Your post here completely sums up the frustration many people have with you when it comes to discussing this particular subject. I have given up trying.

You repeatedly make the same statements that have continually been shown to you to be incorrect. You refuse to examine evidence that disproves your beliefs, and you also mischaracterize the terms and meanings of the subject at hand.

To sum it up, I’ll use one example-

DARWINSIM IS NOT THE SAME AS EVOLUTION.

This has been explained to you in several different ways in several different threads. You either A.) refuse to believe it and are therefore ignorant or B.) know this but confuse the terms deceitfully. Not a terribly good choice.

Good luck to Ned, it’s too bad you are afraid to admit that you’re wrong, but I’m sure you’ll be fine.

Well, dang, Ned, thanks for mentioning it to us.

I’ll see ya over at your place.

Ned,
It would’ve been nice for you to have let Ivy & I know you were stepping away from MCB before announcing it publicly…

Just sayin’…

Ned,

I can’t blame you for wanting to take some time. While I disagree with you frequently, I appreciate reading what you have to say. Too many in today’s political climate feel as though one must overshout or squelch someone if one disagrees. It is unfortunate that civil conversation is not the norm, here or anywhere.

Rest up and hurry back.

Ned Williams:

The level of civility you receive is directly proportional to the level that you accord.

Flat Earther Takes His Ball and Goes Home. Film at 11.

Maybe this place is fit for habitation again…

[…] exits the last right-leaning blogger over at Marxists Commies and […]

It’s always nice to hear from Six Meatpuppets Buffet. Especially when they are whining.

And when this place finally shuts the fucking doors and turns out the lights it’ll be even nicer when you to crawl back into the shithole you slithered out of.

Don’t hold your breath, meathead, or you’ll pass out… like you did waiting for the inevitable death of Air America.
.

…crawl back into the shithole you slithered out of.

Civility!

Hmmmph. A site that tolerates “democommie” as a commenter doesn’t deserve it’s share of interweb bandwith.

MCB, you’ve failed. Enjoy your vacuous echo chamber.

Good bye, Ned. We’ll miss you.

We let everyone post comments here. Letting people of varying viewpoints make comments is called Freedom of Speech, Serr8d. It’s not just the law, it’s the first amendment. It even comes before gun ownership in the list of amendments. Loving one’s neighbor is considered the greatest commandment of God as well, according to the Bible, which makes tolerance the Christian thing to do. Sadly we all fall short in that respect.

Thanks for stopping by.

Brian:

Dude, you never got back to me about whether cursing at women on the threads was sufficient to boost your manliness or if you like to hit them when they’re uppity. S’matter, don’t you know the answer.

Serr8ball:

I love listening to the sound of you pathetic clowns whining about maltreatment and echo chambers.

Jim Voorhies:

Wish I had thought of that.

It’s your right to not believe in evolution.

But intelligent design is not science, and as such has no place in science classrooms. Part of the confusion over ID and evolution has come from ID proponents willfully distorting the definition of the word “theory.” A scientific theory is not just a “hunch” or an “educated guess”, it’s something observable and proveable, and that has been proven true several times. However, a scientific theory also has to be falsifiable and open to modification.

ID does not fulfill those criteria. There’s no way to observe it and no way to prove it. Natural selection on the other hand has been observed in nature countless times.

So what you want is to replace something universally accepted by the scientific community (and it is, despite whatever “debate” you pretend there is), with blind faith. That’s fine if you want to believe that. But I believe that science classes should teach science.

Goldnl, just answer the first question asked in the movie’s trailer. How did life begin?

I recall the first non-ID teachings I received, 8th grade or so, of a possible primordial ’swamp’ of methane-infested inorganic soups (with the occasional helpful lightning strike) forming nascent first life. Is that the best science can do?

First, try to define ‘life’ (and I don’t mean strands of RNA or viri, which really are not alive). I mean define the animate workings of a basic single-celled protolife that’s complete with ‘pre-evolved’ organelles and membranes, those important intracellular components that evolution can’t explain. That First Step. I know evolution works, but I see evolution as a tool of The Architect. Sudden firstlife is not evolved; evolution occurs after firstlife.

