Santorum vs. Santorum

As a Pennsylvanian I am taking heart in the consistent results of the polls which show Santorum lagging behind his likely Democratic challenger - maybe there's hope for this state after all.

This is a classic strategy: First make sure that your base is on board, and then sidle over to the middle so you can appear to be "not that bad." Rick's up for re-election next year against a strong candidate, and he's likely to do more of this.

It seems to me that politicians go either to moderate positions or out to extreme positions when they get desperate. Our government here in New Zealand has made an outlandish promise to remove the interest from student loans, which is unfortunately 'buying' many votes from people silly enough to believe they will do it.

We had the same thing in the states with Bush giving everyone 300 dollars in promise for a vote.

-Zach

We may be seeing the evolution of the anti-evolution movement into its next form. First came Creationism which fizzled in the public arean, then came Intelligent Design which is fizzling in the public arena. Now the movement is morhping into hiding ID and advocating "teach the controversy". This may well be the new form of the movement as ID loses out in the courts.

This would be an interesting progression to less and less content for the alternatives to evolution. Good old Creationism has plenty of specific content. AiG is loaded with specific speculations, like a post-Flood Ice Age. ID has much less content -- a few impressions and intuitions about complexity, and some hand-waving towards a mathematical theory that has never been fleshed out. Now comes "teach the controversy" which has no content of its own at all. Its proponents claim to have no alternative to evolution at all, but merely want its supposed flaws to be pointed out.

Of course, the old creationist foundations are still there, even in "teach the controversy". But its proponents are driving it farther and farther underground.

As one of Sen. Santorum's constituents (very much under protest, but we'll get him out of office in November...), I decided to ask him to clarify:

"Dear Senator Santorum-

I'm delighted to see that you've backed off your support for the teaching of so-called 'intelligent design' in science classes. I am very familiar with both the arguments pro and con and the science underlying both, and I am glad that you've stopped advocating the teaching of a 'theory' that explains nothing, predicts nothing, is immune to disproof, and is founded on some fairly obvious misrepresentations of the underlying science (to anyone who knows enough to see through the window-dressing of theorems and mathematical formulae).

However, I noted that in your comments you said 'What we should be teaching are the problems and holes, and I think there are legitimate problems and holes, in the theory of evolution.'

I would be very interested in hearing (1) what those 'problems and holes' are, and (2) whether you think that the 'problems and holes' in every other generally accepted scientific theory (they all have them) should receive similar emphasis.

I'm familiar with the 'problems' posed by Michael Behe -- the flagellum, the blood clotting mechanism, etc. -- and from what I can tell he's a bit behind on his reading: my correspondents in the fields of molecular biology and biochemistry tell me that these 'problems' were resoved some time ago. If you're aware of others, I'd like to know about them, so that I can pass them along to my colleagues in the biological, chemical, and information sciences communities.

Please don't respond with a form letter: I don't need to know that you value comments from your constituents -- I assume that as responsible legislator, this goes without saying. But if you or one of your staffers could answer the two questions I asked in the preceding paragraph, I would be very grateful.

Thanks.

Jon A. Pastor"

I won't get an answer, of course, but I've decided that if I don't ask the questions, I can't complain about not getting the answers -- and who knows? maybe I'll find out what those problems and holes are.

I heard Santorum interviewed on NPR this morning, including mention of this topic. Rapid waffling ensued.

A note for fellow radio addicts: Christopher Lydon's new daily radio and internet show is Open Source, and today will be about ID vs. evolution (live, 4 p.m. Pacific/7 p.m. Eastern). I suggest we get all over this one, both calling in and posting.

http://www.radioopensource.org/

"More than 20 states are thinking about challenging Darwin's theory of evolution in biology classes with theories like "intelligent design" -- the idea that organisms are too complicated to be accounted for by natural selection, that our evolution must have been guided by some superior intelligence.

Proponents of I.D. aren't always explicit about the identity of the intelligent designer, but the subtext is clear: it's God. And virtually any biologist you ask questions the scientific basis of the I.D. debate. So here's the question: what's the political and cultural movement here? And if you believe in God but also in Darwin, is there another way you can imagine mixing religion with biology?"

P.S. There was a wonderful cartoon by Tony Auth in today's (August 4) Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.ucomics.com/tonyauth/

The first aspect of this interview that stood out for me was the senator's empty hubris when he called scientists wrong for disputing his assertion that there are "problems and holes in the theory of evolution." What problems? What holes?

