News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)

[WhoWee]

Personally, I don't think that he is a viable candidate. I don't see how he can possibly carry the bible-belt, and any GOP candidate is going to need the southern right to prevail in the general election. GOP strategists are going to play this up, IMO, in the run-up to the primaries, though they are unlikely to be honest about why they want to marginalize Romney.

I understand why you say you don't see how Romney can possibly carry the Bible-belt - against a Perry/Bachman/Santorum - but against the real opponent (President Obama) he certainly has a chance with this group - doesn't he?

 

[lisab]

I understand why you say you don't see how Romney can possibly carry the Bible-belt - against a Perry/Bachman/Santorum - but against the real opponent (President Obama) he certainly has a chance with this group - doesn't he?

I think perhaps he does. Of course, they could stay home and just sit this one out.

Romney is probably the closest in the field to a mainstream candidate. I think he's the only one who could get the independent voters, which is the real prize. Problem is, how is he going to win the evangelical vote, which he needs to get the nomination? He'd have to shift his positions...again. And as Evo pointed out, that's already been a problem with him.

 

[Char. Limit]

me three.

Me four.

My views on the problem, feel free to label IMO:

A belief or disbelief of evolution has been a litmus test issue with me for a while, for the reasoning that evolution is backed up by a LOT of evidence. And if you refuse to see the evidence on something like evolution, how can I trust you to see evidence on an issue like global warming, or the economy, or potential conflicts?

That said, if Perry wins the nomination, I will not vote for him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, it hasn't: I agree with the facts of the statistics, but extending that to mean that those people are anti-science in general is a conclusion that you are drawing - it is not a fact. And it is a flawed conclusion because you are ignoring at least two other possibilities, that I'm sure most of us have witnessed in this very forum:

1. Ignorance. You can't be anti-something that you don't know about. If a person comes here and reads off the crackpot anti-evolution arguments list, sure, they are anti-science in general. But if someone doesn't know about the evidence for evolution in geology, a belief in creationism is not automatically a rejection of geology.

You sure can be anti-something you don't know anything about; in fact, especially so. The cold war was a great example. Fear of the Soviets and all of their evil agendas, and visa versa, was based largely on ignorance. The Red Scare was based on ignorance. In the case of science, about the only way to be anti-science is to be ignorant.

You seem to be suggesting that a majority or unusually high percentage of Republicans might be ignorant.

2. Cognitive dissonance. People hold contradictory views, in particular when it comes to religion, so it is entirely possible (and again, I've seen it here) for a person to reject the science of one topic where it interferes with religion, but accept it in another instance where it doesn't.

And to what degree does this cognitive dissonance result in the desire to teach intelligent design, or creationism, along with that other little theory, evolution, in public schools? The problem is not just belief but the resulting political agenda. And if a person can so casually oscillate between faith and fact according to the issue, then they really can't be very rational in the first place. How can someone be pro-science but only accept overwhelming evidence when it's convenient? This only shows that logic might be abandoned at any turn in favor of a warm and fuzzy feeling. How is that not anti-science?

I just wanted to make sure people don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the discussion in this thread is constrained to one issue, it is actually reasonable to make a decision based on that one issue - and an issue that in and of itself has essentially no significance. That's a silly game people seemed to be playing here.

Obviously a lot of people do believe it's significant and not a game. You are voicing an opinion [a belief], not a fact.

 

[skippy1729]

Suppose you are to vote in the election of 1800. Assume, for the sake of argument, that you are STRONGLY opposed to the Alien and Sedition Act which Jefferson opposes and Adams supports. Jefferson was a slave owner and Adams opposed slavery. At this point in history there was no realistic scenario where the result of this election would affect the legality of slavery on a nationwide basis.

Who would you vote for?

You may have dozens of reasons not to vote for Perry but I hope that they are more substantive than his pandering (or possible sincere belief) in Creationism. If you really want to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom question your candidates for your state legislature and your local school board.

