Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bush supports Intelligent Design and Evolution

Bush Intelligent Design Religion Evolution Education

  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#41 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 12:23 PM

Eskaminzim, on Aug 5 2005, 07:13 PM, said:

Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Dembski and Behe are fellows of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in scientific terms and backed by scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, all talk, no do.  

Eskaminzim, on Aug 5 2005, 07:13 PM, said:

Behe is an Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. Behe's argument is not essentially about whether evolution occurred, but how it had to have occurred. He claims that he wants to see "real laboratory research on the question of intelligent design."*  Such a desire belies his indifference to the science/metaphysics distinction. There is no lab experiment relevant to determining whether God exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fancy that.

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#42 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 12:28 PM

Quote

No it didn't.

Proof?

Actually, it did and it does.  There is a wing of the Republican Party that is fundamentalist and essentially theocratic.  The neo-con/Straussian wing, who are Bush's managers, pander to that belief in order to keep the base bound to the Party and to Bush.  If they can confuzzle a portion of the electorate that is not particularly scientifically up-to-date and convince them that evolution is just a hypothesis put forth by Evil Liberals, they increase that base.

And of course, "Intelligent Design" itself is just fundamentalist Creationism dressed up in high heels with a bit of lipstick and rouge.  Try suggesting to an "Intelligent Design" proponent that that Designer was Shiva, or Atum, or Coyote, and watch the mask come off.

Edited by waterpanther, 06 August 2005 - 12:30 PM.

Posted Image

#43 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 12:38 PM

waterpanther, on Aug 6 2005, 09:28 AM, said:

And of course, "Intelligent Design" itself is just fundamentalist Creationism dressed up in high heels with a bit of lipstick and rouge.  Try suggesting to an "Intelligent Design" proponent that that Designer was Shiva, or Atum, or Coyote, and watch the mask come off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, I am sooo gonna be looking for someone to try this out on.  :lol:  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#44 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 12:44 PM

Quote

There is a wing of the Republican Party that is fundamentalist and essentially theocratic. The neo-con/Straussian wing, who are Bush's managers, pander to that belief in order to . . .

Blah blah blah. Monkeys fling better crap than this, and on a less regular basis.

I'm done with this topic.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#45 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 01:15 PM

Drew, on Aug 6 2005, 12:02 PM, said:

Spectacles, on Aug 6 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

Intelligent Design has grown out of a political strategy.

No it didn't.

And it's not "Evil Liberal New York Times Columnists." It's Paul Krugman, specifically.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Did too.  :rolleyes:

OK, I can accept that you might not want to read anything by Krugman. I'm reluctant to read anything by Charles Krauthammer. But I do have to admit, sometimes, that Krauthammer has a point. Specifically here:

http://www.time.com/...1088714,00.html

And Krugman, regardless of what one thinks of him, has a point, too. Namely that there are "scientists" who are paid by oil companies to cast doubt on global warming and there are "scientists" who are funded and promoted by the religious right to cast doubt on evolution (and, though Krugman didn't get into it, scientists who crank out dubious studies to combat any suggestion that gays can be as normal as heterosexuals). Studies that have been discredited by mainstream scientists are regularly cited by opponents of conservation, evolution, and gay rights. Therefore, it's reminiscent of Irving Kristol's strategy:

Quote

Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps boast, that he had a "cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit."

"Political effectiveness was the priority," he [Kristol--not Krugman] wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."



It's sort of a swiftboating of science. :)

And it's a very effective technique. The problem is, once people find out they've been snookered, they tend to resent it. And eventually they usually find that out.


(Edited because I made the weirdest typo of "scientists" that I've ever seen.  :eek2:  )

Edited by Spectacles, 06 August 2005 - 01:22 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#46 nutmeg

nutmeg

    Just passing through

  • Islander
  • 169 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 01:52 PM

Hmmm, if you can't/won't refute an idea, just say that "..monkeys can fling better crap than that", and  leave the thread. Interesting debate tactic.

nutmeg

edited to correct spelling and two words I left out

Edited by nutmeg, 06 August 2005 - 01:54 PM.


#47 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 04:48 PM

nutmeg, on Aug 6 2005, 01:52 PM, said:

Hmmm, if you can't/won't refute an idea, just say that "..monkeys can fling better crap than that", and  leave the thread. Interesting debate tactic.

The crap in particular was yet another stupid digression regarding evil conservatives and evil religious people and yadda yadda yadda.

