Contact Me

About RightWing NutHouse

Site Stats

blog radio

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More


(Romeo St. Martin of Politics Watch-Canada)

"The epitome of a blogging orgasm"
(Cao of Cao's Blog)

"Rick Moran is one of the finest essayists in the blogosphere. ‘Nuff said. "
(Dave Schuler of The Glittering Eye)

October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004



Blacksmiths of Lebanon
Blogs of War
Classical Values
Cold Fury
Diggers Realm
Neocon News
Ravenwood’s Universe
Six Meat Buffet
The Conservative Cat
























‘Unleash’ Palin? Get Real




"24" (96)
Bird Flu (5)
Blogging (200)
Books (10)
Caucasus (1)
Cindy Sheehan (13)
Decision '08 (289)
Election '06 (7)
Ethics (173)
Financial Crisis (8)
FRED! (28)
General (378)
GOP Reform (22)
Government (123)
History (166)
Homeland Security (8)
Iran (81)
Katrina Timeline (4)
Lebanon (8)
Marvin Moonbat (14)
Media (184)
Middle East (134)
Moonbats (80)
Obama-Rezko (14)
Olympics (5)
Open House (1)
Palin (5)
PJ Media (37)
Politics (650)
Presidential Debates (7)
RNC (1)
S-CHIP (1)
Sarah Palin (1)
Science (45)
Space (21)
Sports (2)
Supreme Court (24)
Technology (1)
The Caucasus (1)
The Law (14)
The Long War (7)
The Rick Moran Show (127)
War on Terror (330)
Who is Mr. Hsu? (7)
Wide Awakes Radio (8)


Admin Login


Design by:

Hosted by:

Powered by:
CATEGORY: Moonbats

This is just too stupid to be true:

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss ‘’intelligent design’’ alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

‘’I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,’’ Bush said. ‘’You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.’‘

Alright then, I’ve got a few more “ideas” that students should probably be exposed to as long as we’re talking about filling their heads with a bunch of nonsense like ID:.

1. The earth is actually a bowl sitting on the back of elephants. Hey! If its good enough for the Hindus, why not us?

2. The God Manitou took pity on a mother bear who had lost her cubs while swimming across Lake Michigan and turned the cubs into islands (the Manitou islands) and the mother into a sand dune (Sleeping Bear Sand Dune). The Ojibwa’s believe it…I did too until I was about 5 years old.

3. NASA really didn’t go to the moon. The moon walk was done on a Hollywood sound stage.

4. A stitch in time saves nine. Try it, Mr. President. It’s true.

5. The invention of the microwave oven is the result of back engineering alien technology found in the rubble of a spacecraft that crashed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1945…or was it 1948? The date doesn’t matter. What matters is many, many people believe it. (This info surprised the actual inventor of the microwave oven Percy L. Spencer)

6. Gerry Thomas, who recently passed away, invented the TV Dinner. Hell, the MSM believed it, why not teach it?

One can go on and on.

Who the devil cares if some people believe that “Intelligent Design” is the “correct” interpretation for the massive amount of fossil and anthropological evidence showing how human beings evolved? If it were up to you Mr. President and the right wing idiotarians who are pushing this “theory” humans would still believe that the earth was the center of the universe and that stars were fixed in the sky in a series of crystal spheres. That’s what the overwhelming majority of people believed as recently as 500 years ago.

The damage you and the idiotarians are doing to the minds of our young people is unconscionable. And it’s got to stop. So take your idiotic theory and shove it where the sun don’t shine and leave science to the rationalists. We’ll leave faith based issues to experts like you.


Welcome Instapundit Readers!

My, my some commenters seem to be in a snit…or is it sniff? I will reprint my reply to those who wish to tell me that ID is science, or that evolution is “only” a theory, or that we haven’t found any transitional fossiles, or that I’m a godless heathen who will burn in hellfire for all eternity, etc.

1. Anyone who says that ID is “science” is a loon.

2. Anyone who says “evolution is only a theory” doesn’t know anything about science. The “Theory” of Relativity is a theory…except one should perhaps ask the residents of Hiroshima about the efficacy of that particular set of concepts.

3. Anyone who believes that the Big Bang is worthless as an explantion as to how the universe came into existence not only doesn’t know anything about cosmology, but also denies the existence of the nose on the end of your face.

4. Those who agitate for the teaching of ID “along side” evolution are hoping for a day 20 years from now when their children or grandchildren are sweeping the floors of Bio-tech factories owned by the Japanese or Germans instead of owning the damn things themselves as they should.

When the rest of the world embraces ID with the same fervor that the zealots in this country do, come back and talk to me. Until then…shut your yaps.


The question that reappears over and over again in the comments from ID supporters is “What’s wrong with teaching both and letting the kids decide?”

With that kind of logic, we could teach both the Steady State Theory of the cosmos as well as the Big Bang and let 15 year old kids try to work out the most complex and elegant set of mathmatical equations ever dreamed by the mind of man?

And when we teach Newton’s Laws, should we also teach what theories they replaced? And when teaching Einstein, perhaps we should also teach the theories of light that his ideas replaced. There are “thought experiments” that you can do to prove Einstein’s theories on the dual properties of light. But there were 18th and 19th century experiments that perfectly reasonable scientists could duplicate that proved that light was something entirely different than what Einstien proved it was.

Why not let the kids decide? Because it’s not up to them to “decide” the merits of something that by all accounts, is barely understood by the people who are teaching the subject!

Newton’s laws were almost perfect and worked very well – except they didn’t explain the orbit of Mercury. For hundreds of years, this anamoly with Mercury’s orbit was one of the great mysteries of science. It took Einstein’s theories to fill in Newton’s holes, including Mercury’s orbit, and thus built upon Newton’s work.

Intelligent Design would not build upon Darwin or any other evolutionists work. It would make a mockery of it. The capriciousness of the evolutionary process is “how we got here from there.” Just because the fossile record is incomplete – and given that less than 1/10 of 1% of all living things will die and not only fossilize, but also remain intact so that we can find and study them – doesn’t mean a damn thing. All it means is that we have to keep digging – literally.

In the future, look to the evolutionary biologists as they unlock the secrets in our DNA. That’s where the big news on origins will probably come from in the future.

By: Rick Moran at 10:57 am
  1. 1
    TJ Said:
    11:30 am 

    I would be perhaps just a bit less vitriolic about this.

    1) It’s not like he came out swinging for the fence in support of ID; merely supporting exposure to it.

    2) Perhaps it is my ignorance (of which I have plenty!) but does ID actually countermand evolution, or add a facet or two to it (the Intelligent Designer part)

    3) I found the Immigation blurb more meaningful – guestworkers (bad, but tolerable if the borders can be secured (as a compromise)) and increased border secuirty (finally!?).


  2. 2
    Fritz Said:
    11:45 am 

    Relax. ID can be though of in a monolithic sense, the laws of nature. I don’t think this will have the negative impact as placing condoms on cucumbers has.

  3. 3
    TJ Said:
    11:48 am 

    Rick – You might also enjoy a quick read over here ... post & comments. Just a thought; to defer attention off of myself :P.


  4. 4
    The Politburo Diktat Trackbacked With:
    12:26 pm 

    Bush Favors Teaching ID in Schools

    Right Wing Nut House says DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: SHUT YOUR YAP!
    I think Bush has alluded to this before, and he makes it more explicit today. I’m glad that Rick at RWNH teed off on this; he saved me the trouble. Now, rather than going totally bat…

  5. 5
    Gay Orbit Trackbacked With:
    12:48 pm 

    One is a Theory. One is a Fantasy.

