Big Flagellum Paper, particularly Figure 7. The whole point is that one binding site evolves and links two systems, producing function A, then another binding evolves, linking in a third system, producing function B, etc.

Oh, and where did FliG come from?

Try doing a PSI-BLAST search.

You know, using gradualism as the hypothesis, you could pretty much explain anything.

Not precambrian rabbits, or wheels in organisms with blood vessels, or centaurs or pegasuses (pegasi?) or many other imaginable things. Heck, some things *aren’t* explained by gradualism, like mitochondria. They are explained by endosymbiosis. Shrug.

As for explaining everything, therefore nothing, that problem applies in spades to “intelligent design”.

Comment #99124

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on April 28, 2006 2:43 PM (e)

I would just like to take the time to note the cosmic hilarity in discussing flagellum evolution in a Tony Snow thread.

Comment #99125

Posted by J. Biggs on April 28, 2006 2:44 PM (e)

You know, using gradualism “Goddidit” as the hypothesis, you could pretty much explain anything absolutely everything.

Hey ChunkDZ, I fixed your statement to be more accurate.

Comment #99128

Posted by CJ O'Brien on April 28, 2006 2:56 PM (e)

and how all of this happened simultaneously.

Why would someone who was putatively defending “gradualism” be under the burden of having to explain why anything happened simultaneously with anything else? Help me out here.

Comment #99145

Posted by William E Emba on April 28, 2006 3:51 PM (e)

PaulC wrote:

I know this is really superficial of me, but there is something deeply disturbing about this picture of Snow…. the top of his hair is freakishly high. There. I’ve said it. His skull has the proportions of a circa 1957 B-movie space alien.

The word of the day is “dolichocephalism”.

There’s a fellow I sometimes see on my daily train ride with a far more pronounced forehead. And yes, it is discomfiting.

Comment #99148

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 28, 2006 4:19 PM (e)

ID is the dead parrot of science.

ID advocate: “No, it isn’t.”

QED

Comment #99154

Posted by k.e. on April 28, 2006 4:47 PM (e)

Another day at the ministry of truth.
Did Bush lean down to the microphone and say ‘evil’ when he smirked like he did in Againistan?
Should be interesting to have the ‘news’ suitably ‘cleaned’ by a true believer each day.
Just imagine.
ring ring
Tony: ah….yeah?
GWB: Tony, we need you to …ah ..have a look at something here.
Tony:Sure Mr. P.
GWB: It’s about all this flack were getting from those damn god botherers siding with with those damn global warmers.
Tony: I’ve heard many different descriptions of global warmers…give me a nutshell description of global warmers:
GWB: ah…..Tony cut the B.S. your not on Fox anymore I don’t want a half ass-ed “I’ve no idea what your talking about, jerk off” I want a decent wedge so they get back on side.
Tony: I see …so a press release on something?
GWB: That’s it.
Tony: Have anything in mind?
GWB: Don’t be stupid..what do you think I’m paying you for.
Tony: Oh..OK
GWB: Just Fix it.
Tony fixes his hair and practices his ‘fair and balanced look’ then his ‘concerned look’ followed by his ‘serious look’ in the mirror, checks his teeth are clean, practices his pointing at (Fox) reporters in the press room then …..blah blah

Comment #99155

Posted by chunkdz on April 28, 2006 4:51 PM (e)

I understand now. It’s like when Darwin hypothesized that bears turned into whales. ‘First they started swimming with their mouths open, then their fur started to fall out, their skin became waterproof, their hind legs started to disappear, their front legs turned into flippers, and I’ll get back to you about the blowhole.’
Yes, it’s making perfect sense now. If someone SAYS it could happen, regardless of how it actually DID happen, then by Occam’s Razor it must have happened!

Or not.

Comment #99156

Posted by Gary Hurd on April 28, 2006 4:53 PM (e)

When I look at the photo of George II and Snow I can not help “reading” a thought bubble above shrub’s head, “Look who I got to take my exams this time!”

Comment #99158

Posted by k.e. on April 28, 2006 5:02 PM (e)

chunkdz
It only took 50,000 years (note that is long before any oral mythology was written by a few scribes including the creation myths of the Levant) for Man to go from drawing Bison on walls in Caves to the Moon, with the same biological hardware, to some people that may seem like magic, to whales it would seem impossible.
Why instead of your pathetic drivel don’t you try to find out some more information on something you are plainly ignorant of…oh don’t bother your biological hardware is incapable.

Comment #99160

Posted by BWE on April 28, 2006 5:07 PM (e)

Somewhere in the UD thread at AtBC there is a quoted UD quote by a fellow named doug about the IC/flagellum issue. It was a gem but darnit, I didn’t save it so now I can’t find it. it’s been yanked by Dave scott.

Comment #99161

Posted by BWE on April 28, 2006 5:17 PM (e)

stevestory

Posts: 885
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 23 2006,16:16
Doug–presumably DougMoron–has this to say about “The Flagellum Challenge”:

Quote

I’m curious as to why this argument is used. This comment is not a good response so Dave should remove it but I hope for a reply.

The way I see it, in terms of credibility, even if this argument turns out to work, it is pointing out the overwhelming number of times where it doesn’t. Why would God choose do design a machine to allow a bacterium some advantage and yet leave humans to the vicissitudes of fate and evolution?

I can’t get past the most obvious way we can know about the designer: our innate sense of connection. We can literally feel our creator. So how is that not evidence? Now, I have one set of religious practices to enhance that feeling but others have different practices and all do feel it. We feel it when we are elated, ashamed, in awe; we feel abandoned by it when we are sad and strengthened by it when we strengthen our resolve; tibetan monks chant to it, hindu yogis express it as a word ohm, south american indians mutilate their bodies in homage to it. And on and on.

So why the flagellum? Why not the soul?

Comment by Doug — April 23, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

I’m grinning so hard I’m going to sprain a muscle.

Comment #99164

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on April 28, 2006 5:30 PM (e)

ID is the dead parrot of science.

ID advocate: “No, it isn’t.”

“It’s pining for the Dark Ages.”

Comment #99166

Posted by noturus on April 28, 2006 5:38 PM (e)

ChunkDZ said “I understand now. It’s like when Darwin hypothesized that bears turned into whales. ‘First they started swimming with their mouths open, then their fur started to fall out, their skin became waterproof, their hind legs started to disappear, their front legs turned into flippers, and I’ll get back to you about the blowhole.’
Yes, it’s making perfect sense now. If someone SAYS it could happen, regardless of how it actually DID happen, then by Occam’s Razor it must have happened!”

Using Darwin’s bear-whale hypothesis in this way is like making fun of the Wright brothers for thinking flight was possible. We’ve got an excellent series of fossils covering the entire transition of whales from land dwelling to sea dwelling creatures. The prediction that whales were once land dwelling carnivores is one of Darwin’s great successes, and is all the more amazing considering the paucity of data he was working with. Evolutionary theory correctly predicted that whales were once land dwelling before there was any other reason to think so. This was an idea that creationists of all types derided for years (because it was inconsistent with their biblical “theories”) until they had to eat crow big time once the transitional fossils that showed it was correct were found in the mid 1990s. By the way ChunkDZ, these fossils show the gradual reduction of the legs and gradual movement of the nostrils to the top of the head to form a blowhole, etc.
Or was your comment a parody of creationists? I can’t tell anymore.

Comment #99167

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 28, 2006 5:49 PM (e)

I don’t know if Chunkdz is writing in good faith or not, but there are plenty of folks who haven’t gotten the news that the evidence for decent with modification is rather more convincing than a couple of just-so stories.

Evolutionary biology has the disadvantage of being overwhelmingly supported by libraries full of peer-reviewed papers and museums full of fossils. It’s pretty hard to summarize what fills up warehouses. The accumulated scientific knowledge that supports evolution is an enormous but invisible monument to our civilization. Too bad it isn’t as easy to put on a postcard as a pyramid or a cathedral.

I know the point has been made many times, many ways in these parts: In a competition between a few simple, easily communicated, and dead wrong arguments and a vast and complicated body of solid evidence and sound reasoning, simple and wrong wins every time, at least with a large proportion of the people.

Comment #99169

Posted by steve s on April 28, 2006 5:53 PM (e)

I’m going to reformat BWE’s comment so there’s less risk of confusion:

stevestory

Posts: 885
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 23 2006,16:16

Doug—presumably DougMoron—has this to say about “The Flagellum Challenge”:

I’m curious as to why this argument is used. This comment is not a good response so Dave should remove it but I hope for a reply.

The way I see it, in terms of credibility, even if this argument turns out to work, it is pointing out the overwhelming number of times where it doesn’t. Why would God choose do design a machine to allow a bacterium some advantage and yet leave humans to the vicissitudes of fate and evolution?

I can’t get past the most obvious way we can know about the designer: our innate sense of connection. We can literally feel our creator. So how is that not evidence? Now, I have one set of religious practices to enhance that feeling but others have different practices and all do feel it. We feel it when we are elated, ashamed, in awe; we feel abandoned by it when we are sad and strengthened by it when we strengthen our resolve; tibetan monks chant to it, hindu yogis express it as a word ohm, south american indians mutilate their bodies in homage to it. And on and on.

So why the flagellum? Why not the soul?

Comment by Doug — April 23, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

I’m grinning so hard I’m going to sprain a muscle.

And I’ll note that Davetard deleted Doug’s comment within minutes. Nothing makes him madder than his supposed allies proving that ID is Creationism.