I think of it as sort of a 21st century variant on Godwin's rule. The moment the discussion devolves into evil George Bush and his religious right masters, the conversation is obviously over.

And it is as far as I'm concerned.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#48 nutmeg

nutmeg

    Just passing through

  • Islander
  • 169 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 05:22 PM

Gee Drew, we must be in parallel threads or something. I saw people debating back and forth. What I've read mostly is a critique of offering a religous theory of origin as a science. Said theory is critiqued by liberals and conservative alike because it doesn't follow the rules of, nor definition of, a science. Doens't sound like a put down of Bush or religous people to me. If anything, I think Mr Bush made a mistake in equating the two theories, but stating that someone might have made a mistake is not the same as bashing them or his/her followers. If I thought I was being bashed everytime someone pointed out that I made mistake I would: 1) be making the same darn mistake over and over again; 2) not learning how to do something better, more efficiently, effectively, etc. and 3) more than a bit narcissistic -- all human being make mistakes, its the nature of being human.

As far as twisting the tenets of science and creating pseudo-science to further some agenda, it isn't the first in history, nor will it be the last time that has occurred.

I still think that you have some interesting debate tactics.

nutmeg

Edited by nutmeg, 06 August 2005 - 05:34 PM.


#49 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 06:10 PM

Drew, on Aug 6 2005, 05:48 PM, said:

...The moment the discussion devolves into evil George Bush and his religious right masters, the conversation is obviously over.

And it is as far as I'm concerned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Drew:

With all due respect, sticking strictly to the topic, there is a branch of physics dealing with naturally occurring highly complex systems and the patterns they produce. A science that explains how a seemingly insignificant force, over time can have an effect, on a massive system out of all proportion to that force’s magnitude. This science grew out of the study of the weather, and is finding applications in evolution, epidemiology biophysics, and a whole host of other scientific disciplines, including oddly enough the treatment of heart disease. The science is called Non-linear Dynamical Systems.

So to say that there are biological systems whose complexity, and susceptibility to change caused by apparently insignificant forces, cannot be explained, as a function of evolution is at best a bold face lie. To say that such systems cannot evolve in the natural world with out intelligent intervention is also a major prevarication.

Given that this science can support the role of industrial pollutants, such as automobile exhaust, in birth defects among the inner-city poor, is reason enough for the petrochemical industries to fund a countervailing pseudo-science to fend off the ever increasing, legal exposure. It’s funny how the tort reform passed by the republican congress also limits such exposure.

“But then, they are all honorable men…”

Edited by emsparks, 06 August 2005 - 06:19 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#50 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 07:05 PM

Drew, on Aug 6 2005, 12:44 PM, said:

Quote

There is a wing of the Republican Party that is fundamentalist and essentially theocratic. The neo-con/Straussian wing, who are Bush's managers, pander to that belief in order to . . .

Blah blah blah. Monkeys fling better crap than this, and on a less regular basis.

I'm done with this topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'm honestly curious to know why it's monkey poo to assert that "there is a wing of the Republican Party that is fundamentalist and essentially theocratic." Isn't that true? That's my impression--based on Santorum, Ascroft, and assorted others. But I'm open to hearing about how I'm mistaken.


Isn't it also true that Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the administration are neoconservatives? And the Bush Doctrine itself is neoconservative?

And isn't it true that Karl Rove (who is essentailly Machiavellian) set out to woo the Religious Right?

I'm asking these questions in all sincerity. These are things I believe to be true. Evidently they are things you think are monkey poo. You may be right, but I'd like to know why.

And I want to be clear that I'm not intending to "bash Republicans." I'm not crazy about the Religious Right because I see it as theocratic and I prefer democracy. And I think we have the neoconservatives to thank for the mess we're in in Iraq--there was far too much bending of evidence to fit their ideology.

But there are Republicans that I do respect: the moderates and the pure fiscal conservatives, the few remaining.

Nor do I intend to bash "religious people." As I said, I'm not fond of the Religious Right, but not all religious people march in step with them.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#51 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 07:13 PM

Quote

Blah blah blah. Monkeys fling better crap than this, and on a less regular basis.

I'm done with this topic.

Apparently the monkey's have the upper hand as all I've seen from you are one liners, dismissive insults and a lack of any substantive rebuttal.


Quote

I think of it as sort of a 21st century variant on Godwin's rule. The moment the discussion devolves into evil George Bush and his religious right masters, the conversation is obviously over.

And it is as far as I'm concerned.