    President Bush endorses teaching the creation myth as a viable alternative to a proven theory.President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and “intelligent design” Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexit…

  6. 6
    Dave Justus Said:
    12:58 pm 

    “humans would still believe that the earth was the center of the universe”

    Actually that is correct. The Earth is just as much the center of the universe as anywhere else is.

  7. 7
    Tom Rants Trackbacked With:
    1:39 pm 

    Commissar upset with the Prez

    The Commissar of the Politburo Diktat and Rick at Right Wing Nuthouse are upset with Bush because he “Favors Teaching ID in Schools”
    A few thoughts. First, it’s just further reason to remove the federal government from its unconst…

  8. 8
    Jeff Said:
    1:42 pm 

    Intelligent Design is not based on theology but on science. It’s because its conclusion may lead some to believe in God that people like you are scared. What exactly is wrong with looking at both scientifically-based propositions and allowing the students to determine which is more feasible? But alas, schools these days are less likely to allow students to think for themselves. They disregard every pro-ID scientist and professor as wacko, regardless of credentials.

    We who believe in Intelligent Design are not at all afraid of bringing both theories to light. Don’t speak more highly of one than the other, just bring out the facts for each one and see which stands up to scrutiny.

  9. 9
    Restless Mania Trackbacked With:
    1:42 pm 

    (Un)intelligent Design

    George W. Bush. The only monkey smart enough to succeed at aping human behavior.

  10. 10
    Mossback Culture Trackbacked With:
    2:01 pm 

    Exposing the children to different ideas

    This crap is just plain wrong:

    WASHINGTON (Aug. 2) – President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss ‘’intelligent design’’ alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
    During a round-table…

  11. 11
    Pigilito says... Trackbacked With:
    2:01 pm 

    Teach the controversy? You bet

    “Teach the controversy” is a sound bite and bumper sticker-ready rallying cry for Intelligent Design /Creationists, who seek to displace evolution and promote a Bible based scientific curriculum in US schools.

  12. 12
    jazzizhep Said:
    2:17 pm 

    Point 1: You can disprove the earth rides on an elephant.

    Point 2: You can disprove (through geological data) those islands did not come into existance through the actions of a bear.

    Point 3:This has been disproven.

    Point 4: 100% true so I am not sure what you meant.
    A rip in your socks doesn’t get any smaller with time.

    Point 5: Patent office concurs.

    Point 6: Who cares.

    BTW, it is called the “Theory of Evolution” because it has not been proven definitively. Quite possibly never will, although it is the only explaination that makes any sense. Until there becomes an explaination of the universe that people can actually fathom, or that makes any sense, I don’t see how intelligent design can be labeled more off-base than the big bang: There was this huge ball of extremely dense mass that just blew up one day. Nobody knows where the mass came from, how long it had been there, or why it blew up. It was just there and bang, here we are.

    Since speculating on time before the big band is more philosophy than science, there is room for other explainations. Intelligent design concedes, rightly so, that evolution is the likely cause of humans existance. I take it a step farther and say intelligent design is at least a comprehendible explaination of how the big bang occured and what existed before. I realize this is not very scientific, but neither are the explainations offered by science unless you count science fiction. Because that is all there is folks.

  13. 13
    RiverRat Said:
    2:24 pm 

    President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss ‘’intelligent design’’ alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

    During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

    ‘’I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,’’ Bush said. ‘’You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.’‘

    If you look at the bolding above you’ll see just how well you’ve been manipulated by Leftard Media.
    Using just your source, it’s clear the Prez didn’t conflate evolution with ID, the effing media did. Because you’re aware of the Kansas Kooks you allow yourself to be flamed.

    I’m sure you wouldn’t object any more that I do to teaching “comparative origin belief systems” in the context of social studies; or would you?

    Hell, Dubya could have handed out a written statement on comparative religions and LM would conflate it with secular humanism because that’s their religion.

  14. 14
    The Art of the Blog Trackbacked With:
    2:29 pm 

    Teaching Intelligent Design in School

    According to reports, President Bush says intelligent design should be taught in schools. I happen to believe in God. I think that the idea that God made the world is true. I also think that God set evolution in motion…

  15. 15
    Balloon Juice Pinged With:
    2:30 pm 

    [...] See also: Von at Obsidian Wings: Dumbing it Down Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse: Mr. President, Shut Your Yap! Der Commisar Pharyngula Fi [...]

  16. 16
    The Commissar Said:
    2:32 pm 


    What is a theory? Maybe you think it means “a plausible idea, but not yet fact?” Wrong.

    A scientific theory is an organized set of ideas and concepts that explains observed facts. Relativity, Gravity, and Evolution are examples of theories. How about plate tectonics? Just a theory? Maybe continents don’t move because they are plates floating on the mantle, but because God wants them to.

    And none of this depends on, nor relates to ‘what happened before the Big Bang.’

  17. 17
    neil Said:
    2:59 pm 

    Interesting that you group Mr. Bush in with the “idiotarians.” I thought that label was exclusively for people who disagreed with Mr. Bush’s policies. And I think that in general, people to whom that label is applied oppose the teaching of religious dogma in schools.

    So at least be consistent, and don’t try to blame the other party for what your own hath wrought.

  18. 18
    Rick Moran Said:
    3:03 pm 

    I. Anyone who says that ID is “science” is a loon.

    2. Anyone who says “evolution is only a theory” doesn’t know anything about science. The “Theory” of Relativity is a theory…except one should perhaps ask the residents of Hiroshima about the efficacy of that particular set of concepts.

    3. Anyone who believes that the Big Bang is worthless as an explantion as to how the universe came into existence not only doesn’t know anything about cosmology, but also denies the existence of the nose on the end of your face.

    4. Those who agitate for the teaching of ID “along side” evolution are hoping for a day 20 years from now when their children or grandchildren are sweeping the floors of Bio-tech factories owned by the Japanese or Germans instead of owning the damn things as they should.

    When the rest of the world embraces ID with the same fervor that the zealots in this country do, come back and talk to me. Until then…shut your yaps.

    PS: Neil – you’re that rare combination of idiotarian and moonbat. Congrats!

  19. 19
    Don Surber Trackbacked With:
    3:22 pm 

    Dubya Upsets Us All

    The Commissar is upset.

    Right Wing Nut House is upset.

  20. 20
    Banjo Said:
    3:40 pm 

    BUSH BE LYING PEOPLE BE DYING Just kidding. But I notice a lot of people who think and say that are opposed to ID. Mere coincidence?

  21. 21
    jazzizhep Said:
    3:41 pm 

    Your examples are exactly what I mean, especially gravity. Gravity itself is fact, you can observe the effects. The theory is how gravity is manifested, is it mass or magnetic or a combination of the two. Is that not two seperate issues? We can observe the effect of evolution, but how did that process begin?

    I am asking you to go back further than just life on this planet and the primordial mixture of proteins that started it, and look at how the earth was formed, and where that matter originated. Then ask what caused the events to spew that matter into the universe. You ask what that has to do with the theory of evolution, or what is the relevence to this topic?

    What is the relevence of studying evolution? Is it not to determine our origins? Do our origins stop at the first bacteria, or do we look at how those first organism come into being, and the circumstances around that event. They are connected and it would be like studying the origins of the Romans but not the Etruscans.

