Good morning, Mr. & Ms. America. News flash: Bush Backs Intelligent Design. According to the Washington Post, the president calls for open dialogue in our schools--"both sides should be properly taught," said the Ivy League graduate. Congressman Barney Frank responded, "People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."
I'm willing to accept that some religious people fear that evolution is a threat to their religion, although I don't agree. But I'm not willing to give the Prez that leeway. The religious right is on the move & that, Mr. & Ms. America is not good for U.S. The creationists cite all the holes and problems with evolution. Hey, go study quantum physics if you want to see holes & problems & confusion & theories that even physicists admit they don't understand except through mathematical formulae. But they're still scientific theories, i.e., they can be tested. Creationism cannot be tested, therefore, it's not a scientific theory. Post Hoc Propter, ergo cogito sum.
Page Two: If they wont talk, beat them to death. Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush was beat to death in prison by Americans because he wouldn't tell them how to pronounce his last name. Since the CIA was involved, it's all classified, so I won't say anything for fear of the same treatment.
Page Three: Another day, another few dead Americans and Iraqis. Not to mention fuel rationing in the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world. Yup, we're winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. It's just their guns that hate us.
Page Four: Goodnight Mr. & Ms. America. Sleep well. And God help us all.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaman
You missed the correction on Page 13, the full-page advertisements on every other page, and the supplements of car ads, and real-estate ads - then you'd have a full paper:)
2 - Bennett
Damn Mark, Thank goodness we live in country where this stuff can't happen.
Don't we?
This CIA interrogation stuff is absolutely and totally wrong.
How fuckin' ashamed?
3 - Mark Schannon
Aaman, yeah, I know I missed all that good stuff, but I had to keep it somewhat short--otherwise, who'd read it?
Bennett--well put. We lose any moral or ethical right to criticize others when we stoop to their tactics. Democracy & freedom demand a price Americans seem no longer willing to pay.
4 - RKC
"Creationism cannot be tested, therefore, it's not a scientific theory"
But the Theory of Evolution canot be proven -- except for that which occurs within a species. There is no proof that a fish can evolve into an elephant.
The Theory of Evolution raises more questions than it answers.
And, creationism is not the same as intelligent design.
Creationism generally refers to a strict interpretetation of the Old Testament of the Bible.
Intelligent Design generally refers to a theory or theories based on an understanding that from nothing comes nothing, and the fact that the Theory of Evolution, by itself, defies reason and logic. It is unacceptable to teach the Theory of Evolution without pointing out its deficiencies.
"People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."
It is more likely that people would cite Barney Frank as proof that he was totally impervious to the effects of whatever education he was exposed to.
5 - billy
"There is no proof that a fish can evolve into an elephant"
that is just plain stupid, noone is trying to prove that.
from your post, id is a theory because evolution is illogical?
sorry that makes no sense. id isnt a theory. that is why it will never be in school, despite what bush says.
6 - Mark Schannon
RKC--no scientific theory can ever be "proven" in the strict sense. But a scientific theory has to have within it the means to "disprove" it--something ID lacks.
You can say all day that evolution defies reason, but you don't explain how. I'll agree that it's pretty wierd, but spend time studying quantum mechanics and you'll think evolution is as logical as 1+1=2.
And your attempt to separate Creationism from ID doesn't work. ID is based on the theory that from nothing comes nothing?
O.k., what's the next step in the "theory" and what experiments can I do to disprove it. The experiments may not disprove it, but without them, you don't have a scientific theory, you have, as Gonzo has stated on another thread, metaphysics--fascinating perhaps but not science.
And of course the teaching of evolution should include a discussion of the problems and holes. That's called science. The fundamentalists wouldn't allow us to teach Christianity pointing out the problems, holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions--that's the difference.
In Jamesons Veritas
7 - JR
RKC: The Theory of Evolution raises more questions than it answers.
Can you explain:
1) How you know that's the case? Have you counted?
2) How that really makes it any different than Intelligent Design?
3) Why that would make it any less true?
8 - billy
"The Theory of Evolution raises more questions than it answers."
thats outright false. evolution explains everything from why million year old human bones look the way they do, why certain animals survive and others dont, why dinosaurs are gone, why viruses evolve right before our eyes to overcome antibiotics, even why life exists on earth.
it answers everything. this dispute is a fraud manufactured by people who cant even answer one simple question.
WHAT IS THE THEORY OF ID? if it really is a theory, i would like to hear what it is and how that can be tested.
9 - Nancy
ID is no more than fiction & fantasy because religion is no more than fiction & fantasy. Neither ID nor religion have any basis in fact since they are totally the products of human imagination & fairy tales.
10 - RKC
Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion -- except to give reason to disparage it.
It is based on the fact that the Theory of Evolution is deficient in answering fundamental questions about the origins of life.
Why is there so much resistance to considering the deficiencies in what is currently being taught?
If the consideration of Intelligent Design is such a fantasy, will it not be thrown out after it is introduced?
I have two questions for those who claim to be better informed than I.
