The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Bloomberg: Intelligent Design and inferior education

Posted 25 May 2006 by PvM

- Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned medical school graduates Thursday that centuries of progress in scientific research are under attack by those who oppose stem cell research and dispute evolution and global warming.

Bloomberg: Science under attack in stem cell research debate by SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer On the topic of Intelligent Design, the republican mayor wasted no words

He then ridiculed the campaign to teach schoolchildren about "intelligent design" alongside evolution. The belief proposes that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some type of higher force, and many conservatives, including Bush, say schools should present both concepts. The mayor said children who learn it are receiving an inferior education that puts them at a disadvantage later. He told the medical students that they share the same burden carried by the school's first graduates more than 100 years ago, when the field was "dominated by quacks and poorly trained physicians." Their task, Bloomberg said, is to "defend the integrity and power of science."

They are finally starting to get it... ID is scientifically vacuous.

71 Comments

Registered User · 26 May 2006

The mayor said children who learn it are receiving an inferior education that puts them at a disadvantage later.

Cue up the Discovery Institute peanut gallery: "Duuhh, my dokter doan need no evowooshunary biology tuh tell me dat I need to eat less fat, duuhhhh."

Cue up the medical school fundy apologists: "I graduated at the top of my class. My belief that humans and chimps were created independently by God does not affect my skill at telling my obese patients to eat less carbohydrates and high fat foods."

Cue up the fundy software engineers: "My name is on five patents and I am not convinced that the Darwinists can explain how a fly turned into a dog."

Cue up the fundy lawyers: "Parents have the right to teach children whatever crap they want. It's an American tradition which the Supreme's have recognized. Besides, I haven't had a biology class since tenth grade and I passed my state's bar exam."

k.e. · 26 May 2006

Chickens coming home to roost at a GOP hen house?
That will set a few tongues wagging.
Expect more rat escapology soon, the Big Ark is listing and deck-chairs need re-arranging, Fundies quietly asked to go down to steerage where McCain entertains them with "nothing up my sleeves routine".
The DI will say educated and cultured
"Activist Mayors" are against equal time teaching of untestable dogma doublegood goodthink. Inexperienced PR intern (student lawyer) spell checks latest script for Bushco and turns doublegood goodthink into double hoodwink, Mr 28% doesn't notice.

Gerard Harbison · 26 May 2006

Chickens coming home to roost at a GOP hen house?

— k.e.
Wish it were so, but no. Bloomberg is a Republican largely as an accident of the electoral system. He has no support within the GOP. Even Rudi Giuliani is too liberal to be nominated for the presidency. Bloomberg is considerably to the left of Rudi. It remains an unfortunate fact that the Religious Right is still the loudest faction in the GOP, and while savvier GOP politicians avoid the subject of evolution like the plague, they are still under considerable pressure to advance the issue.

k.e. · 26 May 2006

Gerard Harbison wrote: It remains an unfortunate fact that the Religious Right is still the loudest faction in the GOP, and while savvier GOP politicians avoid the subject of evolution like the plague, they are still under considerable pressure to advance the issue.

'Tis a shame. Some will recognize this;

That's my Middle West . . . the street lamps and sleigh bells in the frosty dark. . . . I see now that this has been a story of the West, after all---Tom and Gatsby, Daisy and Jordan and I, were all Westerners, and perhaps we possessed some deficiency in common which made us subtly unadaptable to Eastern life. That's my Middle West . . . the street lamps and sleigh bells in the frosty dark. . . . I see now that this has been a story of the West, after all---Tom and Gatsby, Daisy and Jordan and I, were all Westerners, and perhaps we possessed some deficiency in common which made us subtly unadaptable to Eastern life

Honor has migrated east.

FL · 26 May 2006

The important thing, Registered User, is that Mayor Bloomberg is providing lots of fresh motivation for ID supporters to keep patiently working towards the Paradigm-Shift.

So, for me, sincere thanks to Hizzoner, extreme biases notwithstanding.

FL

k.e. · 26 May 2006

Off course it's better once.
Korn gods accepted

wamba · 26 May 2006

Even if it is obvious for its rarity, it is encouraging that he spoke so clearly against ID. A few pundits have voiced such opinions, but precious few actual elected officials from the Republican party have stood up to say the obvious. About the only other example I could name would be Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

Arden Chatfield · 26 May 2006

The important thing, Registered User, is that Mayor Bloomberg is providing lots of fresh motivation for ID supporters to keep patiently working towards the Paradigm-Shift.

Working? You must mean press releases and lawsuits. 'Cause after all these decades there's still NO research and NO theory. But hey, that's how 'paradigm shifts' always happen, eh?

k.e. · 26 May 2006

Indeed Arden 'paedomoric paradigm shifts' otherwise known as demskian idolatory a the postmodern disease theory of elvilutionary( or Darwinian) resistance.
Composed 28% backwash 72% can't be bothered. Lets hope not.

normdoering · 26 May 2006

Did you guys catch Judge Jones in Wired?
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/jones.html

sciencenut · 26 May 2006

Bloomberg...my kinda politician. He adds a whole new concept to the term "political science".

Excerpts from NYT's excellent article:

""Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don't happen to agree with their agenda," Mr. Bloomberg said. "Some call it pseudoscience, others call it faith-based science, but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it 'political science.' "

Todd · 26 May 2006

...keep patiently working towards the Paradigm-Shift.

