Commentary: Answering the Dreaded 'Evolution' Question
Jason Spaceman
---------------------------------------------------------------
By Jay Richards & David Klinghoffer on 6.24.11 @ 6:09AM
It's a question every presidential candidate must dread, one that
promises to come up repeatedly as the political season advances: "Do
you believe in evolution?"
Evolution is the speed trap of presidential campaigns. Though a
president doesn't have much influence over state and local science
education policy, reporters lie in wait for the unwary candidate,
ready to pounce with a question he's poorly prepared to answer yet
that is important to millions of voters. Fortunately, there's a reply
that not only avoids the trap but helps advance public understanding.
Rep. Michele Bachmann is the latest to get pulled to the side of the
road, lights flashing in her rear-view mirror. Talking with reporters
in New Orleans following last week's Republican Leadership Conference,
she said "I support intelligent design," referring to the theory that
nature gives scientific evidence of purpose and design.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/24/answering-the-dreaded-evolutio#
J. Spaceman
Ron O
wrote:
Both authors are associated with the Discovery Institute. Nyikos
should take note as to how the bait and switch is going down on
Bachmann.
Jay Richards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Richards
Apparently Richards was the first ID perp to admit that the Wedge
document was genuine, and called them mission statements and goals.
I can't remember Klinghoffer among the original ID perps. When did he
join the Discovery Institute. For around half a decade Berlinski was
the only Jewish fellow. His ID articles only go back to 2005, so he
is someone that would actually join such a bogus organization after he
knew that they were running a scam on their own creationist support
base. Did he join before or after the Dover Fiasco? Wouldn't it be
sad if he joined after Dover. What respectable person would do that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klinghoffer
QUOTE from the article:
Government neutrality would be welcome, as Bachmann rightly notes. But
unfortunately the candidate's statement generated headlines
("Bachmann: Schools should teach intelligent design," as CNN.com
summarized) that made her sound like she was ready to go a lot further
than the intelligent design (ID) movement, which merely advocates that
Darwinian theory's weaknesses be taught along with its strengths.
Allowing teachers to discuss ID in class would be much more
appropriate and advisable than requiring them to do so.
END QUOTE:
See how the authors are rewritting history. If they are like Nyikos
they have all kinds of excuses for telling this lie, but it is still a
lie. Richards knew about the contents of the Wedge document for years
before it was exposed. What is he saying now? They are not denying
that they wanted ID taught in the public schools. There is no
outright denial, but they are not acknowledging where Bachmann got the
idea that there was any intelligent design science to teach. They
aren't even admitting that they never had the intelligent design
science to teach. Lies of omission are still bogus lies at this point
in history.
The scam that they are advocating wasn't even an option in the Wedge
document. Just remember this article when Nyikos keeps trying to
claim that the bait and switch isn't going down. What are the IDiot
rubes that fell for the ID scam getting instead of any ID science?
Why would an intelligent design movement not want its wonderful
science to be taught? What was the initial scam? What kind of rube
would fall for the ID scam in order to only teach something that can't
even mention that the ID scam ever existed? The whole point of
scientific creationism and the ID scam was to claim that there was
some scientific reason to support creationism. What kind of person
would settle for an obfuscation scam with only the hope that some
ignorant and or dishonest teacher would slip up and teach something
that even some of the scam artist leaders admit isn't ready to be
taught.
QUOTE:
"Well, Juan, the approach we took in Minnesota is to say that there
should be room in the curriculum for study of intelligent design.
Didn't necessarily need to be in science class, it could be in a
comparative theory class. But we didn't decide that at the state
level. We left that up to the local school districts, and the
communities, and parents in that area."
END QUOTE:
Acually Minnesota was one of the places that had the bait and switch
run on them right after Ohio in 2002. I recall some news brief from
the Discovery Institute admitting that their lawyers had successfully
diverted the IDiots in Minnesota and Wisconsin from going forward with
teaching intelligent design. Some of them took the switch scam from
the same guys that had lied to them about the ID scam. They wanted to
teach the science of intelligent design, but the IDiots bent over for
the switch scam and tried that avenue of attack. They did not mention
intelligent design. These authors are just demonstrating how the
IDiots that had to bend over for the switch scam still equate the
switch scam with intelligent design even though intelligent design
isn't supposed to be mentioned when they run the teach the controversy
switch scam. If the Minnesota switch scam efforts ever amount to
anything and they get challenged in court what will these ID perp
authors be claiming about this quote? Won't they be denying that
intelligent design is even involved? What did they do in Louisiana.
The ID perps bent over backwards claiming that the switch scam had
nothing to do with intelligent design. So which is it? The liars
only have to convince the rubes with the argument of the moment.
Whatever lie that they can tell to move the scam along is OK.
They also want the candidates to lie or pretend to exclude a large
portion of their conservative support base. I laughed when I read
this part.
QUOTE:
Fortunately, there's an easy way to answer that takes account of the
dilemma. Asked about evolution, here's what Michele Bachmann, Tim
Pawlenty, or Chris Christie could have said:
"Life has a very long history and things change over time. However, I
don't think living creatures are nothing but the product of a
purposeless Darwinian process. I support teaching all about evolution,
including the scientific evidence offered against it."
Dogmatic neo-Darwinians won't like that answer (they admit of no
scientific arguments against their theory, unlike in any other area of
scientific inquiry). But some other scientists will be fine with it,
and, according to Zogby polling data, so will the 80 percent of
Americans who favor allowing students and teachers to discuss
evolutionary theory's strengths and weaknesses.