Everlasting scientific fame awaits the Senator, or anyone else, who alerts us to actual problems and holes with a scientific fact like evolution. I'd like to hear exactly what he believes these problems are.

The second aspect was that the Senator believes that society's moral fabric depends upon the truth or falsity of abstract scientific facts, rather than on people themselves—that's why he believes this issue is so important. Talk about a relativist! Does he really believe that human morality depends upon wherever our DNA came from?

BTW, the image on the Radio Open Source page links to the perfect stickers for turning the U. of Ediacara frat vehicle into an art car:

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/posse/chazhasaposse.htm

I may have to get several dozen of these...

Everlasting scientific fame awaits the Senator, or anyone else, who alerts us to actual problems and holes with a scientific fact like evolution. I'd like to hear exactly what he believes these problems are.

I think there are legitimate problems and holes, in the theory of evolution.

— Santorum

It is not at all different than teaching ID as all ID is, is a challenge to evolution.

ID offers no evidence showing an alternative mechanism. Interesting to me, while evolution relies on well understood, elegant processes working over vast time. ID has nothing to show how a designer implemented the designs. But more interesting they not only must show how designs were put in place, they also must show eveidence of the process of design - the blueprints, the plans, some old drawings that pre-date the biologic. Something?

Unless, of course, the designer is god acting supernaturally - then ID is just religion.

George

Oh, I forgot to add. I think there is actually some evidence that the spaghetti monster is the creator. While the evidence is thin (pun intended), something must account or the spaghetti stuck to kitchen ceilings...

We may be seeing the evolution of the anti-evolution movement into its next form ... Now the movement is morphing into hiding ID and advocating "teach the controversy".

—

Actually, I favor "teach the controversy". Like any science subject, the only people qualified to decide the basic facts of the curriculum are mainstream scientists. Clearly, "teach the controversy" would consist of careful explanations of how bad ID is.

We had the same thing in the states with Bush giving everyone 300 dollars in promise for a vote.

Take the American Family Association ID survey. Pass the link around.

(Of course, such surveys are stupid, and only serve to help the AFA feel empowered. But it's fun to invade these things all the same.)

http://www.afa.net/petitions/intelligentdesign/TakeSurvey.asp

Now the movement is morhping into hiding ID and advocating "teach the controversy". This may well be the new form of the movement as ID loses out in the courts.

"More than 20 states are thinking about challenging Darwin's theory of evolution in biology classes with theories like "intelligent design" �#8221; the idea that organisms are too complicated to be accounted for by natural selection, that our evolution must have been guided by some superior intelligence.

What problems? What holes?

Regardless of their motivations, the ID people have some ideas that can not be summarily dismissed. This is because one key aspect of the puzzle has not been solved by explanations that are based on the assumption that everything happens as a result of natural causes.

On its 125th anniversary, Science magazine identified 125 of the "most compelling puzzles and questions facing scientists today." How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise? was in the top 25. I saw a UC Berkeley web site (developed with external funding) that reflected a similar perspective. At the bottom of one page (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml) it says, "Scientists have encountered no evidence that the origin of life could not have taken place through natural processes" (in logic, that is called an "argument from ignorance.")

Especially in terms of the quantity of evidence, the concept of evolution has a much solider basis than hypotheses about the origin of life. Proponents of evolution are now quietly dissociating themselves from the crucial antecedent question of how life started. Possibly in response to this, the Catholic Church now accepts evolution as the explanation of the diversity of organisms, while retaining the teaching of a divine origin of life.

Some of the loudest young-earth-creationist have offered money to any scientist who can "prove" or generate a preponderance of evidence supporting the concept of evolution. These offers are structured in such a way that they can not considered as being in good faith. (One said that to win the money, a scientist would need to demonstrate the "big bang" [talk about a WMD!])

I'd like to see funding from interested parties (the administrators of the Templeton Prize?) for research in relation to the "missing links" issue that the ID people like to talk about. From the ID side, the challenge would be to identify the strongest examples of features of organisms that would be very difficult to achieve in terms of survivability, even in the context of very rapid transitions. From the traditional biological side, the challenge would be to develop hypotheses--with a specified level of empirical support--as to how the specific transitions could have occurred.