Just answer the question cogently “How did life begin?” and you can nip all this intelligent design stuff in the bud. Easy, right?

And remember, that ‘lighting-struck primordial swamp soup’ scenario is not even a scientific theory, it’s an abstract model. A model that’s as shaky as a 10-year-old’s first Revell plastic kit (where he might’ve used a bit much plastic cement and didn’t paint the thing–sigh…)

Serr8d:

“Intelligent design” has nothing to do with your ‘Architect’ hypothesis, unless you mean literal biblical creationism.

But in any case, for the truly curious, your explanation doesn’t solve anything, it merely complicates the issue by introducing another element, the origins of which remain unknown.

There is disagreement among serious scientists about that “hot soup” theory for the beginning of LIFE. Some think it was cold soup (based on studies of cometary collisions)–virtually all of them are sure it wasn’t the house salad or the calamari alla romana that started it all.

hmmm…”your explanation”, Keats? No explanation offered.

Just answer the question, and ID will go away.

BTW, I’ve never subscribed to ‘creationism’, exactly as biblically written. Men wrote the Bible, edited the Bible, and that ‘6000-year-old Earth’ thing is more parable than a literal history. But I do not believe life began as a spontaneous flash, either.

Simply answer the first question in Expelled: The Movie’s trailer.

Cogently.

Personally, I believe that all of life was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster who first created the trees, the mountain, and a midget. And I think the Christian Right’s unwillingness to allow my beliefs to be taught in schools is just bigotry on their part.

Intelligent design is not science, any more than Pastafarianism is. It doesn’t offer any new explanations, it simply chalks up everything that you can’t explain to the “work of the Designer.” That’s religion, it’s not science.

And look, it’s your right to believe in ID. Just like how it’s Ned Williams’ right as a home-school parent to teach his children that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church. But if my tax dollars are going to fund these schools, then they’d better be teaching science in science classes, not something that can’t be proven at all.

Ned, had to pop by and bid you farewell. I think the thing you are incapable of grasping is that it is NOT your beliefs or philosophies that cause people to become exasperated with you. Plenty of people share your beliefs, and manage to present their side of an issue without being totally disingenuous, and without feeling the need to have the last word. Always. I stopped engaging with you long ago, because to do so is a huge time waster.

I have to admit….it is pretty amusing to see people commenting here, pronouncing this site “dead.” There is real humor there, if you look for it.

Serr8d:

Perhaps the word “explanation” was not the most accurate.

However, according to the very standard you wish to apply, a scientific explanation of the origin of the designer, or Architect, is necessary in order to demonstrate that “intelligent design” is a legitimate scientific theory.

So I doubt that many intelligent design advocates would be willing to adopt that standard, being that the Bible offers no explanation as to the origin of the “designer”.

GoldnI:

But Serr8d doesn’t believe in ID, according the comment at 2:22.

Serr8d:
Come to think, why are you defending something you do not believe?

Going off of the above post, the scientific theory of evolution has been extensively modified over the years. The way we understand how natural selection and evolution occurs is completely different from how Darwin understood it. Read any biological journal and you’ll see that the theory is still undergoing modification.

But the proponents of ID have yet to submit any research or papers to any scientific journals. They may scream “censorship” but if they had sound science behind your beliefs, they wouldn’t have anything to worry about.

The ID people insist on fighting over evolution in the court of public opinion, in a way no other science is. If I were a crazy Christian Rightist, I’d probably be more disturbed by Einstein and relativity, since it suggests that nothing in nature, not even time or space, is fixed or absolute. So where’s our documentary on that, complaining that special relativity could lead to moral relativity?

So where’s our documentary on that, complaining that special relativity could lead to moral relativity?

Actually, at least one christian rightist, “historian” Paul Johnson, writing in Modern Times claims that’s exactly what happened.

You mean “Spanker” Johnson?

http://www.salon.com/media/1998/05/28media.html

Yes, he certainly is a poster boy for moral rectitude.

