Radio talk show host blows stack at Darwinist claptrap
In a Dennis Prager radio talk show with Michael Behe as a guest, a caller said that medical schools would have to close down if Darwinism were not completely accepted, or something like that (for those who don't want to listen to the whole show, this particular caller's comments begin at about 27:20). That caused Dennis Prager to blow a gasket -- here is a sample of what he said, his voice rising in volume:
I really like the way that Dennis Prager got carried away with statements like, "you can believe in witchcraft and make an antibiotic, you can believe that the earth is on the back of a turtle and make an antibiotic . . ."
The caller's comments were very much along the same lines as the new Florida science standards' statement that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" and claims that US technological competitiveness would be damaged by not teaching Darwinism dogmatically.
A lot of people have beliefs that are similar to the caller's, though most of those people would not go so far as to say that medical schools would have to close down if Darwinism were not completely accepted (I don't think that even the lousy trolls who have been haunting this blog would say something like that).
Hats off to Uncommon Descent for the tip about the show. This broadcast is over a year old and it took us this long to find it (better late than never).
Dennis Prager's tirade should have been replayed by someone at the hearings on the new Florida science standards that included the outrageous statement that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." The sole purpose of that statement was to make what Kansas Univ. professor Paul Mirecki called "a nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies" (”fundy” of course meaning here anyone who questions evolution). Unfortunately, that statement was included in the final version of the standards. The controversy over that statement was completely overshadowed by the controversy over whether to call evolution a "theory" in the standards. Evolution as well as other theories were finally called "theories" in the standards, but the standards also included the non-standard meaning of "scientific theory" as something "well-supported and widely accepted." That meaning was concocted solely for the purpose of promoting evolution -- under the standard definitions of "scientific theory," there can be weak theories as well as strong theories.
Funny, I didn't even think of Dennis Prager as being Jewish, but I now find that Judaism has long been central to his career [1][2]. Anyway, this is another example that supports my idea that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
Jews are deeply divided about the evolution controversy, as shown in several articles [1][2] in this blog. The articles are under the "Darwin-to-Hitler" post labels because the issues are closely related. There are two post labels because I am limited to a maximum of 20 articles per label.
This Dennis Prager broadcast ranks up there with Bill Greene's broadcast about the Wickedpedian control-freak administrators who use arcane Wickedpedia rules to "lawyer to death" people who try to make politically incorrect contributions to Wickedpedia articles. An example: If one "reliable non-partisan source" says that bears live in the woods and another "reliable non-partisan source" says that bears shit all the time, concluding that bears shit in the woods is "original research," which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I am not exaggerating -- a Wikipedia rule says,
.
It's a cockamamie phone call, and I very rarely say that -- it is so absurd what was just said that I am actually angry -- it's stunning -- you can believe in creationism and make an antibiotic -- you can believe in witchcraft and make an antibiotic -- you can believe that the earth is on the back of a turtle and make an anti-biotic -- all you need is technical knowledge -- it's so absurd to say you have to believe in Darwin to come up with a medicine -- I'm fuming because I expect more from people -- one's ability to do science, one's ability to make medicine, are completely independent of one's belief in Darwin -- it blows my mind the non-sequiturs, the vacuity . . . .
I really like the way that Dennis Prager got carried away with statements like, "you can believe in witchcraft and make an antibiotic, you can believe that the earth is on the back of a turtle and make an antibiotic . . ."
The caller's comments were very much along the same lines as the new Florida science standards' statement that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" and claims that US technological competitiveness would be damaged by not teaching Darwinism dogmatically.
A lot of people have beliefs that are similar to the caller's, though most of those people would not go so far as to say that medical schools would have to close down if Darwinism were not completely accepted (I don't think that even the lousy trolls who have been haunting this blog would say something like that).
Hats off to Uncommon Descent for the tip about the show. This broadcast is over a year old and it took us this long to find it (better late than never).
Dennis Prager's tirade should have been replayed by someone at the hearings on the new Florida science standards that included the outrageous statement that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." The sole purpose of that statement was to make what Kansas Univ. professor Paul Mirecki called "a nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies" (”fundy” of course meaning here anyone who questions evolution). Unfortunately, that statement was included in the final version of the standards. The controversy over that statement was completely overshadowed by the controversy over whether to call evolution a "theory" in the standards. Evolution as well as other theories were finally called "theories" in the standards, but the standards also included the non-standard meaning of "scientific theory" as something "well-supported and widely accepted." That meaning was concocted solely for the purpose of promoting evolution -- under the standard definitions of "scientific theory," there can be weak theories as well as strong theories.
Funny, I didn't even think of Dennis Prager as being Jewish, but I now find that Judaism has long been central to his career [1][2]. Anyway, this is another example that supports my idea that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
Jews are deeply divided about the evolution controversy, as shown in several articles [1][2] in this blog. The articles are under the "Darwin-to-Hitler" post labels because the issues are closely related. There are two post labels because I am limited to a maximum of 20 articles per label.
This Dennis Prager broadcast ranks up there with Bill Greene's broadcast about the Wickedpedian control-freak administrators who use arcane Wickedpedia rules to "lawyer to death" people who try to make politically incorrect contributions to Wickedpedia articles. An example: If one "reliable non-partisan source" says that bears live in the woods and another "reliable non-partisan source" says that bears shit all the time, concluding that bears shit in the woods is "original research," which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I am not exaggerating -- a Wikipedia rule says,
Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 8/07/2008 01:53:00 PM
38 Comments:
And don't forget - I was BANNED from Wickedpedia for that radio show.
Free speech, baby. Right?
BG
Is it Dennis Prager or Peter Prager? Make up your "mind"!
If Dennis, I'm disappointed in him.
The creationists seem bound and determined to discredit the more worthy elements of their beliefs with this nonsense.
>>>>> Is it Dennis Prager or Peter Prager? Make up your "mind"! <<<<<<
Sorry, it's Dennis Prager. I don't know why I called him "Peter." Maybe it's because I have to write these posts late at night because of all the time I spend answering trolls here.
>>>>> If Dennis, I'm disappointed in him. <<<<<<
How does his first name make a difference?
Anyway, I am certainly not disappointed in him -- he said what needed to be said. The caller's comments were asinine even by Darwinist standards.
"How does his first name make a difference?"
Because there actually is a Dennis Prager, whom I otherwise respect.
>>>>>> Because there actually is a Dennis Prager, whom I otherwise respect. <<<<<<
This is the real Dennis Prager. And what reason is there not to respect him? Wasn't his reaction to the caller appropriate?
> Maybe it's because I have to write these posts late at night because of all the time I spend answering trolls here. <
Perhaps you could come out of your cave and you would know it it is day or night?
"you can believe in creationism and make an antibiotic -- you can believe in witchcraft and make an antibiotic -- ... all you need is technical knowledge"
So, you would trust a witch doctor to make an antibiotic?
Naturally, I am not going to follow your links and try to parse out what you intended as a response to me. If you have something to reply, go ahead and say so. You can even copy and paste out some excerpts if you want. But I'm not getting scattered all over.
The problem with you politically correct folks is that you just can't conceive of anyone coming up with valid new ways of challenging politically correct ideas like Darwinism and official holocaust history.
Of course I can conceive of it. I admit it's rather hard to conceive of YOU coming up with any such, but that's really more of a personal judgment rather than an adherence to dogma.
Or you think that an idea that is not in a peer-reviewed journal cannot possibly have any validity.
As I recall, I mocked your idea because it was stupid, not because it wasn't in a journal.
And you go running to the courts for rulings that criticisms of evolution are religious and not scientific just because they are not in peer-reviewed journals, but typical law journals are not peer-reviewed or even faculty-reviewed -- they're student-reviewed!
I didn't even bring up evolution this time. If you want to talk about it, you can make some sort of substantive statement about it. Maybe you could explain your problems with "co-evolution;" I read those posts with the labels and couldn't find any coherent statements.
I wonder why you lousy trolls even bother to post comments here anymore -- you just know I'm gonna getcha (like in those old White Owl cigar ads).
Hahah yeah it's just been a devastating series of rhetorical losses for me.
"The problem with you politically correct folks is that you just can't conceive of anyone coming up with valid new ways of challenging politically correct ideas like Darwinism and official holocaust history."
We can conceive of it and in fact would accept new ideas provided THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. Not musings or unanswered questions or conjecture, EVIDENCE.
"Or you think that an idea that is not in a peer-reviewed journal cannot possibly have any validity."
Again, evidence, Larry. Lack of publication in peer-reviewed journals generally points to a lack of evidence as well.
"And you go running to the courts for rulings that criticisms of evolution are religious and not scientific just because they are not in peer-reviewed journals"
No, Larry, because it doesn't have any EVIDENCE! It's a bunch of unsupported conjecture by people who base it on pre-determined conclusions (God did it). Evidence isn't "see, cells are complex and we don't know everything about all it's intricacies so it must be designed," that's conjecture and in my eyes intellectual laziness.
"but typical law journals are not peer-reviewed or even faculty-reviewed -- they're student-reviewed!"
Apples and oranges.
Also, why don't you condemn IDists for going to the legislatures and general public through books and PR campaigns instead of through real research to get their ideas included?
