Terrapin Tables

I find this especially hypocritical:
"Bush said. 'You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.'"
You mean like pro-choice? Practicing a gay lifestyle or permitting gay marriage? You know what, you can teach creationism alongside evolution in school if you endorse equal rights for same sex couples as far as I am concerned.
And who in the hell came up with the term "intelligent design." What the hell does that mean? I demand to know how God scored on his SAT's. I am rejecting his application as the subject of my worship until I get some transcripts. Maybe he did really well on the math & verbal, but sucked on the Creation portion. My frigging dog has intelligence. My dog wants deity status.

I think the scientific community lacks conviction because the nature of science -- although many sources show over 95% of the scientists in the earth sciences fields completely discredit ID/creationism, a good scientist will readily admit that he could be wrong. That certainly doesn't mean ID is correct, but scientists know that theories are always evolving, so there's always the chance that they've got a few things wrong at present (history shows that theories are almost always wrong - the only thing that changes with time is that the mistaken assumptions become less severe). They can't afford to point to a 2,000 book that they believe to be infallible and say "Hey, this books says we're right!"

This analogy is a little off, and is certainly from left-field, but I could compare it to the ACLU supporting KKK rally applications. The ACLU may completely disagree with the message of the KKK, but it would be hypocritical to support the free exchange of ideas, and then turn around and denounce other people's views.

In either case, I tend to agree with those that can stand back and peacefully promote their ideas, and hope that in time the other group goes away.

I like the points at the end of the article on what other matters Bush discussed:

Refused to discuss the investigation into whether political aide Karl Rove...
What this means: I need to protect Rove; without him, I couldn't find the bathroom. So leave him alone.

Said he did not ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts about his views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.
What this means: Bush still doesn't understand what fish eggs have to do with anything. He plans on asking Karl to fill him in later.

Said he hopes to work with Congress to pass an immigration reform bill this fall, including provisions for guest workers and enhanced security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
What this means: Catching Bin-Laden is hard, 'cause he hides in caves. Juan should be much easier.

Rick: yeah, that's why I used the phrase "almost certainly." Because real scientists never use the word "fact." Creationists like to argue "evolution is only a theory." Yeah, well, so is gravity. Go step off a cliff, creationist, and test that gravity theory. Works every time...like evolution.

And my problem is, I'm tired of people "wishing they would go away." One of the reasons the voices of intelligent people - people that would work to better the community, not only themselves - are rarely heard is beacuse they/we always believe the selfish and the ignorant will go away, when history proves otherwise in every case.

And how can Bush not know Roberts' view on Roe v. Wade? OF COURSE he knows, it's why he is appointing him...Bush just isn't prepared to discuss it without looking like an idiot, so he hides behind ignorance and incompetence.

FUCK.

Yeah, the "evolution is just a theory" is due to the very unfortunate fact that "theory" has more than one meaning. Creationists use the fifth definition on that page, a belief or an idea; whereas scientists use the first one, which is simply a set of statements mean to explain something. Having multiple definitions is why we kept seeing the word "hypothesis" in 4th grade science class - it's used to avoid confusion.

And gravity is a good example. There is a Law of Gravity which says objects are attracted to each other based on a formula.* But throwing an equation out there doesn't mean everything is explained away - it took astronomers to develop the Theory of Gravity, which is a bunch of statements (based off the Law) that explain things like planetary motion, pendulums, rocket trajectories... etc.

*The formula is actually unproven. The 2 in the term d^2 (the square of the distance of the objects) was made through observation. But the Law still uses the term becasue a Law will still stand if it "would be preverse to think otherwise" (Such as the 2 being 2.00001 or 1.9999). I forgot who said that though.

Stop the Jeebus train..I wanna get off...

Yeah, I'd already read that quote from Bush on ID, but figued I'd lay off on starting new threads on the whole ID/Creationism vs. Rational Thought, *cough* I mean Evolution, debate. The reason why Bush can get away with statements like that is because he's not catering to the minority. As sad as this statistic is, 54% of the U.S. population doesn't believe that humans evolved from other species. Only 38% accept that we did evolve from earlier species. I've seen other polls from different sources with similar results. People are idiots.

Some scientists are finally starting to take stands against the creationists/IDers. There was no scientific delegation at the recent Kansas School Board hearings because they thought even their presence would give credence to the ID "theory." There's also Project Steve at the National Center for Science Education.

Anway, rather than go off on a long rant of my own, I'll link to somebody else's rant, and a few good sites on this topic:
Panda's Thumb
Talk Origins
Pharyngula

Oh yeah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster site has some new pictures.

That poll is a bit unsettling. MORE people now believe in Creationism than they used to. If you mandate that schools teach creationism, you no longer have a separation of church and state. And how obnoxiously arrogant do you have to be to insist that the creation theory of YOUR religion be taught while excluding the creation theory of other religions. Evolution may not be correct. If it is taught to you, you don't have to believe it. But it has little religious affiliation that I am aware of. What the hell is a Hindu or Buddhist child sitting in a creationist-teaching classroom supposed to do?

Wow. Here's something even worse than not accepting evolution: The Flat Earth Society. Their "Why a Flat Earth" page just defies description. Wow.