I don't recall seeing what you are claiming in this thread Drew, could you point it out for me? I haven't seen any "Bush is evil" comments on here. As far as the Religious Right and their support of Bush, ID, School Prayer, Abortion Bans and Abstinence Only education...well that's no secret now is it? Wasn't there a intra party memo that got leaked out regarding the Teri Schiavo's case and how it would "excite the party base" now I doubt they were referring to the fiscal conservatives now were they?

As for the origins of the ID theory
http://en.wikipedia....elligent_design

Quote

The phrase "intelligent design", used in this sense, first appeared in Christian creationist literature, including the textbook Of Pandas and People (Haughton Publishing Company, Dallas, 1989). The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. Johnson is the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the father of the intelligent design movement.


Religion and leading ID proponents
Intelligent design arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately introducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson emphasizes "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." only then can "biblical issues" be discussed.[10] Johnson explicitly calls for ID proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having ID recognized "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."[11] Though not all ID proponents are theistic or motivated by religious fervor, the majority of the principal ID advocates (including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated that in their view the designer of life is clearly God.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank[1] in the United States. The CSC lobbies for wider acceptance of intelligent design (ID) as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe, and is opposed to the theory of evolution. However, the wider scientific community considers ID to be pseudoscientific and akin to creationism.

The Wedge strategy
Main article: Wedge strategy

In 1999 an internal CSC report dating from 1998 was leaked to the public, which outlined a five-year plan for fostering broader acceptance of ID. This plan become known as the Wedge strategy. The 'wedge document' explained the key aims of CSC as follows.

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Five-Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

The paper also stated in part that:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
The Discovery Institute would later issue a statement denying that it sought to establish a theocracy.

Critics have alleged that the Center has a hidden agenda: that of giving the teaching of creationism immunity from First Amendment challenges by adopting the putatively theologically neutral stance of intelligent design. They note that in press releases intended for the general public, the CSC describes itself as "the nation's leading think-tank researching scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution." But in press releases for members only, the CSC assures them that it "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies."

http://www.edofolks....html/pub141.htm

Quote

Some idea of the Dicovery Institute's real aims can be revealed by looking at its funding sources. Nearly all of the Discovery Institute's money comes in the form of grants from wealthy "conservative" fundamentalist Christians. They got around $350,000 from the Maclellan Foundation, a fundie lobbying group in Tennessee. Their single biggest source of money, though, is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory".

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist -- a fringe group of fundies who argue that the US Constitution should be abandoned and the US should be "reconstructed" under "Biblical law". They are the Christian equivilent of the Muslim fundamentalists who want to form "Islamic states" under "Islamic law". Ahmanson is long associated with JR Rushdooney, one of the original founders of the Reconstructionist movement --- and one of the original financial backers of Henry Morris and the ICR (Rushdooney paid most of the publishing costs for Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood". Similarly, the Discovery Institute's Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife.)

Ahmanson is known for his Republican affiliations having backed McClintock in California, Bush's reelection bid etc...and if you go to the main page for the  Maclellan Foundation you'll be greeted by a link to the wonders of Geroge W. Bush and his Faith Based Initative.  Nope, no political agenda there :whistle:

Now on to the primary founders of The Discovery Institute (one of the leading arms of the ID movement) here's a few bits of bio information off their website, here's there bio on their President:

Quote

Bruce Chapman, President - Discovery Institute
Board of Directors - Discovery Institute

Bruce Chapman is a specialist in public policy development with a long career in government service at all levels, as well as a private career as an editorial writer, publisher and public policy fellow.

A former Director of the United States Census Bureau (1981 - 1983), Mr. Chapman also served as Deputy Assistant to President Ronald Reagan from 1983 to 1985 and simultaneously held the position of Director of White House Office of Planning and Evaluation. In 1985 he was appointed United States Ambassador to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna, Austria, serving through 1988. He received the State Department's Superior Honor Award. His diverse responsibilities included such subject areas as nuclear proliferation, refugees, economic development and narcotics control.

Mr. Chapman was a fellow of the Hudson Institute for two years until he founded the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a public policy center on national and international affairs, in 1990. The Institute presents public policy proposals that strive to "make a positive vision of the future practical." Subject areas include science and culture, regionalism in "Cascadia," technology and national security.

Nope nothing political about THIS guy is there?

How about One Of The VP's?

