Fred Reed, right-wing creationist hero of the moment asked what he imagined to be hard questions that challenge the validity of evolutionary biology. They are actually rather tired and often answered “problems.” When confronted with any creationist making bold pronouncements, one should first look in The Index of Creationist Claims, or Creationist Lies and Blunders. That will take care of a majority of their so-called “evidenecs.” Several of Reed’s arguments have been debunked here already; The Neck of the Giraffe, and How I Spent My Morning.
The key appeal of the Fred Reeds of the world is that they are ignorant, and lazy. It is neither a shame nor a crime to be ignorant, we are all born totally ingnorant. It is not a crime to be lazy, but it is a waste of ability. And true enough, it is not a crime to be ignorant and lazy, nor should it be even abstractly. But what chafes my butt is that I am actually forced to pay thousands of dollars a year on “professional liability insurance” because I am legally acknowledged as an expert in certain areas, and people, and courts of law, and corporations pay me cash money to provide them with my professional expert opinion. The salt in the wound is that ignoramuses like Fred Reed can promote their inanities without liability. Something to do with the First Amendment freedom of speech ‘guarantee.’ Nothing is ever truly secure and ironically the seperation of Church and State also ‘guaranteed’ in the First Amendment is under attack by the far-right. Because he isn’t an expert at anything, and even stressed that he doesn’t know what he is writing about, Fred’s not accountable for his false statements. This is a classic example of ‘buyer beware.”
Fred Reed, and echoed by one of our local creationist pests, DaveScot, have also promoted insect metamorphosis and a “big” problem unexplained by science. There are many textbooks on insects, and evolution, and developmental biology of near a thousand pages a piece (some of which I’ll refer to below). There are also thousands of individual journal publications, many highly specialized. (Highly specialized means that I could hardly tell what they were about, and neither Fred nor Dave would have any clue at all. Otherwise, as honest and dillignet scholars they would have already read them all. Yeah, sure). Creationists count on that massive gap between what is known by science and even the literate public. {A personal note here: I come from a family which ranges from illiterates to doctorates. For example, my dear Grandmother couldn’t finish the sixth grade in 1908 because the family buggy lost its axle when their horse spooked one morning. She was never to return to school. I am not making fun of those less educated, Fred is far better educated than many of my kin. Therefore, he should be held far more accountable for willful ignorance}.
Anyway Fred, just for openers, not all insects undergo metamorphosis and to start your ‘argument’ with the highly evolved lepidoptera (critters with caterpillars) is lamebrained at best.
Endopterygota: Insects with complete metamorphosis
Insects undergoing Metamorphosis
Follow the tree, dofus. The evolution of metamorphosis started way way back, not just at the very end.
An additional, and a bit easier to follow for beginners, version is available a
Kendall Bioresearch Services: Insect Taxonomy - Agroecology - Biometrics - Expert Witness. Some people might be surprised at the “expert witness” category for Dr David A Kendall’s consulting entomology practice, but entomologists are significant members of the forensic science community which reaches far beyond the popular TV shows like “CSI: where-ever” (which are commended for at least making a decent effort of being scientifically acurate). This rather gives lie to the “would you convict someone based on this evidence?” argument we sometimes see from creationists. Yes, we would- and jury verdicts prove it!
And I think that good start for little kids, Fred Reed, and our local eartick, DaveScot, is INSECT CHARACTERISTICS: METAMORPHOSIS: Growing Up. Good advice as well.
Next, consider a popular introductory college level textbook, The Insects: An Outline of Entomology Third Edition By: Penny Gullan, and Peter Cranston, University of California, Davis published by Blackwell, inc. They only devote one out of 17 chapters to issues relating explicitly to insect evolution. Why? Because there is no time to waste on issues that are already long resolved in general, and far too complex in the details specified by specialists devoted to minutiae.
Another example with a bit more supplemental data is the chapter on Insect Metamorphosis found in the exemplary textbook Developmental Biology, Seventh Edition by Scott F. Gilbert, published by Sinauer Associates. I strongly recommend the DivBio website, and consideration of Prof. Gilbert’s textbook for adoption.
Fred Reed, “Or consider caterpillars. A caterpillar has no obvious resemblance to a butterfly. The disparity in engineering is huge. The caterpillar has no legs, properly speaking, certainly no wings, no proboscis.”
