>> ^xxovercastxx:
While I disagree with a large portion of it, Haught's response is interesting. I'm surprised some of you are having such a hard time comprehending it.


There is a rather passionate and immediate rejection of it, isn't there? Although there is a great deal of "careful talking", Haught clearly did not move to defend creationism science and tries to separate himself from the passionate followers of ID or creation science.

Does he believe in them? Well this is a short clip and I haven't watched the rest so I can't say. But I'd wager that neither did the other commentators. In reality he probably has some hazy position, but it is interesting to watch people jump to their immediate mud-slinging position without effort or seemingly without listening comprehension. No one from National Geographic is chasing you... you don't have to jump off the cliff.

Eric, where he got the number I couldn't say but if you really wonder he might answer if he's got time, ask in the comments section on his page or drop him a private message and see. The group of them that I've been watching for a few weeks, some atheist and some Christian, seem to be pretty good about reasonable questions.

chilaxe, that's pretty certainly true but we've got a small catch I think and he touched on it in his post. Belief in evolution doesn't require atheism but it does help to enable it.

From what I've seen and read there's some indication of a biological inclination toward faith. You see it in more than religion. Scientology, nationalism, the neocons, there's been faith in a lot of aspects of things over recent years if we think about it. You probably don't need to attack it so much as to let them know some of what they've been told isn't true. Plant that seed of doubt and the ones who are open to it will figure it out themselves over time.

For those who are committed we won't break that faith anyway, no more than they've been able to teach people not to be gay, if it's a biological inclination toward faith it'll express itself one way or another. I think we tend to lose chances to reach that middle by pushing too hard at the extremes.

Easiest way to clarify that would be for you to just read an example. My debate is normally the drug war and I've done that for a LONG time now but activism is activism for the most part and the same methods work here too. The relevant players in this thread were myself in the first post linked (Yana Usdi on that board), Coldslaw, and Sideway.

I had planned (and there am now on) a break but that thread started just as I was leaving so I jumped back in for a short time to stop it from going hostile, bring it back on track. They were young earth creation "science" all the way and we had a real productive conversation. Nornerator is a real nice guy, an atheist, and I don't think he understood where I was going at first either but after a page or two he caught on and you can see it in his thanks for the later posts. The rest of the thread could be skimmed or skipped, they're not relevant to the point and it's enough reading already.

http://www.marijuana.com/religion/112515-will-atheism-ever-dominate-6.html#post1037462

In the end it comes down to a simple question to me . Do we want to make a difference or a gesture? I think we've got a better chance of making a difference if this approach is tried where there's an open mind to accept it and we'll never know if it's open if we assume from the start that it isn't.

Here's the e-mail being sent out to the MoveOn-a-nites:

"Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.

Huh?

Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:


She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1

Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2

She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4

She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5

She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6
How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7
This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.

We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:

She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK

She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK

As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK

Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK

She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK

I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And she's dramatically inexperienced.

In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.

In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your friends and family.

Thanks for all you do.

–Ilyse, Noah, Justin, Karin and the rest of the team

Sources:


1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-7654869-irR0vsx&t=1

3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-7654869-irR0vsx&t=2


4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-7654869-irR0vsx&t=3

5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-7654869-irR0vsx&t=4

6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-7654869-irR0vsx&t=5

"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-7654869-irR0vsx&t=6

"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-7654869-irR0vsx&t=7

7 "McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-7654869-irR0vsx&t=8"

Some are so caught up in combating real pseudoscientific bullshit like acupuncture / homeopathy / the latest "natural cures" fad that they treat any challenge to the medical status quo as if it must be quackery. Just because something has been done for 150 years without most doctors realizing it was wrong, does not make it right. Leeches were used for 1000+ years, take that! Take no comfort in suckling on the teat of the majority dogma.

Rembar, how about that Swedish scientist who wrote the standard textbook on metal toxicology and consulted for the WHO, and helped get amalgam banned in Sweden? Did you watch far enough in this documentary to see him? Or did you skip the whole video as soon as you identified it as something contradicting your dogma?

I've got no problem if you remove actual pseudoscience, like homeopathy, astrology, acupuncture, 'creation science', chiropractors, raw foodism, diet fads, crystal healing, 95% of the self-help books ever written, and all the other bullshit from the Science channel. But this documentary definitely interviews many respectable practitioners of *science and is not bullshit.

Your comment hit the nail on the head. I couldnt agree with you more. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
I'm gonna take this opportunity to get a little corny; if you have a weak stomach, skip to the next comment.

This video, and most like it, make me tear up. It seems as time goes on, I come to this place (the sift) more and more just to get my fill of all that is wrong with people on this planet. It's great to feel a sense of purpose by showing myself who and what I'm up against in this world, but from creation science to multinational corporate control to a disinterested population growing out of control, it can get a little overwhelming. When I'm confronted with how amazing things really are around here, geologically or otherwise, I still get wide-eyed and I feel like I'm in fourth grade again, learning that earthworms can actually regrow parts of their bodies. I guess this place is a real mixed bag, and the extremes are getting more and more extreme. Or maybe I'm just growing older and seeing things a little differently.

Or maybe I've just got problems.

Anyway, thanks for a touch of the old catharsis, Eric. Sometimes, I think we're all guilty of forgetting what's good.

I'm gonna take this opportunity to get a little corny; if you have a weak stomach, skip to the next comment.

This video, and most like it, make me tear up. It seems as time goes on, I come to this place (the sift) more and more just to get my fill of all that is wrong with people on this planet. It's great to feel a sense of purpose by showing myself who and what I'm up against in this world, but from creation science to multinational corporate control to a disinterested population growing out of control, it can get a little overwhelming. When I'm confronted with how amazing things really are around here, geologically or otherwise, I still get wide-eyed and I feel like I'm in fourth grade again, learning that earthworms can actually regrow parts of their bodies. I guess this place is a real mixed bag, and the extremes are getting more and more extreme. Or maybe I'm just growing older and seeing things a little differently.