    Until evolution is capable of producing empirical data that proves the linneage of even 30% of the earth’s inhabitants that exceeds the current evidence of “the jaw bone is similar, and could produce a modern jawbone”, then there is room for other theories of the origin of life beyond the birth of the earth, and they are as connected as they Romans and Etruscans. Yes, we have genetic data that states we share 95% of our genes with chimps, but that still leaves the same questions. But even that is not proof, it just supporst the most logical outcome.

  22. 22
    Rahul Said:
    3:42 pm 


    Your link for Hinduism is not very good, and the information in it is pretty nutty, not to mention inaccurate.

    Ironically, Hinduism is probably more amenable to the idea of evolution than any other religion. To get an idea of what I mean, check out this link listing the ‘avatars’ or incarnations of Vishnu.

    Notice anything interesting?

    Fish-> Turtle-> Boar-> Beast-man-> Dwarf-> Hermit-> King-> God

  23. 23
    Guy Holladay Said:
    3:45 pm 

    And teach the Stork Theory in biology. And stumble around in the dark on high cliffs—because we only have theories of light and gravity.

    Why is it that Creationist-Type Bullsh** doesn’t play well in airplane design,bridge building and dentistry?
    And yes, I’m a Christian too. I prayed over the issue. God told me to leave Him alone; he’d given me a brain to handle the easy sh*t.

  24. 24
    Rick Moran Said:
    3:50 pm 


    The earth is approximately 4.8 billion years old. The universe is at least 12 and probably closer to 15 billion years old. Given what we know about the evolution of life, there probably have been billions of worlds where life has arisen, thrived, and for whatever reason became extinct long before our insignificant little ball of dust and gasses came into being.

    Where did the amino acids and complex proteins come into being? Those compounds had perhaps 300 million years to mill around together combining, falling apart, and recombining.

    300 million years.

    If scientists had that long to experiment in a lab, I have no doubt they’d hit upon the right combination in a hundred million years or so.

  25. 25
    As I Please Trackbacked With:
    3:51 pm 

    And babies come from storks!

    Here’s one I’d like to ad to the pile. According to the Nation of Islam, the white man is a member of a demonic race, created by a mad black scientist named Yakub and destined to rule the world for 6,000 years until the black man rightfully assumes h…

  26. 26
    Rick Moran Said:
    3:56 pm 

    So many idiotarians…so little time.

    Physicists would be shocked to learn Rutherford’s model is wrong in the sense that an atom doesn’t have electrons and protons. And Sir Isaac’s apple is not suddenly falling up after leaving the tree.

    The Grand Unified Theory is coming closer to reality and will marry Einstein and Bohrs very nicely thank you. The point being, that people built upon these theories, they didn’t prove them “wrong.”

  27. 27
    John Said:
    3:57 pm 

    Maybe religous people in this country wouldn’t be pushing back with intelligent design if society hadn’t spent the last 50 years telling what superstitious hillbillies they all were for believing anything other than what people in lab coats told them to believe. We will keep intelligent design out of schools and in return science can get back in its lane get out of the business of metaphysics. Science is not absolute truth. It is instead a set of theories used to explain empirical data. Damn useful, but nothing more. Science doesn’t have to conflict with religion or undercut people’s religous beliefs.

  28. 28
    Jeff Z Said:
    3:57 pm 

    Scientists remind me of what Israeli politicians say about the Palestinians: “They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

    Here is what the President actually said: “’I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,’ Bush said. ‘You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.’

    Here’s an idea: Take the President at his word and expose students to different ideas, and in a dispassionate, ruthlessly logical way, demonstrate why ID does not hold up as science.

    Oh, don’t get me wrong, I know that none of you would ever do that. After all: You’re right! (and, yes, I agree: You are right.) The data prove it! (and, yes, it does). Anybody who can’t see that is an idiot! And so the ID people win again.

    In other words, scientists, who are far more educated, relying on flawless logic, and with all the physical evidence on their side, are losing to their opposites. And you guys think that they’re the idiots.

    Scientists have to learn how to educate, not simply point to data. To educate means to learn the true needs of your students and address those needs. Let them tell you their objections to ID and ask them about those objections. Then ask another question. Then, when you fully understand, you can teach.

    Bush has just thrown his full support to you:”’I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,’ Bush said. ‘You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.’

    Instead of embracing him as an ally, you guys sit around making up reasons why he is a moron. Yeah, that’s it, it’s everybody else’s fault that they’re too stupid to understand how brilliant you are.

  29. 29
    Brainster's Blog Trackbacked With:
    4:00 pm 

    Carnival of the Clueless

    BTW, just to show our side is willing to bash our own, check out Rick’s (perhaps a bit overly agressive) smackdown of the President on intelligent design. I’m not really up to speed on intelligent design; I think a lot of the focus on evolution pro a…

  30. 30
    byrd Said:
    4:00 pm 

    The thing that bugs me is about Intelligent Design is, who cares? It doesn’t explain anything.

    So the world is so complicated that there must have been a designer. So what? That information is of no value whatsoever unless the theory goes on to tell you somethng about the designer. But that’s, oops, religion. If they want to teach Intelligent Design in philosophy class, fine, I suppose. But it has no business in science class.

  31. 31
    protein wisdom Trackbacked With:
    4:02 pm 

    On Intelligent Design and the Public School Curriculum

    Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of negative backlash on the right to this story about Bush supporting the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. From Yahoo Newsresident Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intel…

  32. 32
    Brainster Said:
    4:05 pm 

    I’ve always felt this issue gets way, way too much attention. It’s just not that important. Yes, I think evolution is fact, perhaps still with some lacunas to be filled in.

    But the notion that our kids will be sweeping the floors for their Japanese biotech masters if we don’t teach them evolution in 10th grade is easily as ridiculous as Intelligent Design.

  33. 33
    jazzizhep Said:
    4:08 pm 

    Somehow I think the prospects of any future possibilities of scientific advances is no reason to accept current theories. Of course I always thought it was it was astonomy and not astrology.

  34. 34
    John Said:
    4:13 pm 


    You are exactly right. Moreover, anyone in this society who is not aware of the Theory of Evolution and can’t make their own mind up about it, either doesn’t care or is too stupid to make their mind up. Either way, its not a big deal.

    Also, just because something is “science” doesn’t mean that it can’t be questioned or be repugnant. For example, people did not object to the textbook in the Scopes Monkey Trials just because they taught evolution. The textbooks at issue taught a horrible, racist version eugenics which were all the rage in scientific community in the early 20th Century.

  35. 35
    Dave Said:
    4:15 pm 

    It is interesting to see the that the Galileos of yesteryear have now taken up residence in the Vatican and are persecuting those of today who dare to question the authority of the now favored theory. There has to be some parallel here with the ever increasing shrillness of the left as they lose power.

  36. 36
    JohnAnnArbor Said:
    4:16 pm 

    It would be far better if the history of science—just a touch of it—were taught. Like when plate tectonics is taught, you could talk about how it was considered ludicrous a century ago that the continents could move. And that thet thought they were as right as we think we are now.

    The only point would be, sometimes scientific observation overturns the “accepted wisdom” of the time, either in small ways or large.

    When I taught evolution, I had a few students say “what about Adam and Eve.” All I did was point out that science is the realm of what people can observe from the world around them. It does not deal with religious questions directly, as it shouldn’t.