 

[chiro]

I, personally, don't care if my politicians understand science. However, I do want my politicians to say "I don't know" when confronted to science, instead of simply accepting an ideology without proof.
A person who says that "I don't know, so I can't judge" gains a lot of respect in my book.

This is what every single leader should read: something like "Leadership 101" would suffice.

I was at a Toastmasters meeting and they had a table topic competition on whether the common man should run the country, and the speaker made a great point that people that really have no idea should stop talking and let the people that do have some idea have the floor and give their opinion.

It is a hallmark of a good leader when they have the courage (especially in front of many people) to say the words "I don't know the answer" or "This is not my area of expertise".

This culture of "not appearing stupid" no matter what the circumstance really needs to change.

 

[CAC1001]

Me four.

My views on the problem, feel free to label IMO:

A belief or disbelief of evolution has been a litmus test issue with me for a while, for the reasoning that evolution is backed up by a LOT of evidence. And if you refuse to see the evidence on something like evolution, how can I trust you to see evidence on an issue like global warming, or the economy, or potential conflicts?

Wish I was half as well-spoken as you are when I was your age Anyways, evidence for evolution versus evidence for issues such as global warming, the economy, and conflicts, I think are different things. The Left and the Right repeatedly ignore evidence regarding different economic policies, potential conflicts, that depends a lot too, and as for global warming, well I wouldn't put that in the same type of theorizing as evolution and gravity for example. The thing about evolutionary theory or gravity theory isn't so much just all the evidence, but the pure lack of any other explanation.

 

[CAC1001]

You sure can be anti-something you don't know anything about; in fact, especially so. The cold war was a great example. Fear of the Soviets and all of their evil agendas, and visa versa, was based largely on ignorance.

Fear of the Soviets was very legitimate and yes they had some very evil agendas (the very existence of the Soviet Union itself was evil). Remember, there was no proof that they were going to collapse anytime soon either and likely would not have if not for a variety of different things that occurred. I'd say the fear of the United States from the Soviet peoples was based more on ignorance than fear of the Soviet Union by the American people.

 

[WhoWee]

Problem is, how is he going to win the evangelical vote, which he needs to get the nomination? He'd have to shift his positions...again. And as Evo pointed out, that's already been a problem with him.

He needs to avoid the entire debate about religion - challenge Perry on policies only - to win the nomination.

Perry/Bachman/Santorum can fight the Left (and God-less Dems) all they want - (hint) it might just be a trap to make the Left appear God-less? The Evangelicals aren't going to support the God-less party - are they?

Romney needs to stay focused on Obama and the economy to win - avoid the nonsense.

 

[lisab]

He needs to avoid the entire debate about religion - challenge Perry on policies only - to win the nomination.

Perry/Bachman/Santorum can fight the Left (and God-less Dems) all they want - (hint) it might just be a trap to make the Left appear God-less? The Evangelicals aren't going to support the God-less party - are they?

Romney needs to stay focused on Obama and the economy to win - avoid the nonsense.

You've used that term "God-less Dems", several times now. What do you mean by it? Please explain.

 

[daveb]

Attempts to create a single benchmark, dealbreaker issue (from a non-issue, at that!) from which to disqualify Republican candidates are just weak and simpleminded attempts to back Republicans into a corner made of tissue-paper.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that single issue litmus tests are not how I make sdecisions, there are numerous others who do have litmus tests, such as a pro-life or pro-choice stance, etc., so to dismiss their litmus test IMO is an attempt to marginalize their opinion.

 

[WhoWee]

You've used that term "God-less Dems", several times now. What do you mean by it? Please explain.

Of course lisab - we'll need to roll back to the origins in post 198 - where I requested permission to use the term (my bold):

""Originally Posted by turbo
Are you serious?

Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all."

"How might "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated" compare with (can I start calling Dems the "Godless Dems?) the practice of registering people to vote via absentee ballot in nursing homes or busing people (who otherwise wouldn't take the initiative) to the polls for early voting? When President Obama changes his tone to gauge a response from his audience - is he also "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated"?"