"I wonder why you lousy trolls even bother to post comments here anymore -- you just know I'm gonna getcha"
I wonder why you don't treat us "trolls" better since we seem to be your primary readership. And I don't think you've ever "gotten" anyone. You routinely get your ass handed to you by multiple people (evidently on multiple blogs as well) on just about every topic you write on.
I just lost 36 minutes of my life that I'll never get back by listening to that crappy ass show, but it perfectly highlighted the problem with the Evo/ID debate: lay people who admittedly know nothing/little about biology or evolution taking strong positions (and believe they're valid). The host states multiple times that he knows little about biology but yet claims he doesn't believe evolution based on logic. How the F'in hell can you think logically about a subject you admittedly know nothing about? "LOGIC" MEANS SHIT IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PREMISE!
Jim said...
>>>>>> I just lost 36 minutes of my life that I'll never get back by listening to that crappy ass show <<<<<<
That's why I said that those who don't want to listen to the whole show could start at 27:20.
>>>>>> but it perfectly highlighted the problem with the Evo/ID debate: lay people who admittedly know nothing/little about biology or evolution taking strong positions (and believe they're valid). <<<<<<<
I think that statement applies more to the caller than it does to Dennis Prager.
>>>> The host states multiple times that he knows little about biology but yet claims he doesn't believe evolution based on logic. <<<<<<
No, what he says logic tells him is not to believe the caller's claim that you must accept Darwinism to teach or practice medicine, make drugs, etc..
Jim driveled,
>>>>>>>"but typical law journals are not peer-reviewed or even faculty-reviewed -- they're student-reviewed!"
Apples and oranges. <<<<<<<
BULLSHIT -- it is the height of hypocrisy to make a big deal about peer review and then say that scientific questions should be decided by a profession in which the journals are not peer-reviewed or even faculty-reviewed but are just student-reviewed!
>>>>>> Also, why don't you condemn IDists for going to the legislatures and general public through books and PR campaigns instead of through real research to get their ideas included? <<<<<<
So far, IDists have not even gotten the sop of evolution disclaimer statements! Only Darwinism was actually taught in Dover, Cobb County, and Tangipahoa Parish.
>>>>>> And I don't think you've ever "gotten" anyone. <<<<<<
I just "got" you.
>>>>>> You routinely get your ass handed to you by multiple people <<<<<<
You just got your lousy ass kicked through the goal posts, dunghill.
Larry wrote: BULLSHIT -- it is the height of hypocrisy to make a big deal about peer review and then say that scientific questions should be decided by a profession in which the journals are not peer-reviewed or even faculty-reviewed but are just student-reviewed!
The scientific issue isn't being decided in the courts - it's being decided in the scientific community, where ID has yet to offer a convincing case for any of their assertions regarding design or evolution. So long as IDists continue to rely on fallacious negative arguments against evolution to make their case for design, ID will continue to remain a scientifically vacuous concept.
That would be the end of it, except that creationist legislators and school board members keep trying to stuff their anti-evolutionary claims into the science curriculum regardless of the lack of scientific merit. That's why the legal issue arises. The courts aren't "settling" any scientific questions - those have long since been settled by the utter failure of anti-evolutionists to make their case in the scientific community.
Larry wrote:
So far, IDists have not even gotten the sop of evolution disclaimer statements!
Why should IDists get a "sop" when they haven't made their scientific case? Shall we slap a disclaimer on the germ theory of disease next, since some people disagree with that? Heliocentrism? Quantum mechanics? Relativity?
Martian Buddy:
>>>>>> The scientific issue isn't being decided in the courts <<<<<<<
It is being decided in the courts, doofus -- Judge Jones decided in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design is not science.
Also, the Supreme Court ruled in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals that general acceptance in the scientific community may no longer be used as the sole basis for deciding scientific questions.
>>>>> So long as IDists continue to rely on fallacious negative arguments against evolution to make their case for design, ID will continue to remain a scientifically vacuous concept. <<<<<<
There is no rule that says that a scientific theory may not be criticized on scientific grounds without at the same time presenting a complete plausible alternative theory. Your statement is like saying that an error in a mathematical proof may not be pointed out unless a complete alternative proof is presented at the same time.
>>>>>> That would be the end of it, except that creationist legislators and school board members keep trying to stuff their anti-evolutionary claims into the science curriculum regardless of the lack of scientific merit. <<<<<<
In the Dover school district, the "creationists" hardly tried to "stuff" their anti-evolutionary claims into the science curriculum. All the school board did was just add a one-minute evolution disclaimer statement and some ID books that were not required reading. Only Darwinism was actually taught. And in Cobb County and Tangipahoa Parish, where other evolution disclaimers were struck down by the courts (in the case of Cobb County, the decision was vacated by the appeals court and the case was finally settled out of court), only Darwinism was actually taught.
>>>>>> The courts aren't "settling" any scientific questions -- those have long since been settled by the utter failure of anti-evolutionists to make their case in the scientific community. <<<<<<
That is a very unscientific attitude of Darwinists -- that scientific controversies can always be settled permanently and never need to be revisited. A principle that transformation of elements is impossible was thought to have been permanently established when alchemy was repudiated -- but then it was discovered that elements could be transformed by nuclear fission and fusion. It was thought that light could travel only in straight lines until the theory of relativity predicted and the bending of starlight during a solar eclipse showed that light is deflected by gravity.
>>>>>> Why should IDists get a "sop" when they haven't made their scientific case? <<<<<<
The endorsement test says that even if ID is purely a religious concept (now don't say that I am admitting that it is), then evolution disclaimer statements must be allowed in order to (1) reduce the appearance that teaching Darwinism expresses government hostility towards religion and (2) reduce fundies' feelings of being "political outsiders."
>>>>>> Shall we slap a disclaimer on the germ theory of disease next, since some people disagree with that? Heliocentrism? Quantum mechanics? Relativity? <<<<<<
You forgot gravity and the round earth.
That is a tired old Darwinist straw man argument. Serious objections have not been raised to teaching those things, so the issue of disclaimers for those things is utterly irrelevant.
Larry wrote It is being decided in the courts, doofus -- Judge Jones decided in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design is not science.
He concluded that it was not based on the expert testimony presented to him concerning the lack of positive scientific evidence for design, the lack of publications in mainstream science journals supporting ID, the lack of scientific acceptance in the scientific community, the logically fallacious nature of ID arguments, and the obvious similarity of ID's arguments to those advanced before by creationism and creation science [sic].
ID was already stillborn when the trial started: Judge Jones merely interred the corpse.
Larry wrote Also, the Supreme Court ruled in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals that general acceptance in the scientific community may no longer be used as the sole basis for deciding scientific questions.
See above. "General acceptance" was merely one factor among many.
Larry wrote There is no rule that says that a scientific theory may not be criticized on scientific grounds without at the same time presenting a complete plausible alternative theory.
There is, however, an expectation that you will not use logical fallacies in arguing the point. In your example of mathematical proofs, an error-riddled disproof would not be acceptable. Neither are logically flawed anti-evolution arguments.
Larry wrote In the Dover school district, the "creationists" hardly tried to "stuff" their anti-evolutionary claims into the science curriculum. All the school board did was just add a one-minute evolution disclaimer statement and some ID books that were not required reading. Only Darwinism was actually taught. And in Cobb County and Tangipahoa Parish, where other evolution disclaimers were struck down by the courts (in the case of Cobb County, the decision was vacated by the appeals court and the case was finally settled out of court), only Darwinism was actually taught.
It doesn't matter whether the district is "teaching" creationist alternatives or "making students aware" of them; the purpose and effect of disparaging evolution to advance creationism is just as unconstitutional.
P.S. - Don't forget Daniel v. Waters, which also involved disclaimers in textbooks.
Larry wrote That is a very unscientific attitude of Darwinists -- that scientific controversies can always be settled permanently and never need to be revisited.
Where's the new evidence? So far, all that the creationist side has offered are the same old logical fallacies as before, with new names like "Irreducible Complexity" and "Specified Complexity."
Larry wrote The endorsement test says that even if ID is purely a religious concept (now don't say that I am admitting that it is), then evolution disclaimer statements must be allowed in order to (1) reduce the appearance that teaching Darwinism expresses government hostility towards religion and (2) reduce fundies' feelings of being "political outsiders."
It says nothing of the sort; the fact that there are three rulings against disclaimers and one settlement should tell you that.
Larry wrote That is a tired old Darwinist straw man argument. Serious objections have not been raised to teaching those things, so the issue of disclaimers for those things is utterly irrelevant.
No serious objections have been raised to evolutionary theory, either - it's all the same old arguments from ignorance and improbability.
>>>>>Larry wrote It is being decided in the courts, doofus -- Judge Jones decided in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design is not science.
He concluded that it was not <<<<<<
His conclusion was a decision, bozo. You are playing word games.
>>>>> ID was already stillborn when the trial started: Judge Jones merely interred the corpse. <<<<<<
Then why in the hell did he waste (1) several days hearing scientific testimony and (2) ~6000 words in the ID-as-science section of the opinion? You are so full of living crap, dunghill, that it is coming out you ears.
