Am I a right wing, radical, nut case?

[MacDawg]

My experience has usually been that regardless of who you are talking too… if you are to the ‘right’ of them, you are a wacko, fundamentalist nutcase. However, if you are to the ‘left’ of them, you are a flaming, bleeding heart liberal. The person speaking always considers themselves to be the moderate, centrist and representative of reasonable and rational thought. The speaker is always the standard by which others are judged. Left of “me” = liberal, right of “me” = radical. That’s why people to the left of me, may be to the right of you, and could be considered liberal by me, and radical by you, and vice versa.

As a corollary, those who agree with the speaker are considered ‘open minded’, while those who disagree are always ‘close minded’. Those who agree with “me” are always the ‘majority’, ‘most people’, intelligent, reasonable, sane, tolerant, etc. [Positions are stated as: “Most people understand that X position is correct…,” or “Any reasonable, sane person would have to conclude that X position is correct”, etc.] Those who disagree with “me” are considered insane, idiots, stupid, backward, brainwashed, uninformed, intolerant, and mindless. [Positions are stated as: “Only an idiot would believe that X position is true…” or “How can you be so stupid as to hold to X position.”] Consequently, many, if not most, discussions are ‘preaching to the choir’ (when others agree) or are similar to Jr. High name calling sessions (among those who disagree) rather than honest debate of issues, facts and relevant supporting data.

So, with that in mind, among those at MR, am I a radical, wacko, close minded nutcase??

Evolution or Intelligent Design?
Let’s start at the very beginning… a very good place to start. Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism may be the only reasonable explanation of origins for many, but is it truly the only position? Only if you start with the premise that it is the only explanation and are closed to any other position. There are many problems associated with Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism that have been exposed. Many will hold tenaciously to a Darwinian position strictly because of the alternatives, not because of irrefutable evidence. The alternatives may lead to a belief in an intelligent design/Designer, which could mean purpose and accountability to life, and perhaps even an afterlife. Untenable positions for someone who wants to live without restraint, without absolutes and most of all, without ultimate accountability for their actions. Many reputable scientists today in fields of biology, physics, astronomy, etc. are willing to explore other options that undermine Darwinism. Exposing the fallacies of the “icons of evolution” (http://www.iconsofevolution.com/ ) such as the Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin’s Tree of Life, Haeckel’s embryos, and homology leads one to question the very foundations of Darwin’s principles. The advances in the fossil record, DNA research, cellular microbiology and other disciplines since the 1850’s have only served to raise questions for Darwinism, rather than to answer them. The irreducibly complex structures of the eye, the feather, the wing, blood clotting and more are still embarrassing mysteries for Darwinists.

So, wouldn’t it be fair to say that examining the evidence against Darwinism is being open minded in the pursuit of truth? Or, does believing in an intelligent Designer based on evidence that supports it make me a wacko, right wing radical?

Religion
Since I believe there is an intelligent Designer, isn’t it reasonable that I believe that such a Designer might want to communicate with his design/creation? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to seek to communicate back? And if this is the foundation of religion, wouldn’t it be reasonable to believe that the religion I embrace is the correct religion? I don’t see that as arrogance, or being close minded. Who believes in a religion that they are convinced is not the true religion? If after exploring possibilities (open mindedness), one embraces a position of faith to the exclusion of others, wouldn’t that be logical? Hmmmm, if not, then why isn’t a Darwinist who excludes other positions to the establishment of his own as fact (not theory) considered arrogant then? Shouldn’t a proponent of a religion (whether Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Christian or other) believe that they are embracing truth? And if their religion is “true”, isn’t that mutually exclusive of others if they do not agree? Now, while it is true that there are zealots who lie, cheat, steal and kill to promote their position, holding an exclusionary position does not necessitate those extremes.

So, wouldn’t it be fair to say that if someone believes in an intelligent Designer, and holds to a religious position, they may be excluding of other positions by definition? Or, does just believing in “God”, and the expression of that by a certain faith make me a wacko, right wing radical?

Prayer in schools
However, just because I believe in “God”, doesn’t mean I support prayer in the public schools (USofA). Uh, oh. Isn’t that inconsistent? Not really. Those who support prayer in the public schools are really supporting “their particular brand of prayer to their specific God”. For instance, if the schools suddenly announced that they would be allowing prayer in the public schools in the U.S., but it would be prayers to Allah, there would be an outrage. Same would be true if prayer was lead by a Priest, a Rabbi or whoever. There would be some that were offended or excluded. The problem really isn’t that the 10 Commandments (or whatever religious code you want to insert) and prayer have been taken out of the school, but that parents don’t pray in their homes and live by their own code there. It isn’t the public schools responsibility to educate my children in my faith. However, I don’t want the school to be antagonistic towards faith either. [Hence there is a problem with the exclusive presentation of Darwinism as the only reasonable and scientific system].

So, now what do we do? Does opposing prayer in public schools make me a progressive thinking, left wing liberal?

CONTINUED

[MacDawg]

CONTINUED...

Abortion
The question used to be “when does life begin?” until science showed us that life begins at conception. Then the question became “when does human life begin?” Then science showed us through the genetic code that human life unquestionably begins at conception. There is life. It is human. So the question became viability. First, outside the womb, then we found that early life was sustainable, and as technology advanced, life became sustainable at even early stages. Quickening (movement) was used as a standard, but further technology showed us how complete a baby is at the earliest stages. So the battle is now “personhood”, and definitions of the ability to contribute to society. Expanding definitions will always encroach on euthanasia for babies (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MEAA80.html) as well as the elderly, and then to the undesirable. Believing that abortion takes a human life does not mean that I advocate shooting abortion doctors. I don’t. But if a gunman came to the maternity ward of the local hospital and shot say 6 out of 10 babies, would we be outraged? What if the parents consented to him killing the babies because they couldn’t afford them, they were the wrong color, or they weren’t the right sex? Science, not religion, tells us that life, human life, begins at conception. Are we not just making excuses when we call him or her a blastocyt, an embryo, or a clump of cells so that we can dispose of him or her without conscience? If the issue is personhood, who do you trust to define “person”?

So, if I believe that life, human life, begins at conception and that abortion takes a human life, does that make me a right wing, wacko radical?

Stem cell research and Cloning
Stem cell research involves more than just embryonic stem cells. The recently publicized claim (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041128/1/3ovex.html) that stem cell treatment allowed a paralyzed woman to walk again involved stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, not embryonic stem cells. Other treatments have been successful with adult stem cells. As I understand it, the President’s ban relates to embryonic stem cell research funded by the government. I support research on stem cells. I also support a ban on cloning and embryonic stem cells. Since I believe life is destroyed in embryonic stem cell research.

So, does the opposition to the wholesale creation/destruction of life, even for the purpose of research, no matter how promising it might be, make me a radical, right wing, nutcase?


Gay marriage/homosexuality
Admittedly, my belief in an intelligent Designer/God and a code of moral beliefs shapes my thinking on this issue. Just as a Darwinist view that equates humanity with an advanced(?) evolution of random chance shapes thinking towards morality. However, not everyone who disagrees with the morality homosexuality or does not favor recognition of gay marriages is a homophobe seeking to maim and kill homosexuals. Society has imposed the laws regarding marriage, just as they have imposed the laws concerning abortion. I support the legal overturning of Roe v. Wade, and I am considered a radical right wing nut. A homosexual favors the recognition of gay marriage and wants to be considered as mainstream. I do not consider myself a racist, or a bigot. I work with many homosexuals without any discrimination or persecution. I disagree with them concerning their sexual orientation, but I may disagree with them on taxes, Iraq, Social Security and a great many other things as well.

We all live by standards, codes of conduct and laws, whether we are religious or not. Some hold that standards are absolute, given by God, while others live by the laws imposed by society simply to function. So, if I disagree with the homosexual as to morality, does that make me a right wing, radical nut?

Taxes
OK, here is something a little more mundane. I favor a flat tax, or even a national sales tax over the indecipherable tax code we now have in the U.S. I realize that this would result in the dismantling of the IRS, and would affect thousands of tax preparers, but doesn’t it just make plain sense?

What does favoring a flat tax or national sales tax make me??

Iraq
Should the U.S. be the conscience of the world? No, I don’t really think so. Are we the custodians of peace, justice and human rights? Hardly. Have we acted at times we should not have acted? Probably. Have we remained silent at times when we should have acted? Probably. Wasn’t it Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben who told Peter (Spiderman) that ‘with great power comes great responsibility’? Good advice, even if it comes from a movie. Should we have invaded Iraq? I don’t know. I don’t have all of the facts, and most of us probably don’t. Was S. Hussein a despot and a murderer? Yes, if we can believe anything that the media or intelligence reports. All I know is I support the men and women who make up our troops, and I pray for their swift and safe return. The Iraqi people deserve to govern themselves without our shadow. Once that is made possible, we should get the hell out.

Does the fact that I support our troops and that I don’t vilify our government make me a right wing nut?


Bush or Kerry
Yes, I voted for Bush. Not because I agree with everything. Not because I support everything. Not because I know everything. But as usual, and like most people I assume, I voted for the “lesser of the two evils”. Kerry is to the left of me <smile>, so he is a liberal. Hmmmmm, he is to the left of everyone isn’t he? Even M. Moore admitted that he was the most liberal in all of Congress, making even T. Kennedy to the right of him (hard to make T. Kennedy a right winger, but he did). Kerry offered me nothing. He blew with the winds of the polls. He said whatever anybody wanted to hear. In my opinion, he was wrong on stem cell, wrong on Iraq, wrong on defense, wrong on taxes, wrong on ___________ (fill in the blank). Do I think Bush is right on everything. No. But I agreed with him more than I did Kerry on most issues. Do I trust either one. No. Do I always believe they tell the truth. Neither one. Was Bush deceptive and dishonest about his National Guard record? Probably. Was Kerry dishonest and deceptive about his Viet Nam record? Probably. Just as many voted against Bush, so by default voted for Kerry, I voted against Kerry and by default for Bush as much as anything else.

So, by voting for Bush, does that make me an idiotic, uninformed, misguided, radical, right wing nut?


Alright, what’s the verdict? Am I a right wing, radical nut?
Or am I to your left and therefore a liberal?

Or am I just someone that has a different opinion and viewpoint from you?

[pseudobrit]

On the expressway, everyone driving slower than you is a moron and everyone who passes you is a maniac.

[emw]

On the expressway, everyone driving slower than you is a moron and everyone who passes you is a maniac.

Just this morning I was yelling at some moron to get out of the left lane so I could get by him. Of course, I was only in a hurry because some maniac was on my ass. :D

[MacDawg]

On the expressway, everyone driving slower than you is a moron and everyone who passes you is a maniac.

Well put...

[zimv20]

everyone who passes you is a maniac.
but are they doing so on the left or the right?

[zimv20]

So, by voting for Bush, does that make me an idiotic, uninformed, misguided, radical, right wing nut?
it makes you consistent, above all. i'd throw a little selfishness and uinformedness (i like making up words) in there, too.


Alright, what’s the verdict? Am I a right wing, radical nut?
Or am I to your left and therefore a liberal?