Open Source just concluded a 60-min session on "intelligent design". Ken Miller was his usual eloquent self, and was joined for a bit by Wes McCoy of Cobb County's science department. The interview was conducted by Christopher Lydon, and you can download the mp3 at:

http://www.radioopensource.org/intelligent-design/

Er, um, Bush loaned us that money (and it was the Democrats' idea which Bush resisted and then took credit for); it came right back out of our pockets on our tax returns. And while you saw the $300 loan, the already very wealthy saw tens of thousands of dollars of real tax reduction (which came out of your pocket in terms of reduction of services and increases in other sorts of taxes).

From the ID side, the challenge would be to identify the strongest examples of features of organisms that would be very difficult to achieve in terms of survivability, even in the context of very rapid transitions. From the traditional biological side, the challenge would be to develop hypotheses--with a specified level of empirical support--as to how the specific transitions could have occurred.

identify the the strongest examples

Regardless of their motivations, the ID people have some ideas that can not be summarily dismissed. This is because one key aspect of the puzzle has not been solved by explanations that are based on the assumption that everything happens as a result of natural causes.

Regardless of their motivations, the ID people have some ideas that can not be summarily dismissed.

— Ralph Westfall

Take the American Family Association ID survey. Pass the link around.

Oh, I forgot to add. I think there is actually some evidence that the spaghetti monster is the creator. While the evidence is thin (pun intended), something must account or the spaghetti stuck to kitchen ceilings

alas, the evidence for the angel hair is even thinner

Looking up "Santorum" in a dictionary proved fruitless, but a picture of an unnamed Penn. congressman DOES accompany the definitions of "idiot," "vicious," and the slang expression "asshole." Is "Rick" the "Santorum" disgust here?

Enough with the spaghetti monster! I think it is time we get pasta all this.

(Sorry. Could resist.)

Looking up "Santorum" in a dictionary proved fruitless, but a picture of an unnamed Penn. congressman DOES accompany the definitions of "idiot," "vicious," and the slang expression "asshole." Is "Rick" the "Santorum" disgust here?

— darwinfinch

Looking up "Santorum" in a dictionary proved fruitless, but a picture of an unnamed Penn. congressman DOES accompany the definitions of "idiot," "vicious," and the slang expression "asshole." Is "Rick" the "Santorum" disgust here?

the ID people have some ideas that can not be summarily dismissed

Science magazine

"Scientists have encountered no evidence that the origin of life could not have taken place through natural processes" (in logic, that is called an "argument from ignorance.")

Proponents of evolution are now quietly dissociating themselves from the crucial antecedent question of how life started.

Possibly in response to this, the Catholic Church now accepts evolution as the explanation of the diversity of organisms, while retaining the teaching of a divine origin of life.

research in relation to the "missing links" issue that the ID people like to talk about

From the ID side, the challenge would be to identify the strongest examples of features of organisms that would be very difficult to achieve in terms of survivability, even in the context of very rapid transitions.

From the traditional biological side, the challenge would be to develop hypotheses--with a specified level of empirical support--as to how the specific transitions could have occurred.

I won't get an answer, of course, but I've decided that if I don't ask the questions, I can't complain about not getting the answers -- and who knows? maybe I'll find out what those problems and holes are.

— Jon A. Pastor

Jon A. Pastor wrote: ... wonderful cartoon by Tony Auth ...

This is because one key aspect of the puzzle has not been solved by explanations that are based on the assumption that everything happens as a result of natural causes.

In fact there are a slew of natural phenomena who used to be believed to have supernatural causes, but now virtually all of them are firmly demonstrated to be in the first pile, the one explicable by natural causes.

There are problems and holes in every scientific theory. What we need to get across is that addressing the problems and holes in the theory of evolution is the province of evolutionary biologists, and that they're hard at work at it.

— ts

I've always wondered just what the Discovery Institute scam artists told Santorum and his cronies in their dog and pony show back in 1999, that probably had something to do with the bullpucky that they keep claiming got into the education amendment. If anyone remembers back in 1999 the Discovery Institute made a big deal that they were consulting with Santorum and his cronies on capitol hill. It sounds like the Discovery Institute Wedgies hadn't, yet decided to drop the ID scam for the "teach the controversy" replacement scam, even though Meyers must have been working on the "teach the controversy" scam by then because he has that junk up on the Web dated to 1999. It sounds like Santorum was fed a bill of goods and believed the ID scam. At sometime someone must have set him straight about what a scam ID was, but like other rubes he just accepted the replacement scam from the same guys that he knows fed him the worthless ID scam.