>>>>>Larry wrote Also, the Supreme Court ruled in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals that general acceptance in the scientific community may no longer be used as the sole basis for deciding scientific questions.
See above. "General acceptance" was merely one factor among many. <<<<<<
I never said that general acceptance may not be considered as a factor -- in fact, my statement that it may no longer be the "sole" factor is an indication that it still may be considered as a factor.
>>>>> Larry wrote There is no rule that says that a scientific theory may not be criticized on scientific grounds without at the same time presenting a complete plausible alternative theory.
There is, however, an expectation that you will not use logical fallacies in arguing the point. <<<<<
Assuming a priori that a criticism uses logical fallacies is itself a logical fallacy.
>>>>> In your example of mathematical proofs, an error-riddled disproof would not be acceptable. <<<<<<
What? I was not talking about an "error-riddled disproof" -- I was talking about pointing out a single error in a mathematical proof.
>>>>>> P.S. - Don't forget Daniel v. Waters, which also involved disclaimers in textbooks. <<<<<<
Well, Daniel v. Waters must be very forgettable because I have not heard of it before despite my extensive studies of monkey trials. The syllabus of Daniel v. Waters says,
Tennessee biology teachers and parents and National Association of Biology Teachers sued Tennessee state board charged with selecting public school textbooks, challenging constitutionality of Tennessee statute requiring evolution disclaimer in biology textbooks and equal time for creationism.
So Daniel v. Waters involved not only evolution disclaimers in textbooks but also involved equal time for creationism. I presume that Daniel v. Waters was superseded on the equal time issue by the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard -- however, the evolution disclaimer issue has never been settled by the courts.
>>>>> Larry wrote That is a very unscientific attitude of Darwinists -- that scientific controversies can always be settled permanently and never need to be revisited.
Where's the new evidence? So far, all that the creationist side has offered are the same old logical fallacies as before, with new names like "Irreducible Complexity" and "Specified Complexity." <<<<<<
You are a good example of that unscientific attitude. Ideas must be heard before their validity can be determined, whether they are new ideas, old ideas, or partially new ideas. In computer programming languages, it is common to assume that features with new names are really new, but I found that some features with new names in the C and C++ programming languages wholly or partly existed in Fortran II (1958).
>>>>> Larry wrote The endorsement test says that even if ID is purely a religious concept (now don't say that I am admitting that it is), then evolution disclaimer statements must be allowed in order to (1) reduce the appearance that teaching Darwinism expresses government hostility towards religion and (2) reduce fundies' feelings of being "political outsiders."
It says nothing of the sort; <<<<<<<
Bullshit -- here is what the test says (from O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly) --
The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions . . . . The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite message.
>>>>>> . . .. the fact that there are three rulings against disclaimers and one settlement should tell you that. <<<<<<
That should be as follows: (1) one ruling (Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish) against disclaimers that was nearly overturned by the appeals court and/or the Supreme Court, (2) one ruling (Selman v. Cobb County) against disclaimers where the appeals court judges indicated that they were leaning towards reversal but the ruling was vacated and remanded because of missing evidence and was finally settled out of court, and (3) an anti-disclaimer ruling (Kitzmiller v. Dover) by a single crackpot judge who said that organized religions are not "true" religions and who copied the opinion's ID-as-science section nearly verbatim from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs.
A major reason for the adverse rulings was that the courts used the "Lemon test," which has fallen into disfavor and which courts are no longer required to use.
>>>>>>Larry wrote That is a tired old Darwinist straw man argument. Serious objections have not been raised to teaching those things, so the issue of disclaimers for those things is utterly irrelevant.
No serious objections have been raised to evolutionary theory, either - it's all the same old arguments from ignorance and improbability. <<<<<<<
Even assuming arguendo that the objections are not valid ("arguendo" is a legal term meaning "for the sake of argument" and should be in standard dictionaries but is missing from a lot of them), they are still serious.
Improbability is a legitimate scientific argument.
I feel that I am almost insulting the intelligence of a lot of readers here by answering your drivel -- I am implying that they don't have the sense to see through your crap themselves.
Larry wrote: Then why in the hell did he waste (1) several days hearing scientific testimony and (2) ~6000 words in the ID-as-science section of the opinion?
It was necessary for the legal determination regarding the school board's policy. The scientific vacuity of ID was a major factor in reaching that determination.
Larry wrote: Assuming a priori that a criticism uses logical fallacies is itself a logical fallacy.
You might want to bear that in mind when responding to criticism of your arguments.
Larry wrote: What? I was not talking about an "error-riddled disproof" -- I was talking about pointing out a single error in a mathematical proof.
Your analogy was inaccurate. I provided one that better describes ID arguments.
Larry wrote: Well, Daniel v. Waters must be very forgettable because I have not heard of it before despite my extensive studies of monkey trials.
Would that be the same "extensive research" in which you missed the fact that Behe wrote half a chapter of "Of Pandas and People?"
Larry wrote: So Daniel v. Waters involved not only evolution disclaimers in textbooks but also involved equal time for creationism.
Correct.
Larry wrote: I presume that Daniel v. Waters was superseded on the equal time issue by the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard -- however, the evolution disclaimer issue has never been settled by the courts.
Why do I link these rulings if you're not going to read them? From the linked decision:
"First, the statute requires that any textbook which expresses an opinion about the origin of man "shall be prohibited from being used" unless the book specifically states that the opinion is "a theory" and "is not represented to be scientific fact." The statute also requires that the Biblical account of creation (and other theories of creation) be printed at the same time, with commensurate attention and equal emphasis. As to all such theories, except only the Genesis theory, the textbook must print the disclaimer quoted above. But the proviso in Section 2 would allow the printing of the Biblical account of creation as set forth in Genesis without any such disclaimer. The result of this legislation is a clearly defined preferential position for the Biblical version of creation as opposed to any account of the development of man based on scientific research and reasoning. For a state to seek to enforce such a preference by law is to seek to accomplish the very establishment of religion which the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States squarely forbids."
Notice the court's logic there: the scientific theory is subject to a disclaimer while the Bible is not, creating a clearly preferential position for the Biblical version.
Larry wrote: Ideas must be heard before their validity can be determined, whether they are new ideas, old ideas, or partially new ideas.
The place for that is in the scientific community, where the people most familar with the evidence can make that determination.
Larry wrote: Bullshit -- here is what the test says (from O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly) --
We've been through that already.
Larry wrote: Improbability is a legitimate scientific argument.
Only if it's based on legitimate calculations.
It's a cockamamie phone call, and I very rarely say that -- it is so absurd what was just said that I am actually angry -- it's stunning -- you can believe in creationism and make an antibiotic -- you can believe in witchcraft and make an antibiotic -- you can believe that the earth is on the back of a turtle and make an anti-biotic -- all you need is technical knowledge
The phone caller might have been a militant atheist, as I have seen many similar points being made in their attempts to degrade anyone who opposes or even questions evolution. The response to the caller was absolutely right on target!
I know of people who home school and teach creationism. In the government tests, they were about 3 years ahead of their public school counterparts (including science). This is not to say, creationists over all are smarter than everyone else, but it shows the myth that some would like to spread that creationists can't grasp secular science and we would all plunge back into the dark ages because they don't believe in evolution.
What counts is the message and not the messenger -- if you automatically reject everything I say just because you don't like the messenger, then I am wasting my time here discussing anything with you.
I don't automatically reject everything you say because you're the messenger. I reject everything you say because it's stupid. It would be stupid coming from anyone, be it neo-Nazi skinheads, slavery apologists, or you.
Then why does it matter whether intelligent design is in peer-reviewed journals or not?
Because ID is purportedly science. You idiot.
An Aryan being a person with blond hair and blue eyes of Germanic heritage
That is much too narrow a definition of "Aryan" -- a lot of non-Jews in Germany did not fit that description, and certainly a lot of non-Jews in countries occupied by the Nazis did not fit that description. Also, the Nazis allied with nations where practically none of the people met that description -- Italy and Japan.
See, these inconsistencies occured because Hitler was fucking crazy, and these laws did not make sense.
Nazi anti-semitism was not a true eugenics program because it targeted fit Jews as well as unfit Jews. IMO the primary effect of eugenics on Nazi anti-semitism was to create the idea that it is morally OK to get rid of undesirables.
The Nazis considered Jews as a whole to be "undesirable," you asshat. The removal of that race to the best of their ability was considered by them to be an advancement of the genetic condition of man as a whole. The very definition of eugenics.
The Nazis settled on defining a "full Jew" as a person with three Jewish grandparents. Those with less were designated as Mischlinge of two degrees: first degree - two Jewish grandparents; second degree - one Jewish grandparent.
In many if not most cases, it would be difficult or impossible for the government to determine the religions of people's grandparents. Most people know the religions of their grandparents but are not likely to admit to a virulently anti-semitic government that their grandparents are Jewish. And we don't even know what a Jew is -- is a Jew someone who goes to a synagogue? Someone who eats kosher food? Someone who observes Jewish holidays? Someone descended from a practicing Jew?