Or maybe I've just got problems.

Anyway, thanks for a touch of the old catharsis, Eric. Sometimes, I think we're all guilty of forgetting what's good.

@wjolson,
The Big Valley Creation Science Museum and Creation Truth Ministries Travelling Museum in Alberta are not nearly the same scale, but you're not quite out of the woods yet.

@Devicrom,
If you think a nutty religious "museum", built by a theme park designer, in Kentucky of all places, represents the status quo in America, you've been reading too many tabloids.

One thing that I think is funny about intelligent design and creation "science" is that it didn't exist 3 decades ago. It is all a desperate reaction to the elegant simplicity of evolutionary biology.

^ "The odds that evolution is true is astronomically low and getting lower all the time."

That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, as time goes on the evidence for evolution just keeps stacking.

http://genomebiology.com/2001/3/1/research/0006
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=140308
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Every time there is new evidence, every time evolutionary biology is able to make a correct PERDICTION, creationist teem a new illogical god-based reaction in a pathetic attempt debunk the mounting evidence.

And FLIBOI, I don’t know why you listed D. James Kennedy as a doctor, while he techically has his docotrate, it was in religious studies from New York University, he got his masters in Chicago in Theology, and a became a Master of Divinity from Columbia Thological Seminary. That all sounds a little biased to me.

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Creation Science Evangelism"
What a load of bullshit. It's fair use! *blog

Agreed, Rougy. Again, it is a question of background in practical and theoretical knowledge, which Hovind clearly lacks. As evidence by the fact that Hovind had no idea what the Geneticist(PS. there is a spelling error there in the title) was talking about when he mention transcription, bioinformatics, and other topics which are common knowledge in biology.

He makes a very nice point at the end, if you could find evidence for applications of creation science then you could get funding to do research in the current scientific system. The reverse is not true.

"In 1971 he graduated from East Peoria High School in East Peoria, Illinois. From 1972 until 1974, Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.).[6] In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the unaccredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado which no longer offers this program)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps" which is to say, it searches for further and further small gaps in scientific knowledge in the hopes that someday, eventually the scientists will be totally flummoxed, and finally admit that there MUST be something that is impossible to explain.

You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up. Oh, well, we don't know what is causing bubonic plague, it must be God's divine retribution, we might as well not study it. Humans aren't meant to fly, it's God's will.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!" Then science progresses, and the ID camp is pushed back even further, and searches for more percieved gaps.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists ID proponents. Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

Not to turn this into an appeal to authority nor an ad hominem attack, but it must make you pause and think. Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks? Do you find it at all curious that the term Intelligent Design was coined the very same year that the american supreme court banned the teaching of creation "science" on the grounds that it violated the constitutional seperation of church and state?

Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

In reply to your comment:
“ShakaUVM- i think the principle you're reaching for, the one you've almost but not quite grasped hold of, is what is referred to as natural selection. Not ID. Once you have genes that replicate, the "goal" is to have genes that replicate better.

No, I'm quite well read on evolution and ID. What you do not understand is that ID incorporates the theory of evolution and natural selection in it. Natural selection is, in fact, a subset of ID theory. ID is not creationism. If you think so, you drastically need to read up on the topic. Creationism is the literal belief in the account of Genesis in the Bible. ID is the belief that an intelligent being influenced evolution (to produce humans). These two beliefs are quite at odds with each other.

I know, I know it's popular in the press to say that they are the same, but besides the fact that God could be the intelligent designer, they have nothing in common.

This video is a demonstration of ID. In fact, I could remove his text labels and make a compelling new video demonstrating how intelligent design could have worked. An intelligent designer could have done nothing more than to set a teleological goal (in this case, "Clock-ness") and then let evolution figure out the rest.”

ShakaUVM: I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps" which is to say, it searches for further and further small gaps in scientific knowledge in the hopes that someday, eventually the scientists will be totally flummoxed, and finally admit that there MUST be something that is impossible to explain.

You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up. Oh, well, we don't know what is causing bubonic plague, it must be God's divine retribution, we might as well not study it. Humans aren't meant to fly, it's God's will.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!" Then science progresses, and the ID camp is pushed back even further, and searches for more percieved gaps.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists ID proponents. Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

Not to turn this into an appeal to authority nor an ad hominem attack, but it must make you pause and think. Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks? Do you find it at all curious that the term Intelligent Design was coined the very same year that the american supreme court banned the teaching of creation "science" on the grounds that it violated the constitutional seperation of church and state?

Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

Hope it makes it out of the queue this time. I posted it 65 days ago but it didn't make it:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Roy-Zimmerman-sings-Creation-Science-101

Hmm, guess I'll play devil's advocate. It wasn't hard to use the Google to find out what's going on with the Dawkins.

Here's Dawkin's take. And here's the take from a creation science site.

And if you're too lazy, here's my take:

Dawkins: "I was tricked, curse those creationists!"
Interviewers: "Nuh-uh!"

t - "creation science" is a contradiction in terms, and Professor Dawkins is rightly "intolerant" when myth tries creeping its way into hard science and defies ordinary human intelligence and compassion.

see, the difference between religion and science is that science would welcome new information (take the reclassification of Pluto, for instance)

a handful of people who went to school for a long time and can still compartmentalize science and religion have yet to postulate anything very new or meaningful on evolution.

it may not seem that way to novice scientists reading a website on teh intarweb, but it's the truth. sorry.