 

[russ_watters]

While I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that single issue litmus tests are not how I make sdecisions, there are numerous others who do have litmus tests, such as a pro-life or pro-choice stance, etc., so to dismiss their litmus test IMO is an attempt to marginalize their opinion.

Yes, that's correct. If popularity equalled legitimacy, we wouldn't have this thread!

 

[OmCheeto]

OMG!

In my never ending quest to bring harmony to the universe; "Dear Mr. Perry, If you allow all of the creation stories to be taught in school, then I don't have a problem with it."

http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm"

From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om.

And the Hindu text didest speakest to me by my self given silly nickname. And I thoughtest that was very weird, but made-est me feel quite special this morning.



Vishnu loves me, yes I know, for the Bhagavadgītā tells me so...
/me runs and hides under the sheets knowing the wrath of the PF gods and goddesses is about to be unleashed

 

[Evo]

OMG!

In my never ending quest to bring harmony to the universe; "Dear Mr. Perry, If you allow all of the creation stories to be taught in school, then I don't have a problem with it."

http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm"


And the Hindu text didest speakest to me by my self given silly nickname. And I thoughtest that was very weird, but made-est me feel quite special this morning.



Vishnu loves me, yes I know, for the Bhagavadgītā tells me so...
/me runs and hides under the sheets knowing the wrath of the PF gods and goddesses is about to be unleashed

I want Perry to explain the equally significant decision by God to place the Earth on the back of a giant trout.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hokkaido/legtro.html

Or maybe we should just admit that religion has no place in politics. It's about government, not about churches and their beliefs, or at least that's what I though.

 

[lisab]

Of course lisab - we'll need to roll back to the origins in post 198 - where I requested permission to use the term (my bold):

""Originally Posted by turbo
Are you serious?

Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all."

"How might "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated" compare with (can I start calling Dems the "Godless Dems?) the practice of registering people to vote via absentee ballot in nursing homes or busing people (who otherwise wouldn't take the initiative) to the polls for early voting? When President Obama changes his tone to gauge a response from his audience - is he also "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated"?"

Yes, but my question was: what do you mean by the term?

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, but my question was: what do you mean by the term?

Well the Right Wing Conservative Republicans (based on this thread) are clearly labeled as religious - believe in God. I'm assuming the Left Wing Liberal Democrats want to not be associated with God - thus God-less Dems - have I misunderstood?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well the Right Wing Conservative Republicans (based on this thread) are clearly labeled as religious - believe in God. I'm assuming the Left Wing Liberal Democrats want to not be associated with God - thus God-less Dems - have I misunderstood?

While there certainly are many Godless dems, pretty much all [most] Democratic politicians at the national level are religious. The difference is that religion doesn't define their platform.

It's that whole separation of church and State nonsense.

I would add that the Dems are not in jeopardy of losing the evangelical vote as they would never get it anyway. That about says it all. This isn't about religion, it is about fundamentalism and extremism.

 

[mheslep]

...While the premise may not have been well-supported until later in the thread, the sentiment is hardly something new.

Sentiment? That sounds like an "everyone knows it's true" , or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum" attempt.

Are we looking at different posts? I clearly see comparisons of Republicans with Democrats and Independents.

Posts with more hand waiving assertion that Republicans are this, and Democrats are that do not equate to "support[ed] with numerous examples". The latter is the claim which I (and others) contested.

 

[lisab]

Well the Right Wing Conservative Republicans (based on this thread) are clearly labeled as religious - believe in God. I'm assuming the Left Wing Liberal Democrats want to not be associated with God - thus God-less Dems - have I misunderstood?

It's hard to find good data on what percent of Americans are atheist.

The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion, of which 1.6% explicitly describes itself as atheist (0.7%) or agnostic (0.9%)...

Now, that's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism" , but I think it sounds about right.

So if less than 2% of the population self-identifies as atheist, and some ~40% of the population self-identify as Democrats...then yes, you have misunderstood.