Quote

Steven J. Buri, Vice President - Discovery Institute
Phone: 206 292 0401
Discovery Extension: 125

Steven Buri serves as the Executive Director of Discovery Institute, a position he has held since April 2000. He was named a Vice President of Discovery in 2005.

Prior to joining the Institute, Steve served as the Executive Director of Stewardship Partners a non-profit organization he co-founded with Christopher Bayley in 1998. Stewardship Partners works to bridge the gap between private landowners and those responsible for enforcing environmental laws and regulations. He is still active with the organization as a member of its board of directors.

From 1996-1998, Steve served as a senior staff member to U.S. Senator Slade Gorton, (Gorton is also a Republican) representing him in international trade, foreign policy and immigration issues in the Seattle area. He has also been active in state political campaigns, working with Washington State gubernatorial candidate Dale Foreman in 1996, and serving as Political Director for Christopher Bayley's 1998 U.S. Senate campaign.

Nothing political here either...move along folks, nothing to see...
Posted Image
Posted Image

#52 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 09:53 PM

Lin731, on Aug 6 2005, 07:13 PM, said:

Quote

Blah blah blah. Monkeys fling better crap than this, and on a less regular basis.

I'm done with this topic.
Apparently the monkey's have the upper hand as all I've seen from you are one liners, dismissive insults and a lack of any substantive rebuttal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish we would all give each other a little more credit, honestly. Take a look at the post Drew was responding to:

waterpanther, on Aug 6 2005, 12:28 PM, said:

Quote

No it didn't.
Proof?
There's a big problem right off the bat: The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion, not the person refuting it. Drew is not reasonably required to prove anything, since he's not claiming anything, just denying someone else's claim.

(I mean, jeez, how would you like it if you said "There's no evidence that a conscious intellect created the universe" and the reply was, "Proof?" It's an irrational non sequitur no matter what side of the debate it comes from.)

Quote

Actually, it did and it does.  There is a wing of the Republican Party that is fundamentalist and essentially theocratic.  The neo-con/Straussian wing, who are Bush's managers, pander to that belief in order to keep the base bound to the Party and to Bush.  If they can confuzzle a portion of the electorate that is not particularly scientifically up-to-date and convince them that evolution is just a hypothesis put forth by Evil Liberals, they increase that base.
As for this statement, I can easily see why a more conservative poster would be offended by it. It offers no evidence of the claim being debated. It suggests that motive for doing something ("Those neocons are exactly the kind of people who would invent Intelligent Design as a political strategy") constitutes evidence that the thing was done ("Those neocons actually did invent Intelligent Design as a political strategy"), which rationally speaking is baseless.

And it uses the same old generalizations about how neocons are panderers and hate the Evil Liberals -- which may be what the poster honestly believes, but it's hardly a useful tack to take when you're debating someone who likely feels some kinship with them.

But, of course, this was just one post among many on the subject. Drew, I hope you don't abandon this topic entirely, or dismiss everyone who looks supiciously upon intelligent design just because a few posts on that side seem insulting, because I think some of the others are quite substantive. I'm not knowledgeable enough to really get involved in the debate, but it's an interesting topic, and I'd like to see the various arguments play out without another thread collapsing into partisan bickering.

#53 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 10:09 PM

Spectacles, on Aug 6 2005, 07:05 PM, said:

Drew, on Aug 6 2005, 12:44 PM, said:

Quote

There is a wing of the Republican Party that is fundamentalist and essentially theocratic. The neo-con/Straussian wing, who are Bush's managers, pander to that belief in order to . . .
Blah blah blah. Monkeys fling better crap than this, and on a less regular basis.

I'm done with this topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm honestly curious to know why it's monkey poo to assert that "there is a wing of the Republican Party that is fundamentalist and essentially theocratic." Isn't that true? That's my impression--based on Santorum, Ascroft, and assorted others. But I'm open to hearing about how I'm mistaken.

Isn't it also true that Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the administration are neoconservatives? And the Bush Doctrine itself is neoconservative?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To call anyone "fundamentalist and essentially theocratic" is to equate him/her with images of the Inquisition, Iran under the Shah, cults like David Koresh's, Salem witch trials, human-sacrificing Aztecs, Rome feeding Christians to the lions, Saudi-Arabian religious police trying to physically block firefighters from rescuing schoolgirls they had declared underdressed, and such. When the person being referred to in that way does not, in fact, want to run the country according to that kind of mentality, stating such an equivalency anyway is completely unhooked from reality and can't be anything other than a potshot.