— FL
Anybody who actually uses the term "paradigm shift" loses all credibility in my book. The term has been completely co-opted by antiscience. I've heard many scientists discuss overturning accepted ideas and not one has used that term (a clue: nobody had to die for the new ideas to get accepted, it was always a matter of sufficient evidence). I've really got to get around to reading that copy of Kune that I bought.

k.e. · 26 May 2006

Indeed Sciencenut

Indentity Politics
think 1930
!warning! long read.....not something IDers are capable of ...unless FredDinosaur and FlintGoebels are sharng a Big Mac
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

gwangung · 26 May 2006

The important thing, Registered User, is that Mayor Bloomberg is providing lots of fresh motivation for ID supporters to keep patiently working towards the Paradigm-Shift.

My mom provided all the motivation she could for me to clean up my room.

Hm. Never did when I was a kid.

Get back to us, FL, when ID supports GET OFF THEIR DUFFS AND START DOING SOME WORK.

Glen Davidson · 26 May 2006

Bloomberg's remarks aren't surprising, nor especially meaningful by themselves. He's the mayor of NYC, which is not well-disposed toward Jersey or anything else outside of NYC--let alone Midwestern rural politics. The Jewish population of NYC, in particular, is not fond of Xian theocracy, and Bloomberg is himself Jewish, is he not?

There also is a good deal of actual intelligence and learning in NYC, with little patience in general (NYers aren't really very rude, but they usually are in a hurry). A bunch of know-nothing Xian apologists cackling over their "discovery" of complexity isn't going to impress NYC, and Bloomberg would be a fool to throw a bone to the IDiots within the precincts of that metropolis. He'd do even better to call the IDiots on their IDiocy, unless, of course, he hoped to run nationally on the GOP ticket (he didn't have a prayer even before the recent remarks).

The good that could come of this would be if Bloomberg's comments stand with little opposition outside of the spokesmen for the yokels. Robertson may as well condemn NYC to hurricanes and earthquakes, and Bloomberg to health problems, for comic relief among the majority, and donations from DaveScot or that sort of dolt. Dembski will say the predictable things, if he chooses to comment. So what?

If GWB and the rest of the power structure let Bloomberg's comments stand without opposition, then he's done some good for science within the GOP. He can get away with pro-science statements, since he can hardly move beyond NY politics in any case. McCain couldn't, even if he wanted to. McCain can let the pro-science forces have their say through the mouth of Bloomberg, though, if he's willing to see science make some headway in his party.

All that matters are the reactions to Bloomberg's statements, then. If powerful republicans maintain silence over his remarks, science profits a bit from Bloomberg's comments. And I'm guessing that this is what will happen, in fact, since the GOP can't antagonize science too much, and have largely maintained a stony silence since Dover.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Glen Davidson · 26 May 2006

And I'm guessing that this is what will happen, in fact, since the GOP can't antagonize science too much, and have largely maintained a stony silence [on ID] since Dover.

Just the correction in brackets. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Mephisto · 26 May 2006

Oh dear. "Paradigm shifts" and "extreme biases."

I don't know who you're talking about with the bias, but if it's a reference to Judge Jones you must be off your rocker. He's a Republican who was nominated by Bush. His court record is manifestly not liberal, let alone activist. You just need to accept that it isn't because there's a big conspiracy amongst "evolutionists" - it's just because the school board, being backed by the Disco Institute, deserved to lose the case.

And, by the way, there's no more going to be a "paradigm shift" in biology away from evolution than there is in physics away from gravity. The fact that you think 99.9% of scientists are somehow just ignorant of THE TRUTH - which you and a bunch of half-educated idiots with degrees from unaccredited fundamentalist universities are apparently the only ones to possess - shows how stupid your movement is. You have to misrepresent, twist logic and convince yourself that the overwhelming scientific consensus is just some kind of huge mistake or conspiracy on the part of people much better educated than yourself. It's a joke. It's the same sort of thing as Holocaust denial (and no, I'm not accusing you of being a Holocaust denier before you even start).

k.e. · 26 May 2006

Hey F.L. did you hear that?
Mephistpo just called you a wanker.
Geez what with Lenny's questions to answer and all that you must have your hands full.
Do we call out the homophone squad for a bit of S&M or are you just going to ostrich us again???????

k.e. · 26 May 2006

Thwip Mephisto sorry :)

Faidhon · 26 May 2006

Hey FL, I thought your next post was supposed to continue from where you left (and answer to Lenny) on the Vatican astronomer thread...

...Did I miss something?

Glen Davidson · 26 May 2006

The important thing, Registered User, is that Mayor Bloomberg is providing lots of fresh motivation for ID supporters to keep patiently working towards the Paradigm-Shift. So, for me, sincere thanks to Hizzoner, extreme biases notwithstanding.