 

[WhoWee]

It's hard to find good data on what percent of Americans are atheist.



Now, that's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism" , but I think it sounds about right.

So if less than 2% of the population self-identifies as atheist, and some ~40% of the population self-identify as Democrats...then yes, you have misunderstood.

I don't think the vast majority (of the 40%) consider themselves Left Wing Liberals - do they?

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think the vast majority (of the 40%) consider themselves Left Wing Liberals - do they?

On the other hand - I suppose there a few that would like to qualify?
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH

"Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ"

 

[WhoWee]

While there certainly are many Godless dems, pretty much all [most] Democratic politicians at the national level are religious. The difference is that religion doesn't define their platform.

It's that whole separation of church and State nonsense.

I would add that the Dems are not in jeopardy of losing the evangelical vote as they would never get it anyway. That about says it all. This isn't about religion, it is about fundamentalism and extremism.

I basically agree. To be fair - I don't see where religion has defined Governor Perry's initiatives in Texas.
http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/
""We are focusing on areas that are most essential to an improved quality of life, pursuing advancements in safety, education, economic development, infrastructure & resource management, and personal well-being." - Gov. Rick Perry"

 

[daveb]

I don't think the vast majority (of the 40%) consider themselves Left Wing Liberals - do they?

There's a difference between Democrats and left-wing liberals. Not all Democrats are left-wing liberals, and not all left-wing liberals are democrats

 

[WhoWee]

There's a difference between Democrats and left-wing liberals. Not all Democrats are left-wing liberals, and not all left-wing liberals are democrats

Fair enough - I imagine some Far-Left Wing Liberals might be Socialist - wasn't trying to be that specific.

 

[mheslep]

The thread started with an excerpt from a column, here's another. This is a general response to the science and politics issue from Dawkins and others by author/columnist Kevin Williamson. It is aggressive, but no more so than Dawkin's column.

"[URL Perry Pushes Their Buttons
The questions put to Governor Perry are political, not scientific.[/URL]

Williamson rehashes some of Perry's statements about the theory of evolution, but his point begins here:

...The broader question, however, is: Why would anybody ask a politician about his views on a scientific question? Nobody ever asks what Sarah Palin thinks about dark matter, or what John Boehner thinks about quantum entanglement. (For that matter, I’ve never heard Keith Ellison pressed for his views on evolution.) There are lots of good reasons not to wonder what Rick Perry thinks about scientific questions, foremost amongst them that there are probably fewer than 10,000 people in the United States whose views on disputed questions regarding evolution are worth consulting, and they are not politicians; they are scientists. In reality, of course, the progressive types who want to know politicians’ views on evolution are not asking a scientific question; they are asking a religious and political question, demanding a profession of faith in a particular materialist-secularist worldview.

Take the question of global warming: Jon Huntsman was quick to declare his faith in the scientific consensus on global warming, and Rick Perry has been openly skeptical of it. Again keeping in mind that nobody really ought to care what either Huntsman or Perry thinks about the relevant science, both are making an error, and a grave one, in conceding that the question at hand is scientific at all. It is not; it is political. One might be convinced that anthropogenic global warming is a real and problematic phenomenon, and still not be convinced that the policies being pushed by Al Gore et al. are wise and intelligent.

followed by some examination of the other side:

...If you want to see how dedicated a progressive is to dispassionate science, spend two minutes talking about the heritability of intelligence. You’ll be up to your neck in witchcraft and superstition and evasion in no time at all. (If you want to test a progressive’s faith in rigorous scholarship more broadly, ask him about gains from trade and comparative advantage, realities that are as solid as anything social science has to offer.)...

 

[D H]

Well the Right Wing Conservative Republicans (based on this thread) are clearly labeled as religious - believe in God. I'm assuming the Left Wing Liberal Democrats want to not be associated with God - thus God-less Dems - have I misunderstood?

Yes, you have misunderstood, and you have used a logical fallacy to boot.