Or am I just someone that has a different opinion and viewpoint from you?
mostly the latter. none of your positions are really that radical, imo. i disagree w/ many, btw.

[emw]

Alright, what’s the verdict? Am I a right wing, radical nut?
Or am I to your left and therefore a liberal?

Or am I just someone that has a different opinion and viewpoint from you?

Well, you are definitely someone who apparently has more free time than I do. ;)

You make several good points concerning the relativity of right, and you made some eloquent statements about your points of view that I respect.

I don't have the time to comment on all of your topics, but in general I would say that you have taken the time to think through your positions, and you discuss them in an intelligent manner, which for me is far more indicative of your character than any "right-wing" or "liberal" label.

I would note that you included abortion in your topic list, but not the death penalty. It continues to amaze me how people who are dead-set (no pun intended) against abortion support and promote the death penalty, and vice-versa.

[pseudobrit]

but are they doing so on the left or the right?

Another proponent of lane discipline? It's the law in Pennsylvania. Unless you're in a buggy, then you just trod along in a rut at the edge of the road.

[mactastic]

I'm a little confused how come Darwinists must keep an open mind or they are bad, but if Christians are convinced they are right to the exclusion of others that's ok.

Other than that, you fall more into the social conservative camp from your answers rather than an economic conservative. I consider them more radical than the fiscals. But you aren't out on the Falwell wing of the party or anything.

I agree with you on a few things and disagree with you on most. I guess that makes me a radical tree-hugging socialist/communist liberal nutjob huh?

I'd like to hear how you feel on private property rights, enviroment vs. business priorities, states rights (particularly pertaining to medical marijuana and assisted suicide), the death penalty, and a straight answer on whether you think we did the right thing by invading Iraq.

As long as you're willing to listen, you're not a radical in my book.

[MacDawg]

I would note that you included abortion in your topic list, but not the death penalty. It continues to amaze me how people who are dead-set (no pun intended) against abortion support and promote the death penalty, and vice-versa.

I guess there are several other topics I could have included, but I had to stop somewhere! :)

I do support the death penalty, and I don't see that as a contradiction to my stance on abortion. The major obvious difference is the taking of innocent life (often for expediency) versus the taking of a guilty life. An innocent child's life can be taken virtually on demand, in secret, a decision made without parental consent in some cases, and even without the father's knowledge when it comes to abortion. The death penalty is executed by the 'state' under strict controls and guidelines, usually after many appeals and reexaminations have been exhausted.

Having said that, I don't support wholesale use of the death penalty. I am aware that mistakes are made in our judicial system. However, if guilt is clearly established, and the crime is clearly heinous, then I feel the death penalty is a valid response. I don't support vigilantism, I believe the power rests with the "state". I don't follow the arguement that it is "not a deterrent". Neither is life in prison. The death penalty is a punishment, not a lesson for others, and it is definitely a deterrent to the one who is executed.

Does this make me a right wing nut case now? :)

[katchow]

was that george carlin, pseudo?

[mactastic]

was that george carlin, pseudo?
Yes it was.

[mactastic]

Oh, and how do you feel about fertility clinics?

[wordmunger]

Please explain to me this theory of intelligent design. Most intelligent design proponents spend the majority of their time criticizing evidence for evolution by natural selection. I have yet to see a coherent theory of intelligent design. How can intelligent design be used, for example, to develop new drugs, or fight the AIDS virus? If intelligent design proves to be as valuable a theory as evolution, then I might give it some credence. As of now it simply seems to be a means to replace science instruction with biblical indoctrination. If you can show me that intelligent design is a real scientific theory, then I might believe you are not a right-wing nutcase.

[Taft]

Evolution or Intelligent Design?
Let’s start at the very beginning… a very good place to start. Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism may be the only reasonable explanation of origins for many, but is it truly the only position? Only if you start with the premise that it is the only explanation and are closed to any other position. There are many problems associated with Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism that have been exposed. Many will hold tenaciously to a Darwinian position strictly because of the alternatives, not because of irrefutable evidence. The alternatives may lead to a belief in an intelligent design/Designer, which could mean purpose and accountability to life, and perhaps even an afterlife. Untenable positions for someone who wants to live without restraint, without absolutes and most of all, without ultimate accountability for their actions. Many reputable scientists today in fields of biology, physics, astronomy, etc. are willing to explore other options that undermine Darwinism. Exposing the fallacies of the “icons of evolution” such as the Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin’s Tree of Life, Haeckel’s embryos, and homology leads one to question the very foundations of Darwin’s principles. The advances in the fossil record, DNA research, cellular microbiology and other disciplines since the 1850’s have only served to raise questions for Darwinism, rather than to answer them. The irreducibly complex structures of the eye, the feather, the wing, blood clotting and more are still embarrassing mysteries for Darwinists.

So, wouldn’t it be fair to say that examining the evidence against Darwinism is being open minded in the pursuit of truth? Or, does believing in an intelligent Designer based on evidence that supports it make me a wacko, right wing radical?

OK, I'll start with this. You made an impressive amount of unsubstantiated statements here. For example, the "Miller-Urey experiment" is hardly regarded as without value. Yes, there were problems with the experiment, given today's knowledge of geochemical history. However, that does not make the experiment useless. Further information on why can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey

Additionally, this experiment largely addressed the issue of abiogenesis, which is a distinctly different theory than evolution. This is one of the largest problems in discussing evolution today: people are purposefully trying to obscure the definition of evolution. Abiogenesis is different from "Evolution: the Theory" which is different from "Evolution: the Fact." Yet they are constantly debated as if they were one thing.

"Embarrassing mysteries"? Er, I don't know about that. The problem I have with your whole paragraph on this subject is you throw out a huge amount of completely unsubstantiated statements and then say "so you'd have to be a zealot NOT to question evolution."

Look, the reason that, for some, evolution and creationism cannot co-exist is because of something you said in the next section: religion (and therefore, creationism) is based on faith.

When you chose your religion, you chose to have faith that a certain God exists, that he is almighty, that there are no other Gods, etc. But the decision was largely based on something completely unprovable: faith. What evidence do you have that the Bible is the word of God? What evidence do you have for God's existance? What evidence do you have that Jesus was the son of God? The answer to all those questions HAS to be: little to no evidence. It is a matter of faith. I completely respect that.

But when creating scientific theories, how much value does that faith have? Does faith support arguments about factual matters? How could it? Faith isn't based on fact, it is based on the belief of individuals. Belief has nothing to do with facts.

If you have faith and believe every word of the bible, then God created man as a Human. Humans didn't evolve from anything else, they were put here by God. Done. No matter how much evidence--facts--we mustered up, would we change your faith? Probably not, as your faith isn't based on fact. So you will constantly believe evolution is wrong. Many of these people will actively work to discredit scientific theories (based on observable facts) because they don't sit well with their faith (based on their beliefs, not observable facts).

On the other hand, someone who thinks ONLY in terms of observable facts will try to convince you that, because we have no observable proof, God can't exist. They take the opposite extreme in their lack of spirituality.

But aren't most people somewhere in the middle? Does creationism HAVE to mean "God created man as a human." Why does intelligent design preclude the idea of evolution? Can't a person look at abiogenesis as invalid but believe that God could have created the original biological building blocks of life that we evolved from?

Evolution is an observable fact. Don't believe me, read up on it. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html) Man has witness the phenomenon of evolution as it has happened.

Evolution is also a theory. A theory that many people (including myself) consider to have flaws. WHY and HOW evolution happens is still somewhat up in the air, but the fact that it happens remains unchanged. Given this situation, those of us with BOTH a rational mind and a spiritual side, try to reconcile the two when dealing with evolution. Given that we've seen evolution in action (it is a fact), where does God fit into the process?

Those who believe evolution (as a theory) is 100% right and those who believe their faith precludes the possibility of evolution ARE extremists. Questioning evolution (the theory) is a necessary part of the scientific process and I actively encourage it. And kids SHOULD be taught in school which parts of the theory are solid and which have a shaky foundation. But creationisms? I don't think so. Given that the foundation of creationism assumes a almighty God (read: faith), there is little in the way of observable evidence for it. So if there are no facts supporting creationism, what would we teach the kiddies? From the Bible? Teaching from an article of faith would be tantamount to teaching faith. A big no-no in my book.

Taft

[mactastic]

Let's also distinguish between the teaching of creationism in biology/history classes vs. teaching the creation myth in a literature class.

The first I am against, the second I would support particularly if it was a comparitive class looking at many cultures creation mythos.

[MacDawg]

I'm a little confused how come Darwinists must keep an open mind or they are bad, but if Christians are convinced they are right to the exclusion of others that's ok.

Hmmmmm, I didn't say that I was a Christian, just that I believed in an intelligent designer/God. :) I think both groups probably tend to paint the other into an extreme corner. Most Darwinists I know are not willing to discuss any alternative, which is why I often view them as closed minded. Being persuaded of an opinion is not bad, it is admirable. Being able to clearly deliniate, discuss and defend a position without resorting to name calling or becoming emotional vitriolic is preferred. I have always welcomed two way discourse on issues with supporting data. I don't have all the answers to intelligent design, but I am convinced that Darwinism doesn't provide all of the answers either. I have yet to dialogue with a Darwinist that would admit to the problems they face. Not saying they aren't there, just haven't met them myself.



I'd like to hear how you feel on private property rights, enviroment vs. business priorities, states rights (particularly pertaining to medical marijuana and assisted suicide), the death penalty, and a straight answer on whether you think we did the right thing by invading Iraq.


The death penalty I addressed above in response to another post, but I will try to respond to your other inquiries where I have an opinion.

Private property rights
Not sure the emphasis here, but I believe in owning property as opposed to a more socialistic/communistic approach (capitalism so to speak). I believe citizens have the right to own and control their property.

Not asked, but related... gun control
I am not a member of the NRA, but I do own my own guns: handguns (.357 loaded, .22), rifles (.30-.30, .22) and shotguns (.410, 20 gauge). I have never pointed one at another person. Nor have I shot and killed an animal. Not that I wouldn't, but just haven't. (I prefer fishing, catch and release BTW). I do believe in the right to bear arms. I don't go around saying things like "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns" or anything, but I do believe it is a fundamental right. As far as assault weapons and bans... I'm afraid I don't really know all of the legislation involved. Call me ignorant. I don't think a hunter needs an automatic weapon, but I understand the slippery slope of legislation. In my opinion, most of the laws enacted in reponse to gun 'events' like Columbine, et. al. don't really hinder those type of events.

enviroment vs. business priorities
I think we are to be good stewards of the enviroment, but not slaves to it. From what I know of the Alaska Wildlife Refuge issue and oil drilling, which admittedly is not much, I don't see a problem with it. To me, balance is the key. I think for most of us though, we don't ever get all of the information because of all of the propoganda that comes from both sides.

states rights (particularly pertaining to medical marijuana and assisted suicide
For the most part, I favor states rights. There are cases where Federal laws are helpful for consistency, and we are seeing some of those inconsistencies with the marriage laws, which will create chaos if you are married in some states but not in others.