Yeah, yeah, we know that Xian revisionists think that an orientation toward the world is "biased". What is actually new, in the last couple hundred years or so, is the condemnation of trying to get an orientation toward the world and its practical matters (which we all must do to some extent) by actually relying upon "worldly" concepts. Previously, Puritans were often the ones who explicitly dealt with the world in worldly terms (while keeping their eye on heaven), and many (hardly all) academics kept to a metaphysical orientation. Of course, the present problem stems from the fact that the empiricism that Puritans earlier embraced betrayed them in biology, hence the current blanket condemnation of understanding "God's creation" under its own terms. I guess it's the slowness and thickness of today's Puritans (the brighter and better-educated puritans have moved on) that means FL, Dembski, and the others would take up a metaphysical orientation in a truly pathetic attempt to shore up a religion that has not the confidence to stick to its spiritual claims. What I really wanted to point out, though, is the use of a mostly abandoned jargon ("paradigm-shift") to relabel the old, "we're going to win in the end, and you'll pay" Puritan idea. Of course FL intends a "paradigm-shift" merely through evangelization. He has never moved beyond that level in all the time that he has been on PT. And he's more honestly religious, after all, not really confusing "the Truth" with something found scientifically (not in his core claims). It's only a matter of who wins, actually, to these creationists/IDists, and not how you play the game, nor that winning ought to be based on merit. Ressentiment has transformed their language and even their beliefs about their desire to simply win, no matter what the truth (small t) is, but it's all about winning. They want a "paradigm shift" in order to win--not to deal better with scientific matters--but to gain control of a science that has not supported their claims in recent decades. If we were committed to ideas that science didn't support, we might oppose science too. Note the tired cant of FL, too. "Fresh motivation" from Bloomberg's statements. This is old, recycled religious language, for Satan is purportedly one who gains "fresh motivation" to tempt and do other evil deeds each time Puritans achieve some success (stickers on textbooks?), and likewise their preachers continually proclaim that their congregations are to receive fresh motivation each time Satan wins one--like at Dover. They just say it, there is essentially no attempt to justify the statement, since, of course, it's all Truth handed down from the pulpit. It is good to have ol' FL here, naturally. Dembski often falls into the same sort of religious rhetoric, but he does guard against it. FL is more the old-timey Puritan, who writes again and again what Dembski and other more sophisticated con-men exhibit in more muted fashion. It's helpful when the old-timers respond in the expected fashion to the preachments of the IDists, which they do since they understand the language, showing again and again that there has been really no shift in their Bible commitments in 200 years. The only people who are possibly confused about the aim of ID are some of ID's spokespersons. FL, and the whole mindless herd on UD, are never confused about the goal to establish religion in public education. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

ivy privy · 26 May 2006

Working? You must mean press releases and lawsuits. 'Cause after all these decades there's still NO research and NO theory. But hey, that's how 'paradigm shifts' always happen, eh?

You'll probably enjoy this.

Critics of ID abound, which as I have pointed out in a previous post on The Design Paradigm, can be a very good thing for ID. How is an intelligent design researcher supposed to approach critiques leveled against ID? What kinds of critics are out there and how can one tell which are helpful and which are simply belligerent? This essay is intended to lay out a few helpful definitions and pointers for those seriously researching intelligent design. ...

Mephisto · 26 May 2006

ROFL. Nice page. It pretty much goes on to say that the wrong sort of critic is the 'scientific' one - the one with a degree. ;) They're apparently "antithetical" to ID.

Wouldn't want to try and pull religious hucksterism with someone who knows what they're talking about, would we?

Tyrannosaurus · 26 May 2006

Is it me or since the debacle at Dover the IDiots have been in retreat. Of course not willingly. They are whining, kicking and screaming murder all along. But it seems that the mainstream media is finally begining to catch up with the ID nonsense and are not so easy to buy into the "controversy" argument. Heck, even OH drop it like hot potatoes.

lamuella · 26 May 2006

"The important thing, Registered User, is that Mayor Bloomberg is providing lots of fresh motivation for ID supporters to keep patiently working towards the Paradigm-Shift.

So, for me, sincere thanks to Hizzoner, extreme biases notwithstanding.

FL"

you wouldn't happen to have any of this work at hand, would you, FL? I mean, if ID is such a valid scientific theory, where are all the research papers, experimental results, design models and so forth?

steve s · 26 May 2006

Comment #102370 Posted by Registered User on May 26, 2006 12:42 AM (e) | kill The mayor said children who learn it are receiving an inferior education that puts them at a disadvantage later. Cue up the Discovery Institute peanut gallery: "Duuhh, my dokter doan need no evowooshunary biology tuh tell me dat I need to eat less fat, duuhhhh." Cue up the medical school fundy apologists: "I graduated at the top of my class. My belief that humans and chimps were created independently by God does not affect my skill at telling my obese patients to eat less carbohydrates and high fat foods." Cue up the fundy software engineers: "My name is on five patents and I am not convinced that the Darwinists can explain how a fly turned into a dog." Cue up the fundy lawyers: "Parents have the right to teach children whatever crap they want. It's an American tradition which the Supreme's have recognized. Besides, I haven't had a biology class since tenth grade and I passed my state's bar exam."

LOL! Cue up fundy lawyer Luskin: We ain't need your atheism science cause we gots a new science which ain't religious and is very sciencey. bystander: How come you require your scientists to be christians? Luskin: Mind your own business!

CH · 26 May 2006

I can't help but disagree with the mayor's comments about recieving an inferior education because Intellegent Design Theory is taught. It is ludicrous that a thought or a theory that will actually make an individual less intelligent a.k.a 'Stupid'. It is an alternate thought, an idea, a solution to the vacancy of explaination to a complex system like the one we live in.

Can someone explain why I will have reduced mental capacity if I listen to Intellegent Design theory?

I understand that one reason some supposedly educated individuals feel that ID theory flies in the face of thousands of years of progress that science has given us, losing the desire to pursue the actual explaination to why this creature or thing is the way it is. I think that no matter what theory we choose, we as human beings need and will keep pursuing this desire to figure this world out. Belief in a higher power or "Intellegent Designer" has always been a part of science up until very recently. Why is this now a detriment to science?

BTW Can someone give me some rational examples why Intelligent Design is wrong and why Darwin's theories are correct?

