Let’s give NRO a round of applause for acting as a mouthpiece for a fundie Muslim crank.

Bravo!

Er…aren’t there already Muslim Americans? And yes, fundies of all religions despise civil liberties. We knew that already.

Is there another planet I can move to? This one is turning into an omnitheocracy, and frankly, I would prefer to be around rational people.

Dan- I know. I just don’t understand what happened to make this country turn so goddamned stupid.

Is there another planet I can move to? This one is turning into an omnitheocracy, and frankly, I would prefer to be around rational people.

Hopefully news about how much Earth sucks hasn’t reached other planets populated by sentient beings…

Definitely, Ellie. We’re running out of time to flip Earth Real Estate to alien “greater fools.”

Shorter version, as remixed by Public Enemy: “One day you?ll see what I?m talkin? ?bout / ?cause one day the theocrats gonna work it out!”

I’m shocked…simply shocked…that it wasn’t written by Trent Lott.

I can’t wait for Derb to completely blow a gasket, oh wait, head over to Wolcott, he already did!

(Derb HATES the ID crap, and boy did NRO just pinch off a loaf)

The Fucktardification of the American Mind

In the thread below, Dan Someone and I had a brief chat about how amazingly stupid our country has become. To recap: Is there another planet I can move to? This one is turning into an omnitheocracy, and frankly, I…

Hopefully news about how much Earth sucks hasn’t reached other planets populated by sentient beings…

Unfortunately, it has. Proof: they’ve never contacted us.

When you take into account all of the signals we’re beaming all over the universe, I figure wireless internet may indeed keep aliens away from earth for years. Just imagine aliens intercepting an LGF thread.

Silly yagi, Muslims aren’t REAL Americans.

I think fundie Muslims and fundie Christians already have plenty to admire each other for in their treatment of women. I think fundie Christians are secretly jealous of fundie Muslims in this regard.

Whether one believes in evolution or, what is now referred to as “intelligent design,” really boils down to one’s predispositions about what reality includes. and what it does not include. If one believes that reality is limited to what can be observed with the phyical senses, then those blinders will determine what one sees and what one is willing to accept. This leads to a circular argument. IE:
X can’t exist, because I’ve already defined X as that which does not exist. This is also absurd because what are you talking about then when you’re taking about X?

If one has an opened mind, if one is open to the possiblity that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and that spirituality is real, then one will accept the possibility of a creator, and a divine plan for the universe. Both ID and Darwinism are theories that involve myriad apparent contradictions. One day, those apparent contradictions will be resolved within both, and between both, and we will understand that evolution and creationism are not opposite explanations for the origin of the universe.

the proof is in the primordeal pudding.

“we will understand that evolution and creationism are not opposite explanations for the origin of the universe”

the universe?

no,

really.

the whole universe evolved?

Did darwin figure that out during his travels on the Starship Beagle?

I’m pretty sure evolution is limited to biology.

and that intelligent design is not, and that not knowing the difference proves something even more fun-back-in-fundundamental than evolution.

That you are so clearly among the most fuctardingly fucktarded fuctards who ever fucked tards.

and you’re really not that distracting either.

sorry, everyone else.

md(hater), there goes another arrogant, smarter-than-thou comment. When I consider all the hate you have for right-wingers like me, you make it just a little easier to give up my belief that an intelligent creator created you. The only thing that brings me back to my senses is the realization that he all gave us a free will. Some use their free will to willingful project their hatred onto anyone who disagrees with them.

You hate, therefore you are. Maybe you want me to hate you back, so you can call me both stupid and hateful. Well, as the apostle Paul said (my paraphrase), “If I have all the wisdom and knowledge
in the world and have not love, I am nothing, I am a sounding brass and a tingling cymbal.” In your case, that would be a tingling, cynical cymbal.

it has absolutely nothing to do with your politics.

it has everything to do with my secular humanism. I love you. The world would suffer for your lack.

understand that about me.

also onderstand that you comment above was SO FUCKING DUMB, that you should apologise for wasting the ATP in my eye muscles, when I accidentally read it.

again, not politica, just clueless.
studioulsy clueless.

You play the fool very very poorly, you try too hard.

and honestly, i’ve never listened to your music. even once. stroking your ego is giving you too much of what you crave. I don’t stroke monkeys.

but i don’t hate you, and I might just be the most conservative one in the room.