Comment #99170

Posted by Andrew McClure on April 28, 2006 5:58 PM (e)

It is just funny to me. The White House is beset by calls and complaints for changes, reversals in direction, a fresh start.

They respond by… hiring a new press secretary.

And the funniest part is, an awful lot of the press seems to actually be accepting this as the Bush Administration taking a step toward turning things around. Even though the only thing that’s changed is the PR spokesperson.

This is, to me, the greatest similarity to me between Intelligent Design and the Bush Administration. Both are entirely creatures of public perception. Both spend all of their time concerned only with how the press represents what they are doing– neither ever seem to spend any thought on what they actually are (or should be) doing. All the wins are PR wins. All the losses are PR losses.

Comment #99173

Posted by steve s on April 28, 2006 6:01 PM (e)

“It’s pining for the Dark Ages.”

He’s not pinin’! ‘He’s passed on! This movement is no more! He has ceased to be! He’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! He’s a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch he’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! He’s off the twig! He’s kicked the bucket, he’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, rung down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-MOVEMENT!!

Comment #99176

Posted by steve s on April 28, 2006 6:09 PM (e)

I can’t resist:

Luskin: Well of course it’s censored by the Darwinists. Otherwise it would muscle up to the lab and voom!
Matzske: Look matey, this movement wouldn’t voom! if you put four thousand volts through it! It’s bleedin’ demised!

Comment #99178

Posted by David B. Benson on April 28, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

Nick M — Centaurus, pl. centauri. Pegasos, pl. pegasii. Thought you needed to know for your next conversation with Mr. Snow. Or afdave.

Comment #99195

Posted by Popper's Ghost on April 28, 2006 7:01 PM (e)

Tony Snow writes: “Evolutionary theory, like ID, isn’t verifiable or testable. It’s pure hypothesis – like ID – although very popular in the scientific community. Its limits help illuminate the fact that hypotheses are only as durable as the evidence that supports them.”

So he apparently thinks that hypotheses aren’t verifiable or testable, and yet can be supported by evidence.

He should fare well in the non-reality-based Bush administration.

Comment #99196

Posted by Scott on April 28, 2006 7:01 PM (e)

“Evolutionary links between FliH/YscL-like proteins…”

Oh man, I’m way out of my depth here. I can read all the words, but they’re just jiberish. I can’t make much sense of the *title*, let alone the summary or the full article. I *think* it’s saying that they’ve found more similarities between how the flagelum is put together and how the Type III secretory system is built.

I like to think I’m educated, but I’m a software/hardware kinda guy. Can someone with more wetware experience translate this into English the rest of us can understand? A quick summary would do, though any details would be appreciated. Thanks.

Scott
—–

Comment #99197

Posted by Gary Hurd on April 28, 2006 7:02 PM (e)

ChunkDZ said “I understand now. It’s like when Darwin hypothesized that bears turned into whales.

Silly Darwin, everyone knows bears turned into walruses, elephant seals and sea lions. Except for those successful bears- they are still bears.

Comment #99201

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on April 28, 2006 7:11 PM (e)

Don’t let anybody ever tell you that flagellar IC has been disproven.

Get a clue. IC aka co-adapted parts is a normal result of evolution.

Note that chunkdz practices a standard creo-dodge:

1) claim an in principle argument versus evolution ( a wrong argument, but still )
2) Nick makes it clear that flagellar evolution is quite possible, not withstanding that not all details are know. There is no in principle reason it couldn’t have evolved in a reasonable time.
3) He switches his argument to a version of “not all details are known (yet) ** but pretends this is still the in principle argument ** which has been demolished, both in general (IC is not a problem) and in particular (flagella are not a problem).

Comment #99207

Posted by Leigh Jackson on April 28, 2006 7:40 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

This kind of 4-year-old’s-logic pervades discussions with creationists. I had a discussion with a catholic friend one time that this reminded me of. It went something like this:

Him: where did fish come from?
Me: some kind of primitive multicellular aquatic organism perhaps?
Him: Where did that come from?
Me: maybe like a, you know, kind of algae which had some group behavior? (yes, yes, I know this is incorrect, that’s not the point here)
Him: Where’d the algae come from?
Me: Some kind of single-cell amoebas?
Him: Where’d that come from?
Me: Some kind of replicator which took to hiding in phospholipid bilayers?
Him: Where’d the replicator come from?
Me: Maybe a self-catalysing protein in aquatic pools of amino acids?
Him: Where’d the protein come from?
Me: well, proteins are amino acids strung together
Him: where’d the amino acids come from?
Me: Well, they can form spontaneously from elements
Him: Where’d the elements come from?
Me: Well, stars make them in supernovae, from hydrogen and helium.
Him: Where’d hydrogen and helium come from?
Me: The big bang
Him: Where’d the big bang come from?
Me: nobody knows.
Him: AAAAA-HAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! So you admit nobody knows how all this came about!

And the conclusion is supposed to be that “God” is the answer.

Except, of course, that “God” doesn’t answer anything. The difficulty that many people have is in accepting that we cannot have the ultimate answer to our questions. Every answer always entails questions of its own.

At some point we always reach the point where we have to say either “that’s just the way it is”, or else “we don’t know the answer to that question just at present.”

The word “God” just represents an inability to accept our ultimate state of ignorance.

Comment #99208

Posted by Steviepinhead on April 28, 2006 8:01 PM (e)

Jim Harrison:

The accumulated scientific knowledge that supports evolution is an enormous but invisible monument to our civilization.

Very nicely put, Jim.

Comment #99209

Posted by steve s on April 28, 2006 8:03 PM (e)

It really is kindergarten logic.

Who was that?
It was Kelli.
Where’d Kelli come from?
Her mom Barb and her dad Chuck.
Where’d Barb and Chuck come from?
Barb came from Herb and Janice, Chuck came from Leroy and Sally.
Where’d Herb and Janice and Leroy and Sally come from?
Herb came from Mark and Carol, Janice came from Phil and Susan, Leroy came from Trey and Charmane, and Sally came from Rufus and Angelina.
Where did Mark come from?
I don’t know.
AAAAA-HAAAAAAAA! You don’t know who Kelli is, do you!

Comment #99222

Posted by Arden Chatfield on April 28, 2006 9:06 PM (e)

Silly Darwin, everyone knows bears turned into walruses, elephant seals and sea lions. Except for those successful bears- they are still bears.

So if bears turned into walruses, elephant seals and sea lions, how come we still have BEARS???

Sorry. I just had to say it before ChunkDZ did.

Comment #99227

Posted by Doc Bill on April 28, 2006 10:06 PM (e)

Harrison,

chunkdz sincere?

No way! 100%, pure, Grade A, FDA approved Troll.

One stupid statement after another.

And the amazing thing is that he/she evolved that way! Go figger.

Comment #99249

Posted by chunkdz on April 29, 2006 1:35 AM (e)

Doc Bill’s rude attempt at humor reminded me of another rude attempt at humor. Except this one is funny.

Michael Behe - “Doc Bill, don’t you think it’s unnatural for a bacteria to evolve a flagellum?”

Doc Bill - “Hey, who hasn’t had a big motorized whip sticking out of of his ass at one time or another.”

Comment #99260

Posted by Todd Ryen on April 29, 2006 2:19 AM (e)

Just because he has a certain veiw on a debate show does’nt make him a bad or evil person does it? I mean the guy invited you on his show,offering another percpective and even invited you back for another time? Give the guy at least some credit…jeesh!

Todd Ryen

Comment #99290

Posted by wildlifer on April 29, 2006 6:21 AM (e)

Question. When did Snow ever stop being a spokeman for the shrub? Seems rather redundant to me.

Comment #99307

Posted by JohnK on April 29, 2006 9:25 AM (e)

Darwin never said current whales actually, definitively descended from a bear-like lineage. His remark was about general possiblities.

I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

(C. Darwin, p.184, Chapter 6, Origin of Species, 1st Ed. 1859)

Because he was misunderstood, Darwin removed the sentence in subsequent editions.
But a thread like this wouldn’t be complete without creationist misrepresentation.

Comment #99315

Posted by Ron Okimoto on April 29, 2006 10:13 AM (e)

Stephen Meyer: That’s wildly inaccurate. I was there when the theory was founded, that’s wildly innaccurate.

That’s just odd, I thought the latest line from the DI was that ID went back “to Socrates and Plato”. Seriously, at least these guys should agree on what is the best spin to feed the media, and stick to it. Unless, of course, Meyer is carrying his 2500 years of age really well.

If West’s statement during Dover about the Discovery Institute having a “change of direction” back in 1999 is accurate Meyer was probably the ringleader of the demise of ID as the wedge and the start of the replacement “teach the controversy” scam. Meyer may have been in the initial group that began the ID scam in its modern form in 1996, but his own writing in 1999 indicate that he was also involved in dropping the ID scam as the Wedge. All ID has been used for since they went with teach the controversy scam is as a smoke screen to make the replacement scam look legitimate. ID wasn’t even good enough to mention in the replacement scam that Meyer decided on (just read the Ohio model lesson plan). It is even more pathetic that they had to adopt the old scientific creationist obfuscation scam as a replacement, when they had spent years claiming that they weren’t as badly off as those losers.