Statisticly, the development of this world ecosystem in a mere 100 trillion years is still too short of time to develop from nothingness. I just want an explaination to show me conclusively that evolution happened.

gwangung · 26 May 2006

Can someone explain why I will have reduced mental capacity if I listen to Intellegent Design theory?

Yer a walkin' example.

BaRUMP-BUMP!

Beacause your statement
Belief in a higher power or "Intellegent Designer" has always been a part of science up until very recently.

Is totally wrong.

Belief in a higher power was NEVER a part of science (though may have been a part of scientists). Think you're looking too hard at ID, because you know very little about science and how it's conducted.

gwangung · 26 May 2006

Can someone explain why I will have reduced mental capacity if I listen to Intellegent Design theory?

Yer a walkin' example.

Ba-RUMP-BUMP!

Belief in a higher power or "Intellegent Designer" has always been a part of science up until very recently

No, it hasn't. You've been listening too much to ID. Belief in a higher power may have been a part of SCIENTISTS, but it's NEVER been a part of science.

BTW Can someone give me some rational examples why Intelligent Design is wrong and why Darwin's theories are correct?

You do science. You get results. Results fit Darwin much better than intelligent design.

Can't get more rational than that.

steve s · 26 May 2006

CH, what you're saying, and the majority of what you will say in the coming weeks on this board, are already refuted for your convenience.

except for the 100 trillion years isn't statistically long enough for an ecosystem to develop from nothingness thing. First I've heard of that.

Bill Gascoyne · 26 May 2006

It is an alternate thought, an idea, a solution to the vacancy of explanation to a complex system like the one we live in.

"God did it" is an assertion, not an explanation. It is the end of inquiry by fiat, not the beginning of inquiry, much less of wisdom.

CH · 26 May 2006

I actually asked for examples gwangung not just your opinions.

It is always made me laugh when you make a comment asking for open minded conversation that you get insulted...

Steve S Thanks for the link, I will check it out...

Todd · 26 May 2006

I can't help but disagree with the mayor's comments about recieving an inferior education because Intellegent Design Theory is taught. It is ludicrous that a thought or a theory that will actually make an individual less intelligent a.k.a 'Stupid'. It is an alternate thought, an idea, a solution to the vacancy of explaination to a complex system like the one we live in. Can someone explain why I will have reduced mental capacity if I listen to Intellegent Design theory?

Intelligent design will not make people stupider, it will make them less educated. In a society made from science and technology, the inability of people to understand and make use of science and the inability to think rationally and scientifically are huge problems. That is exactly what ID is doing, that is exactly what it is specifically designed to do, to make people not understand science and not be able to make use of it effectively. The leaders of the ID movement know that is the only way to accomplish their goals.

I understand that one reason some supposedly educated individuals feel that ID theory flies in the face of thousands of years of progress that science has given us, losing the desire to pursue the actual explaination to why this creature or thing is the way it is. I think that no matter what theory we choose, we as human beings need and will keep pursuing this desire to figure this world out.

There was little scientific progress in Western Europe for nearly 1000 years from the fall of Rome until the High Middle Ages. Religion was extremely effective at making people accept that status quo and not try to question anything. This is not anything inherently wrong with religion itself, but it does show if applied in the wrong way it can stifle rational inquiry into nature (exactly what the ID community has stated they wish to accomplish).

Belief in a higher power or "Intellegent Designer" has always been a part of science up until very recently. Why is this now a detriment to science?

— CH
You are correct that it was a part of science up until about 250-150 years ago, depending on what branch of science you are looking at. However, your mistake is in assuming that science operated effectively up until that point. It didn't. Quite the opposite, it was severely hampered by the inclusion of religon. In reality, including a "higher power" was just as much a detriment to science then as it is now. It prevented people from doing further inquiry into the nature of the phenomenon that was being studied. Biology was little more than stamp collecting, biologist merely catologued what was there. It was not and is still not possible to analyze biological systems if the explanation for everything seen is "Goddidit". That was tried and it did not work.

BTW Can someone give me some rational examples why Intelligent Design is wrong and why Darwin's theories are correct?

— CH
Male nipples, babies being born through a birth canal that is too small for them to fit through, a backwards retina, a lense that automatically stops working if the person lives too long, about 700 non-functional odor receptor genes in humans, about 1000 non-functional odor receptor genes in dolphins and whales (representing all or nearly all the odor receptor genes present, none of which work underwater), a shoulder joint that is extremely unstable, the need to use RNA primers for DNA but not RNA, touch receptors laid out for a four-legged animal in humans instead of a two-legged animal, light receptors in the eye that turn on in the dark and turn off in the light, 2 completely seperate but nearly or completely redundant smell senses, ears that can detect horizontal position of sound extremely well but are extremely poor at detecting vertical position, a blood-brain barrier that is impentrable to most medications, the human body being made up mostly of cells that will kill themselves unless given very specific signals not to, no redundancy in the heart blood supply so that even a small blockage can be lethal (even though redundancy is present in the brain and even the leg), the ability to lock smooth muscle at a certain length but not skeletal muscle, lungs that are not attached to the inner wall of the chest so they will collapse if any fluid or air gets into the space, the fact that about 90% of people on the planet are not capable of sensing if they have low oxygen levels in their bloodstream, adrenal glands that sit on top of the kidney and send their hormones to the kidney but are not actually directly connected to the kidney. I could go on. These are just stupid, extremely stupid design features. If a human engineer designed something with even one feature like this, not only would they lose their job they would most likely go to jail for recklessly endangering peoples' lives. These sorts of things are the exact opposite of how any competent designer would make something. They are fully explainable by evolution, evolution works with the resources it has on hand in order to do marginally better. But a 4-year-old can tell you it is stupid to give men useless breasts, especially since it means they can get breast cancer. Under evolution, getting rid of male breasts but keeping females one was simply more trouble then it was worth.