Just not ‘republican’ conservative, and definitely not your flavor of conservative.

If you want to know why I pick on you, you should at least feel persecuted for the right reasons.

(this is what happens when blogger goes down)

again, sorry everyone else.

Both ID and Darwinism are theories that involve myriad apparent contradictions.

Wow. It’s hard to know where to begin.

ID is not a “theory” in the same sense that evolutionary theory is a “theory.” There is no science behind ID; there is no evidence to support ID.

Evolutionary theory is not called “Darwinism” by anybody involved in the scientific disciplines that rely on evolutionary theory.

There are no “apparent contradictions” in evolutionary theory. There are things that it does not explain, but as it is a scientific theory, there is a very specific method for dealing with “apparent contradictions” — it’s called the scientific method, and it makes the theory flexible enough to accomodate change in the face of contradiction. In other words, if evidence arises that contradicts an element of evolutionary theory, then the busy little evolutionary biologists put their brains in gear and try to figure out how to reconcile the contradiction with existing theory, or how to revise existing theory to fit the facts.

ID, on the other hand, is inherently contradictory, as it is a clearly religious dogma masquerading as science, but without the actual science — experimentation, evidence, heck, not even a framework for developing experiments that might provide some evidence. Creationism, as ID used to be known before it got expelled from public school on First Amendment grounds, relies entirely on the “God of the Gaps” approach — if there is something that evolutionary theory does not explain, then that is “evidence” that God is the explanation.

That same approach is why people used to think thunder was caused by dwarfs bowling in the skies.

If one has an opened mind, if one is open to the possiblity that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and that spirituality is real, then one will accept the possibility of a creator, and a divine plan for the universe.

OK, I accept the possibility. I don’t necessarily believe it, but I accept the possibility. But now I want you to accept that such a possibility (a) is outside the realm of science, (b) has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory, and (c) is not a matter for discussion in science classes.

What do you say?

I say that leaning on God to support your arguments makes you an intellectual cripple through choice of habit.

not you dan.

mdhater: Excuse me, but in my experience, limited though it may be, individuals who lean on the “F” word alot as a “choice of habit” tend to clench their fists a great deal, raise their voice a lot, and express a great deal of anger, rage and hate. You may be the exception to the rule, but if you’re not, it’s not too late to sign up for a good anger management course. Furthermore, have you considered that my comment may appear “%#* dumb” and #@)* clueless” to you because you don’t understand and/or can’t appreciate my perspective?

Dan, that post of mine you referred to as “silly” is only silly if viewed from a supercilious perspective.

“But there is a mob or herd mentality that seems to be on the rise among various large groups of people, a mass stupidity that is being whipped to greater and greater heights by cynical politicians and media stars, a collective mentality so anti-rational that it actually frightens me…”

That mob or herd mentality is emotionally driven by people on the extreme fringes of the right, and the extreme fringes of the left, who are constanting reacting without engaging their brains. You need not be fearful of right-wingers, but extremists on both ends of the continuim. As far as your argument about not allowing creationism to be included in a science class, I may actually agree with you. Religion and philosophy are macro disciplines and science is micro. But religion, including the creationist account, should be introduced and openly discussed in the classroom so that students may be exposed to different views about the origin of the world and the universe.

You guys all go to bed too early. I’m sick of having the last word on every single subject. Here I am waiting for someone to blog on so I don’t have to double blog, and nobody will reply. Well, for whoever is still out there:
Good night, Brad R.!
Good night Dan Someone!
Good night Mad Hater!
Good night John Boy!

I’m going back under the bridge to lick my wounds.
I’ll see you left-wingers bright and early tomorrow morning!

DR BLT

frustrating people to profanity with profound innanity, since 2005.

but it’s never about you, is it doctor.

just because i know how to swear doesn’t make me the one with the issues.

and, as a contrast to you, I’m not saying i don’t.

i’m just saying you’re an intellectual midget, a terrible songwriter,

and, for being unable to grasp the differnce between astrophysics, biology, cosmology, and tautology

you are also a complete fucktard.

You know, admitting you wasted oxygen is sometimes a better tactic doc.

Everyone here KNOWS i’m mad.

what tipped you off?

and those were not supposed to be anonymous

and again, sorry everyone else.