1. How did the eye evolve?
2. How did blood evolve?
I did not get the connection between Evolution and Quantum Mechanics in my college Physics courses -- What did I miss?
11 - JR
1. How did The Designer make eyes?
2. How did The Designer make blood?
3. Who is The Designer?
12 - billy
1. How did the eye evolve?
these answers are clearly given in an elementary school textbook, maybe it would help if the id defenders actually listened in 5th grade science.
13 - Mark Schannon
>I did not get the connection between Evolution and Quantum Mechanics in my college Physics courses -- What did I miss?
RKC- oh my gosh, you missed the best lecture ever!!!
My point was that I fully agree with you that the theory of evolution has holes in it, there are things we can't yet explain, but that's the nature of science as it evolves. But the holes in evolution are nothing compared to how freaky & weird is quantum mechanics, but nobody says that's not a valid theory. (Wasn't it Nils Bohr who said, "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't"?)
14 - Bennett
Yeah, and it would help if the proponents of ID would figure out that the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with The Origins Of Life.....
15 - Mark Schannon
Good point, Bennett. I was just about to mention that! LOL.
16 - billy
yeah, and if the proponents of ID would just figure out that they have to come up with a real theory before it can be taught in school that would help also.
17 - RKC
RE: Comment 12
OK billy... How did the eye evolve?
Let's see if you can repeat what you learned in 5th grade science about how the eye evolved.
I'll bet you can't.
18 - RKC
RE: Comment 13
I said I did not get the connection between Evolution and Quantum Mechanics in my college Physics courses -- What did I miss?
I'll bet you can't tell me about it.
19 - RKC
RE: Comment 16
"If the proponents of ID would just figure out that they have to come up with a real theory before it can be taught in school that would help also."
Are you willing to give them a try, or do you have a closed mind?
20 - RKC
RE: Comment 11
1. How did The Designer make eyes?
2. How did The Designer make blood?
3. Who is The Designer?
Very good questions.
I would like to know.
So, let's see if someone comes up with rational answers -- and then pass judgment.
21 - RKC
RE: Comment 11
How did The Designer make blood?
In order for blood to coagulate when a cut through the skin is made, several proteins have to act in a precise sequence. Take any of them out, and you bleed to death.
Ttying to shoehorn blood clotting into the evolution shoe reveals that it doesn't fit.
If evolution can't explain how blood was able to clot, there has to be another answer to it.
22 - Bennett
Why is there air?
What is the meaning of life?
Is there life after death?
Do frogs dream?
Is there intelligent life on other planets?
How long is infinity?
Is there really a whole universe in my little finger?
I would like to know.
So, let's see if someone comes up with rational answers -- and then pass judgment.
[hyuck hyuck]
23 - gonzo marx
firstly..damn yer eyes Mark..i saw that the Shrub had endorsed ID last night...but you, of course, beat me to it...
aaAAAarrRRRRRrggGGGGGhhhHHHHh!!!
very Fun article, never the less...
now, as for RKC, and any other ID proponents, i'll make the same point that i have in previous Threads on the subject, and ask the same, simple Question...
to begin, let us make very certain that we have our epistimology in order...please head on over to dictionary.com, or whatever reference source you like...and check the scientific definitions for the following terms...
axiom
postulate
hypothesis
theory
evidence
proof
scientific method
peer review
those should do it...
by those definitions you will discover that there currently is NO "theory" of ID...merely a stated "hypothesis" that "postulates" a "creator/designer" with no "proof" behind it, the only "evidence" revolves around things that "seem like" they are "true"
what would make it closer to a "theory"?
simplicity itself...work out what experiments you will perform to gather "evidece" leading to establishing your "postulates" into "peer reviewed" "axioms" that can be either proven or disproven via the "scientific method"...this would establish the beginnings of an actual scientific "theory"
short of that, it is a wonderful subject for metaphysics...but does NOT belong in any science class...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
24 - Randy Kirk
Gonzo,
Your comment here conveniently leaves out the incredible comment by Graham. Shouldn't your new comment at least respond to his very unique approach?
25 - Mark Schannon
RKC, Gonzo, as always, has given the logical reason why ID can't yet be considered a real scientific theory.
More important...I was JOKING about missing the connection between evolution & quantum theory. The only point I was trying to make is that science, particularly very hard science that people are struggling to understand, always looks weird at first. So the fact that evolution can't explain everything doesn't invalidate it--although the proponents of evolution have to deal with just the questions you raise.
But the reality is that they are trying to answer those questions--they have the process Gonzo outlined. If at some point, the theory runs into a brick wall when it comes to eyes or blood or, most important, baldness, then good scientists will agree that the theory has a problem.
But the ID/Creationist folks can't even go down that path. There's no where to go...except, of course, to OZ.
Also, re: "are we willing to give them a try or do you have a closed mind" about the "theory," all I can say is that Gonzo & I would love to see even the beginnings of a theory. So far, all you've said is "nothing comes from nothing," which, by the way, quantum physicists are struggling with since it appears that some odd things keep popping up where nothing was a moment ago...
In Jamesons Veritas