Statisticly, the development of this world ecosystem in a mere 100 trillion years is still too short of time to develop from nothingness.

— CH
Assuming all the atoms came together randomly and you could only try one combination at a time, perhaps. But there were a massive number of different units operating under non-random mechanisms, so although the conclusion is valid for an imaginary strawman system it has no bearing on how things actually occured.

I just want an explaination to show me conclusively that evolution happened.

— CH
And I just want an explaination to show me conclusively that Intelligent Design happened. Of course, I know one doesn't exist. Nothing can be shown conclusively, so ultimately we go where the evidence points. And the evidence points squarely at evolution.

Stuart Weinstein · 26 May 2006

CH writes "I actually asked for examples gwangung not just your opinions.

It is always made me laugh when you make a comment asking for open minded conversation that you get insulted... "

If I had a dime for every time some creationist told me they wanted an "open minded conversation", I'd be rather well off.

Your intial post contains several misconceptions; misconceptions that have been refuted many times.

"I can't help but disagree with the mayor's comments about recieving an inferior education because Intellegent Design Theory is taught."

It will reduce the quality of your education in at least two ways.

1. It will confuse people about what science is and how it works. In order to claim ID is a science, Behe testified under Oath in Dover that the defintion of science should be stretched to include Astrology as a science.

2. Time spent teaching ID means less time spent teaching actual science.

"It is ludicrous that a thought or a theory that will actually make an individual less intelligent a.k.a 'Stupid'."

It will confuse them as to how science works. Thats bad.

"It is an alternate thought, an idea, a solution to the vacancy of explaination to a complex system like the one we live in."

A. There is not a vacancy.

B. This explantion is no different than that proprosed by primitive societies like "Rain Gods" cuz they couldn't explain why it rained.

Can someone explain why I will have reduced mental capacity if I listen to Intellegent Design theory?

It won't reduc mental capacity. It will have damage your understading of science.

"I understand that one reason some supposedly educated individuals feel that ID theory flies in the face of thousands of years of progress that science has given us, losing the desire to pursue the actual explaination to why this creature or thing is the way it is."

I have no idea what that is supposed to convey.

"I think that no matter what theory we choose, we as human beings need and will keep pursuing this desire to figure this world out. Belief in a higher power or "Intellegent Designer" has always been a part of science up until very recently."

And science didn't make rapid progress to fairly recently. Funny how that works.

"Why is this now a detriment to science?"

BTW Can someone give me some rational examples why Intelligent Design is wrong and why Darwin's theories are correct?"

ID is not even wrong. Its not even a scientific hypothesis. Darwin's ideas have been scrutinized for 150 years. Some have been found wanting, but in most cases he was prescient.

"Statisticly, the development of this world ecosystem in a mere 100 trillion years is still too short of time to develop from nothingness."

Nothingness? And by the way, Natural selection is not random.

I suggest you learn more about evolution and science in general.
You can start here: www.talkorigins.org

I just want an explaination to show me conclusively that evolution happened."

Evolution not only happened, it is happening now.

Frank J · 26 May 2006

Can someone explain why I will have reduced mental capacity if I listen to Intellegent Design theory?

— CH
There is no Intelligent Design (ID) "theory." ID, and its designer-free phony "critical analysis" offshoot is nothing but a misrepresentation of evolution. No one objects to students learning about ID and the response from mainstream science. But to teach ID as promoted by IDers both deprives students of proper science education, and promotes a religious idea - one that is rejected by most major religions.

BTW Can someone give me some rational examples why Intelligent Design is wrong and why Darwin's theories are correct?

— CH
ID carefully avoids the testable "creationist" alternatives that are easily refuted. So it's a neat little scam that's "not even wrong" in the Pauli sense. If by "Darwin's theories" you mean the current explanation for the origin of species, the answer is simple: it's the only one that works. Which is why the ID crowd is steadily retreating from testable alternatives to pure argument from incredulity, coupled with an irrelevant and scientifically useless argument from design.

fnxtr · 26 May 2006

Cue up fundy lawyer Luskin: We ain't need your atheism science cause we gots a new science which ain't religious and is very sciencey.
"All your children are belong to us."

Sir_Toejam · 26 May 2006

I can't help but disagree with the mayor's comments about recieving an inferior education because Intellegent Design Theory is taught. It is ludicrous that a thought or a theory that will actually make an individual less intelligent a.k.a 'Stupid'. It is an alternate thought, an idea, a solution to the vacancy of explaination to a complex system like the one we live in. Can someone explain why I will have reduced mental capacity if I listen to Intellegent Design theory?

You missed the obvious. you wouldn't if you were correctly taught how science works to begin with, presented the evidence without distortions and incorrect interpretations piled on top, and THEN shown how ID not only isn't a theory, isn't a hypothesis, and can't even be one. no, it probably wouldn't decrease your intelligence if that were the case. unfortunately, what we see instead is so far, those who are taught anything remotely resembling ID in private schools are NOT taught the basics of real-world science, let alone evolutionary theory. so, no, in and of itself ID creationism will not cause one to be stupid, but the circumstances in which it is usually taught most certainly will. In fact, you should check out this thread: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=447748dd0be28514;act=ST;f=14;t=2055 and weigh in if you disagree, which I'm sure you will ;)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 May 2006

It remains an unfortunate fact that the Religious Right is still the loudest faction in the GOP

And, more importantly, the fundies control all the party apparatus (at every level), where the all-important PURSE STRINGS are held. The fundie apparatchiks refer to their not-enthusiastic-enough fellow GOP'ers as RINO's (Republicans In Name Only), and their avowed intention is to remove them from the party. And that is why everyone from Guliani to McCain kisses fundie ass. They have no choice. No ass-kissing, no party money. Apparently the fundies have read their Lenin ("Better Fewer, But Better").