  37. 37
    John Said:
    4:18 pm 

    People say that you should teach intelligent design in philosphy class not science class. Fair enough. If we do that can we please stop teaching philosophy in science class by claiming that science has an exclusive claim on absolute truth?

  38. 38
    Jeff Jones Said:
    4:26 pm 

    Whoa cowboy! ID does not refute evolution, just Darwin’s version. I have to agree with W. How can you explain homosexuals with Darwin’s theory? Obviously, God wants them around.

  39. 39
    ErnieG Said:
    4:27 pm 


    A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

    At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.”

    The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?”

    “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down.”

    (Disclaimer: I remembered the phrase, googled, and copied the above from Wikipedia.)

  40. 40
    JohnAnnArbor Said:
    4:34 pm 

    “How can you explain homosexuals with Darwin’s theory? Obviously, God wants them around.”

    If it’s only partly genetic, or genetically recessive, it can continue easily. One copy of a certain gene gives you resistance to malaria, for instance—but two give you debilitating sickle cell anemia.

    It could be similar. Or it could be an interaction of multiple genes on multiple chromosomes AND environmental factors, in which case teasing all the different effects apart takes more work that writing a few comments on a blog.

  41. 41
    Fishkite » Blog Archive » The Creation: “stupid” and “pathetic” Pinged With:
    4:39 pm 

    [...] “stupid f*cking statement” – Commisar “too stupid to be true” – Rick Moran For a rather more intelligent discussion of the iss [...]

  42. 42
    Pharyngula Trackbacked With:
    4:40 pm 

    Bush endorses Intelligent Design creationism

    It's only a small fillip on the vast rococo monument to incompetence, anti-science, and lies that the Republican party has erected over our country, but I take it personally. George W. Bush has endorsed Intelligent Design creationism's pl…

  43. 43
    JunkYardBlog Trackbacked With:
    4:42 pm 


    We have two political parties. We have Pepsi and Coke. We have Mac and PC. We have Chevy and Ford. And Honda and Toyota. We have lots of choices. And you libertarians seem to think that that’s a good thing….

  44. 44
    sps2003 Said:
    5:00 pm 

    I guess I’ve been under the false assumption that science (whatever the discipline) was about discovery and that in order to engender discovery, a “scientist” was required to have an open mind and the ability to look beyond their own preconceptions. The problem with scientists today (both the evolutionary zealot scientsts and the ID zealot scientists) is that their preconceptions have closed their minds and suppressed their ability to discover. Once science is able to regain an open mind and explore the physical world free of mass preconception and ideaological bigotry, true discovery will begin anew.



  45. 45
    Hunter McDaniel Said:
    5:07 pm 

    I agree with John above, that ID is in many respects a reaction to secularists who try to put a scientific imprimatur on metaphysical claims. But it’s a malformed reaction which will not advance their cause.

  46. 46
    Below The Beltway Trackbacked With:
    5:14 pm 

    Umm Okay Mr. President

    In an interview today, President Bush suggested that schools should teach so-called “intelligent design” along with evolution.

  47. 47
    rjschwarz Said:
    5:22 pm 

    Actually I can’t think of a better way to convince the lefties that the Federal Government shouldn’t be involved in the education system. He may actually mean it, he may not, but the end result will be to put a serious chill up the spine of nanny state folks looking to increase the powers of the Education Department.

  48. 48
    John Hatch Said:
    5:26 pm 

    Look, Intelligent Design is science, in that it estimates the probability that certain structures (like cells, for example)could have evolved, finds that the probability is strinkingly low, and then suggests that another mechanism is at play. We know enough about evolution to know that the probability of it explaining the emergence of human life in the time necessary time frame is extremely extremely low. Evolution is a “rock-solid” explanation only if you are willing to totally discount a non-natural one. Admittedly, science requires that you seek only natural causes. But science doesn’t necessarily require you to believe that a thrown die would land and balance perfectly on one of its 8 corners. My guess is that evolution is taught as if, in a hypothetical experiment given the same pre-mordial conditions that existed thousands of years ago, human life or something like it would evolve 99 times out of 100. The truth is that it is far less than 1 in 100. That information is extremely relevant to learning, and if it takes ID discussions to make people realize that, than it’s a good thing. I would submit that the author of this blog clearly doesn’t know it. ID cannot affirmitively disprove evolution, but it does shed light on the extreme lack of likelihood that it could have accounted for all that it pruports to account for.

  49. 49
    Sydney Carton Said:
    5:29 pm 

    I thought ID and evolution were in conflict, not regarding the origin of life, but by the very process in which life develops. Evolution posits a random “survival of the fittest” aspect, whereupon it is entirely random that the being known as “man” developed. ID posits that such change was not random, but directed, and as evidence points to symbiotic relationships among animals.

    I don’t see why both can’t be taught. They both admit change in physical processes but disagree on the reason for the change.

  50. 50
    Evan Said:
    5:29 pm 

    Why does it so mortally offend and outrage pure evolutionists that someone might believe that God used evolution to create life and manipulate to varying degrees its outcome?

    The amount of insult and vitriol I have read on the internet about this is amazing. ID is simply a way for religious people to come to grips with the evidence for evolution. It is not simply enough for people ike you to say, “Look, we shouldn’t teach this in school.” Nope, you have to spend a great deal of breath humiliating and insulting those you disagree with.
    You are arrogant.
    I do not care one whit for what is taught in our public schools regarding evolution. The idea that understanding evolution is crucial to humanity is laughable. Oh, hoe did we survive as a species for thousands of years without the guiding hand of the Theory of Evolution. (and no, I am making no arguement about the fact or unfact of evolution by using the word, theory)
    People will come to their own conclusions about things regardless of what some textbook says in elementary/Jr. High/ High School. I did. I understood that most of the stuff I was taught in high school was crap, I understood it when I was going and so did most of my friends. I was an evolutionist going to a private Christian school. . .but they only taught me creationism!! By your thinking I should be firmly convinced the Earth popped into existence in 7, 24 hour days about 6000 years ago. Hmm, I’m not.

  51. 51
    Sydney Carton Said:
    5:37 pm 

    By the way, I find the uproar over this entirely ridiculous. Instapundit and others like him are wilingly misrepresenting ID in an attempt to make anyone who takes it seriously look like a slack-jawed yokel. It’s pathetic sterotyping at its worst.

    ID merely posits that biological change is not “random,” but directed, and looks to symbiotic relationships among plants/animals as evidence of that. Evolution posts a randomness that doesn’t begin to explain quick-changing symbiotic relationships in the animal and plant world. And let’s not get started on macro v. micro “evolution”.

  52. 52
    Big Dirigible Trackbacked With:
    5:46 pm 

    If only all that energy could be used for the bene

    The Blogosphere is at it again. Immediate and hysterical overreaction was something we only got from Congress and the MSM in the old days. Now anybody can do it!

  53. 53
    Politechnical » Teaching Theory in School Pinged With:
    6:25 pm 

    [...] Politics at 7:28 pm on Tuesday, August 2, 2005 TrackBack The Commisar (among others) is displeased with a statement made by President Bush i [...]