When it comes to medical marijuana, we do use other drugs for medicinal purposes. However, it must be conceded that the potential for abuse when it comes to marijuana would be high. I think there is a lot of propoganda on both sides of this issue as well, but I would not be in favor of medical marijuana without strict, and I mean strict guidelines and supervision, and only if other alternatives are not available. I don't want to be cold and uncaring to anyone's suffering, but the slope here is awful slippery too.

As far as assisted suicide, I am not in favor of this either. And I am no stranger to the suffering. I watched my mother suffer and die from lung cancer. It was ugly. But I value life as precious, and the potential of abuse with euthanasia is too great a risk in my opinion. I understand the desire to die with dignity, but I feel the medical community should be trusted as healers, not as enablers. Soylent Green is people!!

a straight answer on whether you think we did the right thing by invading Iraq
We probably should have taken care of things the first time around in the original Gulf War... but you wanted a straight answer.

The staight one word answer is "no".

The longer explained version is, "not when we did". I was not and am not opposed to military action in Iraq (or other places if warranted). I would have preferred to wear him down more, isolate and marginalize him more, and build more world support, especially in the Muslim community. I would not and did not favor more inspectors and propoganda, more dialogue, or lifting of sanctions. The situation needed attention, I would have waited longer I think.

Having said that, I do not think the war is just for oil or the control of oil. And I do believe that in the end, the Iraqi people will be better off. With that in mind, I would support finishing the job ASAP and getting the hell out.

I think that was all I needed to address :)

So does this make me more of a wingnut?

[takao]

-hm i' think that evolution comes pretty close to realtiy
-i have nothing against religion as long as it keeps it's fingers out of my live or politics
-i'm against prayers in school but have no problem with the religous education every group gets seperated in public school because it keeps religion out of other subjects
-i'm pro abortion untill a certain time of pregnacy
-i'm pro limited stem cel lresearch but against cloning of complete humans (but i wouldn't have a problem with cloning of human organs like livers etc. in labs)
-i have no problems with gay marriage, because it doesn't affect me at all
-taxes are taxes ...
-iraq thing perhaps the right thing in the end but completly shortsighted planned and with perhaps shady motives for the whole thing
-i understand that some vote for bush but i wouldn't vote for him
-i have t-shirts with "us-army"(black),"moscow 80"(red)

what does this make me ?

[emw]

I guess there are several other topics I could have included, but I had to stop somewhere! :)

I do support the death penalty, and I don't see that as a contradiction to my stance on abortion. The major obvious difference is the taking of innocent life (often for expediency) versus the taking of a guilty life. An innocent child's life can be taken virtually on demand, in secret, a decision made without parental consent in some cases, and even without the father's knowledge when it comes to abortion. The death penalty is executed by the 'state' under strict controls and guidelines, usually after many appeals and reexaminations have been exhausted.

Having said that, I don't support wholesale use of the death penalty. I am aware that mistakes are made in our judicial system. However, if guilt is clearly established, and the crime is clearly heinous, then I feel the death penalty is a valid response. I don't support vigilantism, I believe the power rests with the "state". I don't follow the arguement that it is "not a deterrent". Neither is life in prison. The death penalty is a punishment, not a lesson for others, and it is definitely a deterrent to the one who is executed.

Does this make me a right wing nut case now? :)

Isn't there a commandment somewhere about "Thou shalt not kill"? I don't remember a distinction that says it's okay if someone is "guilty." How can you contend that you are driven by faith, but ignore it on this topic?

I am also frustrated by those who make statements about Islamic fanatics killing "in the name of Allah" is against the very premise of that religion, then in the same breath say something like "God bless America in our battle against terrorism." We can't have it both ways.

BTW - I don't think you are a nut case. Right wing, yes. Different viewpoints, definitely. Nut case, probably not - you use a Mac, after all. ;)

[mactastic]

So, wouldn’t it be fair to say that examining the evidence against Darwinism is being open minded in the pursuit of truth?
vs

If after exploring possibilities (open mindedness), one embraces a position of faith to the exclusion of others, wouldn’t that be logical?

I'm curious about these two statements. The first suggests that questioning assumptions is the way to truth, which I happen to agree with. But then how is a Darwinist who has explored the possibilities, and embraced a position (opposite yours) to the exclusion of others, wrong for doing just what you suggest to do with creationism?

Also, are you as concerned with the potention abuse of Oxycontin like you are with the potential abuse of marijuana?

[pdham]

As Taft said, I think it is very important to distinguish between the various types of origins and development of species when discussing the topic. May I suggest three categories: abiogenesis; which is the origin of life, i.e. premordial soup. Macroevolution (I know this isnt the best term); which would be the eveolution, via Darwin's principle, from protozoa through monkey to man. And Microevolution; the observable changes in species. i.e. the different kinds of finch on the different Gallopagous (sp?) islands, or the white to black to white moth of the English industrial revolution.

Personally I do not have faith in abiogenesis or "Macroevolution", but absolutely feel that microevo. occurs around us daily (obviously slowly).

Paul

[Taft]

When it comes to medical marijuana, we do use other drugs for medicinal purposes. However, it must be conceded that the potential for abuse when it comes to marijuana would be high. I think there is a lot of propoganda on both sides of this issue as well, but I would not be in favor of medical marijuana without strict, and I mean strict guidelines and supervision, and only if other alternatives are not available. I don't want to be cold and uncaring to anyone's suffering, but the slope here is awful slippery too.

I'll focus on this line: "However, it must be conceded that the potential for abuse when it comes to marijuana would be high."

Two words for you: prove it.

Also, what constitutes abuse? Is using marijuana recreationally considered abuse? Why, when using alcohol recreationally is not? Do you think that marijuana is more addictive or prone to abuse than, say, Tylanol with Codine or alcohol? If so, prove it (hint: it isn't).

It sounds to me as though your sole objection to marijuana is a moral one (ie. you think drug abuse is "wrong"). If that is the case, then I'd think you would be campaigning against alcohol/tobacco use. Why not? And how do you explain the fact that marijuana is less addictive/prone to abuse than either alcohol or tobacco and yet it is illegal while the other two are legal? Seems like a strange double standard to me.

Want the facts on marijuana's addictive properties as compared to other drugs? Visit this link: http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

Taft

[MacDawg]

OK, I'll start with this. You made an impressive amount of unsubstantiated statements here...

Didn't want to take the space to list your whole quote, but you made some very good points and valid distinctions.

First, my unsubstantiated statements were merely that, statements, not arguments and defenses. Time and space precluded a detailed analysis of all that was said.

However, if I read your post right, I do believe that there is a lot of common ground between us.

You are right, I did lump all of evolution into one basket, and that was probably unfair on my part, but again, forgive me for lack of time and space in doing so.

There are distinctions to be made between the origin of life itself (which Darwin really did not address as far as I understand it), and the development of life beyond the first life. The Miller-Urey experiment is far too often used as a "proof" of evolution/origin, when indeed it is not. That was the point I was trying to make.

As far as evolution beyond first life... yes, there is evidence of evolution, but within limits. The gaps between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, reptile and man, reptile and bird are huge gaps that have never been demonstrated and no valid sequence between them proposed. Natural selection, mutation and such have proven inadequate to explain the irreducible complexities of things such as the eye, the feather, the wing, blood clotting and so forth.

While faith is faith, it is not necessarily baseless. Faith can take into account many things.

I may come back to this, but looks like I have some other responses to answer...

[MacDawg]

Isn't there a commandment somewhere about "Thou shalt not kill"? I don't remember a distinction that says it's okay if someone is "guilty." How can you contend that you are driven by faith, but ignore it on this topic?

I am also frustrated by those who make statements about Islamic fanatics killing "in the name of Allah" is against the very premise of that religion, then in the same breath say something like "God bless America in our battle against terrorism." We can't have it both ways.

BTW - I don't think you are a nut case. Right wing, yes. Different viewpoints, definitely. Nut case, probably not - you use a Mac, after all. ;)

The Biblical commandment you refer to is translated from the Hebrew in the King James Version as "thou shalt not kill". The Hebrew word used here is "murder". The same Bible that gives that commandment, also advocates the death penalty in certain cases, but specifically because of murder. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" Genesis 9:6

However, I was not intending to make this a Bible/Christian thread.

I think the suggested differences in the "killings" would be the terrorists attacks on innocent civilians, versus an army's war waged on another army or terrorist group. Indirect warfare vs. direct.

[zimv20]

Another proponent of lane discipline?
big time. driving in germany is pure joy compared to here.

then there was that bizarre driving style in hungary -- it was a two-lane highway. but everyone drive halfway on the shoulder, leaving what amounted to a single passing lane in the center. cars from both directions were cooperative in letting the speedier cars through.

[pseudobrit]

First, my unsubstantiated statements were merely that, statements, not arguments and defenses.

Hmm... sounds like you put more effort into believing what you know than knowing what you believe.

[pseudobrit]

big time. driving in germany is pure joy compared to here.

then there was that bizarre driving style in hungary -- it was a two-lane highway. but everyone drive halfway on the shoulder, leaving what amounted to a single passing lane in the center. cars from both directions were cooperative in letting the speedier cars through.

My Hungarian friend taught me the style of which you speak. I've practiced a hybrid version of it (the aggressive parts) blended with German discipline ever since and have yet to have a single accident.

Then there's this Czech fellow I know who runs cold red lights at highway speeds and uses every lane of the road to get where he's going. It's stunningly suicidal, but somehow he's never been killed or caught.

[MacDawg]

vs


I'm curious about these two statements. The first suggests that questioning assumptions is the way to truth, which I happen to agree with. But then how is a Darwinist who has explored the possibilities, and embraced a position (opposite yours) to the exclusion of others, wrong for doing just what you suggest to do with creationism?

Also, are you as concerned with the potention abuse of Oxycontin like you are with the potential abuse of marijuana?

I kinda made the same point myself within my first post about exclusive religions being considered arrogant, but Darwinists not. I agree with your point. What I am advocating in the thread is open dialogue and discussion without name calling and emotional vitriolic responses. BTW, seems like we are getting good dialogue, so that is nice. My original point was that neither side should hold their position without exploring options and weighing evidence. Holding a position because a parent or teacher says so isn't valid. Know what you believe, and why is all I'm saying.


As far as oxycontin (http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/oxycontin/default.htm) is concerned, I must confess that I had to Google it to find out what it was :o It would be premature for me to offer an opinion I suppose, but "yes", I would be concerned about abuse from what I just read on the FDA site (propoganda?)

[Taft]

I may come back to this, but looks like I have some other responses to answer...

You know, it is interesting. We are two different people, but both (comparatively) critical thinkers. You edge more to intelligent design and I edge more towards evolution. Because of that, I think we both make generalizations about the "other side" which are unfair.

An example: because you edge more toward intelligent design, you get annoyed that the "other side" tends to use simple experiments to "prove" evolution. But I bet you don't get as annoyed when a creationist dismisses all of evolution on shaky arguments which misrepresent what evolution is. I, on the other hand, tend not to get very agitated when a pro-evolution pundit, validates evolution with shaky arguments, but tend to get annoyed when someone misrepresents evolution in order to dismiss it.