“Darwinism” is a straw man bandied about by anti-modernists and anti-rationalists of various stripes.

If these folks want to argue against Darwinism it should be up to them to find certified “Darwinists” to respond to.

mad hater, if’ I’ve provoked you into your hostile state, then I’m more powerful and more dangerous than I thought. it also appears you’re more fragile than I assumed. Therefore, I will have to exercise a little more restraint from now on. And I’m truly sorry for shattering your sense of self. If you need to see me as an idiot because I am unfamiliar with the minutae, and/or the diacritical terms unique to your area of academic specialization, be my guest. If it will help to prop up your apparently fragile ego, I am willing to carry the label. I do admit that I am not an expert in all fields or domains of knowlege, and that my fund of information may be limited in those disciplines that you’ve mentioned. On the other hand, the only way to intelligently approach this subject is via a
meta-analysis that involves philosophy, a subject that ranscends individual disciplines and addresses the issue at its substantiative core.

“Furthermore, have you considered that my comment may appear “%#* dumb” and #@)* clueless” to you because you don’t understand and/or can’t appreciate my perspective?”

Have you considerred the possibility that it appeared fucking dumb and clueless because it was full of misconceptions about evolution and scientists and because the argument was drivel. Whether or not you “believe in” evolution depends on whether or not you look at the evidence with an open mind. That’s all. ID is a philosophical position with a PR campaign attached wrapped in pseudo-scientific language. It has nothing to do with real science.

But religion, including the creationist account, should be introduced and openly discussed in the classroom so that students may be exposed to different views about the origin of the world and the universe.

I agree. Religious creation accounts should be taught in the classroom, as long as that class is called “Comparative Religion” or “Mythology” or something like that. They should not be taught in classes called “Science,” “Biology,” “Astronomy” or anything of that ilk.

I’m all in favor of students being exposed to as many different creation stories as possible. It’s fascinating stuff to read. And of course, if you want your children to have a religious outlook on life, I’m pretty sure there are places that specialize in that sort of teaching. I think they’re called, um, wait a minute… yeah, that’s it: churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., etc., etc.

But I think we want to avoid getting your religion in my science class, and my science in your religious service. We’re not talking Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups here.

Intelligent design is the methadone of the masses.

Njorl, if Intelligent Design is the “methodone of the masses,” then, at the very least, it represents attempt to set people free from the heroine of hubris that would declare human beings to be gods in and of themselves. I hate to quote from a book so hated by so many, but the Bible says: “Professing to be wise, they became fools.”

Ginger Yellow, where is the evidence that would lead you to refer to my comments as “full of misconceptions about evolution and scientists,” and where is the evidence that would lead you to the conclusion that my argument is “drivel”? It seems to be an unproven hypothesis at this point.

Dan, yes, religion and science represent different ways of knowing about the universe, but they are not entirely divorced from one another either. The question of whether or not the material world is all there is, or if there is something beyond what we can experience with our physical senses, is a legitimate question, and is legitimately raised and addressed in a science class.

(feels like screaming)

Science has previously determined that human beings are not gods. Hope this frees you from the heroin(e) of hubris.

The question of whether or not the material world is all there is, or if there is something beyond what we can experience with our physical senses, is a legitimate question, and is legitimately raised and addressed in a science class.

If you can’t see it, hear it, smell it, taste it or feel it, or deduce its existence from what everyone can see, hear, smell, taste or feel, it doesn’t belong in a science class.

That’s the whole point.

Ok, feel free to continue your three-month-long whine about how much everyone hates you — just because, through no fault of your own, you are boring and dumb.

BLT’s all over this place lately and he’s boring the hell out of me, so…

Njorl, if Intelligent Design is the “methodone of the masses,” then, at the very least, it represents attempt to set people free from the heroine of hubris that would declare human beings to be gods in and of themselves. I hate to quote from a book so hated by so many, but the Bible says: “Professing to be wise, they became fools.”

That actually is revelant to any earth-bound intelligence which claims certainty without proof in any kind of wisdom (which is solely the purvue of God). Right now, it’s the ID’ers who are insisting, in the absence of scientific proof, that God exists….scientifically.

That is a huge sin, for which you will burn in Hell.

Dan, yes, religion and science represent different ways of knowing about the universe, but they are not entirely divorced from one another either.