Can any competent person flip flop like this and not know that he was scammed? Why would a competent honest person take the next scam from the same people that he knows that he couldn't trust with the first scam?

Which illustrates that supernatural causes aren't even properly conceivable, because once we have developed a causal framework for some phenomenon, we declare it natural.

We're now being told that the universe is probably made out of 10- or 11- dimensional "strings". What are those, exactly? Or what about the notion that there are an infinity of universes, with new ones containing versions of each of us splitting off all the time.

God's will is found in the elaboration of a statistical equation that spins out the natural world.

Um, what NON natural causes do you propose. And how do you propose we look for them.

No, that's not how it works. Thousands of years ago, you have all kinds of phenomena, like "things that go off cliffs fall down". These are totally understood in terms of natural causes. No one feels the need to posit that a god is necessary to pull down every object that has ever been dropped.

So when we say that the motions of the planets have natural causes, it's not because we are labeling every single causal model "natural", it's because we know it is the same phenomenon as dropping apples, and we've long ago decided that apples drop naturally.

It's the same with all phenomenon that we have to date studied. All their causes have turned out to be no different in kind from other causes that we have no problem labeling "natural".

Are you really arguing that because you don't understand the evidence underlying these ideas, that they are no more substantial than any other idea you can come up with, but can't support with evidence?

God's will is found in the elaboration of a statistical equation that spins out the natural world. That's your opinion. As long as you understand that it is not adequately supported by the evidence.

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 6, 2005 07:44 PM (e) (s)

Um, what NON natural causes do you propose. And how do you propose we look for them.

Well? I'm still waiting ... .

Hi Rev. Dr. Lenny:

I apologize for keeping you waiting. I haven't looked at this list for a while.

In science, pointing out that evidence is insufficient to prove a point does not require that another alternative be proposed. Exposure of unproven hypotheses is one of the drivers of the progress of science, because it often leads to more vigorous attempts to solve the problem by a broader spectrum of the community rather than just the person who identifies a flaw. If you still feel that there is an obligation here, you probably should direct your question to author of the article in Science magazine.

Comment #41346
Posted by ts on August 5, 2005 01:56 AM (e) (s)

Like what?

Science magazine

Notably, Science Magazine (for which my brother is a correspondent, as it happens) is not run or contributed to by "ID people".

My point exactly.

“Scientists have encountered no evidence that the origin of life could not have taken place through natural processes� (in logic, that is called an “argument from ignorance.�)

No, it isn't; an argument from ignorance would be of the form "... therefore it must have". But that isn't a conclusion of science, it's a basic element of its methodology --- methodological naturalism.

Actually it is an argument from ignorance, but it's couched in a way that preserves a vestige of deniability. The entry page (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html) for the Berkeley web site says it is designed for educators (apparently below the college level) and it is clearly oriented toward the general public rather than scientists. It would be very natural for some people in those contexts to read the statement as scientific support for the idea that natural causes are sufficient to explain the origin of life.

Comment #41542
Posted by swbarnes2 on August 5, 2005 06:41 PM (e) (s)

But as far as natural phenomena, we have the gigantic piles of all the natural phenomena which have been shown by science to be totally explicable interms of natural causes. How the planets move, how electricity works, how food is turned into biological energy, why earthquakes happen, etc.

On the other hand, we have the pile of all the natural phenomena which have been shown to be explicable only by showing supernatural causes...oh yeah, that's pile's totally empty. In all the history and prehistory of humanity, there isn't a single example of a natural phenomenon with a supernatural cause. In fact there are a slew of natural phenomena who used to be believed to have supernatural causes, but now virtually all of them are firmly demonstrated to be in the first pile, the one explicable by natural causes.

All of the above supports your belief that science will eventually find a natural-causes explanation for the origin of life. However it does not prove that this will happen. Biological scientists have access to an extremely large body of knowledge. Up to this point, they have not succeeded in creating life using the incredibly sophisticated tools that are now available. And note that even if someday scientists do succeed in creating life under the very under very unnatural conditions of a laboratory, the effort would not necessarily be relevant to the conditions that obtained in the natural environment billions of years ago. You have your beliefs, and I have mine.