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 May 2006

The important thing, Registered User, is that Mayor Bloomberg is providing lots of fresh motivation for ID supporters to keep patiently working towards the Paradigm-Shift.

And once again, the fundies shout "WATERLOO !!! WATERLOO !!! WATERLOO !!!" (yawn)

Sir_Toejam · 26 May 2006

. And that is why everyone from Guliani to McCain kisses fundie ass. They have no choice. No ass-kissing, no party money.

have you given up on McCain at this point? hmm, i guess the underlying question is: Does McCain's recent kowtowing to the religious right reflect a real policy bent on his part, or just lies to grab funding? corrollary: either way, isn't it damaging enough? It certainly doesn't represent leadership on the issue that would be conducive to getting the current GOP from sucking fundy *ock, does it? Wll it have to be the dems themselves that help lead the opposition party out of the wilderness created by the fundies?? now THAT would be irony, eh?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 May 2006

have you given up on McCain at this point?

Well, I was never a fan to begin with. I'm a commie, remember? ;) The only chance of removing the fundies from the Republicrat Party, though, lies with the RINO's (Republicans In Name Only -- the fundie term for the "moderate" Republicrats who don't like them). McCain, Guliani, Schwarzeneggar (or however the hell ya spell it). Of those, McCain seems to me to be the only one with any realistic shot at gaining real power within the party, a toehold from which to dislodge the fundies and take the party back.

hmm, i guess the underlying question is: Does McCain's recent kowtowing to the religious right reflect a real policy bent on his part, or just lies to grab funding?

Lies to get funding. He has no choice.

either way, isn't it damaging enough? It certainly doesn't represent leadership on the issue that would be conducive to getting the current GOP from sucking fundy *ock, does it?

It's the only realistic chance the Republicrats have to leverage the fundies out of the party. If the RINO's can't do it, then it simply won't get done. Whether they CAN do it, remains to be seen. If they can't, then I see them bolting the Republicrats and joining the Democans. Then, the Republicrats will truly be, through and through, God's Own Party.

Wll it have to be the dems themselves that help lead the opposition party out of the wilderness created by the fundies??

Pffft. The Democans couldn't organize their way out of a wet paper bag. And they are too busy falling all over themselves trying to out-Republican the Republicans. The only thing that will remove the fundies from power is . . . well . . . for them to lose elections. And KEEP losing them. And for anti-fundies within the Republicrat Party, that means voting against the fundies EVEN IF IT MEANS THAT THE REPUBLICANS LOSE A LOT OF ELECTIONS. If the Republican rank-and-file keep voting for the fundie-backed candidates (because they jsut can't hold their nose and vote for the Democans), then the fundies will keep winning and they will NEVER GO AWAY. Want to take your party back? Then vote against the fundies. **No matter what**. It's your only choice. And no, before anyone gets their partisan panties all in a bunch, I am not a Democan. Indeed, as my pet names for the two parties indicate, I can barely tell the difference between them -- except one. The Democans tell the fundies to go to hell. The Republicrats don't.

Sir_Toejam · 26 May 2006

The only thing that will remove the fundies from power is ... well ... for them to lose elections. And KEEP losing them. And for anti-fundies within the Republicrat Party, that means voting against the fundies EVEN IF IT MEANS THAT THE REPUBLICANS LOSE A LOT OF ELECTIONS.

there is some apparent contradiction here; If the rinos kowtow to the fundies, like McCain is doing as I write this, how are the rest of the republicans going to be able to make a statement on getting away from the fundies by voting for McCain? supporting a lie is no leadership strategy. Losing elections, yes, but the reps themselves have to be the source of some fortitude by dropping the lies and the support from the fundies. lying to preserve your own political survival does NOTHING to stem the tide of this travesty. McCain has failed. period. You don't know Arnold as well as I do, having watched him form his political opinions in this state for years now. He also is not the same politician he would have been if he hadn't tied himself to the neocons in this state. the only positive thing, is that the neocons had such terrible ideas for resolving the budget crisis and other issues in the state, that poor Arnold failed every measure he ever tried. If he really had approached the governorship with the spirit of cooperation and reliance on actual data that he had talked about long before he had the opportunity to get the position by stabbing Davis in the back, he might have made some progress. now, he's just a tool of the neocons. why? money. pure and simple; they managed to convince him he couldn't have succeeded without their money, and he believed them. This trend will NEVER stop until the "rinos" not only drop their overt support of the religious right, but their "covert" support of them as well. so, I'm gonna disagree with you that the solution to the republican reliance on fundies lies with the folks in the list you mentioned. It's too late for them. there really is only one answer, and it depends on someone with some guts to stand up to the fundies, show them why they are wrong, and get plastered for it. And this will have to happen over and over again until EVERY member of the GOP finally gives up this notion that relying on the fundies for monies and grass-roots support is a good thing. "Death to the Neocons, long live the GOP" that should be their mantra from now on, if they want this country to survive.

Emanuel Goldstein · 27 May 2006

Who ya kidding?