Jewishness at the time and location was defined ethnically more than religiously, as I said before, you idiot. People kept heredity records in many places. This led to many people we wouldn't today consider "Jews" going to camps to die. The Nazis defined it not just as a religious concept, but as a genetic race.
Also, prior to WW II, these Nuremburg laws applied only to Germany, but allegedly most of the Jewish victims of the holocaust were citizens of other countries. The Nazis did not have the time or the means to identify Jews and non-Jews, even if Nazis had possessed any objective and reliable ways of identifying them -- the Nazis just rounded up people en masse.
People's friends and neighbors told the Nazis who were Jews. They missed many people, and took many "innocent" people. It was not objective and reliable, of course. But they did their best to gather as many as they could, and millions of people who WERE Jews - as well as Roma and other minorities - died in camps. Being too different was reason enough to be taken.
Something else I don't understand is why the Nazis did not tattoo or otherwise permanently mark anyone determined to be a Jew. Concentration camp inmates were not tattooed until after they arrived in the camps.
Well, they gave them yellow stars and made it a capital crime not to wear it. More economically sound. When you do your own shoah, you can do it better, I'm sure.
Also, the Nuremburg laws recognized different degrees of Jewishness. If you are going to kill a Jew, it has to be all or nothing -- you can't half-kill someone who is half-Jewish.
The Nuremberg laws were well before the Holocaust, and for different purposes (like marriage). They identified people for the purposes of current law and later law.
The issue of identification of Jews and non-Jews is central to the study of holocaust history but has been almost completely ignored. For example, people would not have supported the holocaust for the following reasons: (1) fear that they would be mistaken for Jews themselves and (2) identification of their friends and/or relatives as Jews. I also wonder why we haven't heard complaints from holocaust survivors who believed that they had been mistakenly identified as Jews.
(1) Why would they not support the Holocaust if they did not have this fear? If you had records of your grandparents, as many did, or no other reason to be suspected, there was little harm in reporting the Jew who owned a competing store.
(2) Many people tried to hide their friends or relatives. Other people did not. And still others thwarted such efforts.
As I said, denials that there was a "systematic" Jewish holocaust actually favor Darwinism. If there was no "systematic" Jewish holocaust, then there was no need for the Nazis to try to justify something that did not exist, and that gets Darwinism off the hook as a possible cause of the holocaust.
Evolution by natural selection is in no way "on the hook," any more than Einstein is "on the hook" for moral relativity. Perversion of a concept does not reflect on the truth of the concept.
There are thousands of logs of people taken in, people killed, and so on. There are concentration camp records, railway records, local records. Thousands and thousands of survivors and witnesses have testified. There are whole books of eyewitness testimony. There were long trials and extensive evidence presented. There are even such things as the Wansee transcript. What the hell do you need to believe the Holocaust occurred? What other evidence could there conceivably be for a historical event more reliable than that one? The minor inconsistencies or your conjectured "flaws" fade to nothing in the face of the absurdly large amount of evidence.
Michael said,
>>>>>> The phone caller might have been a militant atheist, as I have seen many similar points being made in their attempts to degrade anyone who opposes or even questions evolution. <<<<<<
"Militant atheist"? Not even Sleazy PZ Myers or Larry Moran would have gone so far as to say what this caller said.
>>>>>> I know of people who home school and teach creationism. In the government tests, they were about 3 years ahead of their public school counterparts (including science). <<<<<<
As an engineer, I know that people of Arab national origin -- presumably many of them Moslems, and Moslems tend to be creationists -- are common and prominent in engineering. So this idea that criticism of Darwinism hurts technological competitiveness is a lot of bull.
Martian Buddy said,
>>>>> Larry wrote: Then why in the hell did he waste (1) several days hearing scientific testimony and (2) ~6000 words in the ID-as-science section of the opinion?
It was necessary for the legal determination regarding the school board's policy. <<<<<<<
How are legal standards any more stringent than scientific standards? If anything, legal standards are far lower than scientific standards -- as I pointed out, most law journals are not peer-reviewed but are only student-reviewed!
BTW, I object to that term "peer review" -- it should be "expert review." Experts on a particular subject are not always peers and peers are not always experts on a particular subject.
Also, would Judge Jones have gone to all that trouble to determine the scientific merits of flat-earth theory?
>>>>>> Larry wrote: Assuming a priori that a criticism uses logical fallacies is itself a logical fallacy.
You might want to bear that in mind when responding to criticism of your arguments. <<<<<<
If I didn't bear that in mind, I would not be wasting time here responding to your asinine comments.
>>>>> Larry wrote: What? I was not talking about an "error-riddled disproof" -- I was talking about pointing out a single error in a mathematical proof.
Your analogy was inaccurate. <<<<<<<
It doesn't matter whether or not the analogy was accurate as applied to evolution theory -- you stated a general principle that scientific theories may not be criticized without presenting a complete plausible alternative theory, and I only described a logical consequence of that general principle.
>>>>>> Would that be the same "extensive research" in which you missed the fact that Behe wrote half a chapter of "Of Pandas and People?" <<<<<<
You have not provided a shred of evidence that Behe wrote any of that book.
>>>>>Larry wrote: I presume that Daniel v. Waters was superseded on the equal time issue by the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard -- however, the evolution disclaimer issue has never been settled by the courts.
Why do I link these rulings if you're not going to read them? <<<<<<
What evidence do you have that I did not read the section that you quoted? None. Anyway, I read enough of the opinion to reach the conclusion that I stated above, and nothing in the section that you quoted affects that conclusion.
>>>>>>Larry wrote: Ideas must be heard before their validity can be determined, whether they are new ideas, old ideas, or partially new ideas.
The place for that is in the scientific community, where the people most familar with the evidence can make that determination. <<<<<<
What is wrong with informing students of dissenting opinions in the scientific community?
>>>>>Larry wrote: Bullshit -- here is what the test says (from O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly) --
We've been through that already. <<<<<<
Yes, and you lost the argument. The fact that you insisted on having the last word does not mean that you won the argument.
>>>>> Larry wrote: Improbability is a legitimate scientific argument.
Only if it's based on legitimate calculations. <<<<<<<
You didn't make that qualification.
Reply to Phae (Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:16:00 PM) --
My dozens of articles under the "holocaust revisionism" and "Darwin-to-Hitler" post labels in the sidebar completely refute your arguments and I see no need to repeat those refutations here. My most comprehensive -- but by no means exhaustive -- refutation of your arguments is in this article.
>>>>>> It was not objective and reliable, of course. <<<<<<
Which was exactly my point.
>>>>>>>As I said, denials that there was a "systematic" Jewish holocaust actually favor Darwinism. If there was no "systematic" Jewish holocaust, then there was no need for the Nazis to try to justify something that did not exist, and that gets Darwinism off the hook as a possible cause of the holocaust.
Evolution by natural selection is in no way "on the hook," <<<<<<
Don't give me that bullshit -- in Darwin-to-Hitler books, the "Expelled" movie, and the Coral Ridge Ministries' "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" TV documentary, Darwinism is "on the hook" as an alleged major cause of the holocaust.
>>>>> Perversion of a concept does not reflect on the truth of the concept. <<<<<<
Nazism perverted Christianity, but that does not mean that Christianity is not on the hook as an alleged cause of the holocaust. In fact, Darwinists are trying to take the heat off of Darwinism by solely blaming Christianity for the holocaust.
>>>>>> What the hell do you need to believe the Holocaust occurred? <<<<<<
What the hell do you need to believe that there was no "systematic" Jewish holocaust and that such a holocaust was impossible? Oh, wait, you just admitted above that the holocaust was "not objective and reliable, of course."
My dozens of articles under the "holocaust revisionism" and "Darwin-to-Hitler" post labels in the sidebar completely refute your arguments and I see no need to repeat those refutations here. My most comprehensive -- but by no means exhaustive -- refutation of your arguments is in this article.
Oh ho, yes indeed my many arguments which I will reference vaguely entirely destroy your arguments, oh ho! And let me link to something in the hopes you will stop bringing up my own idiocy! Oh ho!
Which was exactly my point.
So unless the Nazis were perfect in their Holocaust, it must not have happened? There were many non-Jews killed, I'm sure. But overwhelmingly on the whole, it was the Jews. I mean, it's not exactly the hardest thing to arrest all the Rabinowitzs in Berlin, is it?
Don't give me that bullshit -- in Darwin-to-Hitler books, the "Expelled" movie, and the Coral Ridge Ministries' "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" TV documentary, Darwinism is "on the hook" as an alleged major cause of the holocaust.
Oh ho, there is much evidence and reasons for this link, and I will reference it and supply no arguments at all! Oh ho! Handwaving and pointing to fundamentalist sources will suffice! Oh ho!
Nazism perverted Christianity, but that does not mean that Christianity is not on the hook as an alleged cause of the holocaust. In fact, Darwinists are trying to take the heat off of Darwinism by solely blaming Christianity for the holocaust.
Wow, really? I am intrigued... please point me to the evolution proponent who blames Christianity alone as the cause of the Holocaust. Otherwise, of course, I will continue to laugh because that is a hilarious lie.