Well it seems like the crazy secularists have demonstrated both their upbringing and educational levels by their comments. I can understand why you’d rather spend time discussing matters with more intelligent people. From the comments here I gather most of the commenters are either denizens of faculty lounges of junior highs or McDonald’s employees.

Thomas Jackson:

It is laughable when someone who has nothing, and I mean nothing, to offer to the conversation is critical of those who do–and I’m not talking about me, bozo.

However, according to the very standard you wish to apply, a scientific explanation of the origin of the designer, or Architect, is necessary in order to demonstrate that “intelligent design” is a legitimate scientific theory.

Bullshit!

If you can answer The Question “How did life begin?” with even a mildly plausible theory, you can then throw teh creator questions out with the primordial soup.

Don’t feel so bad though. Even the smart(er) ones are up in arms over this…the real reason? because ‘Big Science’ wants to go forward with new stem cell research, and damn the theocon’s ethical questions. ‘Big Science’ is tired of the bother of godbotherers, and has no time to waste answering these unimportant Question(s).

For many scientists now, it’s all about grant monies and research deadlines and lucrative patents and the rest of the same sort of things that tempt lesser sorts of beings in other areas of academe. So many scientists have sold out, because The Question is unanswerable with their simplistic ‘models’; the real Answer would scare the shit out of them.

“Big Science”?

That’s rich. Yes, scientists are just like oil and tobacco companies. Wow.

Serr8ted, you’re not going to be persuaded by anything we say. That’s your right. It’s your right to believe in ID or the Bible or whatever, and far be it from us to judge. But you can’t provide any form of proof of ID beyond your own belief. It’s not a science.

If you do have some way of proving it, I’d love to see it.

GoldnI:

Do not hold your breath while you’re waiting. The specialty of IDiots and folks who believe in equally preposterous propositions like the linkage between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to shout louder about how the other side isn’t proving their case–instead of submitting a fact or two.

GoldnI:

Do not hold your breath while you’re waiting. The specialty of IDiots and folks who believe in equally preposterous propositions like the linkage between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to shout louder about how the other side isn’t proving their case–instead of submitting a fact or two.

Sorry about the double post.

Serr8d:

ID opponents are not necessarily trying to “throw the creator questions out.”

In fact, many credible scientists subscribe to your notion that there is some sort of “life force” at work in the universe, which at this point remains cryptic.

However, there is no evidence that this “force”, even if it does exist, is aware of our existence, or requires some sort of submission on our part. That’s up to y’all to prove.

Good luck with that.

“Big Science”?

That’s rich. Yes, scientists are just like oil and tobacco companies. Wow.

Really, goldn1, you should get out more often.

Really.

Sorry, Keats, didn’t see you tucked away under Democommie.

If scientists could come up with a decent, cogent explanation, then this would all go away.

Until they do, they will be dogged by ID.

Prove us wrong. If you can.

Good luck with that.

“Prove us wrong. If you can.”

Funny, I thought in America, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, not on the defendant.

But since you seem to want to throw out science, it doesn’t surprise me that you want to throw out the law as well.

Serr8d:

Well, O.K., but as it stands right now those pushing ID are costing taxpayers by wasting the resources of courts and school boards. So, being that you already admitted that you don’t believe it, I am still wondering why you are defending it.

As several have already said, the burden is on ID researchers to engage with and overturn the findings of a preponderance of scientific evidence. There’s a big cash prize out there for the first ID research team that can — $1 million from the Templeton Foundation. Why is that, you reckon?

Guys, the real issue here is not evolution or intelligent design. The real issue is freedom and choice. This bickering between the two sides would not be going on if it were not for a public school system that compels the children of citizens to learn certain things the state deems important.

Andrew Coulson of Cato, said it best.

Fortunately, there is a way to end the cycle of educational violence: parental choice. Why not reorganize our schools so that parents can easily get the sort of education they value for their own children without having to force it on their neighbors?

Doing so would not be difficult. A combination of tax relief for middle income families and financial assistance for low-income families would give everyone access to the independent education marketplace. A few strokes of the legislative pen could thus bring peace along the entire “education front” of America’s culture war.