"Neoconservative" isn't necessarily quite so bad, since I gather that the word once had a real, substantive meaning in political science, and some people sometimes might still be trying to use it as such... but mostly, use has made it something else, just like use turned "communist" into another word for "socialist" due to so-called communist countries actually being socialist. In real-world, practical use, "neoconservative" is pretty consistently used by the left as just another epithet, with no possible purpose but name-calling, like their habit of calling all conservatives "ultra-conservative" or "extremist conservative"... which the "neo" is especially well suited for because of its use in "neo-Nazi", making it their latest way to bring Nazis into the conversation without saying the word "Nazi" or "Hitler", like "reich-wing", Germanized misspellings of English words, and talking about prominent Republicans "goose-stepping".

#54 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 10:14 PM

Quote

QUOTE(waterpanther @ Aug 6 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE
No it didn't.

Proof?


There's a big problem right off the bat: The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion, not the person refuting it. Drew is not reasonably required to prove anything, since he's not claiming anything, just denying someone else's claim.

No, there isn't a big problem, given that Specs supported her statement with facts in her first post.  If Drew wants to argue with it, he needs to present some evidence for his own point of view.  

Quote

It offers no evidence of the claim being debated

What, precisely, are you questioning?  That a large percentage of Bush's base is fundamentalist Christian?  That's common knowledge.  So are the PNAC/Strauss/neocon affiliations of Wolfowitz, Rice, Feith, Cheney et alia. As for the neo-cons being "panderers"--pandering is a vital part of Strauss' proposed political strategy, playing to beliefs that the neocons themselves may not share.  (And in many cases, I assume, do not share, since a fairly high percentage of them seem to be Jewish and Catholic intellectuals.)
Posted Image

#55 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 10:37 PM

waterpanther, on Aug 6 2005, 10:14 PM, said:

Quote

QUOTE(waterpanther @ Aug 6 2005, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE
No it didn't.

Proof?


There's a big problem right off the bat: The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion, not the person refuting it. Drew is not reasonably required to prove anything, since he's not claiming anything, just denying someone else's claim.

No, there isn't a big problem, given that Specs supported her statement with facts in her first post.  If Drew wants to argue with it, he needs to present some evidence for his own point of view.
Well, then it seems like that should've been your response to him, not a request for "proof" that he cannot provide.

If we don't ask the right questions of each other, I don't see how we can be upset when we don't get satisfactory answers.

Quote

Quote

It offers no evidence of the claim being debated

What, precisely, are you questioning?  That a large percentage of Bush's base is fundamentalist Christian?  That's common knowledge.
I thought I explain this point pretty clearly in my original post. I'm not questioning the fact; I'm questioning the relevance of the fact.

Sure, many of Bush's supporters are fundamentalists; sure, his neocon advisors have ample reason to curry their favor. But that does nothing to justify the argument that Intelligent Design theory was created as a political tool. You can argue till your blue in the fact that someone had a reason to do something; it will never constitute evidence that they actually did it.

I'm sorry, but it did seem like the kind of thing we see all too often on this board, on both sides of the aisle. We'll be having a perfectly legitimate and interesting discussion, and all of a sudden someone will resort to partisan name-calling that has nothing to do with anything, and all of a sudden the discussion is over and we have only a shouting match to look forward to.

#56 nutmeg

nutmeg

    Just passing through

  • Islander
  • 169 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 10:57 PM

Um, Dev, you might want to read Lin's quotes and links, Waterpanther's earlier links, Specs links (to name but a few) that pretty much detail the beginnings of ID and its purpose to the right wing fundamentalist arguments in terms of creationism and serving a political cause. These folks are part of Mr Bush's base. That has been documented.

My problem with Drew's debating style is that demanding proof from others, getting it, then calling it bashing, and monkey crap does nothing to fiurther reasonable debate. To cry foul when you have essentially added nothing to the debate besides primarily one-liners -- and then leave in a huff also adds nothing to the debate. How that can be defended given all the posts, links, quotes above is beyond me.

respectfully in disagreement,
nutmeg

#57 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 11:03 PM

And in all reality there IS a way out of this conundrum, but it is one which is UNACCEPTABLE to the proponents of ID.

If you push ID all the way back to the Big Bang you can REALLY TRULY say, that "at this point science breaks down and we have no cohesive understanding of what caused the Big Bang".

Only thing is that it's NOT ENOUGH for them. They want it all.