The point: our bias is showing.

I think we are all so focused on the "us vs. them" mentality that we immediately presume the other person is the "nut case" you are talking about. I just wonder how many bona fide "nut cases" there really are. Why are we so focused on the "us vs. them" mentality.

Taft

[MacDawg]

As Taft said, I think it is very important to distinguish between the various types of origins and development of species when discussing the topic. May I suggest three categories: abiogenesis; which is the origin of life, i.e. premordial soup. Macroevolution (I know this isnt the best term); which would be the eveolution, via Darwin's principle, from protozoa through monkey to man. And Microevolution; the observable changes in species. i.e. the different kinds of finch on the different Gallopagous (sp?) islands, or the white to black to white moth of the English industrial revolution.

Personally I do not have faith in abiogenesis or "Macroevolution", but absolutely feel that microevo. occurs around us daily (obviously slowly).

Paul

Well said Paul, and as I answered later, I did lump it all together in my haste, but your 3 categories are valid as far as I'm concerned, and I agree with your analysis (though the Peppered Moth is an interesting story).

[amnesiac1984]

If this universe was created by an intelligent designer i think he did it on a spirograph. :p Seriously though whats with his/her/its obsession with spirals?

And if this intelligent design is so perfect and holy in all its glory then why can't I smoke some of its most wonderful flora/fauna without fearing persecution by society?

[MacDawg]

I'll focus on this line: "However, it must be conceded that the potential for abuse when it comes to marijuana would be high."

Two words for you: prove it.

Also, what constitutes abuse? Is using marijuana recreationally considered abuse? Why, when using alcohol recreationally is not? Do you think that marijuana is more addictive or prone to abuse than, say, Tylanol with Codine or alcohol? If so, prove it (hint: it isn't).

It sounds to me as though your sole objection to marijuana is a moral one (ie. you think drug abuse is "wrong"). If that is the case, then I'd think you would be campaigning against alcohol/tobacco use. Why not? And how do you explain the fact that marijuana is less addictive/prone to abuse than either alcohol or tobacco and yet it is illegal while the other two are legal? Seems like a strange double standard to me.

Want the facts on marijuana's addictive properties as compared to other drugs? Visit this link: http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

Taft

Yes, I would consider using marijuana recreationally "abuse" because in the US it is currently illegal.

Do I think it is more addictive? No, I don't. Do I think it is destructive, or at least potentially debilitating and therefore dangerous to the user and to others? Yes.

Do I think alcohol and tobacco fall in that category too? Yes
Yes, it is a double standard, because right now society will not support prohibition of alcohol, but tobacco is certainly under fire (no pun intended).

Gosh, I guess that does make me a right wing radical nut case!

[MacDawg]

Hmm... sounds like you put more effort into believing what you know than knowing what you believe.

Limitations of a bulletin board to post on, with time at hand.
I made statements to start a discussion, not a dissertation to defend a position... though that might come later :)

[Taft]

Yes, I would consider using marijuana recreationally "abuse" because in the US it is currently illegal.

Do I think it is more addictive? No, I don't. Do I think it is destructive, or at least potentially debilitating and therefore dangerous to the user and to others? Yes.

Do I think alcohol and tobacco fall in that category too? Yes
Yes, it is a double standard, because right now society will not support prohibition of alcohol, but tobacco is certainly under fire (no pun intended).

Gosh, I guess that does make me a right wing radical nut case!

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you would support prohibition of alcohol and tobacco? If so, it would interest me greatly how you support that position.

Taft

[MacDawg]

You know, it is interesting. We are two different people, but both (comparatively) critical thinkers. You edge more to intelligent design and I edge more towards evolution. Because of that, I think we both make generalizations about the "other side" which are unfair.

An example: because you edge more toward intelligent design, you get annoyed that the "other side" tends to use simple experiments to "prove" evolution. But I bet you don't get as annoyed when a creationist dismisses all of evolution on shaky arguments which misrepresent what evolution is. I, on the other hand, tend not to get very agitated when a pro-evolution pundit, validates evolution with shaky arguments, but tend to get annoyed when someone misrepresents evolution in order to dismiss it.

The point: our bias is showing.

I think we are all so focused on the "us vs. them" mentality that we immediately presume the other person is the "nut case" you are talking about. I just wonder how many bona fide "nut cases" there really are. Why are we so focused on the "us vs. them" mentality.

Taft

I think you are right in your observations.

Unfortunately, creationism is viewed in a negative context as Bible thumping, ignorant, uniformed idiots. Who wants to be viewed in that light.

Many scientists today who are exploring alternatives to Darwinism are doing so under the moniker of intellegent design instead because of that stigma. They are not necessarily seeking an alternative out of choice, but they feel out of necessity. They feel that Darwinism doesn't offer the answers, so maybe there is another solution.

I think you found the point of my thread... most of us are not at either extreme end, most of us are closer to each other in the middle than we like to admit.

[mactastic]

Yes, I would consider using marijuana recreationally "abuse" because in the US it is currently illegal.

Do I think it is more addictive? No, I don't. Do I think it is destructive, or at least potentially debilitating and therefore dangerous to the user and to others? Yes.

Do I think alcohol and tobacco fall in that category too? Yes
Yes, it is a double standard, because right now society will not support prohibition of alcohol, but tobacco is certainly under fire (no pun intended).


To fix that double standard, would you legalize weed, or would you criminalize alchohol/tobacco?

Also, abuse is independant of legality. Something legal can be abused just as easily as something illegal. Calling recreational use 'abuse' because it's illegal doesn't wash. That suggests that recreational use in Amsterdam is not abuse, but the same act here is.

[katchow]

I think the suggested differences in the "killings" would be the terrorists attacks on innocent civilians, versus an army's war waged on another army or terrorist group. Indirect warfare vs. direct.

i suppose you could define "innocent" in a few ways. what do you call a nation pre-emptively attacked based on false charges?

[mactastic]

i suppose you could define "innocent" in a few ways. what do you call a nation pre-emptively attacked based on false charges?

I was going to comment on this also. When the US kills innocents in pursuit of a larger tactical or strategic target, it is collateral damage. Yet when a Palestinian blows themselves up on a bus with Israeli soldiers on it, it's terrorism.

[MacDawg]

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you would support prohibition of alcohol and tobacco? If so, it would interest me greatly how you support that position.

Taft

Would I be in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco? Yes, I would personally favor it. Would I suggest it? No. Society won't support it, or enforce it, which is why alcohol prohibition failed to begin with. What I believe is best, is not what society is willing to enforce. That is true of a great many things.

I think the health risks of tobacco are fairly well documented, though some would challenge them I suppose. (My daughter still thinks we didn't land on the moon too). Yet people smoke, and will continue to do so. There may come a time when those numbers diminish, and all of our health will improve. There may even come a time when it is not profitable to produce cigarettes, but I doubt it. I think it will always be with us, but in a much more limited form as we see more and more places 'smoke free'.

In my opinion, the dangers of alcohol outweigh any good (if there is any). The affect on the body, the dangers of driving, the loss of work time, health problems, etc. all argue against alcohol use in my opinion. A person who drinks can never be sure that he isn't too drunk to drive. A person who never takes a drink will never have that problem (although they admittedly may have others!) But we will never see prohibition again, I think that is fairly safe to say.

Its funny though, I work with many who drink. While I never say anything about it... they always do. They are indignant when I don't order a drink, and they will sometimes make it an "issue". I try to avoid the discussion. I even had one coworker secretly try to photograph me getting a drink on an airplane in first class since it would be free (assuming that I would certainly take advantage of it). I didn't, and he told me later about it.

I think alcohol and tobacco are both health issues, but they are acceptable to society, so there isn't much that can be done about it. The answer isn't legislation to me, any more than legislation against pornography is the answer. (Not saying we shouldn't have laws... we should, they just aren't the answer).

What is the answer?

Changed lives

[mactastic]

There is a difference between being personally opposed to something and legislating that everyone follow your viewpoint. I think you'd make that point if a tree-hugger suggested we ban SUVs. Yet I think you would support outlawing gay marriage, correct?

[MacDawg]

To fix that double standard, would you legalize weed, or would you criminalize alchohol/tobacco?

Also, abuse is independant of legality. Something legal can be abused just as easily as something illegal. Calling recreational use 'abuse' because it's illegal doesn't wash. That suggests that recreational use in Amsterdam is not abuse, but the same act here is.

Touche

You are correct. Abuse in that context is independent of legality.

[MacDawg]

i suppose you could define "innocent" in a few ways. what do you call a nation pre-emptively attacked based on false charges?

If you are implying the claim of WMD, I don't think that was the only reason for war. And in that regard, I have already stated my position on Iraq above.

[MacDawg]

I was going to comment on this also. When the US kills innocents in pursuit of a larger tactical or strategic target, it is collateral damage. Yet when a Palestinian blows themselves up on a bus with Israeli soldiers on it, it's terrorism.

I suppose it is true that one man's terrorist can be seen as another man's freedom fighter.

I'm not sure that the two examples listed above are equal though.

I tend to believe that the collateral damage of the terrorist IS part of the intention, it is the leverage, the attention getting device.

War is not being fought as it once was, on conventional battlefields. It has evolved from the days of armies lining up in rows to fight, to the trenches of WWI and the air battles of WWII through the jungles of Viet Nam to the "smart bombs". Now the weapon of choice is terrorism. Terrorism fights on the field of public opinion, not the battlefield of what was once considered conventional war.

That is why the beheadings are shown on the 'net. To sway opinion when one is at a military disadvantage. Win the war of public opinion, you don't need the military advantage.

[mactastic]

Terrorism has always been the weapon of choice for the hopelessly outnumbered/outgunned. It's not a new phenomonon. Webcasts are just a new twist on an old theme.

Have we been doing a good job at winning the 'real war' that you speak of? (PR)

[MacDawg]

There is a difference between being personally opposed to something and legislating that everyone follow your viewpoint. I think you'd make that point if a tree-hugger suggested we ban SUVs. Yet I think you would support outlawing gay marriage, correct?

I am not advocating the legislation against alcohol or tobacco, though I personally abstain from both.

I do like my SUV :)

When it comes to gay marriage, I personally feel that homosexuality is morally wrong. I am not a gay basher, and I interact with gay men and women regularly. I personally think that recognition of gay marriage will come eventually, though not soon, and not easily. Civil unions and corporate recognition bothy are paving the way, and as soon as the conscience of society will tolerate it, it will move forward. Right now, the vote in 11 states shows that society is not ready for it.

When it comes, it will not bring the end of the world, any more than Ellen Degeneris did with her sitcom, or Rosie did, or any more than O'Hura's racial kiss on Star Trek did. It will pass as a moral lightning rod.

Outlawing gay marriage will not be a long term defensable position in society, and it is not something that I want to hang my hat on.

[MacDawg]

Terrorism has always been the weapon of choice for the hopelessly outnumbered/outgunned. It's not a new phenomonon. Webcasts are just a new twist on an old theme.

Have we been doing a good job at winning the 'real war' that you speak of? (PR)

True, it isn't new, it is just more noticable in the day in which we live.