  54. 54
    Decision '08 Trackbacked With:
    6:27 pm 

    More On Intelligent Design

    President Bush jumped right into the “Intelligent Design” fray today by suggesting it should be taught in schools alongside evolution. From the comments here, I see we have a mixed opinion on the validity of the idea, but let me tell you, the RINOs a…

  55. 55
    RiverRat Said:
    6:33 pm 

    Yah! You’re all ranting about a Leftard Media conflation of what Duyba “actually” said. He didn’t say “alongside”. Can any ony here read or are you all sheeple for the Leftards?

  56. 56
    Robert Said:
    6:43 pm 

    One of the things that I’ve gotten used to seeing in discussions of this type is “well, scientists thought X 150 years ago, and now they think Y instead. That proves science is less useful than religion, because religion doesn’t change over time.”

    Leaving aside the question of whether religions do, in fact, change over time, this POV misses the whole point of the scientific method. As new evidence becomes available, models and theories have to be changed to accommodate them. Some models or theories get thrown out completely; anyone remember seeing references to phlogiston or the luminiferous ether in high school physics class?
    I saw this expressed thusly once; “All models are false; some are useful.”
    Right about now, some of you are getting your fingers limber to type “But ID isn’t religion!” Well, who is the Intelligent Designer, and who/what designed him/her/it? What evidence is there to support the existence of such an entity? Are their models or theories that can explain such evidence without introducing an ID?

    Answer those questions, or stop calling it science.

  57. 57
    Kevin Murphy Said:
    7:10 pm 

    Geez … next thing you know they’ll be teaching Marxist economics in our colleges and universities.

    Oh, wait…

  58. 58
    Tinkerty Tonk Trackbacked With:
    7:12 pm 

    Hey fella: Don’t you know there’s a war on?

    Dear President Bush,

    I’m not going to get into the merits or lack of merit regarding your school curriculum suggestions, but I gotta ask: Are things going so well in Iraq and Afghanistan that you feel you can spread your wings a little?

  59. 59
    Big Cat Chronicles Trackbacked With:
    7:46 pm 

    Intelligent design—Please be quiet, Mr. President

    There’s a lot I respect about President Bush but sometimes even POTUS should be silent and Bush’s beliefs about teaching intelligent design in schools in one of those times.  Per AOL News (hat tip to Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut H…

  60. 60
    Jay Said:
    7:52 pm 

    Man you sure know how to start trouble. Congrats on the instalanche.

  61. 61
    The Unabrewer Trackbacked With:
    8:16 pm 

    Bush makes Fundie comment; RINO community aghast; I could use a cheesesteak

    Commissar: "Sheesh. Trying to prove the Dems right, one stupid f*cking statement at a time." RWNH: "The damage you and the idiotarians are doing to the minds of our young people is unconscionable." John Cole: "My days of defend…

  62. 62
    Randy Watts Said:
    8:55 pm 

    If you believe that the THEORY of evolution is “science” and the THEORY of intelligent design is not then this blog is aptly named.

    It is true that whenever an identity is assigned to the intelligence behind intelligent design, that is a personal belief.

    But, the concept of intelligent design is as valid a THEORY as the THEORY of evolution.

  63. 63
    UNCoRRELATED Trackbacked With:
    9:05 pm 

    Kerfuffle By Design

    Now its really going to hit the fan. President Bush, in a roundtable interview had this exchange: Q I wanted to ask you about the—what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are…

  64. 64
    Mike Black Said:
    11:00 pm 


    I like your website, but your comments about Intelligent Design reveal a fundamental ignorance of this theory. You seem to believe ID is the same thing as creationism, which it definitely is not. If you are going to rant on a public website, you should at least have a basic understanding of ID, which you obviously lack. I suggest reading the book “Darwin’s Black Box” by Dr. Michael Behe, who is a professor of biochemistry. There are many scientists and professors at prestigious universities and institutions who support the theory of ID and are harsh critics of Darwinism as an explanation for macro-evolution. I look forward to hearing from you.

  65. 65
    Macmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense Trackbacked With:
    11:21 pm 

    Intelligent Idiots

    Sometimes I run across a post on a blog that I have to blink my eyes a few times to see if what I think I read was real….

    The thing about blogs I’ve noticed is that “everybody is anybody”...experts of all trades so to speak.

  66. 66
    Mike Said:
    12:09 am 

    It looks like some people, here, are unclear as to the meaning of the word “theory”. A theory is an idea that is supported by evidence that is testable and repeatable. “Intelligent Design” is not a theory; it is a hypothesis. And that’s being pretty generous about it. Wherever you can test the ID hypothesis it fails (the statistical argument, the “No Free Lunch” misunderstanding, the “irreducible complexity” assumption), and in all other places it is simply untestable. In other words, ID is simple assertion—nothing more than “Whatever I don’t understand must be God’s Handiwork.” Evolution, on the other hand, is based on evidence, research, and repeated testing and refinement. Evolution is a theory on the edge of becoming scientific law. Natural Selection is a rationally indisputable fact, and evolution follows close on its heels.

  67. 67
    Apollyon Said:
    12:31 am 

    Supposing evolution becomes an absolute verifiable fact as many believe it is, I don’t see how that promotes the idea of no God. For me, it would be greater confirmation….I also have never understood why some have the idea that you cannot believe in God and science simultaneously…....

  68. 68
    Thought Mechanics » A conservative response to ID - subjective opinions on political news Pinged With:
    2:30 am 

    [...] ir reaction, which was mixed. However, I don’t think I could put it any better than Right Wing Nut House did–please, take a moment to read it [...]

  69. 69
    roberto Said:
    4:43 am 

    I admire your patience in trying to explain some scientific fundamentals to the fundamentalists. Let’s be honest. Some are simply too stupid to understand, which is not their fault. The rest are willfully ignorant, which is the more despicable.

    I think it would be just and fitting that those who deny the fact of evolution and who oppose stem cell research, should be denied medical treatment stemming from DNA research. Those who would willfully keep the children of our country ignorant deserve to be weeded out of the gene pool by the very laws of natural selection that they deny.

  70. 70
    Jenny-Fear Said:
    8:14 am 

    I think the bottom line is this.

    It’s sad when our government has to act like our children’s parents because the people in our country are too ignorant to take responsibility. Science teachers should teach Science and there is heaps more credibility to evolution than the existance of someone you believe in because their book told you to.

    If a parent wants their children to be exposed to god, they’ll take them to church and let the pastor or priest teach I.D. until the poor child’s cerebral cortex implodes. But it doesn’t belong in school.

    Science and God do not agree on the existance of each other. Opinion is the moderate.

  71. 71
    The Panda's Thumb Trackbacked With:
    8:27 am 

    The reaction to Bush’s statements

    In response to George W. Bush’s statement that he supports teaching Intelligent Design creationism in our public schools, I wrote my own reply, and also volunteered to collect links to other people’s criticisms. It was a little bit overwhelming. My…

  72. 72
    Pornographical Physics Trackbacked With:
    8:41 am 

    Intelligent Design and the 2nd Law of Political Ho

    Molecular biologist Michael Behe and mathematical philosopher William Dembski are the two intellectual giants of the ID movement, but whether it’s Irreducible complexity or The complexity-specification criterion, it’s difficult to ascertain their ult…

  73. 73
    Danny Carlton: codenamed "Jack Lewis" Trackbacked With:
    9:10 am 


    Student turns down ACLU’s scholarship    Hat tip: Stop the ACLU Bush Endorses Teaching Intelligent Design to Students    Open-minded…

  74. 74
    Emma Said:
    10:15 am 

    What I find convenient and appalling is this same President and his constituents who are advocating keeping an open mind about Intellectual Design and saying “hey, let’s let the kids decide”, flatly refuse to take that attitude towards birth control methods as opposed to abstinance. If nothing else, we can say the right wing is consistant. Consistantly willfully ignorant, but consistant nonetheless.