Comment #99325

Posted by Adam on April 29, 2006 11:19 AM (e)

I’m not happy about Tony Snow’s scientific ignorance, but it seems the concerns expressed here are a bit overblown. He’s just going to be the whitehouse spokesman, not a science advisor. He’s not going to hold a post that gives him any input on policy.

Also, I’m quite disappointed with a lot of the partisan rhetoric here. I thought this was supposed to be a site dedicated to advancing evolutionary science, not a particular political party. There are a lot of Republicans on the same side as you on this issue. Hyperbole like “worst administration ever” doesn’t help our common cause.

Comment #99339

Posted by Glen Davidson on April 29, 2006 12:07 PM (e)

I’m not happy about Tony Snow’s scientific ignorance, but it seems the concerns expressed here are a bit overblown. He’s just going to be the whitehouse spokesman, not a science advisor. He’s not going to hold a post that gives him any input on policy.

The real problem, though, revolves around the assumption that Snow is indeed creationist/IDist. More important is that we don’t know that he is committed to the nonsense.

Does anyone know his religion? Is he Catholic, like some have claimed? Behe notwithstanding, that would not automatically suggest that he was a committed science-phobe.

The truth is that Snow may have thought that he was “being fair” in his “interview”, even though I myself don’t think so. He gets a simple talking point from his right-leaning staff, about “missing links” (not altogether wrong, since many are yet missing–though the implications of those that are not missing are huge), and throws it in there, then doesn’t bring up much else at all. About all I could see that he added was his “surprise” that Matzke might think that the universe doesn’t show “design”–cosmological ID can be little more than the belief that “God is behind it all,”, best of possible worlds, that kind of philosophical BS. That he tilts toward the DI guy during the interview is not surprising (not on Fox), given his biases, but there is nothing at all in the interview that indelibly places him within the ID camp.

I don’t think it wise to jump to conclusions, or to give the IDists any more allies than they actually have. Matzke covered himself, by saying that Snow is either a creationist or credulously repeats their talking points (though we really don’t have much to go on even there), and we may well hope that it is the latter–due to their being his political buddies. We might get further if we tried to persuade, rather than to decide from the outset who belongs in the ID camp.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #99345

Posted by Adam on April 29, 2006 12:24 PM (e)

Glen davidson wrote:

The real problem, though, revolves around the assumption that Snow is indeed creationist/IDist. More important is that we don’t know that he is committed to the nonsense.

Well, judging from his writings, it’s pretty apparent that he’s not committed to the nonsense, but merely ignorant about science. Nothing in the articles linked to above suggests any committment or fundamentalist religious ferver.

But even that’s beside the point. He’s just going to be a spokesman. That’s it. His only job will be to get whatever message out that the Bush people want him to get out. Spokesmen rarely have any input into the content.

And frankly, I think he will make an effective spokesman. He’s photogenic, and he speaks with confidence and clarity in a way that inspires trust. All superficial qualities, yes, but they are the only ones that matter for the job. Scientific literacy, or lack thereof, is simply not relevant.

Comment #99347

Posted by Glen Davidson on April 29, 2006 12:36 PM (e)

I didn’t disagree with you, Adam, as I’m sure you recognize, just added my bit.

However, I would look at the spokesman bit somewhat differently than you did in your posts, as a potential symbol. Were Snow to be a committed IDist, naming him to be White House spokesman would be the wrong signal to be sent to a public all too often enamored with pseudosciences/New Age/Da Vince Code.

True, Snow wouldn’t be influencing policy much, if at all, but he is the substitute face for the president. I would not be pleased if Bush chose a committed IDist/creationist to represent his ideas to the public. After all, we’re fighting a public relations war as much as any other.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #99348

Posted by Adam on April 29, 2006 12:50 PM (e)

Glen,

I see your point. I think you’re right. Having a committed creationist be the face of the Whitehouse would indeed undermine the Bush administration, which would cause me considerable concern as a (somewaht reluctant) Bush supporter.

Re-reading my second post, I can see that it comes accross as more argumentative than I intended. Sorry about that.

Best,
Adam

Comment #99365

Posted by Arden Chatfield on April 29, 2006 1:50 PM (e)

I see your point. I think you’re right. Having a committed creationist be the face of the Whitehouse would indeed undermine the Bush administration,

Not really. It would mostly just undermine him among people who already have the sense not to vote Republican. The kind of people who still support Bush by now aren’t going to be swayed by this kind of thing. The vast majority of Republicans I see either like creationism or simply don’t much care about it. The great majority of Republicans I see decrying this kind of anti-science stance usually end up admitting that next election they’re just going to plug their noses and vote Republican again anyway. So really, it costs them nothing and it makes their ‘base’ happy.

The White House knows they won’t lose any more support by having people like this around, since all they need is 50.1% of the populace anyway.

Comment #99373

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 29, 2006 3:15 PM (e)

There are a lot of Republicans on the same side as you on this issue. Hyperbole like “worst administration ever” doesn’t help our common cause.

Yes it does. Bush is firmly in bed with the fundies. As long as Bush is in power, the fundies are in power. And as long as the fundies are in power, creationism/ID can run rampant.

Bush’s fundamentalist ideological crusade is the primary reason WHY it is the worst administration ever.

Republicrats who want to do something to stop the fundies, need to stop the fundie wing of the Republicrat Party that controls Bush (and who want to control Bush’s replacement). McCain is one of the very few Republicrats who have spoken out against the domination of the party by the fundie nutters. So, vote McCain. If the next presidential race consists of McCain versus any Democan, the fundies lose no matter WHO wins. And that outcome benefits us all.

As long as the Republicrats keep winning elections by supporting the fundies, they will continue to support the fundies. The only solution is to make the Republicrats LOSE elections if necessary, and KEEP losing them, until they repudiate the nutters.

And before you get your partisan panties all in bunch, no, I am not a Democan. Not a Republicrat, either.

Comment #99375

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 29, 2006 3:22 PM (e)

The great majority of Republicans I see decrying this kind of anti-science stance usually end up admitting that next election they’re just going to plug their noses and vote Republican again anyway.

And that is indeed precisely how the fundies are able to maintain their political power even though the vast majority of Americans simply do not support them or their agenda.

To all the Republicrats out there who want to make a difference, I say OPEN your nose, take a nice deep sniff, then vote against the bastards. Take your party back. And if that means the Republicrats lose the next election, or the next two elections, or the next ten elections, then that is what it will take. The message needs to be loud, clear and unmistakable — “as long as my party keeps kissing fundie ass, I am not going to vote for them.” And then you need to actually vote against them.

If you keep giving the nutters a free pass, they will remain, and they will continue to run things. They’re, uh, not going to go away on their own, ya know.

Comment #99376

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 29, 2006 3:32 PM (e)

The White House knows they won’t lose any more support by having people like this around, since all they need is 50.1% of the populace anyway.

Nah, the first time around, they didn’t even get THAT. All they REALLY need is four Supreme Court Justices.

In Serbia in 2000, when Milosevic claimed victory in an election where the other guy got more votes then he did, the population took to the streets and threw him out.

In Peru in 2000, when Fujimori claimed victory in an election where the other guy got more votes then he did, the population took to the streets and threw him out.

In the United States in 2000, when Bush claimed victory in an election where the other guy got more votes than he did, everyone yawned and went back to watching “Survivor”.

Comment #99379

Posted by MAJeff on April 29, 2006 4:55 PM (e)

The good Reverend Flank is correct that this administration is beholden to the fundamentalist movement, but its anti-science agenda is only partially connected to that. Their approach to women’s reproductive health (the Plan B fiasco, where the FDA keeps ignoring the scientific evidence), and HIV prevention/sex education (ignoring social scientific data on condom use and different prevention strategies). The recent administration report on marijuana use is another example of their abuse of scientific data. Where they part from the fundie agenda, though, while retaining their anti-science approach is on the issue of global warming. Anyone who cares about actual science should have real concerns about this administration, because the administration doesn’t take it seriously.

Comment #99382

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 29, 2006 6:08 PM (e)

Anyone who cares about actual science should have real concerns about this administration, because the administration doesn’t take it seriously.

As I said in another thread, run, don’t walk, to the bookstore and pick up two copies of Chris Mooney’s “The Republican War on Science”.

Give one copy to your local library.

Comment #99383

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 29, 2006 6:09 PM (e)

Where they part from the fundie agenda, though, while retaining their anti-science approach is on the issue of global warming.

No, anti-environmentalism has long been a part of the fundie agenda too. They don’t care about environmental protection since, they say, Jesus is coming back soon so it doesn’t matter how much we pollute.

Serious. No joke.

Comment #99384

Posted by Nick Matzke on April 29, 2006 6:10 PM (e)

Nah, the first time around, they didn’t even get THAT. All they REALLY need is four Supreme Court Justices.

Err, you mean five. The losers had four.

In Serbia in 2000, when Milosevic claimed victory in an election where the other guy got more votes then he did, the population took to the streets and threw him out.

In Peru in 2000, when Fujimori claimed victory in an election where the other guy got more votes then he did, the population took to the streets and threw him out.

In the United States in 2000, when Bush claimed victory in an election where the other guy got more votes than he did, everyone yawned and went back to watching “Survivor”.

I’m no fan of Bush, but technically he did win the electoral college when he won Florida when he won the Supreme Court vote. The electoral college is extremely silly but there are constitutional methods for changing it, which are probably preferable to staging a revolution.

Comment #99390

Posted by Adam on April 29, 2006 8:03 PM (e)

Lenny, your over-the-top rhetoric doesn’t help things any. It really doesn’t.