It will be interesting to see how history judges the US war on terrorism. I think the reviews right now are mixed. I think if we don't get out of Iraq soon, the negatives will far outweigh any good that has been done, and the claims of imperialism, oil grabbing, etc. will hound this administration for 4 more years.

I would withhold judgment for a while longer. I think much of Bin Laden's regime has been neutralized, though I would like to see him taken. Iraq is sticky, and we have to find a way out now. What the future holds, who knows. What would another attack produce by way of response??

[katchow]

If you are implying the claim of WMD, I don't think that was the only reason for war. And in that regard, I have already stated my position on Iraq above.

i know, after the wmd's fell through it seemed a little like dial-a-reason...

and it may be, but for me, w/o the wmd's i have a hard time understanding in what way the iraqi people were guilty.

and for the sake of this discussion i will forgo the strange notion that its only ok for the u.s. to posess weapons to blow up the world.

sorry to steer things off track...no reply needed.

[Thanatoast]

I think the suggested differences in the "killings" would be the terrorists attacks on innocent civilians, versus an army's war waged on another army or terrorist group. Indirect warfare vs. direct.
This is a fine distinction, except that our army is not fighting their army. Our army is fighting in an area loosely defined, against everyone in that area that looks suspicious. Not to mention that civilians often get caught in the crossfire, and when they aren't, their homes and businesses are.

As for the distinction itself, I think it is invalid. Waging war is hardly more murder on a massive scale. Murder in the name of patriotism and defending your country is still murder. What's more, Jesus came along and said "be groovy to eachother". He was subsequently nailed to a tree, but I never heard a bible verse quoting Jesus saying, "you may kill those who do you wrong". It was always "turn the other cheek", wasn't it?

[mactastic]

To my mind, Bush is the WORST person to try and wage a PR war, which you said, and I agree, is the most important part of winning against a popular guerilla insurgency. The go-it-alone attitude and the cowboy diplomacy work against the goal of winning hearts and minds.

That's on major reason I voted for Kerry. Looks like the same facts led us to different conclusions.

[MacDawg]

i know, after the wmd's fell through it seemed a little like dial-a-reason...

and it may be, but for me, w/o the wmd's i have a hard time understanding in what way the iraqi people were guilty.

and for the sake of this discussion i will forgo the strange notion that its only ok for the u.s. to posess weapons to blow up the world.

sorry to steer things off track...no reply needed.

That is why I stated above that I felt like we should have waited longer, exerted more pressure, alienated and marginalized S. Hussein. The WMD would have been the clincher for sure, but there was much wrong there with the gassings, et. al. But was invasion the answer? I don't know. I wouldn't have pulled the trigger so early, I don't think, but hindsight is 20-20. What if you don't go in, and we get hit with WMD? We would be talking about how much of a wimp W was for not going in and kicking butt before we got hit again.

As far as the Iraqi people being guilty, I think most would say that as a whole they were not... they were victims.

And you raise a very valid point about the US having them and others can't, unless we approve (or you got them before we could kick your butt). I try to look at it from the other side and I feel like I would demand my sovereignty too. Same with elections and such. J. Carter goes to oversee elections in other countries, and now in our election, other countries want to oversee ours. Hmmmmmmm I didn't go for that. Don't like other countries telling me who to vote for either. :)

I guess its a little like King of the Hill. If you don't like the way the US is treating the world, about the only way to stop it is to eat your Wheaties and take a punch. I don't think that is fair to the rest of the world, but don't know how to change it either. I don't think the Kerry approach of a global test is sound.

As I mentioned before from the Spiderman movie, "with great power, comes great responsibility".

The US needs to do a good job, a better job of living up to that.

[mactastic]

I would have preferred Kerry said a 'global SMELL test' rather than an actual test. And you all know he never meant that he would cede authority to strike first to the UN or anyone else. He only meant that we NEED to be right when we invoke first-strike rights.

WRT the war timetable, do you feel the war timing was at all influenced by GOP politics rather than what was best for the outcome?

[MacDawg]

This is a fine distinction, except that our army is not fighting their army. Our army is fighting in an area loosely defined, against everyone in that area that looks suspicious. Not to mention that civilians often get caught in the crossfire, and when they aren't, their homes and businesses are.

As for the distinction itself, I think it is invalid. Waging war is hardly more murder on a massive scale. Murder in the name of patriotism and defending your country is still murder. What's more, Jesus came along and said "be groovy to eachother". He was subsequently nailed to a tree, but I never heard a bible verse quoting Jesus saying, "you may kill those who do you wrong". It was always "turn the other cheek", wasn't it?

Which is why I said war waged on another army or terrorist group. Admittedly it makes it much tougher for the reasons you stated. The human shield has always been a difficult nut to crack.

There is no army involved, no government to surrender, no peace to win.

I will admit that war is difficult problem, even from a Biblical perspective, with many issues involved.

[MacDawg]

To my mind, Bush is the WORST person to try and wage a PR war, which you said, and I agree, is the most important part of winning against a popular guerilla insurgency. The go-it-alone attitude and the cowboy diplomacy work against the goal of winning hearts and minds.

That's on major reason I voted for Kerry. Looks like the same facts led us to different conclusions.

I think the PR war is at least a draw right now. That is evidenced by the Bush election. It can still go either way.

[MacDawg]

I would have preferred Kerry said a 'global SMELL test' rather than an actual test. And you all know he never meant that he would cede authority to strike first to the UN or anyone else. He only meant that we NEED to be right when we invoke first-strike rights.

WRT the war timetable, do you feel the war timing was at all influenced by GOP politics rather than what was best for the outcome?

Unfortunately I think politics affect every decision. I wouldn't blindly follow either party or candidate. I think both feel their agenda is more important than the people.

A lot of good people voted both ways.
The ones we hear about are the fringe.

[mactastic]

I think the PR war is at least a draw right now. That is evidenced by the Bush election. It can still go either way.

The people whom we are waging the PR war on cannot vote in the US. Saying Bush's reelection is evidence the PR war is going well misses the point. The PR war isn't being waged on Americans. Well maybe some propaganda, but I'm talking about convincing Iraqis and Arabs generally that we have good intentions. Polling them shows a woeful lack of goodwill towards us. In that respect I don't see how you can call the PR war a draw.

After 9/11 I was very hopeful because Bush hired some ad exec lady to head up a 'hearts and minds' campaign in the Arab world. I gave him big points for recognizing the need and taking that initiative. But it didn't go anywhere.

As far as politics affecting every decision, did you buy the 'flop-flop' line from the GOP?

I remind you, you said He blew with the winds of the polls. He said whatever anybody wanted to hear. up front.

[MacDawg]

Oh, and how do you feel about fertility clinics?

You know, I have a lot of mixed emotions about this. I know several couples personally who have children through InVitro, but I struggle with it. I do so because I know that more embryos are produced than will be used. How do you reconcile that with abortion? How do you reconcile that with embryonic stem cell? To say its OK because we are doing it for a good cause, to have a baby... well, that's not a real good argument.

I know in some cases, clinics are now only producing as many embryos as they can implant. That's a better solution to me, but even then, the expectation is that more will be implanted than will survive.

All reproductive issues are highly charged, from birth control to fertility enhancement, because we are entering a mysterious, unknown world, and whether you believe in God or not, you begin playing God.

It is interesting that you asked that, because many who oppose abortion never give a thought to this other end. They don't even know it is an issue.

[MacDawg]

The people whom we are waging the PR war on cannot vote in the US. Saying Bush's reelection is evidence the PR war is going well misses the point. The PR war isn't being waged on Americans. Well maybe some propaganda, but I'm talking about convincing Iraqis and Arabs generally that we have good intentions. Polling them shows a woeful lack of goodwill towards us. In that respect I don't see how you can call the PR war a draw.

After 9/11 I was very hopeful because Bush hired some ad exec lady to head up a 'hearts and minds' campaign in the Arab world. I gave him big points for recognizing the need and taking that initiative. But it didn't go anywhere.

As far as politics affecting every decision, did you buy the 'flop-flop' line from the GOP?

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

Yes, in that regard, I would say we are losing the PR war at this time. Is it salvageble? Maybe. But right now our only choice is to dance with the one that brung us. I think the best course now is to move quickly toward elections and show good faith by getting out. Let them struggle and solve their own problems and learn to walk.

The differences in ideologies between the Muslim world and the US are staggering. And while the Muslim world may equate the US with the Christian world, I would hardly characterize the US as a Christian nation. It is a nation with many Christians, but not truly a Christian nation.

Has Bush created more terrorists than he has eliminated? I think that would be a fair question. But in reality, these are pretty much uncharted waters, so I've chosen to give him some leeway. I felt the alternative with Kerry would have been worse, and not just with the war.

I think the US is having to learn a valuable lesson that the PR war is just as important, if not more important than the military war. We excel in the military and technology. We need to learn to be responsible with that power.

[mactastic]

Dammit, we swore we'd learned that lesson in 1975. We shouldn't need to learn it again.

And what if we get out and Iraq 10 years from now looks like Afghanistan did in 2000? Are we really prepared to let actual democracy happen in Iraq if it goes against our strategic interests?

[MacDawg]

Dammit, we swore we'd learned that lesson in 1975. We shouldn't need to learn it again.

And what if we get out and Iraq 10 years from now looks like Afghanistan did in 2000? Are we really prepared to let actual democracy happen in Iraq if it goes against our strategic interests?

Unfortunately I have to learn a lot of lessons over again. My wife reminds me of that all of the time. At least we were allowed to do a better job with the military war this time :rolleyes:

I think it is a valid question to ask about how far we are going to let them govern themselves. The cultures are so different.

[MacDawg]

I guess I wasted enough time at work today :rolleyes:

Thanks guys and gals (how do you really tell?)

But I still don't know if I am a right wing, radical, nut case or not :p

[zimv20]

Thanks guys and gals (how do you really tell?)

i think the test is: anyone not named Neserk is a guy.

:-)

[emw]

I guess I wasted enough time at work today :rolleyes:

Thanks guys and gals (how do you really tell?)

But I still don't know if I am a right wing, radical, nut case or not :p

Right wing, yes. Radical, probably not. Nut case, no. Unless you count being a Georgia fan. Go Illini!

Besides, you got us all talking fairly intelligently, which is always a bonus.

[skunk]

i think the test is: anyone not named Neserk is a guy.

:-)
Those were the days. But remember Slytron's sister, California? and there's Dotnina and the Venerable Vniow...

[IJ Reilly]

Right wing, yes. Radical, probably not. Nut case, no. Unless you count being a Georgia fan. Go Illini!

Besides, you got us all talking fairly intelligently, which is always a bonus.

Agreed. Quite a few people of the conservative persuasion have been banned from these boards over the past couple of years, but I have no reason to think MacDawg will be. For my money, an inability to stay within the bounds of the board rules is the first test of whether a person is a radical nut-case.

[MacDawg]

Right wing, yes. Radical, probably not. Nut case, no. Unless you count being a Georgia fan. Go Illini!