Being a Christian does not necessitate that you reject science, that you reject evolution. Being a Christian does not necessitate that you vote hard right. That being a Christian mandates that one reject evolution, and thereby reject all of science, is only true for a small faction of Christians who do not represent the people of this nation, who do not represent the ideals of the people who founded our nation, and who do not define what Christianity really is. These self-entitled Christians have IMO hijacked the Republican party.

This thread would not exist if the Republicans themselves were not pushing this issue by making evolution a required question at multiple debates amongst Republican candidates.

This thread would not exist if multiple Republican candidates did not freely offer their rejection of evolution, and of science in general, in public speeches because they instead hold steadfast to some pre-scientific mythology.

The Democrats are not making this an issue. It is the hijacked Republicans who are making this an issue.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, you have misunderstood, and you have used a logical fallacy to boot.

Being a Christian does not necessitate that you reject science, that you reject evolution. Being a Christian does not necessitate that you vote hard right. That being a Christian mandates that one reject evolution, and thereby reject all of science, is only true for a small faction of Christians who do not represent the people of this nation, who do not represent the ideals of the people who founded our nation, and who do not define what Christianity really is. These self-entitled Christians have IMO hijacked the Republican party.

This thread would not exist if the Republicans themselves were not pushing this issue by making evolution a required question at multiple debates amongst Republican candidates.

This thread would not exist if multiple Republican candidates did not freely offer their rejection of evolution, and of science in general, in public speeches because they instead hold steadfast to some pre-scientific mythology.

The Democrats are not making this an issue. It is the hijacked Republicans who are making this an issue.

How are the Republicans "making this an issue" - are they writing the news stories or is the media making this an issue?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There's a difference between Democrats and left-wing liberals. Not all Democrats are left-wing liberals, and not all left-wing liberals are democrats

Heh, that's a good point. The most lefty person I know hates the Democrats and the Republicans almost equally. In fact, he's a Marxist.

In his view, Obama is just another puppet for big business.

 

[WhoWee]

Heh, that's a good point. The most lefty person I know hates the Democrats and the Republicans almost equally. In fact, he's a Marxist.

In his view, Obama is just another puppet for big business.

I guess we all know a few extreme Left (and Right) types.

My favorite far-left liberal is a college professor. He hates ALL politicians and Government in general. Ironically, he takes comfort in his tenure. He's been known to put his feet up and nap in front of a lecture hall with 400 students - just doesn't care and the students love him.

 

[BobG]

Only 52 percent of declared Catholics believe that the existence of God is "certain or possible."”

That, is one of the funniest statistics I have seen in a long time. So what's with the other 48%? Are they Catholic because of the bake sales?

You can be born Catholic, so idenitfy as a Catholic when asked what your religion is, but that doesn't mean that you attend Mass or aren't agnostic. I was born Roman Catholic, will tell people I'm catholic, but I am also an atheist. Go figure.

Who says Catholics don't apply a scientific method to their faith?

"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, but we're trying to find the error bars on that number ..."
- 1 Corinthians 8:6 (+/- 2)

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, this is ridiculous. Some extremists brought up the fact that McCain was born in a militarily controlled territory, and not US soil. That was bound to fail, and I think all rational voters thought so, regardless of whether they favored McCain or not.

It still happened, turbo, "bound to fail" or not.

None of this compares to what we've seen from the right. It is a matter of proportion. There have always been extreme elements on both sides. That does not explain what we've seen from the right wing in recent years.

There was never any "conspiracy" -- he was, in fact, born in Panama.

Your argument of "Well, the dems do it too!" is extremely weak, since any comparison between what a blogger or two wrote about McCain, and what happened with those batsh!t crazy birthers...it just makes the birthers look even more nutty.

I'm reasonably certain the three of you have challenged me on this before and as before, I'll point out that the McCain "birther" issue was big enough to make it into mainstream news. It is factually wrong to claim that it was just "a blogger or two".