This is the first very ignorant thing Fred has to say on the subject. Oh, it is of course the first thing Fred has to say on the subject. Caterpillars of course have legs. In fact, most have multiple sets of legs which are developmentally differentiated. I currently have at least 6 species of insect larva crawling around the front yard, and I just checked. Fred could too. In the entomology literature, these are often referred to as “protopodia” (those which undergo the least metamorphosis and typically different structurally from the other larval leg sets, plus are typically the front 3 pairs), and “pseudopodia” (those expressed on larval body segments that are not conserved in later stages). There is also an obvious evolutionary relationship here: the “protopodia” are conserved (that means ‘retained’ Fred) through all insect larva to adults. And they are not “engineered” Fred; that is called “assuming your conclusion.” It is a creationist “dead giveaway.” Remember you are pretending not to be a creationist?
Back to Fred, “How did a species that did not undergo metamorphosis evolve into one that did? Pupating looks like something you do well or not at all: If you don’t turn into something practical at the end, you don’t get another chance.
This is a more subtle error. The butterflies Fred has based his ‘shattering’ critique on are at the near end of an evolutionary trajectory of over 450 million years. The answer, of course, lies in the far end of this trajectory.
Think about this. The ancestor of a modern caterpillar necessarily was something that could reproduce already. To get to be a butterfly-producing sort of organism, it would have to evolve silk-extruding organs, since they are what you make a cocoon with. OK, maybe it did this to tie leaves together, or maybe the beast resembled a tent-caterpillar. (Again, plausibility over evidence.) Then some mutation caused it to wrap itself experimentally in silk. (What mutation? Are we serious?) It then died, wrapped, because it had no machinery to cause it to undergo the fantastically complex transformation into a butterfly. Death is usually a discouragement to reproduction.
Fred might have “thought” when he should have studied. First, butterflies don’t produce a silk cocoon, although some moths do. And even many moths don’t produce a silk cocoon and rely on a dried mucus chrysalis much like that of the butterfly. Some have a bit of both; a mucus chrysalis suspended loosely by a silk webbing. They all burst their enclosure simply by growing- and that growth is achieved by more by rearangement than by addition of new cells. A well known (but not to creationists) fact is that all insect larva store large amounts of fat prior to metamorphosis to feed the necessary cell growth and rearrangement.
Tell me how the beast can gradually acquire, by accident, the capacity gradually to undergo all the formidably elaborate changes from worm to butterfly, so that each intermediate form is a practical organism that survives. If evolutionists cannot answer such questions, the theory fails.
This is just stupid, Fred. Insect larva are not worms. Worms do not undergo
metamorphosis to emerge as insects. There are obvious evolutionary links between the segmented “worms” and insects, but you will need to start with understanding some basics first. You are still restricted to the shalow end of the pool. Next, evolution of advanced organisms is not the product of “accident.” The technical use of the idea of “random” which Fred bastardized with the term “accident” referred to chemical events which are in of themselves not merely by chance (see; Jeffrey S. Wicken, 1979 The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April ), p. 349, or Kauffman, Stuart A. 1993 The Origins of Order: Self -Organization and Selection in Evolution Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Finally Fred, your gross ignorance has little to do with the success or failure of biological science. At worst, you and you pro-ignorance fellows will drive science off shore like the rest of America’s lost manufacturing employment base.
Here the evolutionist will say, “Fred, caterpillars are soft, squashy things and don’t leave good fossils, so it’s unreasonable to expect us to find proof.”
There are fossil data, but the more significant is the current, living species data. What is stupid of Fred is to ask for detailed fossil data from organisms that don’t fossilize well.
Some of the current literature that Fred should have become very familiar with before poping off is:
JAMES W. TRUMAN AND LYNN M. RIDDIFORD
1999 “The origins of insect metamorphosis” Nature 401, 447 - 452 (30 September 1999)
Abstract: Insect metamorphosis is a fascinating and highly successful biological adaptation, but there is much uncertainty as to how it evolved. Ancestral insect species did not undergo metamorphosis and there are still some existing species that lack metamorphosis or undergo only partial metamorphosis. Based on endocrine studies and morphological comparisons of the development of insect species with and without metamorphosis, a novel hypothesis for the evolution of metamorphosis is proposed. Changes in the endocrinology of development are central to this hypothesis. The three stages of the ancestral insect species—pronymph, nymph and adult—are proposed to be equivalent to the larva, pupa and adult stages of insects with complete metamorphosis. This proposal has general implications for insect developmental biology.