Besides, you got us all talking fairly intelligently, which is always a bonus.

Your #3 Illini are up 41-26 on #1 Wake with 4 minutes left in the half. Not bad emw, not bad at all. Good luck on the basketball season. I know you are glad football is over!

EDIT: Illini 91 Wake 73

Good job!

[MacDawg]

Those were the days. But remember Slytron's sister, California? and there's Dotnina and the Venerable Vniow...

Haven't seen neserk or vniow around lately.
Actually, I miss vniow :( . I do see Dotnina some.

According to MacFan26's smiling picture in the MacRumors pics thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1143073#post1143073), and the MacRumors Photo Directory (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=41568) she certainly qualifies as "not a guy".

[Sun Baked]

Re: Am I a right wing, radical, nut case?

Sometimes it's hard not to answer the question in the title. :p

MacDawg, if you think you are a nut case... I'm not going to council you otherwise on your mental health. :cool:

Of course it could have nothing to do with mental health, you could after all be a two-legged squirrel -- or like dressing up like one.

[skunk]

My, you lot have been busy while I was asleep. Good thread.

I know it's been flogged to death already, but this Creationism vs Evolution argument: is it my imagination, or is it exclusively about the Jewish/Muslim/Christian version of creation? Or am I missing something? It seems to me that there's simple cultural imperialism at work here. We are born without religion: the vast majority of the world's population merely follow their parents' faith. In a world created by an almighty deity, how can more than half the population be simply discounted? What kind of world is that? To me, it reeks of fascism, although the holders of such beliefs would never recognize it as such. Jesus, and others, talked of loving thy neighbour, turning the other cheek and rejecting materialism. These ideals are completely incompatible with the institutions of our society, so we are left to try to practise them only on a personal level. As soon as they impinge on our commercial, political, military or national ambitions, they become invisible. If there is a hell, most of us are going there.

[brap]

Kudos for offering qualified accounts. Rather brave, considering you must know these boards are overwhelmingly liberal.

I have to say even though I'm diametrically against your position on most things mentioned, it's an interesting insight into how the more 'rational' Republican feels, and why this is so. 'Most we ever see, hear, and read about here are cliché NRA gun-o-philes, that Benny evangelist bloke, and George W. Bush... the outstanding example was on election night. BBC reporter goes into a bowling alley in Ohio, asks which way people voted. 3 of the respondents said they voted Bush because they felt it was right by God ("I'm a good Christian, so I voted Bush"). It's all about the [mis]-information.

Now, lose the SUV and we'll talk! :)

[vniow]

Actually, I miss vniow :(

Whaaa?!?

[skunk]

Feel better now? :)

[mactastic]

Unfortunately I have to learn a lot of lessons over again. My wife reminds me of that all of the time. At least we were allowed to do a better job with the military war this time :rolleyes:

I think it is a valid question to ask about how far we are going to let them govern themselves. The cultures are so different.


But the Army has a damn War College where they are supposed to study the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them. Somehow I doubt your wife has a similar 'husband college'. Of course, the military were the ones who said we needed twice the troop strength we got. It was the civilian leadership at the Pentagon that decided to try their light-and-fast strategy rather than stick to the proven 'Powell Doctrine'. Just today we are hearing that more service members will be required to stay past the length of their terms in Iraq. The 82nd Airborn will be deploying one of its rapid reaction brigades to help prepare for the elections. This administration's stubborn insistance that we have enough troops is wearing thin.

I think it's a valid question about how far we are going to let them govern themselves too. And so far no one has been able to provide any kind of answer. If Iraqis were given a (free) choice today we would see an Islamic state unfirendly to the US take shape. Possibly supporting terrorism in a much more substantial way than paying the families of suicide bombers some money after they committed their deed. Then what do we do? Do we install a puppet gov't and hope the rest of the Arab world doesn't notice? Or do we let all the American lives and money go for naught and stand aside, letting the Iraqis control their own destiny even if that means clandestine if not outright support for the 'freedom fighters' that we call 'terrorists' here? I don't see any possibility now that Iraqis will freely elect a leader who is friendly to the US, not the least because of our ham-handed occupation tactics.

Would you support an occupier who had 'fessed up to torturing some of your comrades?

[skunk]

Then what do we do? Do we install a puppet gov't and hope the rest of the Arab world doesn't notice? Or do we let all the American lives and money go for naught and stand aside, letting the Iraqis control their own destiny even if that means clandestine if not outright support for the 'freedom fighters' that we call 'terrorists' here?
The latter. This situation won't be fixed the way things are going. Those people, Americans among them, who wrote and signed the UN Charter did so for good reasons. What they agreed on was what would be acceptable to everybody: by definition that was a bare minimum. The US and UK have comprehensively breached that bare minimum standard of decency in international relations, an act which has seriously jeopardized world stability. The only way up is out.

[mactastic]

The latter. This situation won't be fixed the way things are going. Those people, Americans among them, who wrote and signed the UN Charter did so for good reasons. What they agreed on was what would be acceptable to everybody: by definition that was a bare minimum. The US and UK have comprehensively breached that bare minimum standard of decency in international relations, an act which has seriously jeopardized world stability. The only way up is out.


I agree. I just wanted to hear someone from outside the choir admit it.

[blackfox]

The latter. This situation won't be fixed the way things are going. Those people, Americans among them, who wrote and signed the UN Charter did so for good reasons. What they agreed on was what would be acceptable to everybody: by definition that was a bare minimum. The US and UK have comprehensively breached that bare minimum standard of decency in international relations, an act which has seriously jeopardized world stability. The only way up is out.
I say we embrace the realities of the Region and do the following:

We appeal to Iran (and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia) to help us control the effects of our bungling. With Iran, we drop our objections to their Nuclear aspirations and actually offer financial and logistical/technical assistance to that end, in return for them helping to stabilize Iraq. We give massive amounts of reconstruction/aid money out, partially through the UN, and give preference to local Arab contractors, provided they have the expertise. We make all the countries in the Region have a vested interest in the stability of Iraq and open up financial partnerships with as many Arab Nations as we can, with the caveat of needing stability to operate, which would imply a need to clamp down on "terrorism" throughout the region. We offer logistical and financial support to this end also.

Otherwise, China will probably do it anyway.

[skunk]

I agree. I just wanted to hear someone from outside the choir admit it.
I'm in a choir? Well, Hallelujah! :D

[mactastic]

We have to be real careful with Iran. Having wiped out their two historical adversaries, we could find ourselves in a position where Iran gains a significant amount of influence over the area whether we like it or not. If a Shia majority takes over in Iraq that will further extend Iran's influence in the region.

Iran has to be pretty happy with the way things went down. Saddam's gone, the Taliban are gone. And the US is bogged down in Iraq for the forseeable future. They probably feel pretty secure these days.

[skunk]

We make all the countries in the Region have a vested interest in the stability of Iraq and open up financial partnerships with as many Arab Nations as we can, with the caveat of needing stability to operate, which would imply a need to clamp down on "terrorism" throughout the region. We offer logistical and financial support to this end also.

Otherwise, China will probably do it anyway.
Nice idea, but in reality "we" have already overstepped the mark by making fundamental decisions on investment and trade which went way beyond our rights under the UN Charter. "We" have precious little legitimacy with which to negotiate anything further "on behalf of" those benighted people.

[blackfox]

We have to be real careful with Iran. Having wiped out their two historical adversaries, we could find ourselves in a position where Iran gains a significant amount of influence over the area whether we like it or not. If a Shia majority takes over in Iraq that will further extend Iran's influence in the region.

Iran has to be pretty happy with the way things went down. Saddam's gone, the Taliban are gone. And the US is bogged down in Iraq for the forseeable future. They probably feel pretty secure these days.
Is Iran gaining influence in the Region and perhaps becoming a Regional Hegemon really a bad thing? For the ME, or our interests? The region could definitely use some of the stability and focus such a dominant Regional Power could give. Iran is also the most disposed to Democratic leaning, albeit with their peculiar twist, which could also be a favorable development.

To the degree that Iran's fortunes have already improved, it would probably be wise to get on their good side, would it not? As I mentioned before, China, with it's increased Energy needs, will be all to happy to do just that. I agree with Skunk, that our credibility is severely strained, but is it not worth the effort to try?

[mactastic]

Well it's a bad thing for us. Not so bad for the ME really though. Long term though, a regional power like Iran will clash with US interests particularly over oil.

When I say be real careful with them, I mean we need to treat them in such a way that as their power grows they aren't a threat to us. That means being nice, and dealing in good faith. Not US strong suits these days sadly.

[MacDawg]

Whaaa?!?

vniow!!
Glad you stopped by!
I always enjoy your presence and contributions!

I am honored that you made an appearance!!

[MacDawg]

But the Army has a damn War College where they are supposed to study the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them. Somehow I doubt your wife has a similar 'husband college'.

Don't count on it... she schools me all of the time about repeat mistakes! :(


Of course, the military were the ones who said we needed twice the troop strength we got. It was the civilian leadership at the Pentagon that decided to try their light-and-fast strategy rather than stick to the proven 'Powell Doctrine'. Just today we are hearing that more service members will be required to stay past the length of their terms in Iraq. The 82nd Airborn will be deploying one of its rapid reaction brigades to help prepare for the elections. This administration's stubborn insistance that we have enough troops is wearing thin.

Agreed.


I think it's a valid question about how far we are going to let them govern themselves too. And so far no one has been able to provide any kind of answer. If Iraqis were given a (free) choice today we would see an Islamic state unfirendly to the US take shape. Possibly supporting terrorism in a much more substantial way than paying the families of suicide bombers some money after they committed their deed. Then what do we do? Do we install a puppet gov't and hope the rest of the Arab world doesn't notice? Or do we let all the American lives and money go for naught and stand aside, letting the Iraqis control their own destiny even if that means clandestine if not outright support for the 'freedom fighters' that we call 'terrorists' here? I don't see any possibility now that Iraqis will freely elect a leader who is friendly to the US, not the least because of our ham-handed occupation tactics.

Would you support an occupier who had 'fessed up to torturing some of your comrades?

I don't think a puppet government ever survives, and I don't think a "free" Iraq will ever be US friendly. We will trade S. Hussein for someone else, but hopefully it will be an improvement. That remains to be seen. A vacuum of power will always be filled. The people may have hated and feared Hussein, but most of them hate us as well. Just because we did them a favor, I don't think they are beholden to us.


We have to be real careful with Iran. Having wiped out their two historical adversaries, we could find ourselves in a position where Iran gains a significant amount of influence over the area whether we like it or not. If a Shia majority takes over in Iraq that will further extend Iran's influence in the region.

Iran has to be pretty happy with the way things went down. Saddam's gone, the Taliban are gone. And the US is bogged down in Iraq for the forseeable future. They probably feel pretty secure these days.

As far as Iran is concerned, I agree with you. They have been the biggest beneficiaries of all that has transpired. But I don't think that getting in bed with them is an answer either.

I don't think the US has ever really put together a comprehensive plan to address the Islamic world. After WWII and the establishment of Israel, the US cast its lot. But the world has changed dramatically from those days and the Islamic world must be a world player now. Their voice will be heard. The US must seek to understand their culture and their perspective and engage them in a meaningful way, not just bomb them.