So, if you want to claim that science's extraordinary sucessful strategy of searching for natural causes for natural phenomena is flawed,

I make no such claim. The history of science shows that it is a very effective strategy. I am very much in favor of continuing this strategy in all areas (of course excluding "research" such as that done by the Nazis on concentration camp inmates), including research on the origins of life.

by all means, show us a single case where the search for supernatural causes has been sucessful.

That one is very easy: the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ 20 centuries ago.

Better yet, can you show any evidence that Creationists or ID advocates are actually diverting money from their PR budgets to study these causes and the natural phenomena they influence?

As indicated previously, I would like to see the ID people get more involved in biological research. However I doubt that they are going to get very far with the very limited amounts of money that diversions from their PR budgets would represent. This kind of science is very expensive.

My wife is going to (figuratively) shoot me if don't get off this $#%^ing computer. There are some other comments I want to respond to, but that's going to have to be later. Bye now.

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 6, 2005 07:44 PM (e) (s)

Um, what NON natural causes do you propose. And how do you propose we look for them.

Well? I'm still waiting ... .

Hi Rev. Dr. Lenny:

I apologize for keeping you waiting. I haven't looked at this list for a while.

In science, pointing out that evidence is insufficient to prove a point does not require that another alternative be proposed. Exposure of unproven hypotheses is one of the drivers of the progress of science, because it often leads to more vigorous attempts to solve the problem by a broader spectrum of the community rather than just the person who identifies a flaw. If you still feel that there is an obligation here, you probably should direct your question to author of the article in Science magazine.

Comment #41346
Posted by ts on August 5, 2005 01:56 AM (e) (s)

Like what?

Science magazine

Notably, Science Magazine (for which my brother is a correspondent, as it happens) is not run or contributed to by "ID people".

My point exactly.

“Scientists have encountered no evidence that the origin of life could not have taken place through natural processes� (in logic, that is called an “argument from ignorance.�)

No, it isn't; an argument from ignorance would be of the form "... therefore it must have". But that isn't a conclusion of science, it's a basic element of its methodology --- methodological naturalism.

Actually it is an argument from ignorance, but it's couched in a way that preserves a vestige of deniability. The entry page (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html) for the Berkeley web site says it is designed for educators (apparently below the college level) and it is clearly oriented toward the general public rather than scientists. It would be very natural for some people in those contexts to read the statement as scientific support for the idea that natural causes are sufficient to explain the origin of life.

Comment #41542
Posted by swbarnes2 on August 5, 2005 06:41 PM (e) (s)

But as far as natural phenomena, we have the gigantic piles of all the natural phenomena which have been shown by science to be totally explicable interms of natural causes. How the planets move, how electricity works, how food is turned into biological energy, why earthquakes happen, etc.

On the other hand, we have the pile of all the natural phenomena which have been shown to be explicable only by showing supernatural causes...oh yeah, that's pile's totally empty. In all the history and prehistory of humanity, there isn't a single example of a natural phenomenon with a supernatural cause. In fact there are a slew of natural phenomena who used to be believed to have supernatural causes, but now virtually all of them are firmly demonstrated to be in the first pile, the one explicable by natural causes.

All of the above supports your belief that science will eventually find a natural-causes explanation for the origin of life. However it does not prove that this will happen. Biological scientists have access to an extremely large body of knowledge. Up to this point, they have not succeeded in creating life using the incredibly sophisticated tools that are now available. And note that even if someday scientists do succeed in creating life under the very unnatural conditions of a laboratory, the effort would not necessarily be relevant to the conditions that obtained in the natural environment billions of years ago. You have your beliefs, and I have mine.

So, if you want to claim that science's extraordinary sucessful strategy of searching for natural causes for natural phenomena is flawed,

I make no such claim. The history of science shows that it is a very effective strategy. I am very much in favor of continuing this strategy in all areas (of course excluding "research" such as that done by the Nazis on concentration camp inmates), including research on the origins of life.

by all means, show us a single case where the search for supernatural causes has been sucessful.

That one is very easy: the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ 20 centuries ago.

Better yet, can you show any evidence that Creationists or ID advocates are actually diverting money from their PR budgets to study these causes and the natural phenomena they influence?

As indicated previously, I would like to see the ID people get more involved in biological research. However I doubt that they are going to get very far with the very limited amounts of money that diversions from their PR budgets would represent. This kind of science is very expensive.

My wife is going to (figuratively) shoot me if don't get off this $#%^ing computer. There are some other comments I want to respond to, but that's going to have to be later. Bye for now.