What the hell do you need to believe that there was no "systematic" Jewish holocaust and that such a holocaust was impossible? Oh, wait, you just admitted above that the holocaust was "not objective and reliable, of course."
I admitted the Nazi perpetration of the Holocaust was "not objective and reliable," crapmonkey delight ;) But by and large, as long lists and eyewitnesses can attest, they did a pretty good job.
There is a huge amount of evidence to prove the Holocaust took place. Huge. I mean, it's actually astonishing how well-documented it is. From its inception among Hitler's notes and statements, to planning like the Wannsee Conference, to the transportation logs for the trains taking people from ghettos and cities to the concentration camps, right down to the concentration camp logs themselves. Add to this the physical evidence of the camps (whole or partially destroyed), mass graves of those killed in the desperate attempts to hide some of those left in the camps, and not the least the endless hours of testimony from guards, witnesses, and most importantly the horrified and emaciated camp survivors themselves.
To believe that this didn't happen? It would require commensurate evidence. Unfortunately, the deniers generally do not have a very good case, yourself included. It's mostly just "but this seems unbelievable." To most of us, this would be called "horror" in the face of almost incontrovertible evidence.
But you, well, I don't know. Do you dislike Jews, or what?
Oh, and Hitchens or Dawkins don't count as the referenced person. Try a historian, maybe? Or just anyone respectable.
Larry wrote: How are legal standards any more stringent than scientific standards? If anything, legal standards are far lower than scientific standards -- as I pointed out, most law journals are not peer-reviewed but are only student-reviewed!
Why do you insist on waving this red herring around? If you want to blame someone for the fate of Intelligent Design, blame the Discovery Institute; they failed utterly to make a case for "design theory," presenting no scientific model of their own nor positive scientific evidence to support it. Behe and Minnich tried claiming that ID makes positive arguments - and then cited the negative Irreducible Complexity argument as an example! They practically made the prosecution's case for them; that the "design inference" relies solely on arguments against evolution that all came straight from Creation Science [sic] with only some of the terminology changed.
Larry wrote: Also, would Judge Jones have gone to all that trouble to determine the scientific merits of flat-earth theory?
Amusingly enough, a pair of legislators (Warren Chisum and Ben Bridges) sent out a memo that criticisied a number of scientific theories, including "Copernican theory" as being religious, not scientific, doctrines, so the courts may yet find themselves forced to rule on whether or not the earth revolves around the sun.
Larry wrote: It doesn't matter whether or not the analogy was accurate as applied to evolution theory -- you stated a general principle that scientific theories may not be criticized without presenting a complete plausible alternative theory....
No I didn't, you bonehead. If you were capable of actually following an argument from one post to the next, you'd understand that I've been talking about fallacious anti-evolution arguments all along. These arguments get long enough without you beating the stuffing out of strawmen.
Larry wrote: You have not provided a shred of evidence that Behe wrote any of that book.
From day 11 of Kitzmiller v. Dover court transcripts:
Q Now, you say you would have written it differently. Is there another reference or another section in Pandas that you could direct us to to emphasize that point?
A Yes. I wrote the section at the end of Pandas which is discussing blood clotting. And on page 144 of the text there's a section entitled "A Characteristic of Intelligent Design." And it begins, "Why is the blood clotting system an example of intelligent design? The ordering of independent pieces into a coherent whole to accomplish a purpose which is beyond any single component of the system is characteristic of intelligence."
Q And why did you direct us to that particular section?
A Because I think it more clearly conveys the central idea of intelligent design, which is the purposeful arrangement of parts.
(bolded emphasis added)
Larry wrote: What evidence do you have that I did not read the section that you quoted?
The fact that you erroneously claim that the disclaimer issue has "never" been settled by the courts, when the disclaimers were one of the issues that the court analyzed in Daniel v. Waters to find the "equal time" policy unconstitutional.
Larry wrote: Anyway, I read enough of the opinion to reach the conclusion that I stated above....
This sort of statement only deepens my suspicion that you didn't bother reading the whole thing in the first place.
Larry wrote: What is wrong with informing students of dissenting opinions in the scientific community?
You tell me; you're the one who didn't think that "dissent" from the germ theory of disease should be mentioned in a disclaimer. Germ theory denialism is a prime component in a lot of arguments against vaccination; if you'd like, I can even cite "doctors" who "question" the germ theory of disease (at least, they claim to be doctors.) They have their own alternative (I've seen it called "terrain theory" on some denialist sites) and they even tell the same sort of "deathbed conversion" story about Pasteur that the fundies still tell about Darwin.
So, is the mere presence of "dissent" enough reason to start slapping disclaimers all over the textbooks, or does there need to be some scientific support first?
Larry wrote: Yes, and you lost the argument.
*Sigh* From Capitol Sq. Review Bd. v. Pinette and delivered by none other than Justice Scalia:
"Petitioners argue that one feature of the present case distinguishes it from Lamb's Chapel and Widmar: the forum's proximity to the seat of government, which, they contend, may produce the perception that the cross bears the State's approval. They urge us to apply the so-called "endorsement test," see, e.g., Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh [ CAPITOL SQ. REVIEW BD. v. PINETTE, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 8] Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), and to find that, because an observer might mistake private expression for officially endorsed religious expression, the State's content-based restriction is constitutional."
(bolded emphasis added)
Even your hero Scalia agrees that the "reasonable observer" is part and parcel of the Endorsement Test. Since you stated "even if ID is purely a religious concept" for the sake of argument, the disclaimer would die a miserable death under the Endorsement Test.
Larry wrote: You didn't make that qualification.
Oh, for fuck's sake! I shouldn't have to make the "qualification" that one's calculations need to be legitimate - there's an expectation that scientific papers will not be riddled with errors or lies.
Phae driveled,
>>>>>> Oh ho, yes indeed my many arguments which I will reference vaguely entirely destroy your arguments, oh ho! <<<<<
You lousy dunghill, my references were very specific, not vague. What about the times I was sent off on wild goose chases when I asked very specific questions about the citrate-eating bacteria evolution experiment?
>>>>> So unless the Nazis were perfect in their Holocaust, it must not have happened? <<<<<
I didn't say that a holocaust must not have happened -- I only said that a "systematic" holocaust must not have happened. And you seemed to agree when you said, "It was not objective and reliable, of course."
>>>>>>Don't give me that bullshit -- in Darwin-to-Hitler books, the "Expelled" movie, and the Coral Ridge Ministries' "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" TV documentary, Darwinism is "on the hook" as an alleged major cause of the holocaust.
Oh ho, there is much evidence and reasons for this link, and I will reference it and supply no arguments at all! Oh ho! <<<<<<<
What? I didn't say anything about a link, dunghill.
>>>>>>> Wow, really? I am intrigued... please point me to the evolution proponent who blames Christianity alone as the cause of the Holocaust. <<<<<<
The Anti-Defamation League is a good example.
>>>>>> I admitted the Nazi perpetration of the Holocaust was "not objective and reliable," crapmonkey delight ;) But by and large, as long lists and eyewitnesses can attest, they did a pretty good job. <<<<<<
"Crapmonkey delight" -- hahaha. You are really getting frustrated.
You can't do a "pretty good job" if you can't do any job at all.
>>>>> There is a huge amount of evidence to prove the Holocaust took place. Huge. I mean, it's actually astonishing how well-documented it is. <<<<<<<
No, it is not "actually astonishing how well-documented it is." The official death count for Auschwitz has varied wildly from one million to four million. A very important archive of holocaust records was closed to historians for decades and is maybe still closed to them.
You lousy dunghill, my references were very specific, not vague. What about the times I was sent off on wild goose chases when I asked very specific questions about the citrate-eating bacteria evolution experiment?
Wild goose chases? I directed you to the page and paragraph to find the answers you wanted. Are you seriously comparing me asking if you read the very paper you were criticizing to you linking me to a long series of tangential posts? You have this amusing habit of being unable to defend your own points, so you engage in "bibliography bluffing" instead. I, of course, was nice enough to point out the page number and location of the answers you wanted in the Lenski paper. Kind of a difference, you moron.
I didn't say that a holocaust must not have happened -- I only said that a "systematic" holocaust must not have happened. And you seemed to agree when you said, "It was not objective and reliable, of course."
It was systematic. It just wasn't a perfect system. It was as objective and reliable as they could manage, which was more than sufficient to capture and execute millions of Jews and other minorities.
What? I didn't say anything about a link, dunghill.
Hahahha that's right!
The Anti-Defamation League is a good example.
Show me. Link to such a statement, you liar.
You can't do a "pretty good job" if you can't do any job at all.
Is it really so beyond your belief that they could get most Jews by just rounding up the people widely-known to be Jews? The Goldsteins, Abramowitzes, Blumenfelds... even today, that's not that hard of a task. Ginsberg, Cohen, Belzer, Horowitz, Rosenstein. The phone book would have gotten the Nazis an easy half of the Jews in any area. And with recordkeeping at the time and turncoat neighbors... this is really still so hard for you to believe?
No, it is not "actually astonishing how well-documented it is." The official death count for Auschwitz has varied wildly from one million to four million. A very important archive of holocaust records was closed to historians for decades and is maybe still closed to them.