Note that in the last 7 years, a great deal more has been added to the information from the above publication. For example,
Donning, Daryl P. “Metamorphosis and Evolution.” NCSE Reports 14 (2) 11.
James W. Truman, Lynn M. Riddiford
2002 “ENDOCRINE INSIGHTS INTO THE EVOLUTION OF METAMORPHOSIS IN
INSECTS” Annual Review of Entomology Vol. 47: 467-500 (Volume publication date January 2002) (doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145230)
Shanavas A, Arif A, Murthy CRK, Dutta-Gupta A
2004 “Developmental and hormonal regulation of actin and tubulin in the central nervous system of silkworm, Bombyx mori during postembryonic development” CURRENT SCIENCE 87 (3): 383-388 AUG 10 2004
Erezyilmaz DF, Riddiford LM, Truman JW
2004 “Juvenile hormone acts at embryonic molts and induces the nymphal cuticle in the direct-developing cricket” DEVELOPMENT GENES AND EVOLUTION 214 (7): 313-323 JUL 2004
Abstract:
During embryogenesis of hemimetabolous insects, the sesquiterpenoid hormone, juvenile hormone (JH), appears late in embryogenesis coincident with formation of the first nymphal cuticle. We tested the role of embryonic JH by treating cricket embryos with JH III, or the JH-mimic (JHM) pyriproxifen, during early embryogenesis. We found two discrete windows of JH sensitivity. The first occurs during the formation of the first (E1) embryonic cuticle. Treatment with JHM prior to this molt produced small embryos that failed to complete the movements of katatrepsis. Embryos treated after the E1 molt but before the second embryonic (pronymphal) molt completed katatrepsis but then failed to complete dorsal closure and precociously formed nymphal, rather than pronymphal characters. This second sensitivity window was further assessed by treating embryos with low doses of JH III prior to the pronymphal molt. With low doses, mosaic cuticles were formed, bearing features of both the pronymphal and nymphal stages. The nymphal characters varied in their sensitivity to JH III, due at least in part to differences in the timing of their sensitivity windows. Unexpectedly, many of the JH III-treated embryos with mosaic and precocious nymphal cuticles made a second nymphal cuticle and successfully hatched. JH treatment also affected the growth of the embryos. By focusing on the developing limb, we found that the effect of JH upon growth was asymmetric, with distal segments more affected than proximal ones, but this was not reflected in misexpression of Distal-less or Bric-a-brac, which are involved in proximal-distal patterning of the limb.
Note: Those above are only ones I have, and have read. There are many many more. As I am far from an expert, and would never presume to publish an independent opinion a la our boy Freddy that there is no data regarding insect evolution that could explain metamorphosis, it is the responsibility of the “freddies” for analysis and to counter these scientific studies of which they are so ignorant.
Even obsolete references serve to refute Fred Reed and his creationist compadres:
Metamorphosis: Postembryonic Reprogramming of Gene Expression in Amphibian and Insect Cells. LAWRENCE I. GILBERT, JAMSHED R. TATA, AND BURR G. ATKINSON, eds. Academic Press. 1996. 687 pages. $125.00. ISBN 0-12-283245-0.
reviewed : in American Zoologist, Feb 1997 by H Frederik Nijhout and presented online today.
Much of the difficulty in understanding the role of JH in metamorphosis no doubt arises from the fact that metamorphosis and its endocrine control have undergone significant evolutionary divergence and specialization. Features that apply to one taxon are not fully generalizable to others. In the opening chapter Sehnal et al. make the case that the key to understanding the diversity and evolution of metamorphosis and its endocrine control lies in a comparative cladistic analysis of endocrine and developmental mechanisms. They are obviously correct. The remainder of this volume, preoccupied with molecular details of model systems and eschewing a comparative approach, suggests that the community of developmental endocrinologists is not yet ready to hear this plea. But the development Sehnal et al. call for is inevitable, because once we are done describing the shared primitive characters of the molecular mechanisms of metamorphosis we will be forced to deal with the things that make animals different, both in development and in evolution. We look forward to descriptions of such studies in Metamorphosis IV, which should appear in about 2010.