*I should have done this in an HTML editor. The script behind this blog is not at all forgiving. Fortunately I was able to get the content back using the Back button.

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 6, 2005 07:44 PM (e) (s)

Um, what NON natural causes do you propose. And how do you propose we look for them.

Well? I'm still waiting ... .

*Hi Rev. Dr. Lenny:

*I apologize for keeping you waiting. I haven't looked at this list for a while.

*In science, pointing out that evidence is insufficient to prove a point does not require that another alternative be proposed. Exposure of unproven hypotheses is one of the drivers of the progress of science, because it often leads to more vigorous attempts to solve the problem by a broader spectrum of the community rather than just the person who identifies a flaw. If you still feel that there is an obligation here, you probably should direct your question to the author of the article in Science magazine.

Comment #41346
Posted by ts on August 5, 2005 01:56 AM (e) (s)

Like what?

Science magazine

Notably, Science Magazine (for which my brother is a correspondent, as it happens) is not run or contributed to by "ID people".

*My point exactly.

“Scientists have encountered no evidence that the origin of life could not have taken place through natural processes� (in logic, that is called an “argument from ignorance.�)

No, it isn't; an argument from ignorance would be of the form "... therefore it must have". But that isn't a conclusion of science, it's a basic element of its methodology --- methodological naturalism.

*Actually it is an argument from ignorance, but it's couched in a way that preserves a vestige of deniability. The entry page (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html) for the Berkeley web site says it is designed for educators (apparently below the college level) and it is clearly oriented toward the general public rather than scientists. It would be very natural for some people in those contexts to read the statement as scientific support for the idea that natural causes are sufficient to explain the origin of life.

Comment #41542
Posted by swbarnes2 on August 5, 2005 06:41 PM (e) (s)

But as far as natural phenomena, we have the gigantic piles of all the natural phenomena which have been shown by science to be totally explicable interms of natural causes. How the planets move, how electricity works, how food is turned into biological energy, why earthquakes happen, etc.

On the other hand, we have the pile of all the natural phenomena which have been shown to be explicable only by showing supernatural causes...oh yeah, that's pile's totally empty. In all the history and prehistory of humanity, there isn't a single example of a natural phenomenon with a supernatural cause. In fact there are a slew of natural phenomena who used to be believed to have supernatural causes, but now virtually all of them are firmly demonstrated to be in the first pile, the one explicable by natural causes.

*All of the above supports your belief that science will eventually find a natural-causes explanation for the origin of life. However it does not prove that this will happen. Biological scientists have developed an extremely large body of knowledge. Up to this point, they have not succeeded in creating life using the incredibly sophisticated tools that are now available. And note that even if someday scientists do succeed in creating life under the very under very unnatural conditions of a laboratory, the findings would not necessarily be relevant to the conditions that obtained in the natural environment billions of years ago. You have your beliefs and I have mine.

So, if you want to claim that science's extraordinary sucessful strategy of searching for natural causes for natural phenomena is flawed,

*I make no such claim. History demonstrates that the scientific method is a very effective strategy. I am very much in favor of continuing this strategy in all areas (of course excluding "research" such as that done by the Nazis on concentration camp inmates), including research on the origins of life.

by all means, show us a single case where the search for supernatural causes has been sucessful.

*That one is very easy: the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ 20 centuries ago. That is the only one that really counts.

*My concern here is that scientists are not adequately communicating to the general public that the scientific community sees the origin of life and evolution as separate and distinct issues. It may work for some people to feel that we can explain the diversity of life without addressing its origins, but many others have difficulties with that. (I suspect that the general public doesn't have similar concerns regarding the big-bang origin of the universe, because not that many people are aware of the law of conservation of matter and energy and its implications.)

Better yet, can you show any evidence that Creationists or ID advocates are actually diverting money from their PR budgets to study these causes and the natural phenomena they influence?

*As indicated previously, I would like to see the ID people get more involved in biological research. However I doubt that they are going to get far with the very limited amounts of money that diversions from their PR budgets would represent. This kind of science is very expensive.

*My wife is going to (figuratively) shoot me if don't get off this $#%^ing computer. There are some other comments I want to respond to, but that's going to have to be later. Bye for now.

Fortunately I was able to get the content back using the Back button.

Like what? Science magazine Notably, Science Magazine (for which my brother is a correspondent, as it happens) is not run or contributed to by "ID people". *My point exactly.