Yep, they are. Faith is faith and science is science. It’s a sin to confuse the two; and you’ll burn in Hell if you don’t atone for it.

The question of whether or not the material world is all there is, or if there is something beyond what we can experience with our physical senses, is a legitimate question, and is legitimately raised and addressed in a science class.

That’s sophistry on such an egregious level that it automatically condemns one to Hell for uttering it. Once something is detected through science, it is part of the physical world and no longer in the realm of the supernatural. Those things, by definition will become science when they are known. Up until then, they remain faith.

I see 3 terrible sins here; BLT…repent. The end is nigh.

Jade, why would an intelligent person waste their time responding to somebody who is “boring and dumb?” What does that say about you? Furthermore, I’ve never said that everybody at this site hates me. Only a vocal minority at this site seem to hate me. I try not to take it personally, because many of them (and you)have been poisoned with the cyanide of cynicism, and hate all right-wingers with an equal level of passion. Nearly a thousand of you have downloaded my songs over the past couple of months, and though that doesn’t compare to the thousands that have downloaded my songs at Power Line, it does indicate that, at the very least, some of you have a love/hate relationship with my music.

The question of whether or not the material world is all there is, or if there is something beyond what we can experience with our physical senses, is a legitimate question, and is legitimately raised and addressed in a science class.

It may be a legitimate question, but it is not a question for science class. Think of it this way: I postulate that “gravity” is just a theory, and that the same effect can be explained by googolplexes of tiny, invisible, unmeasurable leprechauns holding onto all physical matter (in incredibly long invisible leprechaun chains). The “gravitists” are just as dogmatic as the “Darwinists” about their pet theory. And gravity is just a theory, you know, not a fact.

So now, is it legitimate for me to propose that our science classes should teach the Leprechaun Theory as an alternative to gravity — or at least “teach the controversy”?

I was taught by the Jesuits that the Devil doesn’t understand science.

I’m picturing BLT with little horns, a tail, and a plastic trident right now.

Hi Mal de mer. I haven’t seen you around for awhile. How have you been?

“BLT’s all over the place lately and he’s boring the hell out of me…”

When someone has the guts to deliver the truth, it is rarely experienced as a 3-ring circus. Sorry, but its not my job to entertain you. My ostensible omnipresence shouldn’t threaten you either. This site provides an equal opportunity for all parties to participate as many times as they want. So far, I have not been banned, so I blog on and on and on ad naueseum, until the powers that be at Sadly no! ban me, or restrict me, or at least one of you left wingers begins to see the light.

And BTW, Mal de mer, I was born into sin and condemned to hell the day I was born. You have no power to send me there. Thank God I found a Savior, or I’d be screwed.

At best, you’ve embraced the anti-Christ.

Get thee behind me, etc. etc.

No, Mal de mer, I haven’t embraced you. I knew I offering you some apparently undeserved kindness, but I didn’t think I was getting that close.

It must be very difficult on the old psyche to think that you were born condemned to eternal damnation — earmarked for hell even as you drew your first breath. No wonder you grasp at a Savior to magically redeem you from such a horrible fate. But isn’t there a cognitive dissonance in reconciling a kind and loving God with the sort of deity that would send a newborn infant to eternal torment?

Anyway, I’m glad that nobody ever tried to tell me that I was damned from birth. (And don’t you try to tell me that, either. That’s your neurosis, not mine.)

But you never answered my question about Leprechaun Theory. Should I start pressuring my local school board or not?

Yes, Dan, there would be a cognitive dissonance in reconciling a kind and loving God with the sort of deity that would send a newborn infant to hell. My mistake. Actually, I believe that babies are given a grace period until they are old enough understand their need for a Savior. After that, it is not God who condemns them. They condemn themselves with their decision to reject the life-jacket that is being handed to them by a loving Savior who grieves at their refusal to grab ahold of His free gift of grace and eternal life.

No, Mal de mer, I haven’t embraced you. I knew I offering you some apparently undeserved kindness, but I didn’t think I was getting that close.

The Jesuits also told me that Be’elzebub’s sarcasm tends to be rather unsubtle.

…I cast thee out!, and so forth.

So Doc… about the Leprechaun Theory thing? Do you have an answer?

It sounds to me like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed, Mal de mer. Here, take a bite out of this apple!

Dan, I know I must be setting myself up for something here, but will you refresh my memory?