Coulson goes on to elaborate why some don’t mind this endless arguing.

But let’s be honest. At least a few Americans see our recurrent battles over the government curriculum as a price worth paying. Even in the “land of the free,” there is a temptation to seize the apparatus of state schooling and use it to proselytize our neighbors with our own ideas or beliefs.

Some people just do not believe in freedom, but instead believe in using the state to compel others to submit to their beliefs. Both the left and the so called right (social conservatives, not real ones) are guilty of this.
But what about the importance of understanding this science? Coulson addressed that too.

….does it really matter if some Americans believe intelligent design is a valid scientific theory while others see it as a Lamb of God in sheep’s clothing? Surely not. While there are certainly issues on which consensus is key — respect for the rule of law and the rights of fellow citizens, tolerance of differing viewpoints, etc. — the origin of species is not one of them.

Do you think Henry Ford knew anything about evolution? What about Andrew Carnegie, or John D. Rockefellar. These men dominated their fields of business, all three lacking general education. Instead they focused on specialized education.
I apologize to anybody in here who may be a scientist or even a theologian, but general knowledge of this sort doesn’t have any effect on the success of most people.
The evolutionists and religionists who insist that their ideas be forced upon the children of others who differ, are not acting in the best interests of the children. They probably think they are, but they are not. They are satisfying something sick within themselves, at the expense of the other’s liberty.

Glen:

You said:

“Some people just do not believe in freedom, but instead believe in using the state to compel others to submit to their beliefs. Both the left and the so called right (social conservatives, not real ones) are guilty of this.
But what about the importance of understanding this science? Coulson addressed that too.”

Are you saying that ID/Creationism is science? If so, there’s the problem. If schools want to teach the “Theory of Intelligent Design” it should be taught in a course on comparative religion or myth–because it is not science.

It doesn’t matter to me what people believe (as long as their beliefs don’t affect me or my life) but it certainly matters to me that they know certain things. To allow parents to opt out of public education is one thing; to cut them a tax break for the choice is another kettle of horses of a different color. The whole “vouchers” for education program is a way for some folks to get the government to subsidize schools that cater to a particular (usually religiously motivated) group of parents. I grew up Cath-O-Lick and went to parochial schools for 13 years. My parents or, later, I, paid the tuition. The state still had the power to “guide” the school’s curriculum. Religion was part of the curriculum (I never knew anyone who “failed” catechism class) but it did not cause teachers to teach math or other sciences in a different way than it was taught in public schools.

If people don’t want their children to learn actual science they should not send them to schools that teach it. But if they want to opt out of the process they should not be subsidized for it.

The “evolutionists” are not forcing their views on any child. They are teaching science. Science like economics, politics and monetary policy are taught using theories that allow for challenge and are subject to change over time. ID/Creation, not so.

Demo, it helps if you remember that Glen sort of approaches all policy discussion as would William Wallace. Its a binary thing for him, its either freedom, or a threat to it.

Who knows, he may be on to something…

As long as education is considered a public good and conducive to the health of our national future, citizens should pony up for the provision of a high-quality education. The big majority of us have decided that this means that we want our children to make decisions based on critical thinking and examination of evidence, not the belief in the animating providence of indemonstrable First Causes. Religious education is what church is for, with a distinct mission from secular education. I happily support my own religion, but I don’t need to pay — with my tax dollars — for Ned’s, or yours, or Aunt B’s.

Moreover, if you don’t like public school education for your kids, there are options. Ned doesn’t send his kids to public schools and neither do I. You get the liberty of conscience for which you sacrifice and I don’t cheapen mine by bitching about the costs.

I apologize to anybody in here who may be a scientist or even a theologian, but general knowledge of this sort doesn’t have any effect on the success of most people.

Except that it does. It’s true that one of the things that’s hurting our economy today is the export of manufacturing jobs, but another of the things that’s hurting our economy today is the fact that we are falling behind other industrialized countries in the sort of scientific research that can be turned to practical economic use by the Carnegies of today and tomorrow. Now, partly that’s because other countries have beefed up their basic science education and their gov’t support for research, and a lot of the foreigners who used to come here to get funded can now stay home to do the same work. But partly it’s because there are too many U.S. kids graduating from high school without the basic scientific grounding that will let them go on in the sciences. So, yeah, the watering down of the science curriculum in education has a real impact on everyone in terms of standard of living, availability of new technologies, etc.