"Man is NOT descended from apes.
Animals DO NOT evolve
Dinosaur bones are Satan leading people away from God"

ID is nothing more than Christian Fundamentalism, dressed up in the tatters of faulty scientific reasoning and paraded around town as if it was the second coming. If you want to say God created the Heaven and Earth, FINE -

God created the Big Bang and everything that happened since then is a direct result of the conditions present at that time. Since those conditions are, by definition, created by God, fixed, immutable and 13.975 billion years in the past, all things subsequent are part of Gods plan - Including EVOLUTION

There is nothing scientifically inaccurate in that statement. It clearly states that GOD created everything. It does not DEFINE God (which is REALLY what this is about) - it does not involve god in day to day activities (the sheer arrogance of most people who believe - and not meaning to offend anyone here - that with an ENTIRE UNIVERSE to manage God has time to spare for little ole' you! and your prayer to please let the Cubs win the Pennant! What arrogance! What Hubris!).

But see, that's not good enough, because it does not bring the Christian God to preeminence and that's REALLY what ID is all about, the Proselytizing of Christianity. All arguments to the contrary - as mentioned before, bring up an alternate to the God of Abraham to any ID'er and they will eat your head off your shoulders.

I believe in Science - I should!. I believe in God (well, we call it the Buddha-consciousness, and it's a thing not a person - so  there really IS a difference, but humor me for the moment). I believe in Evolution because it's got far too much evidence behind it. I know that we cannot understand the beginnings of creation. There is PLENTY of room in cosmology for God and in my mind there is no quandry whatsoever. It's a cake-and-eat-it-too situation. "They" want it all. I have no problem, either emotionally or intellectually with the Big Bang being created or being made to come into being by the originating energy and then nature takes it course without any involvement - I see the real core of this debate as to the divine taking an interest in individuals. I have no problem with it and I don't believe it does, if you believe it does, then you will have a big problem with it, because then you are truly alone and responsible for your own actions. Whereas if it does take an interest in you then it's not your fault the DEVIL made me do it, forgive forgive....

Blah blah blah monkeys crap something
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#58 nutmeg

nutmeg

    Just passing through

  • Islander
  • 169 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 11:10 PM

^^^^^^
Well said!  You go! :D

nutmeg

edited to add: Last post. I'll gone for a week. Sorry to miss the rest of this thread.

Edited by nutmeg, 06 August 2005 - 11:13 PM.


#59 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 01:16 AM

nutmeg, on Aug 6 2005, 10:57 PM, said:

Um, Dev, you might want to read Lin's quotes and links, Waterpanther's earlier links, Specs links (to name but a few) that pretty much detail the beginnings of ID and its purpose to the right wing fundamentalist arguments in terms of creationism and serving a political cause. These folks are part of Mr Bush's base. That has been documented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please understand me here -- I'm not arguing the merits of the anti-ID position; I happen to be pretty anti-ID myself. I am simply suggesting that Drew doesn't deserve to be raked over the coals because of his response to one particular post.

Even if other posts in the same thread or by the same poster spelled out the "ID is a wholly political creature" argument with crystal clarity, that doesn't change the fact that this post was irrational and argumentative and didn't contribute meaningfully to the debate, and thus Drew's reaction to it was not uncalled for.

I don't mean to get up on a high horse here; it's just a pet peeve of mine that people on both the right and the left seem to have forgotten the value of concession. Everyone gets so obsessed with slamming their enemies and sticking by their friends that they lose sight of the fact that you need to show your enemies some respect, and you need to come down on your friends if they're not doing the same.

#60 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 01:32 AM

Gefiltefishmon, on Aug 6 2005, 11:03 PM, said:

And in all reality there IS a way out of this conundrum, but it is one which is UNACCEPTABLE to the proponents of ID.

If you push ID all the way back to the Big Bang you can REALLY TRULY say, that "at this point science breaks down and we have no cohesive understanding of what caused the Big Bang".

Only thing is that it's NOT ENOUGH for them. They want it all.

"Man is NOT descended from apes.
Animals DO NOT evolve
Dinosaur bones are Satan leading people away from God"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the Amazon excerpt of Darwin's Black Box, the ID text Drew recommended earlier:

Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.

Perhaps another reason the pro-ID folks are disillusioned with this thread is because people are attacking ID not for what it is, but for something it isn't.

Edited by Dev F, 07 August 2005 - 01:32 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush, Intelligent Design, Religion, Evolution, Education

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users