When you spout nonsense like, “worst administration ever,” or “the fundies are in power,” you’re turing off just about everyone except the Michael Moore fans.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who like much of the Bush agenda (or at least like it better than the Democrats’ alternative) who don’t much like the creationism. You know, people like small business owners, executives, professionals other than laywers (dentists, physicians, financial experts, military officers, etc), conservative economists (like me), and the like. If you belittle their policy preferences in these other areas, which you’re implicitly doing with your hyperbole, you reduce our their willingness to work together with you on the issues to which PT is devoted.

Besides, the teaching of creationism isn’t much of a Federal issue, since our school system is run at the state and local level. Thus Bush’s half-hearted embrace of it doesn’t really have much of an impact.

Oh, and FYI, I suggest you curb your enthusiasm about McCain. Besides being way too far to the left on economics and other issues people like me care about, he’s an even more ardent supporter of ID than is Bush. Being for or against creationism really isn’t all that highly correlated with the extent to which a Republican is “moderate” or “convservative.”

Comment #99393

Posted by Registered User on April 29, 2006 8:17 PM (e)

Also, I’m quite disappointed with a lot of the partisan rhetoric here. I thought this was supposed to be a site dedicated to advancing evolutionary science, not a particular political party. There are a lot of Republicans on the same side as you on this issue. Hyperbole like “worst administration ever” doesn’t help our common cause.

Waaaaah!!!! Waaaaahhh!!!

The liberals are making fun of Uncle Chimpy again!

Mommy, mommy, make ‘em stop!!!!!! If you bad liberals don’t stop bashing Republicans I’m going to stop supporting science and start being a creationist apologist!!! Waaaaah!!!! Waaaahhh!!!!

There isn’t kleenexi in the world for all the Republican whining we’re going to have to listen to as Bush Co. slowly swirls down the drain.

Let me debunk a myth I’ve heard repeated here many times: there are no Republicans on the “same side as me” on any issue.

The Republican Party and its registered members are in no small way responsible for the current state of affairs.

Go ahead and try to argue otherwise without lying.

Make my day.

Comment #99394

Posted by Registered User on April 29, 2006 8:22 PM (e)

When you spout nonsense like, “worst administration ever,” or “the fundies are in power,” you’re turing off just about everyone except the Michael Moore fans.

Shut up with the stupid Republican scripts, Adam.

You don’t have to be a “Michael Moore fan” to think that Bush is a fundie idiot and a terrible president with the current support presently of only the most moronic 1/3 of the U.S. population.

And why bring Michael Moore up at all?

Oh yeah, that’s what a Good Republicans are supposed to do when smearing liberals.

Guess what, Adam: if I need to kiss Republican ass or pretend to in order to have the support of Republicans like you in the effort to keep fundies from corrupting science education in this country, then take your support and shove off. Obviously you don’t care much anyway or you wouldn’t be whining like you are now.

Comment #99395

Posted by Andrew McClure on April 29, 2006 8:29 PM (e)

I’m not happy about Tony Snow’s scientific ignorance, but it seems the concerns expressed here are a bit overblown. He’s just going to be the whitehouse spokesman, not a science advisor.

This is the Bush white house we are talking about. In this administration, what is the difference between a public relations official and a science advisor?

Comment #99396

Posted by Adam on April 29, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

Registered User wrote:

Guess what, Adam: if I need to kiss Republican ass or pretend to in order to have the support of Republicans like you in the effort to keep fundies from corrupting science education in this country, then take your support and shove off. Obviously you don’t care much anyway or you wouldn’t be whining like you are now.

Looks like someone here cares more about ideology than science education.

Comment #99402

Posted by conspiracy theorist on April 29, 2006 9:18 PM (e)

Adam wrote:

Looks like someone here cares more about ideology than science education.

Someone else here cares more about personal greed than science education.

Comment #99413

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 29, 2006 11:39 PM (e)

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who like much of the Bush agenda (or at least like it better than the Democrats’ alternative) who don’t much like the creationism.

Well, ya know, it’s sort of a package deal, dude.

If you want to get rid of creationism, then you need to get rid of Bush.

Don’t like the Democans? Then vote for the Libertarians. Or the Greens. Or the Socialists. Or whoever.

Comment #99414

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 29, 2006 11:44 PM (e)

If you belittle their policy preferences in these other areas, which you’re implicitly doing with your hyperbole, you reduce our their willingness to work together with you on the issues to which PT is devoted.

Um, have you by any chance happened to see Bush’s latest, uh, approval ratings …. . ?

Besides, the teaching of creationism isn’t much of a Federal issue, since our school system is run at the state and local level.

Um, teaching creationism is a church/state issue. That’s, ya know, sort of Federal. Which is, I suppose, why it gets decided in, well, Federal courts and all.

Have you by any chance happened to notice that every ID bill that gets introduced, gets introduced by people with a little “R” after their names?

Ever wonder why that might be?

Comment #99416

Posted by Arden Chatfield on April 30, 2006 12:49 AM (e)

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who like much of the Bush agenda (or at least like it better than the Democrats’ alternative) who don’t much like the creationism. You know, people like small business owners, executives, professionals other than laywers (dentists, physicians, financial experts, military officers, etc), conservative economists (like me), and the like. If you belittle their policy preferences in these other areas, which you’re implicitly doing with your hyperbole, you reduce our their willingness to work together with you on the issues to which PT is devoted.

See? Proves my point. “I sure wish my fellow Republicans weren’t a bunch of fundies who hate science, but don’t worry, I’d never think of voting for the Democrats”.

Because of people like you, the GOP knows they can move as far to the right as they want and nothing will happen. If you vote for them, you express your approval of the fundie agenda. So as long as you vote that way, don’t complain. You helped make the bed we all now lie in.

Comment #99417

Posted by Arden Chatfield on April 30, 2006 12:51 AM (e)

Looks like someone here cares more about ideology than science education.

You claim to care about science education, and you still vote for the GOP? You must not care much.

Comment #99418

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 30, 2006 12:56 AM (e)

Because of people like you, the GOP knows they can move as far to the right as they want and nothing will happen. If you vote for them, you express your approval of the fundie agenda. So as long as you vote that way, don’t complain. You helped make the bed we all now lie in.

That’s right. The only way the Republicrats will finally repudiate the fundies is if it starts COSTING THEM ELECTIONS.

Until then, nothing will happen. (shrug)

Comment #99419

Posted by Arden Chatfield on April 30, 2006 1:03 AM (e)

If you belittle their policy preferences in these other areas, which you’re implicitly doing with your hyperbole, you reduce our their willingness to work together with you on the issues to which PT is devoted.

Then you guys must not care about those issues much. So why are you complaining?

Comment #99420

Posted by Arden Chatfield on April 30, 2006 1:07 AM (e)

When you spout nonsense like, “worst administration ever,” or “the fundies are in power,” you’re turing off just about everyone except the Michael Moore fans.

Michael Moore. Every Republican’s favorite boogeyman.

You seem to think only a wild lunatic fringe disapproves of Bush. Please check here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Only Nixon had lower poll ratings in the last several decades. So perhaps “second worst administration ever” is more accurate?

Comment #99421

Posted by Registered User on April 30, 2006 1:14 AM (e)

Adam

Looks like someone here cares more about ideology than science education.

Huh? Oh, so my concluding that the Bush admnistration is incompetent is an “ideology”?

Gosh, that sort of “argument” has a familiar ring to it.

Comment #99423

Posted by fnxtr on April 30, 2006 1:24 AM (e)

Registered User wrote:

There isn’t kleenexi in the world for all the Republican whining we’re going to have to listen to as Bush Co. slowly swirls down the drain.

(my italics)

index : indices

vortex: vortices

::Kleenex: Kleenices.

Comment #99426

Posted by Registered User on April 30, 2006 2:03 AM (e)

fnxtr - LOL! ;)

I agree with your grammatical analysis.

I meant to say “enough kleenex in the world”. I have no idea how that ended up as “kleenexi”.

But I’m glad it did because we all just learned something new, I think. ;)

Comment #99489

Posted by Adam on April 30, 2006 12:03 PM (e)

Lenny wrote:

Um, teaching creationism is a church/state issue. That’s, ya know, sort of Federal. Which is, I suppose, why it gets decided in, well, Federal courts and all.

Oh, yeah. Bush really dropped the ball on those Federal judges. Why, he’s the one who appointed Judge Jones of Dover fame!

Lenny wrote:

Have you by any chance happened to notice that every ID bill that gets introduced, gets introduced by people with a little “R” after their names?

And haven’t you noticed that all those bills are introduced at the state and local level? Okay, Santorum Amendment may be one exception, but it ended up getting gutted by the GOP leadership. Besides, Santorum is very likely to lose the upcoming election because of defections from people like me.

Lenny wrote:

The only way the Republicrats will finally repudiate the fundies is if it starts COSTING THEM ELECTIONS.

Gee, and what do you think happened in Dover? Where it matters, on the state and local level, the ID issue IS costing fundies elections. I’ll remind you that most of the people on the pro-science slate were Republicans who switched the party registration for no other reason than to run for the school board. And I’ll also remind you that Bush carried Dover by a fairly large margin in both of the last elections.

Registered User wrote:

Oh, so my concluding that the Bush administration is incompetent is an “ideology”?