“Are you saying that ID/Creationism is science?”

Actually Democommie. That point was aimed at the Evolutionists. I was not saying that ID was science. I wasn’t entering into that argument.

nm, you are wrong. If a child has an interest in science, then he should definitely learn about all of these theories. In other words, if that is his area of expertise. But understanding the theory of evolution, for most people, falls under the category of general knowledge. It is not pertinent to most jobs and it is especially not important as for as everyday living is concerned.

Bridgett, it’s as if you didn’t read anything I said, but just chose to argue anyway. My point was exactly yours. I am arguing against the state compelling your children to learn anything about religion. In fact, I have absolutely never, ever argued the point that you seem to think I am. You said “The big majority of us have decided that this means that we want our children to make decisions based on critical thinking and examination of evidence, not the belief in the animating providence of indemonstrable First Causes.” I would cite the tyranny of the majority, but the stats Coulson, who is an evolutionist, cites in his article, says something like 51% believe in Creation. Sounds to me like a large minority is running the public education system.

Bridgett, I do not have a problem with current science curriculum being taught to my child. I don’t worry about it. But other taxpayers do, and if they don’t want their children to learn this stuff, then I think it is their right that they not be taught it.

I realize that as a liberal, it is surprising to see somebody stand up for a side they don’t really agree with. You libs and social conservatives are cut from exactly the same cloth. You are both moralists, and both are into state compulsion. Why don’t you all just ally, work out some compromises and then impose your will on the rest of us.

Mack, thanks once again for adding to the discussion. You always add so much.

If a child has an interest in science, then he should definitely learn about all of these theories.

A child will not know if s/he has an interest in science (or anything else) without exposure to it. That’s one major component to why so-called “general knowledge” is so important. If you aren’t given a sampling of everything, how can you know what your passion is?

But understanding the theory of evolution, for most people, falls under the category of general knowledge.

For most people, understanding the theory of evolution falls under the category of unattained knowledge.

says something like 51% believe in Creation

I’d bet 98% of us believe in Algebra, but that doesn’t mean we want it taught in a history class.

But other taxpayers do, and if they don’t want their children to learn this stuff, then I think it is their right that they not be taught it.

Which was bridgett’s point. If you don’t want your children to learn from a public school, there are other options.

Dolphin, could you please click on the link to Coulson’s article? I am not as able to articulate this point as well as he did in that article. Also, the fact that I am taking this position, seems to cause you to disagree with it by instinct.
By the way, he is an evolutionist. He just also happens to be a liberty lover, and he wants to see this endless bickering come to a halt.

Dolphin beat me to it, but I’ll repeat his point: children develop an interest in a topic by being taught it in an open and accurate fashion. If they are not exposed to good science teaching (or good art teaching, or good math teaching, or good teaching of whatever) they will decide that they aren’t interested in the topic. This has been demonstrated in non-controversial topic areas, and it’s true of science as well.

Glen,

I read the article, and the only part that remotely addresses my point is one sentence that you had already quoted in full.

Also, the fact that I am taking this position, seems to cause you to disagree with it by instinct.

Flatter yourself if you must, but believe me, my opinion on this topic was well-formed before you commented on this thread, and in fact before this thread even existed.

Hate to burst your narcissistic bubble, but the views of you don’t weigh into the development of my opinions at all. To put it another way, the world doesn’t revolve around Glen Dean.

Thanks Dolphin.

You know I tried to bring a different perspective to the table, in an attempt to steer the discussion away from whether ID is science or religion, or whether evolution is sound theory. I tried to bring a third perspective, one that stays away from those arguments completely, but instead focuses on promoting peace and tolerance of the other side. I purposefully cited an article written by an evolutionist, in an attempt to convince people of the liberty position.