Direct repeat of my earlier comment:

The question of whether or not the material world is all there is, or if there is something beyond what we can experience with our physical senses, is a legitimate question, and is legitimately raised and addressed in a science class.

It may be a legitimate question, but it is not a question for science class. Think of it this way: I postulate that “gravity” is just a theory, and that the same effect can be explained by googolplexes of tiny, invisible, unmeasurable leprechauns holding onto all physical matter (in incredibly long invisible leprechaun chains). The “gravitists” are just as dogmatic as the “Darwinists” about their pet theory. And gravity is just a theory, you know, not a fact.

So now, is it legitimate for me to propose that our science classes should teach the Leprechaun Theory as an alternative to gravity — or at least “teach the controversy”?

I would say that if the leprechan theory is taken as seriously by so many people as a viable explanation as the creationist account is, and if it is historically related to the theory of gravity, then it should be grist for the academic mill. If a belief is taken so seriously by so many people as a viable explanation, and if it shares the same history, it then becomes culturally relevant.

Remember Dan, science was born of philosophy. Every science class should begin with the philosophy of science, so that students can understand science within its historical context. Science is the offspring of empiricism, a school of philosophy, and creationism is consistent with rationalism, another school of philosophy. Whether one adopts science as the measure of all things, or opens the gate to extra-empirical explanations ultimately depends on the philosophical presuppositions one adopts.

Doc.

I wonder if the L stands for logorrhea?

Well gee, your +5 fingers of typing really painted me into a corner now.

what ever will i do?

You could start by not giving yourself carpal tunnel syndrome by relying too heavily on your middle finger to communicate.

Dan, to follow up your idea.

“Step 2 – a miracle occurs” is EITHER

1) relying on god for proof, or

2) celebrating your own ignorance.

its not proof.

Just when did believing make it so?

you want me to leave you room to believe?

Meet me halfway. I’m not stopping you from founding academic institutions to study your throries,

I’m not stoppng you from founding peer-reviewed journals of christ’s own science.

But I will be damned if I let you teach your half-wit understanding of science to my children.

or your own.

teach your myths freely, I will NEVER oppose, just stop with the prosletizing and passive aggrssion and self aggrandizement already.

You’re not being persecuted for your belief, but for your fucktarded speeches.

damned is just a part of speech (from my nations christian heritage)

also,

I will outlive you.

So… the scientific method is now a democratic approach? If enough people “take something seriously,” it’s good science? Science relies on and requires logic and evidence as it seeks natural explanations for how things work. Creationism relies on supernatural explanations for how things work. The two are entirely incompatible in that respect, just like grabby leprechauns and gravity.

Every science class should begin with the philosophy of science, so that students can understand science within its historical context.

Actually, there is an entire discipline of the history of science, and it’s a wonderful field of study, but it is ultimately irrelevant to the actual practice of science. Do you want your future doctors to be taught about the proper management of the four humours as an alternative viewpoint to modern medical science, just so they can understand their medical practice “within its historical context”?

And I like your little caveat about “if it is historically related to the theory of gravity.” Enough qualifiers like that and you could plausibly argue that a frog is a bassoon. And anyway, your qualifier is bogus. Perhaps you could explain how creationism is “historically related” to evolutionary theory, other than by being diametrically opposed to it.

Dan, Dan, Dan (that’s a quote from the movie, About Last Night), not to be redundant, the historical relatedness between creationism and evolutionary theory is found in the evolution of philosophy. Aristotle, though he believed in an “unmoved mover,” was drawn towards naturalistic explanations for things, whereas Plato believed the senses were mere reflections of reality, and thus the spiritual world was to be trusted above naturalistic observation.

Why can’t you just answer the questions posed to you? You assume everyone still has no undestanding of faith and science.

That’s pretty arrogant, BLT. Another sin, I might add. I expect to be smelling brimstone from your comments soon.

Well gee, Doc, I guess if you go far enough back, everything that anybody can think of today is “historically related” to every other thing that anybody can think of. So creationism is historically related to evolutionary theory is historically related to gravitational theory is historically related to leprechauns.

Abstract things enough and frogs are historically related to bassoons, too.

Look, I understand that you have a particular world-view, and I understand you may feel some sort of obligation to defend your coreligionists. But how do you defend them when they are acting like complete boneheads or, worse, threatening the integrity of modern thought with their medieval magical thinking?