Himmler ordered the camps closed and evidence destroyed, and in Auschwitz itself the SS tried to cover up their actions and even force-marched 60k remaining prisoners to Loslau. At Auschwitz, they destroyed the logbooks, which is why you and many other Nazi apologists seize on that particular camp. But just because you can seize on one particular item that is not known for certain, it throws little doubt when weighed against the enormous evidence on every other front. I read through your posts: you seize on that example several times, and for good reason: it's the only one you have. But there were something like a dozen extermination camps, and several dozen camps in all. Thousands or hundreds of thousands died in them. You don't challenge the minimum 700k figure for Treblinka, do you? Or the 170k Chelmno figure? There is always argument about the exact number of people who were sent by rail to these camps to be stripped - their belongings resold or used - and murdered and burned. How many people could they cram into one boxcar at a time - fifty or only forty-five? But to try to deny that the heaps of ash, stinking with the smell of burnt human fat, or the hundreds of thousands of piles of clothing not yet processed like the rest that was found in Auschwitz, or the haunting testimonials of the Leichenträger who carried mound after mound of the pale dead to the crematoria... what is wrong with your brain?
Martian Buddy moaned,
>>>>>> Why do you insist on waving this red herring around? <<<<<<<
It is not a red herring. In cases involving the question of peer review, all judges should recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest.
>>>>>> Amusingly enough, a pair of legislators (Warren Chisum and Ben Bridges) sent out a memo that criticisied a number of scientific theories, including "Copernican theory" as being religious, not scientific, doctrines, so the courts may yet find themselves forced to rule on whether or not the earth revolves around the sun.<<<<<<
There are all kinds of kooks around, including a lot of Darwinists. Or maybe these legislators are just trying to demonstrate the silliness of asking the courts to rule on the question of whether ideas are scientific or religious.
>>>>>> If you were capable of actually following an argument from one post to the next, you'd understand that I've been talking about fallacious anti-evolution arguments all along. <<<<<<
I can't read minds, idiot.
>>>>>> From day 11 of Kitzmiller v. Dover court transcripts: <<<<<<
I have been asking a long time for evidence that Michael Behe wrote part of "Of Pandas and People," and you finally provided it.
>>>>>>Larry wrote: What evidence do you have that I did not read the section that you quoted?
The fact that you erroneously claim that the disclaimer issue has "never" been settled by the courts, <<<<<<
The issue has been decided by courts but never settled in the courts -- it is not settled in the courts for the entire USA until decided by the Supreme Court or decided consistently by all 11 regional circuit appeals courts (which is unlikely).
Also, here is what you quoted from the decision:
"First, the statute requires that any textbook which expresses an opinion about the origin of man "shall be prohibited from being used" unless the book specifically states that the opinion is "a theory" and "is not represented to be scientific fact." The statute also requires that the Biblical account of creation (and other theories of creation) be printed at the same time, with commensurate attention and equal emphasis. As to all such theories, except only the Genesis theory, the textbook must print the disclaimer quoted above. But the proviso in Section 2 would allow the printing of the Biblical account of creation as set forth in Genesis without any such disclaimer. The result of this legislation is a clearly defined preferential position for the Biblical version of creation as opposed to any account of the development of man based on scientific research and reasoning. For a state to seek to enforce such a preference by law is to seek to accomplish the very establishment of religion which the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States squarely forbids." (emphasis added)
So the issue here was the preferential treatment that creationism got under a disclaimer rule when both creationism and evolution got equal time in the same textbook -- this is completely different from the disclaimer issues in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County, and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, where only evolution was actually taught.
>>>>>> you're the one who didn't think that "dissent" from the germ theory of disease should be mentioned in a disclaimer. <<<<<<
No one is asking for germ theory disclaimers, heliocentrism disclaimers, gravity disclaimers, etc., so the question is moot. As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets -- or should get -- the grease.
>>>>>> So, is the mere presence of "dissent" enough reason to start slapping disclaimers all over the textbooks, or does there need to be some scientific support first? <<<<<<
Under the endorsement test, where the government is supposed to try to avoid (1) showing disapproval of religion and (2) making fundies feel like "political outsiders," the mere presence of dissent is enough reason to start slapping disclaimers all over the textbooks, but you are too dumb to understand a clearcut application of the endorsement test.
>>>>>> Even your hero Scalia agrees that the "reasonable observer" is part and parcel of the Endorsement Test. <<<<<<
Scalia is not my hero and I never said that the "reasonable observer" is not part and parcel of the Endorsement Test.
>>>>>> Oh, for fuck's sake! I shouldn't have to make the "qualification" that one's calculations need to be legitimate <<<<<<
You put arguments from improbability in the same category as arguments from ignorance -- you said,
No serious objections have been raised to evolutionary theory, either - it's all the same old arguments from ignorance and improbability.
So presumably you are saying that you also shouldn't have to make the "qualification" that one's arguments from ignorance need to be legitimate.
"No one is asking for germ theory disclaimers, heliocentrism disclaimers, gravity disclaimers, etc., so the question is moot. As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets -- or should get -- the grease."
I demand a mootness disclaimer.
Phae driveled,
>>>>>> Wild goose chases? I directed you to the page and paragraph to find the answers you wanted. <<<<<<
Bullshit -- most of the time I did not get specific answers to my simple, specific questions about the citrate-eating bacteria evolution experiment.
>>>>>> It was systematic. It just wasn't a perfect system. <<<<<<
You keep waffling. Before you said, "it was not objective and reliable, of course," and now you are saying, "it was systematic." Please make up your mind.
>>>>>>The Anti-Defamation League is a good example.
Show me. Link to such a statement, you liar. <<<<<<
You stupid fathead, why do you find it so hard to believe that Darwinists would try to take the heat off of Darwinism by claiming that Christianity was entirely to blame for the holocaust? The ADL in particular also had a grudge against Christianity to begin with -- the ADL blamed Christianity for the holocaust even before the Darwin-to-Hitler issue was raised. Here is what an article on this blog says:
While condemning linkage of Social Darwinism to the holocaust, the hypocritical ADL has no qualms about linking Christianity to the holocaust. A speech published on the ADL website says of the holocaust, "The motivation was ideological. The racist-antisemitic ideology was the rational outcome of an irrational approach, an approach that was a cancer-like mutation of the Christian antisemitic ideology that had sullied Christian-Jewish relations all through their two millennia of coexistence." (from a speech that Yehuda Bauer gave to the German House of Representatives in 1998).
>>>>>> Is it really so beyond your belief that they could get most Jews by just rounding up the people widely-known to be Jews? The Goldsteins, Abramowitzes, Blumenfelds... even today, that's not that hard of a task. Ginsberg, Cohen, Belzer, Horowitz, Rosenstein. <<<<<<
A lot of European non-Jews have Jewish-sounding last names and a lot of European Jews have last names that don't sound Jewish -- it's not a reliable identifier. And as I said, the Nazis just rounded people up en masse -- names did not matter.
>>>>>>> Himmler ordered the camps closed and evidence destroyed, and in Auschwitz itself the SS tried to cover up their actions and even force-marched 60k remaining prisoners to Loslau. At Auschwitz, they destroyed the logbooks, which is why you and many other Nazi apologists seize on that particular camp. <<<<<<
So what happened to all those "meticulous" Nazi holocaust records that we hear so much about?
Bullshit -- most of the time I did not get specific answers to my simple, specific questions about the citrate-eating bacteria evolution experiment.
Oh? Show me an example where I didn't answer your question. You see, I'm from Missouri: the Show-Me State. Want me to link you to the posts where you asked about things and then I gave you a detailed explanation of how to find the answers, with links to the PDF files?
You keep waffling. Before you said, "it was not objective and reliable, of course," and now you are saying, "it was systematic." Please make up your mind.
I know that this is hard for you, but words generally tend to have actual meanings aside from what you want them to mean. "Objective" and "reliable" do not mean "systematic," as much as you might wish they did. "Objective" is generally accepted as meaning being free from subjective bias; "reliable" means tending to have the same result each time. On the other hand, "systematic" means quite simply "following a clear system or pattern." Note how these words do not have contradictory meanings. The Nazis were not objective or reliable; they got some non-Jews even by their standards, and their entire philosophy and methodology was subjective. But it was systematic.
Now that I have taken you gently by the hand and tended to the nasty boo-boo of the mean words with haaaaard meanings, why don't you run off and play?
You stupid fathead, why do you find it so hard to believe that Darwinists would try to take the heat off of Darwinism by claiming that Christianity was entirely to blame for the holocaust? The ADL in particular also had a grudge against Christianity to begin with -- the ADL blamed Christianity for the holocaust even before the Darwin-to-Hitler issue was raised. Here is what an article on this blog says:
While condemning linkage of Social Darwinism to the holocaust, the hypocritical ADL has no qualms about linking Christianity to the holocaust. A speech published on the ADL website says of the holocaust, "The motivation was ideological. The racist-antisemitic ideology was the rational outcome of an irrational approach, an approach that was a cancer-like mutation of the Christian antisemitic ideology that had sullied Christian-Jewish relations all through their two millennia of coexistence." (from a speech that Yehuda Bauer gave to the German House of Representatives in 1998).