END QUOTE:
They aren't just running the bait and switch on Bachmann. They are
telling her that she has to cut her own throat and take one of the
most defensible and sensible alternative explanations while still
supporting the creationist efforts without looking like she is
supporting the creationist scams.
The YEC supporters of the ID scam are among the most vocal and
prolific supporters of the ID scam and these two are cutting them out
of the equation in order to make the scam as platable as possible. It
must be sad to be a ID perp scam artist. Of course a prevaricator on
the level of a Nyikos type would just claim that "a very long time" is
relative and includes a 10,000 limit, but what kind of dishonest
person would stoop to lying like that?
If we could get someone like Nyikos or even one of the authors to
support what they were saying in this piece we would see just how
dishonest and bogus the whole deal is.
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
He may be Jewish by descent, but he claims to be agnostic. Medved is
their main Orthodox Jew. Klinghoffer, for the last few years at least,
is not only becoming the only spokesman the DI needs, but the only
spokesman necessary for the anti-evolution movement as a whole. I'll
have to refresh my memory about his position on the evidence for
evolution, but recall some kind of admission that it supports
"something like evolution". Much more importantly he claims that the
one true objection to "Darwinism" is that acceptance of it leads to
all sorts of evil.
If that were the case than the evidence would be irrelevant, even
under their "logic." We would have a moral obligation to promote doubt
no matter how strong the evidence is. Even when they discuss the
evidence, look at the word games they play. They use "Darwinism" and
"Darwinists" so obsessively that it's nearly impossible to believe
that they don't *know* that they're attacking a caricature. Not to
mention peddling an is/ought fallacy. The trained parrots who write
those idiotic letters-to-the-editor may be clueless, but the scam
artists know exactly what they're doing. They know that if they really
had evidence against evolution, or heaven forbid, *for* a better
explanation, they would never go near the "no Darwin no Hitler"
lunacy.
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
chris thompson
wrote:
Interesting quote from the article:
"Dogmatic neo-Darwinians won't like that answer (they admit of no
scientific arguments against their theory, unlike in any other area of
scientific inquiry)."
So where are these arguments? I actually think most biologists would
love to hear of some real evidence against evolution. It would make
things lively.
Please, point me to the _scientific_ arguments against evolution.
Chris
Ron O
Orthodoxy doesn't matter. For years Berlinski was their only Jewish
and agnostic fellow and they sold his participation in their
propaganda as the Doscovery Institute having Jewish and agnostic
fellows so they weren't just a Christian club.
Basically they have only the really brain dead as spokesmen after the
bait and switch started to go down. What kind of people can you get
to front for an organization that is running a scam on their own
supporters? They used to have that English major as their spokesman,
but he stopped fronting for the scam artists and they got guys like
Luskin to take his place.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
wrote:
Those moths that aren't found on tree trunks. That lie even got into
the Ohio Model lesson plan.
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you allow me to define "evolution" any way I want, or to use
"Darwinism" instead, again with my choice of definition, I can think
of all sorts of scientific arguments. Both using your definition of
"scientific" and the one that I made up.
In neither case would I dream of teaching them to students without
granting equal time (actually more will be needed to clear up the
misinformation) to the *refutations* of those arguments. And I would
never dream of teaching the ones with my (bogus) definition of
"scientific" in science class.
The reason is that, unlike the scam artists, I do not consider "thou
shalt not bear false witness" a joke.
Jeffrey Turner
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's a question every presidential candidate must dread, one that
> promises to come up repeatedly as the political season advances: "Do
> you believe in evolution?"
Only the Republicans dread it.
--Jeff
--
It is very easy for rich people to preach
the virtues of self-reliance to the poor.
--Winston Churchill
Frank J
I mentioned that because even their Christian majority are
"fundementalists first, Christians distant second." When they dive
into their pseudoscience they sound more like that radical *Muslim*
"Harun Yahya" than like Christians.
That must sting, but it's for their own good. I wish others would rub
it in more often.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
richardal...@gmail.com
Therein lies the asymmetry of the problem in dealing with creationist:
If a scientist lies about the evidence, other scientists will come
down on them like a ton of bricks and correct them.
If a creationist lies about the evidence, other creationists will
support them even if they know that it is a lie.
The irony is that it is the creationists who claim that scientists are
immoral.
RF
AGW Facts
<jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> By Jay Richards & David Klinghoffer on 6.24.11 @ 6:09AM
>
> It's a question every presidential candidate must dread, one that
> promises to come up repeatedly as the political season advances: "Do
> you believe in evolution?"
In the same sense one "believes" in sunlight.
> Evolution is the speed trap of presidential campaigns. Though a
> president doesn't have much influence over state and local science
> education policy, reporters lie in wait for the unwary candidate,
> ready to pounce with a question he's poorly prepared to answer yet
> that is important to millions of voters. Fortunately, there's a reply
> that not only avoids the trap but helps advance public understanding.
The answer should be "Yes, for the same reason I believe in air."
> Rep. Michele Bachmann is the latest to get pulled to the side of the
> road, lights flashing in her rear-view mirror. Talking with reporters
> in New Orleans following last week's Republican Leadership Conference,
> she said "I support intelligent design," referring to the theory that
> nature gives scientific evidence of purpose and design.
What, there's now a theory?!
AGW Facts
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
> On 6/24/2011 2:27 PM, Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > By Jay Richards& David Klinghoffer on 6.24.11 @ 6:09AM
> >
> > It's a question every presidential candidate must dread, one that
> > promises to come up repeatedly as the political season advances: "Do
> > you believe in evolution?"
> Only the Republicans dread it.
Only stupid people dread it.
Er, but that's redundant.....