  75. 75
    JLP at AllThingsFinancial Said:
    11:00 am 

    I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. Why is it “educational” to believe that we all came from an explosion, developed into what we are from apes (while there are still apes around), but it is silly to believe we were created by something much larger than we are?

    If it is the concept of faith that is the problem, I would think it would take more “faith” to believe in evolution than to believe in a creator.

  76. 76
    Maril Said:
    12:09 pm 

    Your link to that total crap Hindu website is a blow to your reputation. It is filled with misinformation. To begin with Hinduism is monotheistic…if that author didn’t even know that…

  77. 77
    Rick Moran Said:
    12:16 pm 

    Reputation? What reputation?

    As for the link…I googled up Hindu mythology and just linked to it. The whole list was something of a joke that too many people have taken way too seriously.

    My suggestion is relax. Since no slight was intended, only a politically correct professional victim would take offense.

    Good thing I haven’t heard from any Ojibwas…

  78. 78
    davebo Said:
    12:32 pm 

    Bush has said numerous times that he favors teaching CREATIONISM in public schools.

    Now he suggests ID (a fancy term for creationism) and you pretend it’s all news to you?

    Give me a freakin break. You asked for it, no begged for it, and now we all get to deal with it.

    Shut your yapper and swallow hard. You’ve been doing it for years.

  79. 79
    Rick Moran Said:
    12:36 pm 

    I’m trying to decide whether you’re an idiot or just can’t read.

    No…no…I was right the first time.

    ID is NOT a fancy term for creationism so please refrain from bragging about your ignorance. Do it on your own blog.

    As for “asking for it” I’m not quite sure what you mean. But then, given the incoherence of the rest of your comment, I’m not surprised.

  80. 80
    davebo Said:
    12:57 pm 

    Seriously Rick, it’s your fantasy and you can call it what you like.

    Wanna call it science? Fine by me. Heck, if you want to call it well cooked bacon I don’t care.

    But don’t expect anyone to control their laughter.

    And I have no doubt whatsoever that you have a hard time understanding my post.

    I’d guess you have a hard time understanding all kinds of things.

  81. 81
    Rick Moran Said:
    1:02 pm 

    Are you seriously retarded?


    What part of that don’t you understand.

    Get a brain…then get a life.

  82. 82
    davebo Said:
    1:22 pm 


    Why not just respond to my post and we’ll both drop the jabs.

    Are you honestly trying to say this comes as any suprise to you??

    When Bush has said over and over publicly that he supports the teaching of creationism in schools??

    Obviously you’re upset by Bush’s statement.


    Now perhaps I’m assuming too much? Maybe you never supported Bush? Who knows?

    But judging from you’re other posts here, that seems unlikely.

    The Washington Post, August 27, 1999:
    Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said, “He believes both creationism and evolution ought to be taught…. He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but believes both ought to be taught.”

    The Kansas City Star, September 9, 1999:
    “I think it’s an interesting part of knowledge (to have) a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism. People should be exposed to different points of view. Should the people choose in my state (to adopt a rule similar to Kansas’) I have no problem” with public schools teaching both creationism and evolution.

    Reuters, November 4, 1999:
    Bush supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Bush stated, “I have absolutely no problem with children learning different forms of how the world was formed.” Bush believes decisions regarding curriculum should be made by local school districts.

  83. 83
    Brian B Said:
    1:23 pm 

    I suppose that over the years, the meaning of the phrase “Intelligent Design” has… well, evolved. otherwise, I must have misunderstood it the first time I heard about it. I was, at least back then, under the impression that it was a subset of the “theistic Evolution” school of thought. If not, I stand corrected.

    The big beef many of us have with the way evolution is presented is that it’s presented as a foregone conclusion that if life evolved, it must have done so by accident—it is taken as “gospel” (oops, religious imagery—my bad) that evolution supports atheism—not deism (A god who sets things in motion and stands back), CERTAINLY not theism (An actively involved creator God). I encounter this attitude every time the topic of evolution comes up—from the man on the street on up. Take the time to watch almost any TV documentary on evolution, and you can’t miss the implications and often outright claims of such.

    But that’s simply not true. All evolutionary theory can do is describe how life has evolved. It can NEVER address the issue of why, or who did or did get the ball (or Bang, as it were) rolling.

    C.S. Lewis said it best:

    “The story told by modern physics might be told briefly in the words ‘Humpty Dumpty is falling.’ That is, it proclaims itself an incomplete story. There must have been a time before he fell, when when he was sitting on the wall; there must be a time after had reached the ground. It is quite true that science knows of no horses and men who can put him together again once he has reached the ground and broken. But then you wouldn’t expect her to. All science rests on observation: all our observations are taken during Humpty Dumpty’s fall, because we were born after he lost his seat on the wall and shall be extinct long before he reaches the ground. From the very nature of the case the laws of degradation and disorganization which we find in matter at present cannot be the ultimate and eternal nature of things. If they were, there would have been nothing to degrade and disorganize.”

    If I believed that anti-religious teachers could keep their yaps shut about the existence or non-existence of God PERIOD, and ONLY teach the part that goes “We observe that this is HOW life developed”, I wouldn’t have a problem with teaching only evolution. Ain’t gonna happen.

  84. 84
    Mike Said:
    2:16 pm 

    The difference between Creationism and “Intelligent Design” is that no one pretends that Creationism is science. ID, on the other hand, is creationism repackaged as science, with the old labels spray-painted over. In other words, it’s a fraud. To teach Creationism in schools is to teach religion—plainly, openly, and as honestly as you can teach a myth. To teach ID is to teach religion as science, which is despicable.

  85. 85
    Jeff V Said:
    2:18 pm 

    The problem scientists have with the entire ID movement is that it likes to use estimations of probabilities of how likely it is for life to evolve the way it has and pass this off as scientific experimentation. The problem is the fundamental assumption used by ID, that there was some outside force that influenced the development of life on earth cannot be tested.

    Let me say that again. The fundamental idea of an “intelligent designer” cannot be tested, constrained, and above all else, disproven. All scientific theories and even the “Laws” of gravity, thermodynamics, and motion, have undergone rigorous scrutiny through experimentation and observation and what we have now in science is the result. Hey, ten years ago, astrophysicists didn’t even consider there was such a thing as “Dark Energy”, but observations imply that it does exists and even though they still don’t have a clue what it is, but they have the means to run experiments, make observations to try to figure it out. Evolution is the same way. The theory is not static, its ever changing, being modified to explain the available data. It is science.

    Sure, its probably true that its highly unlikely that life developed as it did on earth. But show me another planet to compare it to. You can’t, because we haven’t found life elsewhere, but we’ve only 100 large celestial bodies in our solar system to look at. If we do find life, then there’s something we can test. Its highly unlikely that a photon can travel 10 billion light years to us without encountering on of the 10^22 hydrogen atoms that would absorb it, but it does, because we can observe it and have a physical description of why it happens.