I knew it! Hahaha you didn't even bother to read the speech, did you? You just saw the word "Christian" and assumed it made your point! This is just priceless! Here are some other very interesting quotes from that speech:
"There was a consensus based on a promise of a wonderful utopia—a utopia of an idyllic community of people governing the world, devoid of friction, without political parties, without democracy, one that would be served by slaves. To achieve such a goal, it was necessary to revolt against everything that had been before: middle-class and Judeo-Christian morality, individual freedom, humanitarianism..."
So even though the speaker says they were revolting against "Judeo-Christian morality," somehow you also interpret him to be blaming the Holocaust on Christianity?
Hell, did you even read the whole paragraph you quoted?! From that same paragraph, he goes on to lay blame at the feet of "an idea stemming from the Jew-hatred of the Middle Ages" and says it was a "pure ideology."
How does it feel to be caught out in such a hilariously bald-faced lie? Thank god I have these posts sent to me, otherwise I suspect you would try to delete the evidence.
A lot of European non-Jews have Jewish-sounding last names and a lot of European Jews have last names that don't sound Jewish -- it's not a reliable identifier. And as I said, the Nazis just rounded people up en masse -- names did not matter.
Do yourself a favor and look at a calendar. See the year? Does it say 1937? Do you live in central Warsaw, for that matter? It is just hilarious that you think that your own observations of today are somehow relevant to the world then.
It is interesting you think they just rounded them up "en masse" and that "names didn't matter." Please support such a statement. There are long lists of names that tend to disagree. Hahhaa you are just priceless!
So what happened to all those "meticulous" Nazi holocaust records that we hear so much about?
They would be the logs of train names. Or the Treblinka lists. Or the Chelmno lists. Or the work camp lists of those transferred to the death camps. Or so on. Millions of people were shipped around, and millions died.
Out of curiosity, how do you explain the thousands of eyewitnesses who testified. Or memoirs depicted in detail what occurred like Night, The Diary of a Young Girl, Because of Romek, or The Cage? And those are just the ones I have read, I am sure there are dozens of other memoirs. Even beyond them, there are the endless reels of Nuremberg testimonials, and the countless documentary interviews. These people saw their families taken away - all of their family, since once you had one you had two dozen of their relatives. They saw their friends and neighbors taken away. They spent years in camps, starving and dying. Some of them went to the death camps, where they carried corpses or ran into the wire or just waited for their turn to die. Are they... deluded, perhaps, in your mind? Did they not really see trainloads of Jews - identifiable by sight because of their ethnicity or clothing - sent into the camps? What honestly goes through your head that you can just dismiss them all as overblown, and say, "Well, they really just grabbed whoever they could." It's like there's something seriously wrong inside of you.
Phae moaned,
>>>>>> Show me an example where I didn't answer your question. <<<<<<
I got plenty of bibliography bluffing from you, dunghill, but I was also talking about others, particularly Zachary Blount, the lead author of the paper on the evolution of citrate-eating bacteria.
>>>>>>"Objective" and "reliable" do not mean "systematic," as much as you might wish they did. <<<<<<<
The holocaust could not be "systematic" without objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews, idiot.
>>>>> How does it feel to be caught out in such a hilariously bald-faced lie? <<<<<<
It's not a lie, you stupid ignoramus. The ADL folks -- particularly national director Abe Foxman -- hate Chrstianity. Here is an excerpt from a Time magazine article:
In early November 2005, the Prime Minister of Iran stated his intention to wipe Israel off the map. At almost exactly the same time, leaders of the American Jewish community declared war on the Christian Right.
Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, issued the first call to arms. The Jews, he said, faced an organized, sophisticated coalition of enemies. He described as "openly arrogant" the supposed Evangelical goal: "To Christianize us, to save us!" Within a few weeks, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, leader of the liberal Reform Movement, America's largest Jewish denomination, and Rabbi James Rudin of the ultra-establishment American Jewish Committee, reprised Foxman's complaint.
Never before in U.S. history had Jewish leaders shown such bold hostility toward Evangelical Christians, the largest Protestant community in America and, by most measures, the most philo-Semitic and pro-Israel. In normal times, this would be paradoxical. In an age of jihad it was dangerously perverse.
. . . . . .The Democratic party, with its many Jewish activists, has traditionally supported Israel. But the Republicans have no such ethnic affinity. It is the Evangelicals, major stakeholders in the G.O.P., who have made it a bastion of pro-Israel and pro-Jewish sentiment.
And you still haven't answered my question about why you find it so hard to believe that Darwinists would try to take the heat off of Darwinism by claiming that Christianity was entirely to blame for the holocaust. Darwinists do this all the time. They've done it on this blog. They frequently cite Martin Luther's anti-semitism. I bet that you also don't believe that bears shit in the woods.
>>>>> Do yourself a favor and look at a calendar. See the year? Does it say 1937? Do you live in central Warsaw, for that matter? <<<<<<
Nothing is different so far as my arguments are concerned.
>>>>> There are long lists of names that tend to disagree. <<<<<<<
That looks like a pretty short list of names to me -- and they are ordinary non-Jewish Italian names. And I don't even know the purpose of the list because the list's notes are not in English and some of the lettering is unintelligible.
There is no excuse for the wild variation in the official death counts for Auschwitz -- from 1 million to 4 million. And I heard that even the 1 million figure is not supported.
>>>>>> Out of curiosity, how do you explain the thousands of eyewitnesses who testified. <<<<<<
I didn't say that there was no holocaust -- I said that there could not have been a "systematic" holocaust.
It is just about time to stop feeding this troll.
I got plenty of bibliography bluffing from you, dunghill, but I was also talking about others, particularly Zachary Blount, the lead author of the paper on the evolution of citrate-eating bacteria.
You got plenty from me? Show me. I've learned every time you make a vague reference to something, it's code for how you actually are lying. So show me, you liar.
The holocaust could not be "systematic" without objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews, idiot.
Really? Massive organization to select, kidnap, load, transport, house, and murder millions seems to be according to a system to me. And by and large they were Jews. Your incredulity, amazingly enough, is still not evidence. This is not reverse Tinkerbell, sweetheart: it doesn't matter how hard you disbelieve.
It's not a lie, you stupid ignoramus. The ADL folks -- particularly national director Abe Foxman -- hate Chrstianity. Here is an excerpt from a Time magazine article:
Hahaha! First you say "Darwinist are trying to sweep it under the rug by blaming the Holocaust solely on Christianity." Then that became "the ADL are an example of a group trying to blame the Holocaust solely on Christianity," and you have conveniently dropped the anti-science part. And of course when I point out the hilarious inaccuracy of your quote, it becomes "the ADL hates Christianity." I wonder what your claim will transform into this time after I debunk it. You're like a magical chameleon that changes patterns every time I point out how full of crap it is.
In early November 2005, the Prime Minister of Iran stated his intention to wipe Israel off the map. At almost exactly the same time, leaders of the American Jewish community declared war on the Christian Right.
Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, issued the first call to arms. The Jews, he said, faced an organized, sophisticated coalition of enemies. He described as "openly arrogant" the supposed Evangelical goal: "To Christianize us, to save us!" Within a few weeks, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, leader of the liberal Reform Movement, America's largest Jewish denomination, and Rabbi James Rudin of the ultra-establishment American Jewish Committee, reprised Foxman's complaint.
Never before in U.S. history had Jewish leaders shown such bold hostility toward Evangelical Christians, the largest Protestant community in America and, by most measures, the most philo-Semitic and pro-Israel. In normal times, this would be paradoxical. In an age of jihad it was dangerously perverse.
. . . . . .The Democratic party, with its many Jewish activists, has traditionally supported Israel. But the Republicans have no such ethnic affinity. It is the Evangelicals, major stakeholders in the G.O.P., who have made it a bastion of pro-Israel and pro-Jewish sentiment.
Okay, so that was laughably non-topical. What part of that had anything to do with the Holocaust, pray tell? And is that guy a biologist?
I mean, it's becoming pretty apparent you don't like Jews, but at least try to stay somewhat on topic.
And you still haven't answered my question about why you find it so hard to believe that Darwinists would try to take the heat off of Darwinism by claiming that Christianity was entirely to blame for the holocaust. Darwinists do this all the time. They've done it on this blog. They frequently cite Martin Luther's anti-semitism. I bet that you also don't believe that bears shit in the woods.
Why do I find it so hard to believe? I haven't seen any reason to believe that. I haven't even seen any Random Internet Guys saying so on your blog here. I'm sure there are people somewhere who blame the Holocaust solely on Christianity, but it's a laughable and stupid claim. And so is your attempt to make it out to be a claim worth consideration.
Nothing is different so far as my arguments are concerned.
Really? So you think the nominal and ethnic makeup of America is the same as Eastern Europe sixty years ago?
That looks like a pretty short list of names to me -- and they are ordinary non-Jewish Italian names. And I don't even know the purpose of the list because the list's notes are not in English and some of the lettering is unintelligible.
It's an example, you moron! Jesus, I'm afraid to stand too close to you in case some stupid rubs off.