Fred again: “I see the problem. But it is unreasonable to expect me to accept something on the grounds that it can’t be proved. Yes, it is possible that an explanation exists and that we just haven’t found it. But you can say that of anything whatever. Is it good science to assume that evidence will be forthcoming because we sure would like it to be? I’ll gladly give you evidence Wednesday for a theory today?
Fred, you have not the least valid interest in biology, otherwise you would have learned a little bit about it before opening your mouth so wide. You clearly haven’t. You have swallowed a load in the back of the throat from creationist ignorance peddlers.
Swallow hard, boy- you begged for it.
32 Comments
Ken Willis · 15 March 2005
Jonathan Abbey · 15 March 2005
I'd love to see more of this sort of thing on the thumb. As an amateur, I don't really know where to start learning about this sort of thing, other than by reading Dawkins, Gould, et al.
Both devestating and illuminating, very nicely done.
Gary Hurd · 15 March 2005
The far-right attack on the first amendment most significant here is the seperation clause. And sad to say it aint all that far far-right, and it sure does include the majority of the GOP.
Ed Darrell · 16 March 2005
Um, Ken, don't look now, but Lawrence Summers was Clinton's treasury secretary . . . if it's the left going after him, then it's a fight totally on the left.
And I don't think anyone has questioned that Summers had the right to say what he said. The questions are about other issues, including the wisdom of saying it in that forum without proposing solutions. The debate is wholly about the issue.
Both McCain and Feingold tend to be from the right, in the current round of campaign finance reform . . .
Speech codes on campus are a right-wing solution to a center-left-exposed problem.
It's the creationists who ask for legislation to require speech; it's creationists who ask for school boards to order science changed when creationism can't win in the marketplace of ideas.
I thought the first complaint about the right wanting to gut the First Amendment was close to over the top -- we don't need to go over the top the other way to balance things out.
TonyB · 16 March 2005
The wackos blather on and on while sensible people labor diligently to expose their ignorance, misrepresentations, and facile "explanations" of why evolution is in such dire trouble. The wackos like Reed and Berlinski dash off their lines and then scurry off to other triumphs, while the sensible people painstakingly offer detailed arguments and references galore. As Bush would say, "It's hard work!" The asymmetric effort seems damned unfair, but the struggle is too important to abandon, so plaudits to GH and others in the front lines.
Kerry · 16 March 2005
A link from Ed Cone sent me here. As an ex-collector of butterflies and an insect enthusiast generally, I found your gratuitious remark, "the First Amendment, which the right wing..." to be as groundless as the assertions you were debunking. Who is this far right wing? What are the tactics they are using? What is their strategy? When said goal is realized, what will be the punishment for offenders? Tickets, jail time, community service, exile to Phyrgia, hemlock lattes? Please leave out such silly notions from your very thorough postings. That, and the name calling, "follow the tree dofus". If your thinking is rigorous, spittle is not required. That last certainly colored my first impression of your site; not what I expected seeing the opening page.
David Heddle · 16 March 2005
Russell · 16 March 2005
Excellent post GH! Thanks for taking the time.
I think the Fred Reeds and Neurodes of this world like to paint a picture of Darwinian Thought Police standing thuggishly around questions like this, saying "move along, move along; nothing to see here", when in fact, these are the puzzles scientists love most.
As for Kerry's complaints about style: First, did you read the Fred Reed essay that initiated this discussion? "Doofus" is pretty mild, considering. Also, I don't think there's much confusion about what GH is stating as opinion and what is fact. The problem with Reed's propaganda is that it's sloppy non-research taken as fact by the footsoldiers of creationism. Watch for tidbits from this essay to start popping up like mushrooms among creationist talking points.
Grant Canyon · 16 March 2005
Well, Ed Darrell, neither side has a clear record on this First Amendment issue.
With regard to Summers, the criticism does not seem to be based on the merit of his proposal, but of him asserting it. That seems to me to be the protesters protesting his exercise of speech. If the objections were framed as "how could Harvard have someone so ignorant as its president" vs. "how could Harvard have someone so insensitive as its president" then perhaps the argument is over the issue. I think the first would indicate a dispute as to the issue, and the latter his right to express his opinion, and I've seen more of the latter than the former.
Campus speech codes are a complete construct of the left. The right has no power in academia. Moreover, given their nature as limiting discussion of traditionally leftist sensitivities, your statement blaming the right for speech codes is odd, unless I am missing your point. (Protests to inflammatory speech by the left [such as that of Ward Churchill] does, however, tend to be a product of the center/right.)