    Until an experiment can be developed to prove, disprove or constrain the existence of this “intelligent designer,” be it God, aliens, time-travelers, whatever, it remains a hypothesis, an idea, but not one that can be tested, and must be taken on faith. It is not science, and should not be taught alongside evolution. But by all means, discuss it, talk about it, have a class in philosophy on it. Truth doesn’t equal fact, and facts are what scientists deal with.

  86. 86
    Craig C. Said:
    2:38 pm 

    I find it interesting that “The Big Bang” is brought up. I believe in ID. I also believe in “The Big Bang”. Strangely enough, Big Bang and ID go hand in hand. One instant, absolutely NOTHING and in the next you have a bang that creates EVERYTHING that will ever be. Hmmm, seems like the way I read the bible account. Calm down and keep reading.

    Prevailing science tells us this is true. Everything is traced back to an instant in time when there was nothing and suddenly there was everything. How? All of this complexity suddenly appeared from nothingness; not a bunch of stuff became something, but that nothing became everything. Forget about even trying to get to evolution, the simple fact that such a huge hole is created right from the beginning should have us wanting to look at plausible explanations. An intelligent designer seems a lot more plausible than everything popping out of nothing. It’s just not very palatable to most scientists.

    One such scientist, Stephen Hawking, arguably one of the greatest theoretical physiscists and mathematicians of all time has recognized this gaping hole. In fact, he has commented that if Big Bang is true, the existence of a Creator is a foregone conclusion. He has such a problem with that, he is out chasing a bunch of half-cocked theories that can’t even come close to explaining the start of the universe.

    I say follow science and stop trying to hide behind it. If you truly follow it, you will find, just as Stephen Hawking is concluding, that there must be a Creator or Intelligent Designer. That doesn’t sit with Mr. Hawking and it doesn’t seem to sit with most of you. What are you so afraid of?

    I trust in my God. I trust enough to follow where science takes me. Science has only strengthened my faith in a heavenly Creator. You don’t appear to have the same trust in your science. If you do, why won’t you follow it to its conclusion?? Or, maybe, just like Mr. Hawking, you have followed it to its conclusion and you just don’t like it. So, you will continue searching for your own conclusion! Best of luck to you.

  87. 87
    Byron Raum Said:
    2:47 pm 

    Oh, come on! The Steady State theory was an elegant theory, well-considered and fit the facts that were available at the time. It was supported by respectable scientists – in fact, Fred Hoyle, one of the proponents, calculated nuclear reactions in stars because he needed some way to explain the heavier elements, which indirectly and rather ironically, lent support to the big bang theory. The phrase “big bang” was itself coined by Hoyle as a term of derision. However, be that as it may, it’s more logical to believe, today, in the steady state theory, than it is to believe in intelligent design. ID never had anyone but kooks supporting it, unless you go back centuries.

  88. 88
    Byron Raum Said:
    2:52 pm 

    I wonder how many of the ID people have considered the fact that if one accepts the possibility of intelligent design, then it is far more logical to believe that life on Earth was created by some sort of space aliens. The UFOlogists (I am not one, BTW) do a far better job of explaining the religious texts of the Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. than the followers of the faiths themselves.

  89. 89
    Dan Said:
    3:12 pm 

    Teaching ID along side evolution would be akin to altering math to teach “2+2=4, because God said so.”

    It takes a valid mathematic/scientific law or theory, and says it is only true because God made it that way.

  90. 90
    Brian B Said:
    3:16 pm 

    Teaching ID along side evolution would be akin to altering math to teach “2+2=4, because God said so.”

    True enough. Again, what I take exception to is the way that evolution is often presented to the effect of saying,“2+2=4, so there is no God.”

  91. 91
    Brian B Said:
    3:31 pm 

    For the record, and for the sake of the argument, when we say “Intelligent Design”, what DO we mean? Can we at least define terms so we’re all on the same page there?

  92. 92
    freetotem Said:
    4:56 pm 

    The statement that “massive amount of fossil and anthropological evidence [show] how humans evoloved” demonstartes why other theories need to be taught in schools. The fossil record and anthropological evidence show no such thing. Read “Bones of Contention,” by Marvin Lubenow, for example, to see just how unsettled and political this field of science is. That doesn’t mean the Christian myths are correct, either. But it doesn’t help to angrily rant that pure Darwinism, or evolutionary theory are settled matters that need no other consideration, either They’re not, except in the minds of Richard Dawkinses of the world, who are just as fundamentalist, and just as unobjective in their Darwinist belief system, as the Bible thumpers who so enrage you. This time, it’s Spencer Tracey who’s playing the role of narrowminded zealot in the current verision of “Inherit the Wind.”

  93. 93
    RBH Said:
    5:50 pm 

    JOhn Hatch wrote

    “Look, Intelligent Design is science, in that it estimates the probability that certain structures (like cells, for example)could have evolved, finds that the probability is strinkingly low, and then suggests that another mechanism is at play.”

    Except for the minor point that no intelligent design proponent has ever actually done that. While Dembski blathers about “specified complexity” and “complex specified information”, those measures have never been validated or calibrated, there are no reliability data on them, and there are no tables of probabilities of this or that biological structure to get a foothold to even get an ID hypothesis started.

    Moreover, there is no ID “theory”. One expects a theory to provide an explanation—an account of initial conditions, relevant causal variables, timing of events, and so on. ID offers precisely none of that. It offers a label—“designed”—and leaves it at that. It’s intellectually vacuous.

  94. 94
    Dan Said:
    6:32 pm 

    I don’t think ID has to be independant of evolution. However, I think suggesting that we teach it as well as evolution is silly.

    Teach evolution, because honestly, the folks who are for ID believe in evolution guided by God’s hand. If you just leave the God part out, it is the same thing.

    But again, suggesting teaching ID is nothing less than teaching religion and calling it science.

  95. 95
    The MaryHunter Said:
    7:18 pm 

    Rick bud, if you think that I’m going to get drawn into this one right now, then I’ve got an ID textbook to sell ya. Cheap. ;-)

    No, really, what a great debate you’ve got going here. Hat’s off.

  96. 96
    JAL Said:
    7:55 pm 

    I don’t understand why people are so afraid of ID being taught in the classroom as a reasonable alternative to strict evolution theory. Doesn’t like 95% of the entire civilized world believe that some form of higher being set the universe in motion? Why should the slim minority dictate what teachings take place in our schools? It seems this approach is pretty narrow minded. Most of us believe that a God, divine being, or prime mover of some sort set events in order. It’s the age old argument of where we came from. I think that if a super supermajority believes in some sort of God or power that created this majestic universe, it should be taught to some degree as a reasonable balance to strict evolution theory. I’m not saying teach a specific religion like christianity or judaism. But let’s at least entertain the possibility of a higher influence. Our kids deserve at least that debate.

    One final note: I always here these nutty leftist organizations like the ACLU who are currently trying to damage a nationaly cherished organization, the Boy Scouts, rant about freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Isn’t this freedom of speech in the end? Where is the ACLU now?