There is no excuse for the wild variation in the official death counts for Auschwitz -- from 1 million to 4 million. And I heard that even the 1 million figure is not supported.
Well, since you have decided you are the final arbiter of what level of uncertainty in the discovery of mass graves, I guess that wraps up the case. Also since you supply a rumor of an unspecified problem with one of the estimates, it must also be wrong. Wow, amazing you can single-handedly step in and arbitrarily hand down the truth, entirely independent from evidence.
I didn't say that there was no holocaust -- I said that there could not have been a "systematic" holocaust.
Define your terms. What was not systematic about what happened?
It is just about time to stop feeding this troll.
HAhahha right on cue! Oh my sweet lord, you are a perfect little dancing monkey!
Hey everyone, you seriously need to read this conversation, particularly the parts where he makes hilarious claims and then provides evidence he didn't even bother to read that actually disproves him!
Dance for me!
Phae barfed,
>>>>>> You got plenty from me? Show me. <<<<<<
I would have to search for it, dunghill, and it would be a hard search because I can't use keywords or post labels to find it, and why should I search for it when it would prove nothing, because you are such a jerk and I have other examples of where I got bibliography bluffing in response to simple, specific questions.
>>>>> Really? Massive organization to select, kidnap, load, transport, house, and murder millions seems to be according to a system to me. <<<<<<
Idiot, without objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews, that's chaos, not a "systematic" Jewish holocaust.
>>>>>>And you still haven't answered my question about why you find it so hard to believe that Darwinists would try to take the heat off of Darwinism by claiming that Christianity was entirely to blame for the holocaust.
Why do I find it so hard to believe? I haven't seen any reason to believe that. I haven't even seen any Random Internet Guys saying so on your blog here. I'm sure there are people somewhere who blame the Holocaust solely on Christianity, but it's a laughable and stupid claim. <<<<<<<
What a lousy troll -- you do an about-face twice within a few sentences: "I haven't seen any reason to believe that," "I am sure there are people somewhere who blame the Holocaust solely on Christianity," "it's a laughable and stupid claim."
It's time to stop feeding this troll.
I would have to search for it, dunghill, and it would be a hard search because I can't use keywords or post labels to find it, and why should I search for it when it would prove nothing, because you are such a jerk and I have other examples of where I got bibliography bluffing in response to simple, specific questions.
Hahaha I knew it! Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Larry the Liar.
Idiot, without objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews, that's chaos, not a "systematic" Jewish holocaust.
Okay, if you want to start assigning adjectives new meanings, that's cool. I'll email Merriam-Webster that "systematic" now also always means "objective" and "reliable."
What a lousy troll -- you do an about-face twice within a few sentences: "I haven't seen any reason to believe that," "I am sure there are people somewhere who blame the Holocaust solely on Christianity," "it's a laughable and stupid claim."
I do two about-faces because I never stop facing one direction consistently. See, if you turn around twice, you end up facing back the same way.
I'm sure there are people somewhere who make that claim. But credible biologists - "Darwinists" as you call them - or credible historians... no, none.
It's time to stop feeding this troll.
What's that, Larry? You've decided you actually can't provide any evidence for your claim that some "Darwinists" or the ADL blame the Holocaust solely on Christianity? And now you've decided you don't want to talk anymore? Why how amazingly surprising!
Larry wrote: There are all kinds of kooks around....
What makes them "kooks," Larry. Ah, that's right, it's the lack of scientific evidence to support their claim and the existence contradictory evidence - the same two factors that killed ID.
Larry wrote: I can't read minds, idiot.
All you have to do is read the damn posts. For example: "So long as IDists continue to rely on fallacious negative arguments against evolution to make their case for design, ID will continue to remain a scientifically vacuous concept," from my very first post in this thread.
Larry wrote: So the issue here was the preferential treatment that creationism got under a disclaimer rule when both creationism and evolution got equal time in the same textbook -- this is completely different from the disclaimer issues in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County, and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, where only evolution was actually taught.
"Alternatives" to evolution were given the same preferential treatment in the other disclaimers. In the Kitzmiller disclaimer, for example, there was no statement that ID or any of the other unspecified "alternatives" to evolution should be "examined critically." The disclaimer also only referred students to a creationist textbook by name - the "other books" in the library were left unspecified.
Larry wrote: No one is asking for germ theory disclaimers, heliocentrism disclaimers, gravity disclaimers, etc., so the question is moot. As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets -- or should get -- the grease.
That's a pathetic dodge, considering that you argued that the mere presence of dissent should be enough to mandate disclaimers on textbooks in order to "reduce offense." So again: do you think the germ theory should have a disclaimer on it to "reduce offense" to germ theory denialists, or not?
Larry wrote: Under the endorsement test, where the government is supposed to try to avoid (1) showing disapproval of religion and (2) making fundies feel like "political outsiders," the mere presence of dissent is enough reason to start slapping disclaimers all over the textbooks, but you are too dumb to understand a clearcut application of the endorsement test.
There's nothing "clearcut" about your idiosyncratic interpretation of the test, as I've show from several rulings. And again, under this silly argument you're using, we're back to determining whether the mere presence of anti-Copernican fundies is enough to merit a disclaimer on heliocentrism, or whether health textbooks should get a disclaimer as a "sop" to adherents of faith healing.
Larry wrote: You put arguments from improbability in the same category as arguments from ignorance -- you said,
I put them in the same category because they are essentially the same argument. In so-called "design theory," the argument from ignorance typically takes the form of "evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how [fill in the blank] could have evolved, therefore it must have been designed." The argument from improbability is very similar: "the odds of [fill in the blank] evolving are very, very low, therefore it must have been designed." In both cases, they're based on the false dichotomy of assuming that anything that allegedly cannot evolve must be the product of design.
In the specific case of the argument from improbability, the most glaring flaw is the unjustified assumption that something cannot happen merely because it has an allegedly small probability. The odds of winning Australian PowerBall, for example, are 1 in 54,979,155, and yet there have been winners. Improbability is not the same thing as impossibility.
The other big problem with creationist arguments from improbability is that they deliberately stack their assumptions in such a way to arrive at a really low probability - for example, assuming without evidence that all the mutations required for something must happen sequentially or simultaneously merely because it allows them to calculate a really small number. They also love to emphasize the random nature of mutations while ignoring the non-random nature of selection. Garbage in, garbage out.
Martian Buddy:
>>>>> the same two factors that killed ID. <<<<<
ID is not dead, bozo, it is stronger than ever. And non-ID criticisms of evolution have also gained ground.
>>>>>> All you have to do is read the damn posts. <<<<<
Often the "damn posts" are posted after I make my comment.
>>>>>> In the Kitzmiller disclaimer, for example, there was no statement that ID or any of the other unspecified "alternatives" to evolution should be "examined critically." <<<<<<
But that is not what the judge objected to. If that was the only problem, the disclaimer statement could have been easily fixed.
>>>>> So again: do you think the germ theory should have a disclaimer on it to "reduce offense" to germ theory denialists, or not? <<<<<<
As for heliocentrism deniers, round earth deniers, gravity deniers, etc. ever getting enough political clout to get the government to enact disclaimers of those things, we can cross those bridges when we come to them. As for now, such disclaimers are just straw men.
>>>>>> There's nothing "clearcut" about your idiosyncratic interpretation of the test, as I've show from several rulings. <<<<<
You have shown nothing, idiot. My interpretation of the endorsement test is literal.
>>>>>>Larry wrote: You put arguments from improbability in the same category as arguments from ignorance -- you said,
I put them in the same category because they are essentially the same argument. <<<<<<
You self-contradictory dunghill, you previously said that an argument from improbability could be legitimate:
Oh, for fuck's sake! I shouldn't have to make the "qualification" that one's calculations need to be legitimate
This is another troll that I need to stop feeding.
Larry wrote: ID is not dead, bozo, it is stronger than ever.
That would explain the ongoing lack of research and publication.
Larry wrote: Often the "damn posts" are posted after I make my comment.
That was from my first comment in this thread, you muppet.
Larry wrote: But that is not what the judge objected to. If that was the only problem, the disclaimer statement could have been easily fixed.
You really seem to have a difficult time with the idea that there can be more than one reason for a conclusion. The one-sided nature of the disclaimer was one of several reasons why the judge found the policy unconstitutional.
Larry wrote: As for heliocentrism deniers, round earth deniers, gravity deniers, etc. ever getting enough political clout to get the government to enact disclaimers of those things, we can cross those bridges when we come to them.
Alas, your own argument that the mere existence of dissent requires a disclaimer requires us to cross them now.
Larry wrote: My interpretation of the endorsement test is literal.
Your interpretation of the endorsement test arbitrarily excludes most of the concurring opinion it appears in, as well as every ruling I've cited (including one written by Justice O'Connor herself!) that applies the test in a way contradictory to your assertions.
Larry wrote: You self-contradictory dunghill, you previously said that an argument from improbability could be legitimate:
I said that improbability could be a legitimate argument if it was based on legitimate calculations. There are a number of scientific fields in which probability (and, by extension, improbability) are important - that does not make the argument from improbability any less of a fallacy.
Post a Comment
<< Home