No. You demonstrate that your are more devoted to partisan ideology than science education by making absurd, and empirically false statements like this:

Registered User wrote:

there are no Republicans on the “same side as me” on any issue.

For the record, there are many, many Republicans on the same side of the creationism issue as you. Charles Krauthammer, John Derbyshire, George Will, Stanley Kurtz, and me, among others. And not, they’re not all moderates. The creationism issue really isn’t a moderate vs. conservative contest in the GOP. May I remind you, one of the most devoted ID advocates in the GOP is John McCain. Derbyshire, Krauthammer and Kurtz can hardly be called moderates.

Arden Chatfield wrote:

You claim to care about science education, and you still vote for the GOP? You must not care much.

Oh yes. The Republicans are so much worse on science education. Lets see, it was Republicans who introduced New Math. It’s Republican-dominated school boards who keep dumbing down the science requirements for graduation. It was Republican legislators in my present home state of MA that opposed making the MCAS a high school graduation requirement. It’s Republicans who keep dumbing down public university admissions in the name of “diversity.”

Oh wait, no, it’s been members of the other party doing these things, hasn’t it?

Arden Chatfield wrote:

You seem to think only a wild lunatic fringe disapproves of Bush.

No, I disapprove of Bush as well. There’s a difference between disapproving, and making wild, sweeping claims like “worst administration ever.”

Can I remind you that we’re all on the same side here? My only point is that the kind of gratuitous and intemperate Bush and/or Republican bashing on display here is simply not productive.

It may make you feel morally superior (which seems to be what primarily motivates most leftists I know), but it won’t do our cause any good.

If you’re more interested in self-gratification than winning, carry on and have fun.

Comment #99494

Posted by Arden Chatfield on April 30, 2006 12:40 PM (e)

If you’re more interested in self-gratification than winning, carry on and have fun.

And if you’re more interested in lowered taxes than science education and a secular state, keep voting Republican.

Comment #99496

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 30, 2006 12:45 PM (e)

most leftists I know

Dude, we haven’t had “leftists” in the US since the IWW was rounded up and arrested almost 100 years ago. (shrug)

You watch too much Fox News.

Comment #99501

Posted by Adam on April 30, 2006 1:14 PM (e)

Arden Chatfield wrote:

And if you’re more interested in lowered taxes than science education and a secular state, keep voting Republican.

If you want to keep dumbing down high school math and science standards, teachers more interested in making students feel good about themselves than learning anything useful, and math teaching fads that don’t work, keep voting Democrat.

Comment #99502

Posted by Laser on April 30, 2006 1:27 PM (e)

It may make you feel morally superior (which seems to be what primarily motivates most leftists I know), but it won’t do our cause any good.

Most of your post is full of statements that suggest you feel morally superior because of your political beliefs.

In general:
Both parties occupy the moral and ethical low ground.

Nobody scores any points with arguments that consist of: “Yeah? Well your side does it too!”

Gee, it seems that a political war is about to break out in this thread. That would be different than the religious wars that sometimes break out, but equally annoying.

Comment #99503

Posted by Arden Chatfield on April 30, 2006 1:30 PM (e)

If you want to keep dumbing down high school math and science standards, teachers more interested in making students feel good about themselves than learning anything useful, and math teaching fads that don’t work, keep voting Democrat.

Democrats do all that, eh?

Lenny’s right, you’re watching too much Fox news and absorbing all their cliches. You don’t sound like you have the slightest firsthand experience in what’s going on in any real public school, and just what havoc No Child Left Behind has caused.

Look, if you like having your taxes cut, the Iraq war, a dismal environmental policy, and a huge deficit, that means you’re a Republican. Swell. But part of your package deal from now on is that the Christian right calls the shots with your political party. YOUR party is largely run by creationists and people who hate science. It’s hypocritical to grouse about that but to keep voting for the same package. Obviously the other stuff the GOP does must be more important to you. It’s ridiculous to say you dislike these things and to still keep voting for an idealized Republican Party that no longer exists.

Comment #99504

Posted by k.e. on April 30, 2006 1:38 PM (e)

Gee Adam, I hate to say this but that last one seems to be exactly the MO of the creationists, top it up with abstinence and we’ll all go to Fundy heaven if the big cheese doesn’t show up before hand to burn all the sinners and ‘rapturize’ the faithful in the Holy Land (after first purging it of the er….ethnics). In fact we don’t have to wait for HIM to show up the Fundamentalists have taken over the Army just to make sure it still happens even if HE doesn’t show up.
Never mind tho’ I’m with you, its a pity GWB still isn’t half way thru his first term, theres so many more counties crying out to invaded, e.g. Hawaii they’re trying to push up the price of pineapples just think what that could do to the US economy, slow growth and slow down carbon emissions, could be disastrous.

Comment #99510

Posted by k.e. on April 30, 2006 3:18 PM (e)

Stop Press Dateline W.H Washington
Tony Snow calls press conference.
Announces new policy to fix everything.
1.Huge areas of Alaska’s coastline to be subdivided for beach-side resorts exiting new “Florida”
2.Privatize the Pentagon and outsource all ‘peace initiatives’…. new organization to be called Haliblitzkreig to be run by soon to be retired W.H. staffer Rumsfeld. All operations to be ‘death free’ i.e. no body bags on TV.
3.Invade Annex new ice free unclaimed land north of Canada for its huge oil reserves.
4.Privatize W.H. press office…uh oh strike that…. already done.

Comment #99511

Posted by normdoering on April 30, 2006 3:31 PM (e)

Adam wrote:

Registered User wrote:

there are no Republicans on the “same side as me” on any issue.

For the record, there are many, many Republicans on the same side of the creationism issue as you. Charles Krauthammer, John Derbyshire, George Will, Stanley Kurtz, and me, among others. And not, they’re not all moderates. The creationism issue really isn’t a moderate vs. conservative contest in the GOP. May I remind you, one of the most devoted ID advocates in the GOP is John McCain. Derbyshire, Krauthammer and Kurtz can hardly be called moderates.

Adam has a point. While opinions among democrats are more diverse there are more and more fractures in the unity of the Repugs these days. Not all of them are ID advocates.

You really do have to know your candidates on an individual by individual basis. The best one for a particular area might be the Republican (here where I live it is the Democrats who are getting nailed for corruption).

And it’s not just fundy versus secular either, Jimmy Carter is by self-definition a fundamentalist even though he probably wouldn’t support ID.

However, in spite of those points in Adam’s favor I think it is correct to say that the Bush Administration may really be the worst ever. Especially if they really lied us into the Iraq war. Outside of that there is a lot of other stuff wrong, NO veto, nada, none, on congressional pork in more than five years, the stem cell decision, heavy borrowing and debt, bad management of Katrina relief… etc. etc. I can’t think of another administration that did so much wrong and so little right. Nixon was better – he did a lot of stuff right in spite of being a crook who wire tapped opponents, his visiting of China became a Vulcan proverb.

Comment #99512

Posted by David B. Benson on April 30, 2006 3:48 PM (e)

The Worst President Ever (see rollingstone.com blog by Princeton historian Sean Wilentz) has, I believe, muttered words in support of IDiocy in the classroom, thus making him fair game here on PT. Yes?

Comment #99515

Posted by zoarkk on April 30, 2006 4:26 PM (e)

Charles Krauthammer, John Derbyshire, George Will, Stanley Kurtz,>

are all journalists/pundits. Are there any ELECTED Republican officials who are anti-creationism, anti-ID?

Comment #99519

Posted by Russell on April 30, 2006 4:57 PM (e)

Are there any ELECTED Republican officials who are anti-creationism, anti-ID?

I don’t know who is governor of Kansas now, but when creationists on that state’s Board of Education made its first bid for world’s leading laughingstock in 1999, the Republican governor was outspoken in his disapproval.

Also, here in Ohio, 3 out of 3 of the most forceful anti-ID state BoE members are bona fide Republicans.

Comment #99520

Posted by Henry J on April 30, 2006 5:21 PM (e)

Re “his [Nixon’s] visiting of China became a Vulcan proverb.”

ROFL

(Live long and prosper),

Henry

Comment #99522

Posted by Andrew McClure on April 30, 2006 6:52 PM (e)

I don’t know who is governor of Kansas now, but when creationists on that state’s Board of Education made its first bid for world’s leading laughingstock in 1999, the Republican governor was outspoken in his disapproval.

Also, here in Ohio, 3 out of 3 of the most forceful anti-ID state BoE members are bona fide Republicans.

Then there’s Dover CARES, the people running the new Dover school board, half of whom are Republicans (though they were forced to run as Democrats in order to oust the previous, creationist board).

Comment #99524

Posted by Adam on April 30, 2006 8:05 PM (e)

Democrats do all that, eh?

They sure do. I’ve lived in 3 states, and I’ve seen it happen in all three, most recently in Massachusetts in 2003. Google the MCAS controversy if you want to verify it for yourself.

Lenny’s right, you’re watching too much Fox news and absorbing all their cliches.

Sigh. If you insist on being so childish…you and Lenny listen to too much Air America and read too much Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert. Nah nah nah nah nah nah.

FYI, I don’t watch much Fox news. I get most of my news from the Wall Street Journal and CNBC.

Arden Chatfield wrote:

You don’t sound like you have the slightest firsthand experience in what’s going on in any real public school

I’m not a public school teacher. Are you? But guess what, I have close friends who are, and I can read. I don’t have to be an public school insider to inform myself of what’s going on inside.