Neither McCain nor Feingold are on the right wing on this issue. Campaign finance has never been big on the right wing agenda. (While McCain is a Republican, none would say he is very conservative, on many issues including this one. Just ask the NRA.)
Neither the left or the right is on the side of the angels on this. We owe fealty to the truth, regardless of whose ox is gored. And as you point out, the right has blame here, but so does the left.
However, the ignorant boobery driving the objection to teaching evolution is, I am sad to say, a product of the right. However, those on the left would do well to remember that even if all of the boobs are on the right, that does not mean that all on the right are boobs.
Ken Willis · 16 March 2005
These posts, except the one by Grant Canyon which is eloquent and wise, sort of confirm my unfortunate dilemma. There is no home for me. I am on the right because I believe in liberty, I love the truth and hate lies, and I distrust BIG anything, especially government.
This thinking naturally follows from the realization that men and women run society's institutions and men and women are not angels.
But the right is also the home of the big lies of creationism and ID. I call them "lies" because I don't believe the proponents actually believe their own BS. Maybe Phillip Johnson does because he is a lawyer and therefor has an impaired ability to discern truth. But Demski is a scientist, as are Behe and Jonathon Wells. They know better.
But the left? Well, while the right is correct about most things except evolution, the left is wrong about everything except evolution. The left was wrong about communism, welfare, gun control, criminal control, education, social security, economic growth, national defense, etc., etc. Every institution in America that the left has controlled for the last 50 years, from K-12 education to poverty to health care, has been made worse by them. Every idea that has brought improvement and relief to the destruction they have wrought, from welfare reform to educational choice to medical savings accounts, has come from the right. When will the left apologize? Never. Because like creationism and ID, leftism is a religion. I am sad to say it is the religion of a lot of scientists.
Gary Hurd · 16 March 2005
Ken Willis · 16 March 2005
Separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. You may think it is implied in the 1st Amendment. I think the text should be read to mean what it meant at the time it was adopted, and doing that you won't think it is implied. The ease with which it could have been said should be a warning not to supply it by interpretation.
Nevertheless, separation of church and state is an American value. That we have such a mulitude of religions and sects with none dominant over the other is a testament to how well it has been achieved. Funding faith based organizations is not an attack on separation of church and state because the criteria for receiving funding is whether you get the job done not which church or religion you represent.
Since leftism in American meets all the criteria for a well established religion, if you object to funding of faith based organizations you should object to any type of government grant to most universities.
Great White Wonder · 16 March 2005
MisterOpus1 · 16 March 2005
Doesn't "dofus" have an extra "o" in there?
Hehe, sorry. Couldn't help it. Terrific post. I think it's very interesting to notice more and more politics come into play with this debate, both here and elsewhere (WaPost, my state of Kansas, blogs, etc.). To be honest I somewhat welcome the politics into this, because with politics we can start following underlying motives, connections, and the good 'ol money trail that much better.
If anything, this weakens the IDers/Creationist cause by continuing to expose such political underpinnings. And if you're a Progressive like myself I think you just might see a bonus benefit of seeing the Right slowly being weakened by such connections and stances as well to Creationists/IDers, slowly but surely.
Sorry for the tangent.
Colin · 16 March 2005
Mr. Willis, as a Harvard grad I've followed the Summers brouhaha fairly closely. At no point have I ever heard anyone challenge the man's right to make his opinion known. Not from any commentator or any source. Every criticism is leveled at the wisdom and appropriateness of the comment, which was pretty boneheaded. The idea that he's being 'censored' because his opinion is merely unpopular is a straw man. Summers himself is unpopular, with both the faculty and the students, for other reasons, but no one is saying that he shouldn't be allowed to make crass comments. The gist of the criticism is that the president of a university with a bad record of finding and keeping female academics shouldn't shoot his mouth off and essentially blame the problem on the women. It reflects badly on the university and his office, not because it's un-PC, but because it's a crappy job of being president.
Moreover, wild tangential rants like "everything the left touches goes bad" and "leftism is a religion" just make you sound like a nut. I'm not saying that you shouldn't rant whenever you feel like it--you'd be in solid company around these parts--but it makes most people, even those on your side of the fence, just glaze over and skip to the next comment. There are plenty of ideologues around here; do we really need one more?