US arrogance is always that others must meet them on American terms. Just consider the language issues. Americans (and I are one), expect everyone to learn English. In like manner, we expect everyone to do business on our terms. Its time we looked further than that.

[MacDawg]

BTW... do all threads in the political forum eventually become Iraq/Bush threads? :rolleyes:

[blackfox]

Just consider the language issues. Americans (and I are one), expect everyone to learn English.
(Bold mine)I just love the Irony...hehe.

As for the Iraq/Bush comment...well, it is a big deal. The sheer cost affects everything else that is (or could be) being considered in terms of Policy (Domestic and Foreign).

[IJ Reilly]

I'm in a choir? Well, Hallelujah! :D

I'm sure you can handel it.

[Durandal7]

I'm a Republican and a theist. I am not religious though. I have my beliefs in a soul and in a creator that have emerged over the years. I used to be an atheist, I eventually decided that there probably was an intelligent design and have a firm belief in the soul. I also think that no religion has gotten it right so there is no point in subscribing to one, it's best to examine them all and make your own decisions.

I am a strong proponent of science and want to see more of it in the schools. I don't want to see creationism taught as science. I couldn't care less about gay marriage. I would prefer to see abortions only in extreme cases (rape/health risk) since we don't really know when the fetus becomes "alive," best to avoid killing it unless we do. I also find the extreme Left's paranoia in regards to all things religious bizarre. I also see that atheists get just as dogmatic as evangelicals when it comes to forcing their beliefs on others. I do not consider the display of a cross to be an attempt to force religion on me.

Those are my views on morals. I am decidedly conservative on foreign policy and economic policy. I don't know if that makes me a right-wing nut-job. I think I'm a relatively moderate Republican but as it has been said in this thread, everyone thinks they're a moderate.

[Xtremehkr]

Not evolution again. At that is a subject you can provide links for, especially in the areas where you are questioning evolution. It's interesting that being someone who follows evolution and it's continuing development I never hear about evolution being baffled.

I can understand taking a position on gun control or abortion. But picking religion over evolution is a choice that can only be supported by ignoring the evidence presented by science and accepting (and listening only too) the spin provided by religion.

Where's you cut and paste all of that from anyway?

[zimv20]

I'm sure you can handel it.
i declare myself the pun judge. i will hold up and show one of two cards: "rave" or "pan."

for your pun, you can expect me to chopin.

[skunk]

I'm sure you can handel it.
I'll get bach to you on that when I've finished giving debussy his milk.

[kettle]

Radical Liberals.

The scent of Foxes.

Oh for the day when a Political Discussion on this forum is not completely loaded.

Most of the time there is no real understanding going on, just a mutual appreciation and back slapping.

Can me quite a good read though.

[MacDawg]

Not evolution again. At that is a subject you can provide links for, especially in the areas where you are questioning evolution. It's interesting that being someone who follows evolution and it's continuing development I never hear about evolution being baffled.

I can understand taking a position on gun control or abortion. But picking religion over evolution is a choice that can only be supported by ignoring the evidence presented by science and accepting (and listening only too) the spin provided by religion.

Where's you cut and paste all of that from anyway?

Well, since I created the thread, I can tell you that technically, the thread wasn't (and isn't) designed to be a creation/evolution treatise or polemic, hence the sparse number of links, citations, arguments, etc. from me. I think there probably have been other threads about that, though I have not participated in them.

The original premise of the thread was to ask the question, based on the information I provided, "am I a right wing, radical, nut case?" This was designed to get an answer based on position alone, apart from the manner in which the position is deliniated, debated and defended. Several positions I might add, not just Darwinism.

The point of the thread was very quickly discerned and eloquently stated by pseudobrit in the very first reply to my posts when he said, "On the expressway, everyone driving slower than you is a moron and everyone who passes you is a maniac."

The result of the thread was supposed to be that we realize that although we have different opinions and positions, we can all still be reasonable, thinking people who can dialogue and present rational arguments based on facts, data and information, without resorting to Jr. High name calling in our discussions, or even emotional vitriolics.

Along the way we sparred a little over the positions, which was to be expected, but I hope that the actual point of the thread was not lost on anyone.

[MacDawg]

Doooh!

How could I forget!

Blue Velvet also qualifies as "not a guy"!

Sorry BV, didn't mean to forget you!

[Xtremehkr]

The original premise of the thread was to ask the question, based on the information I provided, "am I a right wing, radical, nut case?" This was designed to get an answer based on position alone, apart from the manner in which the position is deliniated, debated and defended. Several positions I might add, not just Darwinism.

The point of the thread was very quickly discerned and eloquently stated by pseudobrit in the very first reply to my posts when he said, "On the expressway, everyone driving slower than you is a moron and everyone who passes you is a maniac."

The result of the thread was supposed to be that we realize that although we have different opinions and positions, we can all still be reasonable, thinking people who can dialogue and present rational arguments based on facts, data and information, without resorting to Jr. High name calling in our discussions, or even emotional vitriolics.

Along the way we sparred a little over the positions, which was to be expected, but I hope that the actual point of the thread was not lost on anyone.

No, I can still disagree with the fact that you are choosing to take the information provided by one side of the solid scientific conlusions reached by scientists.

See, I have no problem with you believing what you want to believe, except that you would outlaw abortion, or at least support the side that do.

The side that you support would call for the teaching of a theory that is not based in any realistic science, because it is more important to you to have God there.

Or would have stickers placed on books stating that Evolution can be disregarded if so chosen. Making a mockery of education.

My problem is not with what right wingers choose to believe, if they want to ignore the science and leave it at that. It's that they are choosing to legislate their beliefs upon everyone.

Evolution is just a bone of contention, because at this point, you pretty much have to make a conscious decision to not believe in it, or are ignorant of all of the information that is out there supporting it. And yet remarkably knowledgable about the information (however flimsy) that is presented against it.

Your post started with Evolution btw, and seemed a good place to start.

[mactastic]

I don't think a puppet government ever survives, and I don't think a "free" Iraq will ever be US friendly. We will trade S. Hussein for someone else, but hopefully it will be an improvement. That remains to be seen. A vacuum of power will always be filled. The people may have hated and feared Hussein, but most of them hate us as well. Just because we did them a favor, I don't think they are beholden to us.

We will trade Saddam Hussein for someone else that you have no way of knowing whether he will be better or worse than Saddam, and you are OK with that? I'm certainly not OK with a thousand plus American casualties, tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars on a roll of the dice as to making any improvement over Saddam.

A lot of us before the war suspected that many if not most Americans simply didn't understand the can of worms, or more appropriately the tar-baby, that Iraq could become if the best-case scenario didn't play out. The shifting rationales for the war have confirmed that. Most people swallowed the line about flowers and candy being given to the US soldiers. They simply couldn't understand how anyone would not trust the US to do the right thing. But Arabs have been burned many times before.

The way I see it, we now have a choice of pushing for elections, hoping for the best (again), and boogying out of Iraq ASAP; or we can stay and face a steady trickle of dead soldiers and a big giant sucking sound from our treasury. The first way we risk fighting this war so that an Islamic state can be established in what used to be secular Iraq. We run the risk of Iraq becoming a haven and a training area for future terrorists. The upside is, we will be out of the mess and we can let Arabs take care of themselves which will eventually lower the rage level against the US. Not soon, but eventually.

Or we can stay until the helicopter flies the last US and friendlies out of the Green Zone.

As far as Iran is concerned, I agree with you. They have been the biggest beneficiaries of all that has transpired. But I don't think that getting in bed with them is an answer either.

I never suggested we get in bed with them. I think we need to be especially wary of them right now. But not in an overt way. Make nice, but watch closely. We can't afford to be wrong again if we suspect a threat.

I don't think the US has ever really put together a comprehensive plan to address the Islamic world. After WWII and the establishment of Israel, the US cast its lot. But the world has changed dramatically from those days and the Islamic world must be a world player now. Their voice will be heard. The US must seek to understand their culture and their perspective and engage them in a meaningful way, not just bomb them.

Agreed. But then why did you support bombing them in Iraq if you also say that bombing them is the last thing we should do? I know you've said you would have waited and put more pressure on Saddam, but did you hold those who decided otherwise accountable on Nov. 2? Because Kerry said he would have done exactly what you wanted, that he would have waited to use force in Iraq until all diplomatic options had been exhausted. You appear to have voted against your own interest on that issue.

US arrogance is always that others must meet them on American terms. Just consider the language issues. Americans (and I are one), expect everyone to learn English. In like manner, we expect everyone to do business on our terms. Its time we looked further than that.

Yep. Can't argue there.

[MacDawg]

No, I can still disagree with the fact that you are choosing to take the information provided by one side of the solid scientific conlusions reached by scientists.

Hmmmm, I take one side, you take the other, isn't that the point?

See, I have no problem with you believing what you want to believe, except that you would outlaw abortion, or at least support the side that do.

I am not a King or a Dictator, so I cannot very well outlaw abortion myself, but "yes" I would support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, through the proper legal channels. Just as I support the fact that the murder of a newborn child should be against the law (as does most of society, which is why it is law). Making the abortion issue just an issue of a woman's body and her rights, while dehumanizing the child doesn't do the issue justice in my opinion. When seen from the world view that accepts the child as mere tissue that is disposable, like the removal of a mole, does at first glance seem to set the issue in a context where "crazies" are trying to infringe on personal rights. When seen as the taking of an innocent life, the situation is different.

The side that you support would call for the teaching of a theory that is not based in any realistic science, because it is more important to you to have God there.

Or would have stickers placed on books stating that Evolution can be disregarded if so chosen. Making a mockery of education.

The "side that I support" paints a pretty broad brush. I have not advocated the teaching of anything really, or the placing of stickers anywhere. However, when a large body of reputable and credible scientists question Darwinism and its theories, it seems a bit over the top to insist that everyone accept it as "fact" and be taught as such without question in the schools. Discouraging honest evaluation and discourse on the issues and problems associated with Darwinism seems to undermine the spirit of the scientific process. Science has proven that its theories have always been subject to reinterpretation and evaluation. If not, we would still believe the earth to be flat or that the sun revolves around us. Just stating that Darwinism is a scientific fact doesn't necessarily make it so.

For the record, I don't advocate teaching creationism in the public schools. But I don't advocate the teaching of Darwinism as immutable fact either. When science speaks as fact on the matter of origins, it currently leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of speculation. Teach as a theory, or offer possible explanations, but science does not have the answers on this, no matter how much someone may jump up and down and scream that it does.

My problem is not with what right wingers choose to believe, if they want to ignore the science and leave it at that. It's that they are choosing to legislate their beliefs upon everyone.

All legislation is someone's belief imposed upon another. Usually, but not always, it is the belief of the majority.

To say that "right wingers" ignore science is to resort to the kind of stereotypical assertions that are not profitable. Do you honestly believe that everyone who challenges Darwinism and explores intellegent design as an alternative is an uneducated, backward boob that ignores science. I'm not saying that is what you said, I'm asking if that's what you believe.