Arden Chatfield wrote:

Just what havoc No Child Left Behind has caused.

The things I was talking about have been going on for the last 20-30 years, long before NCLB. In addition, I seem to recall that horrid piece of legislation had a co-sponsor by the name of Ted Kennedy. Yeah, he’s a real rabid right-wing Republican.

Arden Chatfield wrote:

But part of your package deal from now on is that the Christian right calls the shots with your political party. YOUR party is largely run by creationists and people who hate science.

LOL. You don’t know the first thing about the Republican party, or politics for that matter. You should do some research on your opposition before spouting off ignorant statements like that. The Christian right is influential, yes, but to say they run the show is patently absurd.

Let me give you a little poli sci lesson. Like any party, the GOP is a conglomeration of interest groups. None, not even the Christian right, is all-powerful.

BTW, not everyone in the Christian right is a creationist.

Finally, I’d just like to note that neither you nor Lenny has replied to any of the substantive arguments posted about 1) Judge Jones being a Bush appointee 2) Democrats dumbing down standards in public schools and public universities 3) pro-science conservatives punishing the Republican party in state and local elections 4) the examples posted by others of prominent Republican elected officials fending off creationism and ID.

laser wrote:

Both parties occupy the moral and ethical low ground.

Absolutely, laser. That’s precisely the point I’m trying to make.

On a supposedly non-partisan site like this one, I too find political fights annoying. The best way to avoid them is to refrain from engaging in gratuitous partisanship not relevant to the cause to which this site is supposed to be dedicated. You will notice, the only purpose of my posts on this thread has been to advise against engaging in such behavior.

Comment #99525

Posted by wamba on April 30, 2006 8:31 PM (e)

LOL. You don’t know the first thing about the Republican party, or politics for that matter. You should do some research on your opposition before spouting off ignorant statements like that. The Christian right is influential, yes, but to say they run the show is patently absurd.

Can you name any prominent Republican who is either serving as president or mentioned as a possible presidential candidate for 2008 who has not endorsed Intelligent Design, including “teach both sides” or “teach the controversy” statements?

Comment #99527

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 30, 2006 8:54 PM (e)

I’m, uh, a little puzzled why Adam would think that I should defend Democans, or even WANT to to so.

As I mentioned before, I am not a Democan. Nor am I a Republicrat. I can barely tell them apart, and I wish a curse on BOTH their houses. (shrug)

So spare me your sermons, Adam.

Comment #99528

Posted by Registered User on April 30, 2006 9:15 PM (e)

Adam, GOP lover:

If you want to keep dumbing down high school math and science standards, teachers more interested in making students feel good about themselves than learning anything useful, and math teaching fads that don’t work, keep voting Democrat.

Hahahah. That’s funny.

Elsewhere:

refrain from engaging in gratuitous partisanship not relevant to the cause to which this site is supposed to be dedicated. You will notice, the only purpose of my posts on this thread has been to advise against engaging in such behavior.

Nice lie, Adam. Geez, it’s almost as if you forgot that your comments are, um, stored upthread.

As others have pointed out, the list of prominent Republican politicians who have publically advocated the teaching of creationist garbage is significantly longer than the list of Democratic politicians who have done so.

I am unaware of any outraged response from anti-creationism Republican politicians.

I, too, think that most politicians are reprehensible creatures. As conservative as both major parties are, however, they are not the same. One party, the Republican party, plays strongly to religious fundamentalists.

If you are a registered Republican, you’re part of The Problem as far as I’m concerned.

Period.

Now, please stop whining and crying because your GOP is losing credibility. As we all know, the Republicans will do their best to get the fundies worked up again before the 2006 elections by raising the spectre of The Evil Gay secularist coming to get their children and turn the country into a socialist gulag or something.

Comment #99530

Posted by Registered User on April 30, 2006 10:23 PM (e)

I want to remind folks again of the danger of playing games and elevating strange notions of “civility” above honesty and plain-speaking.

Consider the following exchange, noted recently by Bob Somerby (www.dailyhowler.com):

POWERS (4/27/06): I’m worried about the press, but I don’t think it’s ideological. I think it’s more a corporate agenda or a salacious agenda. There are other things that drive them.

O’REILLY: You don’t think the New York Times is ideological?

POWERS: The mainstream media was behind the Bush administration, locked up 100 percent, up until the war. They’re not liberal. That’s not liberal.

O’REILLY: But that’s because of the war on terror.

POWERS: No, it’s not.

O’REILLY: That’s what skewed it out. In 2000, when he won the election, come on! You’re telling me that the mainstream media was happy about that?

POWERS (continuing directly): I worked in the Clinton administration, and I don’t remember the press being that nice to Bill Clinton. And I’ve worked on Democratic campaigns, and really think there is a problem with the media. I don’t think that the problem is that they are pushing for an ideology. I just don’t think they are invested in that.

O’REILLY: All right. And I know—Michelle, I’m going to give you 15 seconds, because I know you disagree with that. You wrote a book about it.

MALKIN: I certainly did. I think it’s dealing in unreality to deny liberal bias in the media.

O’REILLY: Ladies, always a pleasure.

Somerby notes an obvious fact: Republican shills (like Malkin) keep saying things which are false. So-called liberal pundits refuse to say what is true (i.e., Gore was smeared relentlessly by the mainstream press in the months leading up to the 2000 election).

The result (Somerby notes) is that the script keeps working.

As long as people refuse to tell the truth about religious fundamentalists in this country and their habit of telling lies and the habit of Republicans defending the telling of those lies, the scripts will keep working. When I say “people” I refer primarily to “people” who are being listened to, i.e., prominent journalists, media personalities, and prominent bloggers. But the rest of us can lead by example.

Comment #99531

Posted by Registered User on April 30, 2006 10:26 PM (e)

As I mentioned before, I am not a Democan. Nor am I a Republicrat. I can barely tell them apart.

McCain is a Republican, Lenny. Try to remember that much. ;)

Comment #99534

Posted by normdoering on April 30, 2006 10:54 PM (e)

Adam wrote:

You don’t know the first thing about the Republican party, or politics for that matter. You should do some research on your opposition before spouting off ignorant statements like that.

Adam has a point, you should do some research on your opposition.

I would suggest Chris Mooney’s book “The Repulican War on Science”:
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php

“Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush” by John W. Dean:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031600023X/104-3615929-6735924?v=glance&n=283155

Kevin Phillips’ book, “American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century”:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003486X/104-3615929-6735924?v=glance&n=283155

Comment #99535

Posted by Registered User on April 30, 2006 10:59 PM (e)

From CNN

David Parker was jailed last year after he refused to leave a school when officials declined to exclude his 6-year-old son from discussions of gay parents. Parker initially complained after his son brought home a “diversity book bag” with a book that depicted a gay family.

Their attorney, Jeffrey Denner, said Lexington violated the rights of privacy and freedom of religion of his clients – all identified as devout Christians in the lawsuit – by unilaterally deciding how and when lessons about gay marriage will be taught.

Tim Sandefur could tell us all how clueless these parents are.

Anyone want to bet that David Parker doesn’t vote Republican? I didn’t think so.

But the issue I want to focus on is how these parents identified themselves in the lawsuit: “devout Christians.”

Is David Parker a “devout Christian” when he harbors bizarre mystical “beliefs” about the “morality” of being gay, beliefs based on writings by some anonymous scribe on some ancient scrolls?

I have no idea. Moreoever, I could care less. David Parker is nothing more than an ignorant bigot as far as I’m concerned. That he calls himself a “devout Christian” is simply par for the course.

But here is what else is par for the course: nobody important will question David Parker on his bizarre bigoted beliefs. Nobody important will call David Parker an ignorant bigot and point out that whatever redeeming features remain of Christianity, David Parker is squandering them. Nobody important will point out that encouraging David Parker’s desire to instill his bigotry in his children is a Republican pasttime and worthy of all our contempt. And nobody important will point out the relationship between bigots like David Parker and the professional liars at the Discovery Institute and other Christian think tanks.

And that, my friends, is why the script will continue to work.

Comment #99542

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 1, 2006 12:23 AM (e)

Adam has a point, you should do some research on your opposition. ~snip~ list of refererences ~snip~

or perhaps visit the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and find out why they rate this adminsitration as the most hostile towards science in recent memory.

http://www.ucsusa.org/

I wonder if Adam knows that this administration has directly influenced the summary publications of several large science organizations, like NIH and NASA, or that they actually have REWRITTEN some of the agency publications themselves?

I do wonder who is the one that should be doing further research.

Comment #99557

Posted by afdave on May 1, 2006 8:27 AM (e)

or perhaps visit the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and find out why they rate this adminsitration as the most hostile towards science in recent memory.

For our unbiased readers, let me translate …

“The Union of Concerned Evolution Dogmatists (UCED) is running scared, hence the use of the word ‘Concerned.’ They rate this administration as the most hostile toward Dogmatic Unproven Pseudo-Evolution-Science (DUPES) in recent memory.”

If you are a truly open minded reader, click here …

http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf

… to read an excellent article from an honest scientist on the massive earthquake that is beginning to topple all the buildings in ‘Evolutionland’ (similar to Disneyland).

Then if you want to see an ordinary guy (but smart and accomplished in his own fields) joining the fray, see my newly updated “AF Dave’s UPDATED God Hypothesis” by clicking here …

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4455c498fa908d9b;act=ST;f=14;t=1958

Thanks especially to Aureola and Norm for their good input! (Not being sarcastic here … I really mean it)

By the way, nothing personal against anyone here … I just vigorously disagree with you about Evolution.