But the same shit happened that always happens when I try to talk to you all. Perhaps I am at fault. Maybe the things I have written in the past have a tendency to produce instant acrimony in this bunch. I don’t know.

Perhaps I am at fault.

Well, if you keep trying the same thing and getting the same result, it probably IS your fault. The intelligent thing to do would be to try a different method.

You telling me that the only reason I hold an opinion is because you hold the opposite one is not a “different perspective” that I’m liable to give any weight to. You are welcome to bring that perspective to the table, but when you do, I will point out the utter ridiculousness of it.

Uh, Ned? The way things are going, you might be able to cut back to one post every once in a while and still bring ‘em in, if you do one like this. Just sayin’.

Glen:

51% of Americans may believe in creation, but ID advocates are a lunatic fringe among scientists and professional educators (a.k.a. the evil “elite”).

But if 51% want to continue to drag America into the third world, they’ll probably succeed.

Just don’t expect the other 49% to help.

Glen, what I said boils down to “I don’t send my kids to public schools but I am happy to pay for the kids who do go (like yours), because a well-educated population is a public good that I benefit from” and “I favor critical thinking in public school science curricula and I don’t favor the public funding of religious education.” If that makes me an infringer on your personal liberty to be flat-assed wrong, I can live with that.

Glen:

My comment:

“Are you saying that ID/Creationism is science?”

elicited your response:

“Actually Democommie. That point was aimed at the Evolutionists. I was not saying that ID was science. I wasn’t entering into that argument.”

What, exactly is the criteria for being an “evolutionist”? If it is that one believes in evolution then put me in that group. If it is not, please tell me what it is.

You said to Dolphin:

“You know I tried to bring a different perspective to the table, in an attempt to steer the discussion away from whether ID is science or religion, or whether evolution is sound theory.”

But, Glen, that’s the problem with attempting to discuss a problem that is apples an oranges. Evolutionary theory is based on millions of hours of reasearch and many thousands of scholarly articles which have been peer reviewed. Creationism and ID are not.

[…] that’s been intriguing to me of late (here, here and at other times when Evolution has come up as a debate topic) is how obviously the issue of […]

Good old Ned Williams, bless his closed little mind. He’s found a blog where people welcome the horse pucky that is “ID Science”.

Evolution is based on strong science: we can create evolution at will in the lab, and reproduce these results as often as we please. There’s really no denying the process of evolution. Evolution based on natural selection is a theory; evolution is not a theory.

In the linked article, scientists intelligently designed a system to illustrate evolution; after flipping a switch, the system then does it’s thing, without much intervention. Time passes, evolution happens. When they are satisfied with the observed results, after they’ve collated the data, they can then turn the thing off and clean up the mess.

How hard is that to understand?

Just because they created it in the lab does not prove that it happens exactly that way in nature. You can do a lot of stuff in the lab that does not occur in nature. After a certain point in the periodic table, all of the elements are synthetic.

I know it must have taken you awhile to find a research paper that you think proves your results, but you have proven no causality whatsoever. Like bridgett said, there’s a $1 million prize for someone who can prove ID. Wonder why this paper has not been submitted for that? Because IT DOESN’T PROVE ID.

Of course it doesn’t prove ID.

This project is designed to prove evolution in the classroom. Which it does; which is fine.

But, it takes an intelligence to throw the switch. In this case, a scientist.

I just think it’s somewhat amusing that science can prove evolution, in the lab; but can’t prove evolution without throwing a switch.

There’s always gotta be someone there to throw the switch.

But you CANNOT prove that, and that is why it’s not a science.

You want to discuss this in a philosophy class, fine. But it’s not science.

Then, let science create new life. And reproduce that creation in a lab.

Believe me, they’ve been trying that for centuries.

Now, they’ve become frustrated and have given up. They just can’t create new life.

Oh, but Nishi argues nanotechnology and AI, which is artificial ‘life’; that’s just around the corner. And that AI will prove to all of us that we’ve created…something.

But still, not life, as we know it. As was created from nothing.

GoldnI:

I think I see, in the person of your antagponist, another evolution (and probably global warming) denialist being unintelligently designed.