Michael Rathbun · 16 March 2005
The "right" and "left" vocabulary items are inutile at best; the are the impoverishing result of attempting to map variables in at least six dimensions onto a one-dimensional space. They should be abandoned as dangerous.
Even without that problem, the terminology itself is slippery and imprecise. I had, until recently, considered myself a life-long conservative "Goldwater" Republican. I recently discovered that I am now regarded (along with Goldwater himself) as fairly far to the "left" of center.
Stick to the structural issues, folks, and leave the polemical labels in the drawer.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 16 March 2005
Gary Hurd · 16 March 2005
Ken Willis · 17 March 2005
Leftism is felt, not thought. Leftist political ideas are intellectually vapid and wither away when subjected to challenge and refutation. They only thrive in the rarefied atmosphere of academia or Hollywood where everyone thinks the same way and leftists are not forced to hear other viewpoints. Larry Summers said something that just so happens to be true, but because it does not square with the leftist worldview the lefties want to tar and feather him. If leftists were open minded they would simply debate Mr. Summers. Persuade people that he is wrong. But no, they have to shut him up.
Sorry, I'm not trying to needle anyone here. This started with the gratitutous comment by GH that the right wants to abolish the first amendment. What a crock. It is the left who hate free speech and try to muzzle everyone who disagrees with them. You on the left are the most arrogant, intolerant and close-minded people on this planet. I know you aren't used to hearing that and you don't like it one bit.
I started reading this website because I am interested in evolution and I believe the anti-evolutionists are wrong. But what do I get? A bunch of left wing tripe like "the right wants to abolish the first amendment." Ok, fine. Have a nice life.
Great White Wonder · 17 March 2005
jonas · 17 March 2005
To get away from the left versus right rants completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and back to the fascinating work done on insect metamorphosis:
Does anybody know about studies in how far the features of the larval stage of insects are homologeous to basal onychophors or cambrian lobopods earmaked as contenders for common ancestry of several branches of ecdysozoa? Those look a lot like caterpillars, but are the similarities developed independently from a common body plan or have metamorphing insects just reactivated the developmental pathways of their ancestry and specialized them for the larval stage?
Gary Hurd · 17 March 2005
Re: onychophors or cambrian lobopods
I don't have any informed opinion. But, you might enjoy reading Transitional Forms and the Evolution of Phyla by Glenn Morton who looks at the origin of cambrian phyla from the perspective of Christian apologists.
Gary Hurd · 17 March 2005
jonas · 18 March 2005
Gary,
thanks for the pointer, I just love cambrian phyla overviews.
evilgeniusabroad · 18 March 2005
Excellent post regarding metamorphosis and creationist ignorance in general.
As for the left right stuff, it strikes me that Ken Willis feels a very great deal, and like many emotional people then enslaves his intellect to provide all the back-up required with selective data, truncated truncated, and the common understanding that if you feel something strongly it must be true.
I particularly enjoyed the rather devastating series of quotes regarding the separation of church and state. It demonstrates yet another person sounding off on subjects that they are essentially ignorant on.
Couple of things...whats wrong with taking a load down the back of the throat? And isnt it normally the right-wing that gibber on about censorship, porn, homosexuals, and want them all to shut up?
Gary Hurd · 18 March 2005
Ah, the sexual image had not occurred to me, I was imagining stuffing caterpillars down Fred's front orifice. Fun for a nestling ( I almost wrote "chick," another double entendre best avoided), but not so fun for Fred.
Hence,![]()
http://birds.cornell.edu/birdhouse/images/cam/NC/NC1999Jul28-110643.jpg"
Thanks for your kind words.
Ken Willis · 21 March 2005
Jim Harrison · 21 March 2005
I'm not very interested in the original intent or original language arguments. I support the notion of the separation of church and state because we badly need to keep them separate in an age when resurgent superstition has been enlisted in the service of authoritarian capitalism.
In any case, since the founders faced a very different political and cultural situation, it would have been amazing if they had addressed our issues in our terms in their documents. It is kind of funny, though, that modern Conservatives, who certainly would have supported King George, try to turn the Revolutionaries into fundamentalist know-nothings. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and even the George Washington were cosmopolitans and children of the Enlightenment who would be denounced 24/7 on Fox if they reappeared today.
Ken Willis · 21 March 2005
Gary Hurd · 21 March 2005
Smokey · 21 March 2005
Gary Hurd · 22 March 2005