Comment #99558

Posted by Renier on May 1, 2006 8:48 AM (e)

By the way, nothing personal against anyone here … I just vigorously disagree with you about Evolution.

Sure, just as we disagree with your creationism pseudo-science. Believe what you want to, as long as you don’t try and teach your pseudo-science to kids in school.

Comment #99560

Posted by gwangung on May 1, 2006 9:11 AM (e)

By the way, nothing personal against anyone here … I just vigorously disagree with you about Evolution.

None taken.

It’s just that the evidence vigorously disagrees with you, too.

Comment #99562

Posted by k.e. on May 1, 2006 9:32 AM (e)

afdave
just a quick question
were adam and eve real people and if so where is your evidence?

Comment #99566

Posted by Gerard Harbison on May 1, 2006 10:24 AM (e)

Some historical perspective here.

I came of age in the science wars of the late 80s. I remember vividly attending a faculty party in 1988 where virtually the entire body present declared allegiance to Jesse Jackson, for a variety of vapid idiotic reasons. I couldn’t believe it. I’d lived in Massachusetts under Dukakis’s governorship, and while I didn’t agree with him 100%, I respected him as a competent governor of unimpeachable integrity, and a competitive centrist candidate for the presidency (this was beforee the campaign self-destructed in late summer). But then, one of the faculty present assured me that the very idea of scientific objectivity was racist, sexist and heterosexist, and the others nodded solemnly in agreement.

Fast forward to the nineties, where one feminist scholar proclaimed that phsyicists had neglected hydrodynamics because of fear of menstrual flow; where other scholars on the left were promoting ‘ethnomathematics’; where Roberta Achtenberg, Clinton’s appointee at HUD, was giving merit raises for membership in ethnic and leftist organizations; where in schools we were getting ‘whole math’ and ‘whole language’ and huge dollops of multicultural twaddle. Postmodernism ruled the academic left, and was being pushed on public schools.

Ten years later, the boot is on the other foot. The Religious Right has discovered and embraced some parts of postmodernism. The same kooky ideas used to attack science from the left in the 90’s are now being used to attack it from the right this decade. Yes, far more Republicans are pro-creationism/ID. But a substantial part of the left still rejects science as a privileged, white male heterosexist discourse. They’re just out of power, and quiet for the moment. So you’ll pardon me if I don’t run leftwards to look for support against the fundies.

This country badly needs secular conservatism, because if the right/left split becomes a Christian/secularist split, elections become religious wars, and religious wars are far nastier than arguments over taxes and the deficit. Bashing secular conservatives because you’re liberal is no smarter than bashing Christian evolutionists because you’re atheist. You may not agree with them, but you need them.

The GOP has been far smarter than the Dems, except perhaps Bill Clinton, in building coalitions. They are currently splintering, mostly because of the hubris of religious right. This will be a useful reversal for the GOP and will lead to a temporary advantage for the Democrats. While your adversary is in the process of self-destructing, why would you want to intervene?

As a secular conservative, this thread reminds me why I’m conservative. It would be far better to remind me why I’m secular.

Comment #99567

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 1, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

afdave:

Thanks especially to Aureola and Norm for their good input! (Not being sarcastic here … I really mean it)

You’re welcome. However, I notice that you haven’t incorporated any of my criticism in your revised hypothesis. It can still account for anything, and therefore explains nothing at all.

The massive violation of parsimony, though not a logical fallacy per se, is just “icing on the cake”. Your hypothesis continues to be worthless.

Comment #99573

Posted by J. Biggs on May 1, 2006 10:58 AM (e)

Meyer’s states:

These theories taken jointly suggested that the whole history of the universe
could be told as a seamless, or nearly seamless, unfolding of the potentiality of
matter and energy. Thus, science seemed to support, if it could be said to support
anything, a materialistic or naturalistic worldview, not a theistic one. Science no
longer needed to invoke a pre-existent mind to shape matter in order to explain
the evidence of nature. Matter had always existed and could in effect arrange
itself without a pre-existent designer or Creator. Thus, by the close of the
nineteenth century, both the evidential and philosophical basis of theistic
arguments from nature had seemingly evaporated. Neither science nor philosophy
had need of the God hypothesis.

OK, Afdave. I have seen this argument many times. It is a conflation of Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism. Scientists use methodological naturalism (not p.n.) to explain the observable universe. Explain to me how a belief in a God that created the physical laws of the universe and used those laws to set every thing in motion (create everything) conflicts more with methodological naturalism than does philosophical naturalism. It’s hard for me to believe that if there is a God that it did not have a method other than “poof” to create the universe. We humans don’t have a “God-head” so it is difficult for us to fathom how God would do what God does and why. It is impossible for us to know with any certainty whether God even exists since only it’s creation and “design” can be observed.(and as you can see is interpreted myriad ways.)

Science is an attempt to understand the way the observable universe works. It is neither a vote for or against God. I’m sure since you are an engineer you can tell me if the theory you use to design circuitry accounts for God in its calculations? Did your professors in college talk about how God created the electron or influenced the properties of conductors and semi-conductors? If it doesn’t and they didn’t then electrical engineering is every bit as atheistic a science as evolution.

Comment #99588

Posted by Adam on May 1, 2006 2:17 PM (e)

normdoering learns about the Republican party by reading Mooney and Dean. LOL. Yes, that’s the ticket. The best way to learn about a movement is by reading characatures by its opponents. That tactic reminds me of a certain group that opposes what this site is supposed to stand for…

Yes, Sir_Toejam, I am aware of what the Union of Concerned Scientists (more accurately labeled, union of lefties who also happen to be scientists) says about the Bush administration. Some of it is valid, a lot of it is hysterical. Of course, the Bush adminstration isn’t the only one to be generating politically motivated reports. Have you looked at some of the stuff that’s been put out about Yucca Mountain under the influence of certain NIMBY Nevada politicians (who shall remain nameless)?

Anyway. It’s been an interesting discussion. In closing I’ll note that much of the substance that I’ve posted here, especaily about Democrats undermining science education by dumbing down standards and Bush appointing Judge Jones have gone unrefuted. I’ll also note that Russel’s exmaples of forceful anti-ID Republicans have also gone unnocited by the leftist partisans here. And finally, I’ll note that no one has had a reply to Gerry’s point about the anti-intellectualism of much the academic left, that sees racism/sexism/homophobia behind every rock.

As is typical of all ideologues, those on this thread ignore evidence and keep spouting their dogma. Does that remind you of anyone?

Comment #99592

Posted by Jim Harrison on May 1, 2006 2:59 PM (e)

Like other very highly educated groups, the scientists tend to be liberals; but they have also been a very cautious bunch who were very reluctant to get involved in politics. The Bush Administration is changing that. In the face of a Republican obscurantism that threatens both the practice and the prerogatives of the scientists, that’s changing. Bush and company are making these folks into an active political block.

Comment #99593

Posted by dunkert on May 1, 2006 3:06 PM (e)

How sad. What we are witnessing folks, is nothing less than the end of the era of enlightenmet. This country is inevitably being flushed down the toilet by people who value their religious convictions more than rational thought and reason. Take a good look at Iran and you will see your future.

Comment #99594

Posted by gwangung@u.washington.edu on May 1, 2006 3:11 PM (e)

normdoering learns about the Republican party by reading Mooney and Dean. LOL. Yes, that’s the ticket. The best way to learn about a movement is by reading characatures by its opponents.

Of course, if what they write is ACCURATE, then what? Are you dealing with their evidence, or dismissing it, sight unseen?

More guts and evidence, please.

Comment #99595

Posted by normdoering on May 1, 2006 3:17 PM (e)

Adam wrote:

normdoering learns about the Republican party by reading Mooney and Dean. LOL.

Yes, that was a joke, however, let us ask ourselves what Adam must be reading to learn about the Repugs?

Could it be Ann Coulter’s books? A book by Joe Scarborough or Rush Limbaugh?

What do you suggest we read Adam?

Comment #99599

Posted by Laser on May 1, 2006 4:12 PM (e)

normdoering learns about the Republican party by reading Mooney and Dean. LOL. Yes, that’s the ticket. The best way to learn about a movement is by reading characatures [sic] by its opponents.

Dean is a partisan opponent of the Republicans, but Mooney’s book is a thoroughly researched and documented work, much harder to dismiss as a caricature.

In closing I’ll note that much of the substance that I’ve posted here, especaily about Democrats undermining science education by dumbing down standards and Bush appointing Judge Jones have gone unrefuted.

You presented nothing but vague claims such as: “Oh yes. The Republicans are so much worse on science education. Lets see, it was Republicans who introduced New Math. It’s Republican-dominated school boards who keep dumbing down the science requirements for graduation. It was Republican legislators in my present home state of MA that opposed making the MCAS a high school graduation requirement. It’s Republicans who keep dumbing down public university admissions in the name of “diversity.”

Oh wait, no, it’s been members of the other party doing these things, hasn’t it?”

Have any evidence to back that up? Any statistics on the number of democrats and republicans on those school boards? Any statistics on the number of democrats and republicans on the boards of directors of public universities in this country? Are they all democrats?

I’ll also note that Russel’s exmaples of forceful anti-ID Republicans have also gone unnocited by the leftist partisans here.