Do you honestly believe that “spirituality” has any place in the science class? And if so, doesn’t that mean we need to be teaching our science students all origins stories, and letting them pick the one they believe best fits the available facts? And then don’t we have to move on and teach Leprechaun Theory in physics classes, and Ptolemaic epicycles in astronomy classes, and phlogiston theory in chemistry, and evil spiritology in psychology classes — and not just as “historical context” but as valid alternative hypotheses?

And if you want to mandate that kind of “equal time for all possible explanations” in public school classrooms, then isn’t turnabout fair play — i.e., mustn’t we then allow the government to require churches, synagogues, mosques and covens to present all possible explanations, including purely naturalistic ones, in their regular services?

I know that’s a lot of questions, but I am really interested to see if you can come up with any kind of principled response to any of them.

Why can’t you just answer the questions posed to you?

I think I’ve finally figured this one out. With Dr. BLT’s constant dodging of simple questions and parrying of not-terribly complicated statements, he can only be one man, in reality: Scottie McClellan. It all fits so nicely–the disingenuousness over the ID folderol. The weird conjoining of “evolution” and “the origin of the universe” (whaaa?!). The claim that demanding proof for extraordinary claims is somehow anti-intellectual (wtf?!).
Yep. That’s our Scottie!

Mal de mer: I’ve answered all the questions you’ve intelligently and politely formulated.

Dan: Yes, Dan, I honestly believe that spirituality, religion, metaphysics, whatever you want to call it, including the creationist account, should be discussed, as part of a basic foundational introduction to science.

Furthermore, to address your second point, I don’t claim to represent every bonehead out there speaking rubbish in the name of creationism. The only bonehead I speak on behalf of is myself.

Marq, welcome back. For awhile there you had me wondering if you were going to compare me to Bill Clinton. Beam me up, Scottie.

I know that all of you are not really interested in discussing the Muslim aspect of this, but I would like to inform you all that in Egypt they have a section on evolution in the first year of high school biology. I read it and it makes no reference to religion at all (though the science curriculum does this generally – using Quranic verses to illustrate things like atmospheric content etc). So at least in this Muslim country they don’t have a problem teaching evolution to kids.

Yes, Dan, I honestly believe that spirituality, religion, metaphysics, whatever you want to call it, including the creationist account, should be discussed, as part of a basic foundational introduction to science.

Questions: Which “creationist account”? Genesis? Why (and which Genesis account)? Why not ancient Babylonian creation myths? Why not Lakota creation stories?

Should these creation accounts be taught in every science class? Or just an intro to science that addresses the history of science? Should they be taught as fact, or as “historical context”?

If you say “fact” (or “alternative explanations”), then could you please answer my question about whether we should teach phlogiston in chemistry, heliocentrism in astronomy and leprechauns in physics class, also as “alternative explanations” for the phenomena addressed by those disciplines?

Anne, that is interesting. Of course, the fanatics in this country don’t give a tinker’s dam about what the durn Mooslims do. But I am curious about how the Quran is used to supplement or inform science classes. Can you give or point to a couple of specific examples?

Oh, and Doc, I never said you “represented” the boneheads — but you sure seem to be defending their bonheadedness.

Dan, you’re making this more complicated than it has to be. I’d say discuss the creationist account that seems most culturally relevant, the one that has had the greatest impact on Western civilization. If students want to discuss other creationist accounts, then they should feel free to do so. A good contextual, philosophical discussion allows students to see the big picture and not get to micro about science. As far as those other avenues of study you’ve mentioned, I’d leave it up to the instructor to decide what’s relevant and what’s not. I’ve taught History of Psychology, which is basically, a history of the philosophy from which psychology evolved, but I also introduce philosophy in other psychology courses I teach. Philosophy is always relevant because it is the foundation of every single discipline.

As for the boneheaded comment, I assure you that if you compare my comments to the comments of the other boneheads, you’ll find a fundamental difference, and that would be my emphasis on a philosophical or historical context as the point in which the discussion of creation is ushered in. Although I’m sure there are a number of boneheads who would agree with this bonehead on this particular point.