 

[russ_watters]

You sure can be anti-something you don't know anything about; in fact, especially so. The cold war was a great example. Fear of the Soviets and all of their evil agendas, and visa versa, was based largely on ignorance. The Red Scare was based on ignorance. In the case of science, about the only way to be anti-science is to be ignorant.

Wow, Ivan, the cold war? I'll give you props for going grand and obscure, but to claim that we knew nothing about the Soviets? To call that nonsense would win me the most charitable post of the day award!

You seem to be suggesting that a majority or unusually high percentage of Republicans might be ignorant.

Certainly! Every single person on Earth is ignorant of a great many things and in the US, ignorance of science is a national epidemic.

And to what degree does this cognitive dissonance result in the desire to teach intelligent design, or creationism, along with that other little theory, evolution, in public schools?

I don't know, but logically I don't see why one would exclude the other. The more important question, IMO, is if electing Perry will actually result in ID being taught in school. If there isn't much chance of that, then this isn't an issue worthy of discussion before the coming election. Other issues that will actually matter actually matter more!

The problem is not just belief but the resulting political agenda.

Well you're the first I've seen in here claiming that ID in and of itself is a big enough political issue to be concerned about. Others have suggested only that it is a bellwhether/benchmark. You're certainly free to believe that, but IMO, the economy is much more important - so much more important that ID isn't on my radar at all as a serious political issue.

And if a person can so casually oscillate between faith and fact according to the issue, then they really can't be very rational in the first place.

There is nothing at all casual about a strong religious conviction.

How can someone be pro-science but only accept overwhelming evidence when it's convenient? This only shows that logic might be abandoned at any turn in favor of a warm and fuzzy feeling. How is that not anti-science?

Again, religion encroaches on science only in very specific issues. I've met many a religious person who'se anti-science stance was strictly confined. We've seen such people on this forum.

Obviously a lot of people do believe it's significant and not a game. You are voicing an opinion [a belief], not a fact.

Of course.

 

[WhoWee]

On the other hand, might Dawkins someday support ID?

http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

"BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

 

[Evo]

On the other hand, might Dawkins someday support ID?

http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

"BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Where's the rest of his quote?

That higher intelligence would, itself, have had to have come about by some explicable, ultimately explicable, process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.

Nice try but no cigar.

This has also been debunked, Ben Stein was interviwing scientists under false pretenses. They were asked to make their wildest speculations on life on earth.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

We have the debunking here in an old thread.

Claims that film producers misled intervieweesThe movie has been criticized by those interviewees who are critics of intelligent design (P.Z. Myers, Dawkins,[63] Shermer,[28] and National Center for Science Education head Eugenie Scott), who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion", and were directed to a blurb implying an approach to the documentary crediting Darwin with "the answer" to how humanity developed:[64][65][66]

The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable. It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes (later improved to 10% overall) where the film was summarized thus: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary." Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda.[7][13][14] The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)",[15] while The New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."[7]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms.[17] The film has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills.

Yeah, stooping to lies and fraud to take information out of context. A truly great representation of ID.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expell...laims_that_film_producers_misled_interviewees

WhoWee, I'm so disappointed, I thought you researched things for fraud before you posted them.

 

[OmCheeto]

Who says Catholics don't apply a scientific method to their faith?

"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, but we're trying to find the error bars on that number ..."
- 1 Corinthians 8:6 (+/- 2)

Perhaps that's what I'm looking for. Some people are just too serious.

Some of the people I admire most are devoutly religious. Some of the people I admire the least are devoutly religious. So I guess religion has nothing to do with it.

Om; "Do you guys still believe in creationism?"
Bruce; "Yes..., except in your case."

Bruce is, and always has been, my hero.

 

[OmCheeto]

Om; "Do you guys still believe in creationism?"
Bruce; "Yes..., except in your case."

Bruce is, and always has been, my hero.

Anti-Om; "Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?"