Bloomberg is a mult millionaire who sent his kids to elit private schools.

The children of the elite to those schools and on to Ivy League Universities and run the corporations, Wall Street and the whole military industial complex.

But they keep the lower classes happy thinking they are getting a great education because they have studied evolution and don't believe in Intelligent Design...they want the massess to think of themselves as only animals.

In the meantime, they run the world...and they are taking more and more from what is left of the middle class every day.

Study evolution all you want...you are not going anywhere.

Aureola Nominee, FCD · 27 May 2006

Mr. Goldstein,

It's the other way around. Creationism, and its latest reincarnation ID, keeps people happy because it caters to their delusions of self-importance.

The first step to self-improvement is recognizing the need for it. Thinking that "poof" is an explanation for anything, or that we are somehow intrinsically different from "mere animals", does nothing for "the masses".

Learning science, on the other hand, can and does help people bootstrap themselves out of a condition of blissful ignorance.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 May 2006

McCain has failed. period.

That is indeed more than a possibility. The RINO's, alas, are the only non-fundie power base (or potential power base) remaining within the Republicrat Party. If they fail to dislodge the fundies, then inevitably the RINO's will either leave voluntarily or (more likely) be forced out by the fundie party leadership. At that point, the Republicrat Party becomes totally lost, totally dominated forever by the fundies. It will truly be Hezballah, the Party of God. And we all know where *that* leads . . . . The Democans, meanwhile, should just adopt the jellyfish as their party symbol. I have little hope that EITHER political party will stop the creep to fundie fascism. My only hope is that "we the people" will stop it, ourselves. By any method that becomes necessary.

wamba · 27 May 2006

Bloomberg is a mult millionaire who sent his kids to elit private schools.

I am fairly certain your parents did not suffer from such elitism.

steve s · 27 May 2006

The important thing, Registered User, is that Mayor Bloomberg is providing lots of fresh motivation for ID supporters to keep patiently working towards the Paradigm-Shift.

Can't come up with an actual theory in 20 years, they sure must be patient.

Sir_Toejam · 27 May 2006

And we all know where *that* leads .... The Democans, meanwhile, should just adopt the jellyfish as their party symbol. I have little hope that EITHER political party will stop the creep to fundie fascism. My only hope is that "we the people" will stop it, ourselves. By any method that becomes necessary.

I can't disagree with anything you said here. Hence my desire to check out to NZ. ...almost there... I'll let you know if it's worth it when i get there.

Jason Spaceman · 27 May 2006

The text of Bloomberg's speech is here. A sample:

And it boggles the mind that nearly two centuries after Darwin, and 80 years after John Scopes was put on trial, this country is still debating the validity of evolution. In Kansas, Mississippi, and elsewhere, school districts are now proposing to teach "intelligent design" - which is really just creationism by another name - in science classes alongside evolution. Think about it! This not only devalues science, it cheapens theology. As well as condemning these students to an inferior education, it ultimately hurts their professional opportunities.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 May 2006

Hence my desire to check out to NZ....almost there...

Not me, dude. I'll go down fighting if I have to. They'll get my democracy when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Anyway, you can run, but you can't hide. We'll invade everybody sooner or later. ;)

Vyoma · 27 May 2006

Who ya kidding? Bloomberg is a mult millionaire who sent his kids to elit private schools. The children of the elite to those schools and on to Ivy League Universities and run the corporations, Wall Street and the whole military industial complex.

— Emanuel Goldstein
And guess what... all those "elit private schools" teach modern evolutionary biology, not Bronze Age Creationism. In fact, those "elit private schools" have some of the best minds in the field on their faculties, which is part of what makes them "elit." Funny how that works out. Those same schools do some of the best work in the very field that you're attempting to criticize. Here we have another example of an ID-weenie incapable of incorporating factual data and using it to come to rational conclusions. Typical stuff.

But they keep the lower classes happy thinking they are getting a great education because they have studied evolution and don't believe in Intelligent Design...they want the massess to think of themselves as only animals.

As opposed to keeping them thinking that they must unquestioningly accept authority because they're taught a model in which authority is something to be feared? Get over it, Emanuel. People who get a good education are the ones who are taught to think critically, not the ones who are taught to disregard empirical evidence in favor of argument from authority. For a guy who took the handle you use, you surely come off as a sheep with this argument.

In the meantime, they run the world...and they are taking more and more from what is left of the middle class every day.

Actually, more than half of the people who make decisions about taxes and the like these days have indicated support for Intelligent Design at some point. More than half of all US legislators now identify themselves as evangelicals. The President of the United States (who, by the way, went to one of your "elit private schools" and got straight C's) has himself spoken out in favor of ID, or at least what he perceives to be ID. Or what he perceives to be in keeping with his literalist biblical beliefs, in any case.

Study evolution all you want...you are not going anywhere.

That's right. We'll be right here, actually investigating biological diversity and unraveling the mysteries of its origins. You and your ilk, on the other hand, will hiss and spit and not only not go anywhere, but get nothing at all accomplished at the same time. Having contributed absolutely nothing to the progress or well-being of humanity, they will ultimately disappear into oblivion and dust, and the only thing that you'll have established is that natural selection does, indeed, favor the existence of certain types of parasitic organisms.

Sir_Toejam · 27 May 2006

Anyway, you can run, but you can't hide. We'll invade everybody sooner or later.

tell that to the hippies i met in Canada.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 May 2006

Anyway, you can run, but you can't hide. We'll invade everybody sooner or later.

tell that to the hippies i met in Canada.