So you think we should teach Genesis creationism (I assume that’s what you mean by “most culturally relevant” and “greatest impact on Western civilization”), but it sounds as if you’re saying it should be discussed as part of the historical framework rather than as “science.” Fine. But that sort of discussion ought not to happen in biology class, or any class devoted to teaching the scienctific method and the practice of science, because it has nothing to do with those practical aspects of science. The discussion you want should be reserved for history of science, philosophy of science, philosophy, or comparative religion class.

“Ginger Yellow, where is the evidence that would lead you to refer to my comments as “full of misconceptions about evolution and scientists,” and where is the evidence that would lead you to the conclusion that my argument is “drivel”?”

Datum 1: “Whether one believes in evolution or, what is now referred to as “intelligent design,” really boils down to one’s predispositions about what reality includes. and what it does not include.”

This ignores the thousands upon thousands of religious scientists who accept evolution, for the obvious reason that all the evidence supports it. This is a fundamental misconception about scientists.

Datum 2: “One day, those apparent contradictions will be resolved within both, and between both, and we will understand that evolution and creationism are not opposite explanations for the origin of the universe.”

Evolution isn’t an explanation for the origin of the universe at all, let alone one opposite to creationism. This is a fundamental misconception about evolution.

Datum 3: “. If one believes that reality is limited to what can be observed with the phyical senses, then those blinders will determine what one sees and what one is willing to accept. This leads to a circular argument. IE:
X can’t exist, because I’ve already defined X as that which does not exist. This is also absurd because what are you talking about then when you’re taking about X?”

This is drivel. Scientists don’t say that reality is necessarily limited to what can be observed with the “physical senses”. They say, quite rightly, that science can’t say anything about the metaphysical because it has no way of testing metaphysical hypotheses.

Conclusion: Your post is full of misconceptions about scientists and evolution and your argument is drivel

“As for the boneheaded comment, I assure you that if you compare my comments to the comments of the other boneheads, you’ll find a fundamental difference, and that would be my emphasis on a philosophical or historical context as the point in which the discussion of creation is ushered in.”

I see fundamental similarities, not differences: conflation of evolutionary theory and big bang theory, conflation of methodological and philosophical naturalism, and incoherent argumentation. Act like a bonehead and you’ll be called a bonehead.

Dan, yes, it should be discussed as part of the the historical framework and not as a science. Put the discussion in any course you like, but don’t exclude it, or you are building a house without a foundation and it will surely crumble.

Ginger Yellow: You’ve ruined it for me by introducing intelligent argument, reason and logic. I’m not as smart as you’ve apparently given me credit for. Nevertheless, I’m smart enough to figure out that you’ve missed the big picture that I’ve presented, and chosen, instead to zero in on single, slightly damaged or flawed trees I may have introduced, admittedly out of ignorance. So far, you appear to have successfully chopped down a few of those trees, but there’s still a philosophical forest out there for you to explore. I know there are lots of good trees in that forest, but you are are only looking for the bad ones.

Shorter Doc Sammich: “I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about something else.”

OK. But we were talking about that.

Say what?

The discussion was about whether creationism belongs in the same science classes as evolutionary theory. And when pressed, you said “Well, I’m looking at a bigger picture, and I think students should be taught something about the historical background of science, including the ‘metaphysical’ background.”

Hence, “I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about something else.”

But we were talking about “that” not the “something else” you decided you wanted to be talking about.

Clear now?

As clear as a liberal can be expected to be when confronted with the truth.

Well, that was just nasty. Which “truth” exactly have you “confronted” me with? And in what way was I unclear?

I’m not asking for any more clarity from you, Dan. I would be asking for too much with such a request. The truth I confronted you with, Dan, is that you lost the debate with me. Losing isn’t so bad, Dan. In an odd and mysterious way, I envy you for losing. Sometimes even I have lost in the game of life. But I’ve learned that whenever I lose, I find the the potential within myself to find myself —Yes, even in the midst of the most profoundly embarrassing losses I have sustained.

I’m kidding Dan. 🙂
I actually think you may have tied me this time around, or maybe you even won by a small, insignificant margain. Congratulations!

Shorter Dr. BLT:
“We’re playing BLTball here, so no matter what, I win!”
What was the title of this blog again?

I don’t know, Marq, I’ll have to consult with The Gipper. How about if you change your name to Mocking Marq?

With nobody blogging on for over 12 consecutive hours, I now pronounce this thread officially dead!

What, this one, too?!

Marq, what is your secret to bringing the dead back to life?