It sure looks like it. But in trying to reconcile my duplicity in the matter by googling feverishly this morning, guided by the hand of god obviously, I ran across many messages, both from him/her/it, and earthly mortals.

I ran across Ivan's recount of http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml", a commentary which ended with the quote by Sinclair Lewis; “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”, which struck me as kind of mean spirited. But the last two things I ran across, which were linked by author, kind of showed me the difference between Rick and Bruce.

The first was an article by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, apparently questioning Perry's sincerity/motives: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...erry-as-christian-as-he-thinks-he-is/243616/"

I'd never heard of K.K.Townsend before, so I googled her, and discovered she wrote https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001JJBOHO/?tag=pfamazon01-20*. The little review kind of summed up my feelings on the matter:

Two-term Maryland lieutenant governor Townsend makes a valid point: in America, faith is no longer about community. She longs for the Catholic Church of her youth, that "dealt with issues at the core of the Gospel—suffering, injustice, sickness, and poverty" rather than a Christianity influenced by a crop of preachers who seem to believe that "Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry and cared for the poor just so we don't have to."

Bruce is not a hypocrite.

*Available at Amazon.com for the heavenly price of only $2.07

 

[NeoDevin]

More science http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...xas-censorship-environment-report?CMP=twt_gu":

Rick Perry's administration commissions a report by scientists on the state of Galveston Bay, then proceeds to delete everything about sea level rise, warming, and wetlands destruction (including the actual measurements). Any mention of human causes for any of these was removed. Go http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/perry-officials-censored-climate-report" for a line by line comparison before and after.

every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document

Edited to add: I don't see any possible way that burying your head in the sand can result in sound economic policy. These changes will have real effects on the local economy, and denying them can't possibly improve decision making.

 

[ThomasT]

Perry has apparently recently decided to opt out of most of the future Republican debates. Probably a good decision. He's, apparently, a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge. As is Romney. Paul is, I think a relative heavyweight compared to those two. Unfortunately, I think that some of Paul's economic proposals/cuts would be extremely damaging to the general economy.

 

[Char. Limit]

Apologies if this post isn't on-topic, but I don't want to start a new thread for it and this seems to be the best place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perrys-birther-parade/2011/10/24/gIQAyFRNDM_story.html

When I saw the headline I immediately thought "oh god, they're trotting out that old horse again?". But reading the article, this looks less like Perry being a birther and more like Parade giving him leading questions. Your thoughts?

 

[WhoWee]

Perry has apparently recently decided to opt out of most of the future Republican debates. Probably a good decision. He's, apparently, a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge. As is Romney. Paul is, I think a relative heavyweight compared to those two. Unfortunately, I think that some of Paul's economic proposals/cuts would be extremely damaging to the general economy.

my bold
Please clarify your inclusion of Romney - why is he "a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge"?

 

[ThomasT]

Apologies if this post isn't on-topic, but I don't want to start a new thread for it and this seems to be the best place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perrys-birther-parade/2011/10/24/gIQAyFRNDM_story.html

When I saw the headline I immediately thought "oh god, they're trotting out that old horse again?". But reading the article, this looks less like Perry being a birther and more like Parade giving him leading questions. Your thoughts?

Yeah, of course Parade is biased and so is Perry. What else is new? Bottom line, imo, is that Perry's a lightweight (even though he undoubtedly has a forceful personality ... but I think you know what I mean). And, I wil not vote for somebody who I consider to be a lightweight for any public office.

 

[ThomasT]

my bold
Please clarify your inclusion of Romney - why is he "a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge"?

I just haven't heard him expound on anything in any way that I think indicates that he has a deep or broad knowledge, wrt anything, of the sort that I would want a prospective president to have.

He looks good, has a nice personality, and lots of money. That's about it. But of course that's enough to get elected.

EDIT: Of course, I don't know that he's a lightweight. He just seems like one ... to me.

EDIT2: And I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

 

[truman]

Is lack of understanding of basic science (and/or an effort to sabotage the public school science curriculum) a deal breaker for you?

Yes.