I’d like to see your evidence that not a single leftist who reads this blog noticed that some republicans are anti-ID.

And finally, I’ll note that no one has had a reply to Gerry’s point about the anti-intellectualism of much the academic left, that sees racism/sexism/homophobia behind every rock.

In my academic career, I have seen similar examples. People like Gerry described are disgusting. How strange, though, that neither you nor Gerry have brought up any examples of anti-intellectualism on the right. Why is that?

As is typical of all ideologues, those on this thread ignore evidence and keep spouting their dogma. Does that remind you of anyone?

Yes, it does. There are several posters on this board who fit this description, including you. You think that you’re intellectually fair-minded, but you’re as blind to your biases as you accuse the leftists of being. You and Gerry justifiably decry the anti-intellectualism of the academic left but hypocritically howl when someone points out the anti-intellectualism of the right. I don’t see either of you denouncing that.

Spare us your self-righteous rants. As I said in a previous post, pointing out the flaws in your political opponents’ positions does not mean that yours aren’t equally flawed.

I’m with Rev. Dr. Flank. A pox on both houses.

Comment #99604

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 1, 2006 5:58 PM (e)

Good lord, Republicans have gotten whiny these days. A simple observational statement of fact about anything Bush does gets them howling like scalded cats.

Oh well, it’s not like they have anything *good* to show for the last 5 years. Best for them to change the subject, I guess.

Comment #99621

Posted by normdoering on May 1, 2006 9:03 PM (e)

Arden Chatfield wrote:

A simple observational statement of fact about anything Bush does gets them howling like scalded cats.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” - Stephen Colbert

Comment #99644

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 2, 2006 7:19 AM (e)

I’d like to see your evidence that not a single leftist

“Leftists”? We have “leftists” in the USA? Where?

Ohhhh, they just mean “anti-fundies”.

who reads this blog noticed that some republicans are anti-ID.

Indeed, as I have already pointed out, there is a large faction within the Republicrat Party who object to having their party hijacked by the fundie nutters. McCain is one of them, Schwarzenegger (or however hell ya spell it) is another. The fundies have already targeted them for removal, calling them RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only).

They need to be supported within the party. The RINO’s are the only hope of removing the nutters from power within the Republicrat party. Until then, the GOP will remain “God’s Own Party”.

Maybe they can change their name to “Hezballah” (which means the same thing).

Comment #99645

Posted by Laser on May 2, 2006 7:27 AM (e)

Lenny, you need to catch up. McCain is showing signs of getting into bed with the fundies. He endorsed the “teach the controversy” crap and is giving the graduation speech at Falwell’s Liberty U. this year. McCain is moving toward appeasing the religious right, not taking his party back from them.

Comment #99650

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 2, 2006 9:07 AM (e)

Lenny, you need to catch up. McCain is showing signs of getting into bed with the fundies. He endorsed the “teach the controversy” crap and is giving the graduation speech at Falwell’s Liberty U. this year. McCain is moving toward appeasing the religious right, not taking his party back from them.

Yep, it’s really pathetic. He wants the presidency really bad, he knows it’s his last shot, and he seems to be convinced that sucking up to the James Dobson crowd is the only way to do it. So the GOP will continue to be in thrall to the fundies, people like Adam will continue to both deny it and deplore it, and yet they’ll keep voting for them anyway because of the wonderful job the GOP is doing with the economy [*snark*]. Unless the GOP gets wiped out in some big elections, they’ll never pull back from the fundies, because right now this strategy works, unfortunately.

Comment #99653

Posted by k.e. on May 2, 2006 9:45 AM (e)

Lenny(he who only takes porter)…Indeed “God’s Own Party” (hallelujah) “Hezbollah” (which means the same thing).
Why think when you can get votes for nothing (and chicks for free).
The libruls need to start a Revolution …uh …oh …wasn’t that the thing with the GOP.
One planet and one water =life.
No B.S. the fundiez want a desert devoid of life but hey they got the goats and grazin is their prerogative since “god is on our side”…. geez slack jawed yokels get my goat.
News flash …for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.
Q. How many B52’s did it take to conquer ‘nam?
Cod almighty
arseholes

Comment #99654

Posted by AD on May 2, 2006 10:08 AM (e)

Lets see, it was Republicans who introduced New Math.

As someone who has been involved in mathematics education in the past, allow me to step in here:

Both parties have failed abjectly and miserably in instituting any degree of meaningful mathematics. My evidence for this would be the widespread inability of American citizens of any ethnic group to understand even basic mathematics. I had students arriving in a college level calculus class who were literally unable to use the distributive law or compute basic probabilities or solve single-variable simple equations.

There’s no liberal or conservative bias here. There’s just crap from both sides.

To me, anyone who stands in the way of objectivity or fact is doing a serious disservice to our educational system. We’re ardently demolishing the foundation of our economy when we gut our educational system and integrate anti-education views into our culture.

Comment #99655

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 2, 2006 10:27 AM (e)

Lets see, it was Republicans who introduced New Math.

It is kind of funny that Republicans have to reach all they way back to the 1960’s to find an example of Democrats doing something harmful to American public education.

As for No Child Left Behind, GOPers like to cite Ted Kennedy’s support of that bill as proof that it was bipartisan, but Kennedy has since described it as an ‘unfunded mandate’ that he was essentially conned into supporting, and that if he had to do it again, he wouldn’t support it.

My wife is in education, and she doesn’t know anyone in her field who thinks that NCLB has been anything more than a complete fiasco that never should have been implemented.

Comment #99662

Posted by Russell on May 2, 2006 12:29 PM (e)

As for No Child Left Behind, GOPers like to cite Ted Kennedy’s support of that bill as proof that it was bipartisan, but Kennedy has since described it as an ‘unfunded mandate’ that he was essentially conned into supporting, and that if he had to do it again, he wouldn’t support it.

Kennedy endorsed Santorum’s stealth creationism amendment to said bill at the time, as well. (And since renounced it.) Sometimes I wonder how much attention these guys pay to what they’re (supposed to be) doing.

Comment #99663

Posted by Russell on May 2, 2006 12:55 PM (e)

AD wrote:

As someone who has been involved in mathematics education in the past, allow me to step in here:

Both parties have failed abjectly and miserably in instituting any degree of meaningful mathematics. My evidence for this would be the widespread inability of American citizens of any ethnic group to understand even basic mathematics….

There’s no liberal or conservative bias here. There’s just crap from both sides.

I’m all too aware of how biology has become a bone of contention between left and right, but I never thought math was. The realization that politicians ultimately decide math curriculum - in light of how competent they’ve shown themselves to be on science - is disturbing.

I assume there’s a body of research out there that guides math educators in what works well and what doesn’t. I would hazard a guess, though, that what works best is different from student to student, and that ultimately quality of teachers and teacher/student ratios matter more than theories of education.

(Just for the record, I was a “victim” of The New Math. I liked it. I think I learned a lot from it.)

Comment #99718

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on May 2, 2006 3:50 PM (e)

Sorry, but I just can’t resist…

Comment #99745

Posted by AC on May 2, 2006 4:18 PM (e)

Russell wrote:

Sometimes I wonder how much attention these guys pay to what they’re (supposed to be) doing.

Considering the 98-1 vote for USA PATRIOT, and the fact that so many of them didn’t even read it, they clearly pay zero attention to what they’re supposed to be doing.

Comment #99768

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on May 2, 2006 4:36 PM (e)

A politician’s first priority is getting re-elected, which usually means raising enough money to run his next campaign (and for a U.S. senate race, that means over a thousand dollars a day for each and every day in office). A politician’s second priority is achieving and maintaining power and status within the party.

Serving constituents and legislating intelligently are too far down the list to have any effect.

Comment #99816

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 2, 2006 5:53 PM (e)

Lenny, you need to catch up. McCain is showing signs of getting into bed with the fundies.

He HAS to, if he wants any chance of being elected. EVERY Republicrat candidate has to kiss fundie ass if they want to get elected. The fundies control the entire Party machinery. No candidate has any chance at all without, if not the support of the fundie wing, at least not its active opposition.

But to think that the RINO’s are friends of the fundies, is quite mistaken.

And the fundies know it.

Comment #99905

Posted by Russell on May 4, 2006 9:27 AM (e)

Surprisingly not off-topic…

If you enjoyed Stephen Colbert’s bit in Washington Saturday, you can voice your appreciation at www.thankyoustephencolbert/.org

Comment #99906

Posted by k.e. on May 4, 2006 10:54 AM (e)

Wow,….the blue bloods gritted their teeth through that one, a lot of chin stroking. I was expecting a couple of secret service guys to drag him off.
And the press did what? Oh nothing….well that is going to bite their asses.
Reminds me of when Kruzchev visited Washington in the ‘50’s and all the Russian Press corps couldn’t believe every single paper they read and every single TV news all agreed.
“How do you do that?” they asked, “in our country we have to send them to the gulags to keep them all in line….” I smell fear.

Comment #99907

Posted by K.E. on May 4, 2006 11:07 AM (e)

Talk about wiping that smug look off his face.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/EarlG/52

Comment #99912

Posted by K.E. on May 4, 2006 1:09 PM (e)

Well THAT won’t happen again, the Washington press will be vetted and ‘embedded’ next time…uh …oh..all the Fox reporters will be issued flak jackets and have a Marine assigned to them. They will be only able to move around in armoured vehicles and everything will have to go via the war room.