Well, we TRIED to invade Canada in 1812. They kicked our ass, and we never had the balls to try again. ;)

Sir_Toejam · 27 May 2006

yeah, and NZ is too far away to be worth it.

:)

KiwiInOz · 28 May 2006

As I recall, Lenny and STJ, we told Ronnie (IIRC) that he can keep his nukes (and put them where the sun don't shine). Maybe we were too far away to be invaded, but hey.

So when are you off to NZ, STJ? And which part?

k.e. · 28 May 2006

Which part would you recommend K1W1?

KiwiInOz · 28 May 2006

Definitely the South Island's west coast. Huge mountains (the Southern Alps), temperate rainforests, glaciers, hot pools (in the mountains), wetlands, wild beaches, caves. Take a raincoat (just in case!) and insect repellant (ginormous sandflies).

Then spend the rest of your time crusing around the rest of the South Island.

There's far too many people in the North Island (at least 2.5 million!), but some nice beaches and volcanos.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 May 2006

Am I correct in recalling that New Zealand has no snakes?

If so, why the heck would I want to go there?

;)

KiwiInOz · 28 May 2006

No snakes. I had to come to Australia for those nasty things. Apparently fossil snakes of Gondwanan heritage have been found in NZ though.

But can I interest you in a tuatara or two?

fnxtr · 28 May 2006

Lenny admitted:
Well, we TRIED to invade Canada in 1812. They kicked our ass, and we never had the balls to try again.
Thank you for that. Oh, yeah, and for Olympic women's hockey, too. Hayley Wickenheiser, I want to have your babies!

Sir_Toejam · 28 May 2006

So when are you off to NZ, STJ? And which part?

In the fall, most likely. was thinking of Wellington to start. I'd also like to investigate some of the islands off the north coast (near Whangarei); apparently some great Scuba diving there, and I've been out of water far too long.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 May 2006

But can I interest you in a tuatara or two?

Alas, I can just imagine the paperwork . . . . . Can someone smuggle me a Komodo dragon?

KiwiInOz · 29 May 2006

Wellington is NZ's equivalent of Melbourne. Cafes and culture; trendy people wear black; and generally cold, gray and windy.

Diving around the Poor Knights Islands is fantastic. You'll love it.

Sir_Toejam · 29 May 2006

Kiwi -

do you dive? any specific recommendations for who i should hook up with to check out the islands?

KiwiInOz · 29 May 2006

My wetsuit has shrunk since I bought it 20 years ago (it was the height of fashion then - a nice blue and silver Seal Skin), and I haven't had a proper dive for about 5 years (alternately freezing in my 5 ml off Westport, NZ - checking out seals and crustose thingies for work, and relaxing in the bath temp water off Cairns - checking out the Great Barrier Reef.). I will contact a few mates in Northland to find out who are the best people to hook up with for diving PKIs.

Cheers

Sir_Toejam · 29 May 2006

relaxing in the bath temp water off Cairns - checking out the Great Barrier Reef.).

bastard. ;) I do miss the time i spent doing research in French Polynesia more than occasionally.

crustose thingies for work...

Oh? spongiform crustose thingies, or what? do tell.

Sir_Toejam · 29 May 2006

My wetsuit has shrunk since I bought it 20 years ago...

lol. yeah, mine too, and I only bought it ten years (and 30 less pounds) ago.

Sir_Toejam · 29 May 2006

btw, if you do manage to get a hold of your PKI connections, could i impose on you to send the info here:

fisheyephotos@hotmail.com

thanks

KiwiInOz · 31 May 2006

I was helping a mate out with a preliminary nearshore marine survey along the South Island's West Coast. He was mainly interested in algae, although we were also looking at small fish around small reefs and crustose sponges.

I am really a terrestrial ecologist, and just dived for pleasure rather than profession. It's like not being paid for sex!

As I recall, it was bloody freezing with me in my 5ml 2 piece. My mate was in a 10ml one piece with hood. Still, it was near the seal colony and they were very inquisitive, which was great. I just ignored the fact that the great whites were probably sitting just outside my peripheral vision!

Are you interested in great whites? I can put you in touch with Clinton Duffy who is currently studying them for the Department of Conservation.

Sir_Toejam · 31 May 2006

I was helping a mate out with a preliminary nearshore marine survey along the South Island's West Coast. He was mainly interested in algae, although we were also looking at small fish around small reefs and crustose sponges. I am really a terrestrial ecologist, and just dived for pleasure rather than profession. It's like not being paid for sex!

I've often had debates with friends about whether their best dive experiences were better than sex. Truly, once they thought about it, 9 out of 10 picked the dive experience, myself included.

As I recall, it was bloody freezing with me in my 5ml 2 piece. My mate was in a 10ml one piece with hood.

10ml?? dam*n! and here i thought my 7ml two-piece was thick!

Still, it was near the seal colony and they were very inquisitive, which was great. I just ignored the fact that the great whites were probably sitting just outside my peripheral vision!

depends on the time of year, but certainly possible. about 1 diver every other year or so gets hit by white's in the "red triangle" between Monterey Bay and the Farallon Islands, CA. Still, with all the divers in the water every year, you were more likely to die from an auto accident on your way to or from the dive site.

Are you interested in great whites? I can put you in touch with Clinton Duffy who is currently studying them for the Department of Conservation.

LOL. funny you should mention that. I used to be the science director for an NGO that studied white sharks in the area i just mentioned (Monterey Bay and North). at this point, I'm gonna switch this convo to email if you don't mind?

KiwiInOz · 31 May 2006

Go for it.