  97. 97
    Julius Said:
    10:43 pm 

    For those who argue that logic is infallible and can be trusted to arrive at the truth:

    In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn’t be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms … of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you’ll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

    Gödel showed that within a rigidly logical system such as Russell and Whitehead had developed for arithmetic, propositions can be formulated that are undecidable or undemonstrable within the axioms of the system. That is, within the system, there exist certain clear-cut statements that can neither be proved or disproved. Hence one cannot, using the usual methods, be certain that the axioms of arithmetic will not lead to contradictions … It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result, is the ideal of science – to devise a set of axioms from which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced. The proof of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

    1. Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
    2. Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
    3. Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: “The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true.” Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: “UTM will never say G is true.”
    4. Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
    5. If UTM says G is true, then “UTM will never say G is true” is false. If “UTM will never say G is true” is false, then G is false (since G = “UTM will never say G is true”). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
    6. We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So “UTM will never say G is true” is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = “UTM will never say G is true”).
    7. “I know a truth that UTM can never utter,” Gödel says. “I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal.”

    Think about it – it grows on you …

    With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics …

    Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth … But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel’s proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel’s name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.

  98. 98
    JSF Said:
    4:04 am 

    To those who say “teach the controvesy”.
    Well, what about the Multiple Designers variant of ID?

    Wassat, you say?

    That is, the best evidence from biology is for multiple, competing, antagonistic, periodically incompetent and occasionally sadistic designers.

    Let’s teach THAT controversy, hmm?

  99. 99
    Rick Moran Said:
    4:09 am 

    You mean, like the Greek Gods? Always quarrelling among themselves. Each with his favorite mortal.

    I like it.

    We used to teach something very similar. We called the course of study “Western Civilization 101.”

    That just wouldn’t do, though. Everyone knows that our civilization is no better than, say Islamic civilization.

    Doesn’t everybody strap bomb vests on children and send them off to kill innocent civilians?

  100. 100
    JSF Said:
    4:39 am 

    Multiculturalism is to history as ID is to science :)

    One step on: the virtues of Classical paganism for a tolerant but ordered society in Civics classes?

    Supernatural Landscape Artist theory in Geography?

  101. 101
    Rick Moran Said:
    4:40 am 


  102. 102
    TMH’s Bacon Bits » Blog Archive » The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Argument Rocks On at RWNH Pinged With:
    7:02 am 

    [...] r to RWNH and reading these serious posts and lively comment threads: 2 Aug 2005: “DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: SHUT YOUR YAP!” (Star [...]

  103. 103
    Mike on Hilton Head Island Said:
    12:20 am 

    I won’t repeat what commenters #1 and #95 said, but do offer my whole hearted agreement.

    What I wonder about is WHY so many people just leapt on Bush’s simple statement and started screaming and yelling about it?

    Is this whole thing just another backhanded slap against Christians?

    I would remind those with anti-Christian bias that we’ve got a war going on with people who want to kill us by the millions.

    And they won’t not kill you because you believe in ET instead of ID.

  104. 104
    steve daniels Said:
    8:54 am 

    No reasonable discussion about intelligent design can occur without including the theory of Alien Design.
    There’s so much more evidence that Alien Design along with evolution was responsible for human development – it’s even referenced in the bible.
    What were those “Chariots of Fire” that flew Angels into the sky?
    Spacecraft, shuttle craft, jet planes? Where was the Mothership?
    You’d think the Intelligent Design people would get on the bandwagon already and include this theory in their argument.
    The Alien Design Theory really has me excited and I want to hear more about it.

  105. 105
    Point Five Trackbacked With:
    9:30 am 

    Evolution Wins ID Debate By Evolving To Slime Mold

    Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) were crushed today when scientists observed first-hand an indisputable evolutionary advance in which a new species was created. Unfortunately for Evolutionists, the victory was a Pyhrric one…

  106. 106
    joe-6-pack Said:
    2:07 pm 

    Writing as a geologist/teacher:

    Some considerations in the Intelligent Design discussion include:

    Intelligent Design is not a stealth attempt at reintroducing Creationism in the schools. It is a firmly held belief, among a growing number of scientists.

    Introducing ID discussions is not going to overturn the Theory of Evolution, though the theory may change in some fashion.

    There is evidence of evolution, in some fashion, in the fossil record. Bringing up the issue of Intelligent Design is not going to sweep away the fossil record, though it may change some interpretations. It just raises some questions about the “how and why” of the changes that we see.

    There is a recognized progression in the fossil record – invertebrates before vertebrates; fish before amphibians; amphibians before reptiles; reptiles before mammals and birds.

    There are transitional forms in the fossil record. There are fossil fish with amphibian features. There are fossil amphibians with reptile features. There are fossil reptiles (and early dinosaurs) with mammal and bird features, etc..

    Not all of the Intelligent Design proponents are suggesting that this Intelligent Design happened only 10,000 years ago.

    I am not in favor of requiring ID discussions, but I am in favor of allowing them, if the teacher wishes. Allowing these discussions will not cause our present scientific concepts to crumble.

  107. 107
    Mike Said:
    10:46 pm 

    “Firmly held belief”? Yes, and a lot of scientists believe in psychics, the “power of prayer”, and virgins bearing children 2000 years before in vitro fertilization. Mythology does not belong in a science classroom.

  108. 108
    TMH’s Bacon Bits » Blog Archive » The Ghost of Galileo: A New Dialog on Evolution Pinged With:
    10:24 pm 

    [...] ropriated concept of Intelligent Design. Even President Bush has been drawn into the fray, with mixed political results. Jeff Goldstein o [...]

  109. 109
    Ivory Power » Blog Archive » Why be so afraid of Intelligent Design? Pussies. Pinged With:
    4:45 pm 

    [...] noted that there has been lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of negative backl [...]

  110. 110
    Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » More On Intelligent Design Pinged With:
    12:41 am 

    [...] lidity of the idea, but let me tell you, the RINOs aren’t happy: see the Commissar, Right Wing Nut House, and John Cole for more… For the op [...]

  111. 111
    Andrew McFarlane Said:
    10:12 am 

    Hello. I was poking around in technorati and found your link to our posting of the story of the Mother Bear transforming to Dune (and her 2 cubs to islands), and I am gratified to know that we as a nation will finally give proper credence to alternative theories of geology.

  112. 112
    hell’s handmaiden » ID vs. Evolution: Let the kids decide? Pinged With:
    12:59 pm 

    [...] Right Wing Nut House » DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: SHUT YOUR YAP! [...]

  113. 113
    Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Umm Okay Mr. President Pinged With:
    4:29 pm 

    [...] This is nonsense and, with all due respect, the President should, in the words of one blogger, shut his yap. First of all, since when do we need to hear the President’s opinion of what public schools in any part of the United States should be teaching on any subject ? I thought Republicans were the ones who believed in Federalism. Second, the last thing we need is to turn America’s classrooms into forums for every unsupported theory about the origin of life. [...]

  114. 114
    George Blades Said:
    6:06 pm 

    Why is there so much discussion about religious veiw points? Religon is mere myth! Myth is story. Always has been—-always will be.Fact and mythology have little in common. Science functions(or trys to)on fact based reality. Religon functions upon faith which is obedience to dogma/doctrine. Religon acts out its mythologies in ritual and rites or celebrations. Mythology can be enteratining as long as not taken seriously. Fact requires a thoughtfull response while faith requires only agreement.

  115. 115
    Ariel Said:
    2:53 pm 

    what bush really needs is a damn ass-raping. Why is this “person” in office? Has he ever heard of the separation between church and state?

  116. 116
    now Trackbacked With:
    11:56 am 



  117. 117
    fresh pussy closeups closeup vagina Trackbacked With:
    4:22 pm 

    fresh pussy closeups closeup vagina


  118. 118
    hxkqbrehgy Said:
    4:16 pm 


RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to Trackback this entry:

Leave a comment