Evolution is just a bone of contention, because at this point, you pretty much have to make a conscious decision to not believe in it, or are ignorant of all of the information that is out there supporting it. And yet remarkably knowledgable about the information (however flimsy) that is presented against it.


And herein lies the crux of the matter, and the reason for the thread.

A takes position 1
B takes position 2

A says that B is ignorant and uniformed if B accepts position 2
B says that A is close minded and arrogant if A accepts position 1
Neither dialogue about the issues, facts and data

You apparently believe (not really trying to put words in your mouth) that the evidence for Darwinism is so overwhelming and so self evident that anyone with a normal amount of intelligence would easily see that it is true, it is fact, and that it is unassailable. Anyone who believes otherwise must be either a) uniformed b) ignorant or c) choosing to ignore the overwhelming evidence because of another agenda, i.e. faith in a God, because the evidence for anything other than Darwinism is "flimsy".

There is a d) however, and that is that many scientists have seen the problems and inadequacies associated with Darwinism and have chosen to not blindly follow a theory that predates the discoveries associated with the unraveling of DNA or the advent of cellular microbiology. Instead of trying to make the "square peg" theory and the "round hole" evidence fit, they are willing to accept that there may be other explanations, and they are pursuing them.

[mactastic]

When science speaks as fact on the matter of origins...

Science always teaches you to question facts. Science isn't taught as gospel truth, it's taught as our best guess at how things happened based on the evidence we now possess. Further evidence offers the posibility for change. And therein lies a big difference between science and religion.

If there are enough holocaust deniers, do we have to teach that there is a possibility the holocause never happened, or do we continue to go with our 'best guess' on that one? I know that's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point.

[MacDawg]

We will trade Saddam Hussein for someone else that you have no way of knowing whether he will be better or worse than Saddam, and you are OK with that? I'm certainly not OK with a thousand plus American casualties, tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars on a roll of the dice as to making any improvement over Saddam.

When I said "we", I used it loosely, not that I particularly advocated that policy. It is a high price to pay, and I agree that the exit strategy has not been exactly sterling to say the least. That doesn't comfort those who have lost loved ones, but I don't think this can entirely be equated with Viet Nam.


A lot of us before the war suspected that many if not most Americans simply didn't understand the can of worms, or more appropriately the tar-baby, that Iraq could become if the best-case scenario didn't play out. The shifting rationales for the war have confirmed that. Most people swallowed the line about flowers and candy being given to the US soldiers. They simply couldn't understand how anyone would not trust the US to do the right thing. But Arabs have been burned many times before.


I think many Americans were wary, I was, but even many Dems voted for the war. There was somewhat of a "do something even if its wrong" type mentality that prevails in these types of situations. Hindsight relieves us of much of that tension.


The way I see it, we now have a choice of pushing for elections, hoping for the best (again), and boogying out of Iraq ASAP; or we can stay and face a steady trickle of dead soldiers and a big giant sucking sound from our treasury. The first way we risk fighting this war so that an Islamic state can be established in what used to be secular Iraq. We run the risk of Iraq becoming a haven and a training area for future terrorists. The upside is, we will be out of the mess and we can let Arabs take care of themselves which will eventually lower the rage level against the US. Not soon, but eventually.

Or we can stay until the helicopter flies the last US and friendlies out of the Green Zone.


Its an ugly, ugly picture, but fairly accurate I'm afraid. I have never had visions of Iraq as the shining jewel of the new Middle East democracy. Perhaps it is a no win situation, but to sit idle and do nothing would not have been my choice either (not saying it was yours :) ).



I never suggested we get in bed with them. I think we need to be especially wary of them right now. But not in an overt way. Make nice, but watch closely. We can't afford to be wrong again if we suspect a threat.


Sorry if I made it sound like that was your suggestion, I knew it wasn't. I knew you cautioned working with them. I was agreeing with you, but was not clear.


Agreed. But then why did you support bombing them in Iraq if you also say that bombing them is the last thing we should do? I know you've said you would have waited and put more pressure on Saddam, but did you hold those who decided otherwise accountable on Nov. 2? Because Kerry said he would have done exactly what you wanted, that he would have waited to use force in Iraq until all diplomatic options had been exhausted. You appear to have voted against your own interest on that issue.


My vote against Kerry went far beyond Iraq as a single test case issue.

[MacDawg]

Science always teaches you to question facts. Science isn't taught as gospel truth, it's taught as our best guess at how things happened based on the evidence we now possess. Further evidence offers the posibility for change. And therein lies a big difference between science and religion.

If there are enough holocaust deniers, do we have to teach that there is a possibility the holocause never happened, or do we continue to go with our 'best guess' on that one? I know that's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point.


My experience with staunch Darwinist supporters has been that Darwinism cannot be questioned, that it is an indisputable fact that must be accepted.

I understand your thought and point in the holocaust example, but I do think that there are differences between historical fact and scientific fact. Unfortunately history does get rewritten and the "truth" is controlled by those in power. Hence the Egyptian Pharoahs and Assyrian kings who would erase the names on 'markers' and replace them with their own when they conquored.

Science, history and religion have many overlaps, but they do not have to be in conflict. There will always be tensions, but not necessarily contradictions.

Just as much as a Darwinist argues that someone rejects his theory because he ignores the overwhelming evidence gathered at the altar of science, and chooses blindly to believe in a God based on superstitions and not fact...

...someone who believes in God could argue that a Darwinist ignores the challenges and problems with his theory because he chooses to believe in a world governed by chance and natural selection because it relieves him from all accountability to a higher power, i.e. he becomes his own god.

[mactastic]

My experience with staunch fundamentalists is similar. But do I hold the rest of the religious community to their words? Do we need to hold the discussion hostage to the demands of the fringes?

[MacDawg]

My experience with staunch fundamentalists is similar. But do I hold the rest of the religious community to their words? Do we need to hold the discussion hostage to the demands of the fringes?

Exactly...
That is the ultimate point of the thread, not to debate Iraq or Evolution, there are plenty of those threads. What I wanted was a recognition that we need to move beyond the fringes and not allow our rhetoric to be framed by them. Stereotypes serve no one's best interest. Only by open, honest dialogue are positions refined, honed and polished. Doesn't mean you always agree, but you are clear on why you disagree. Hence you know more about what you believe, and why. This thread wasn't meant to BE that dialogue, but only to be a marker to suggest that the fringe doesn't speak for the masses, and certainly not for me.

I don't think positions themselves, necessarily define wackos or liberals. Just because someone voted for Bush doesn't mean he/she is a right wing, uninformed radical, any more than voting for Kerry makes a person a flaming, left wing, ultra liberal. I think that the manner in which a persons position is delivered, and how it is supported is more of a determining factor. Passionately holding a position without being able to define or defend it is a precarious position indeed. If people can get past the name calling: idiots, morons, uninformed, stupid, right wingers, left wingers, radicals, etc. and focus on the issues and the arguements, then communication takes place. Most discussions degenerate into a scene from Beavis and Butthead or Dumb and Dumber.

However, the bigger reason for the thread was that I was bored at work and needed something to do. :rolleyes:

[Don't panic]

Science always teaches you to question facts. Science isn't taught as gospel truth, it's taught as our best guess at how things happened based on the evidence we now possess. Further evidence offers the posibility for change. And therein lies a big difference between science and religion.

If there are enough holocaust deniers, do we have to teach that there is a possibility the holocause never happened, or do we continue to go with our 'best guess' on that one? I know that's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point.

on the contrary, I think it is a good example. In fact, there is probably more hard evidence supporting evolution than there is supporting the historical reality of the Holocaust (which i consider a Fact).

Still, it is correct to consider Evolution, in its many incarnations, as a Theory. It CAN be questioned and it HAS been challenged many times at different levels. When the criticism had scientific merit, the theory has been modified to better describe the reality of the evidence.
It is not a dogma, as some seem to believe, it is the theory that at the moment best fits the scientific evidence.

If anyone can come up with something better,the scientific community will come to accept it, but it HAS TO HAVE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY. Creationism doesn't. There is NOT ANY evidence that directly support creationism, which indeed is not a scientific theory but a collection of beliefs.
The Bible may have an ethical, moral and to some degree historical value, but it certainly does NOT have ANY scientific value. The "letter" of the book, and of genesis in particular, does not correspond to ANY extent, to the world we live in. To believe in the letter of the book is, scientifically speaking, ludicrous, because you would have to resort to "it looks like this because god wants it to look like this" for every scientific phenomenon and historical observation.

[MacDawg]

In fact, there is probably more hard evidence supporting evolution than there is supporting the historical reality of the Holocaust (which i consider a Fact).

Really... that's a pretty bold statement. In that regard, I would concede "microevolution", but would challenge "macroevolution", and surely hope that you don't mean "abiogenesis" itself.




...it is the theory that at the moment best fits the scientific evidence.

But that is part of the real issue isn't it? Does Darwinism truly best fit the scientific evidence for macroevolution and abiogenesis? Or are there other alternatives to be explored?




If anyone can come up with something better,the scientific community will come to accept it, but it HAS TO HAVE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY. Creationism doesn't. There is NOT ANY evidence that directly support creationism, which indeed is not a scientific theory but a collection of beliefs.
The Bible may have an ethical, moral and to some degree historical value, but it certainly does NOT have ANY scientific value. The "letter" of the book, and of genesis in particular, does not correspond to ANY extent, to the world we live in. To believe in the letter of the book is, scientifically speaking, ludicrous, because you would have to resort to "it looks like this because god wants it to look like this" for every scientific phenomenon and historical observation.

Sweeping statements indeed, dismissing ANY validity to ANY other arguments. :)

I have deliberately chosen not to equate the movement towards a belief in intelligent design with what is commonly understood as creationism or a literal interpretation of the Genesis account in this discussion. It is too easy for critics to dismiss "creationism" or the "Genesis account" as being for kooks, quacks and crazies without addressing issues, challenges and research.

[IJ Reilly]

Sigh. I wonder why nobody is challenging the teaching of Newton's Theory of Gravitation in the schools or actively suggesting alternate explanations for the attraction of heavenly bodies. It is, after all, "only a theory."

[zimv20]

Sigh. I wonder why nobody is challenging the teaching of Newton's Theory of Gravitation in the schools or actively suggesting alternate explanations for the attraction of heavenly bodies. It is, after all, "only a theory."
empiricism. some people can believe only what they can observe. except belief in god; let's chalk that one up to indoctrination at a very early age.

[mactastic]

Newton's work has been challenged. But by other scientists. And when Newtons theories were shown not to hold up under all conditions, the teachings were revised. That's science for you. It's changable without changing your belief structure.

Compare that to the Catholic Church's centuries-long denial that the Earth was not the center of the universe despite evidence to the contrary.

[blackfox]

You know, I do not see why the concepts of Evolution and Creationism (or, more broadly, humanism and Christianity), have to be mutually exclusive. Is it really that much of an affront to either party, to admit the possibility that the two might dovetail/synthesize in some way?

In thinking about Evolution vs Creationism, I also was thinking about matters of practicality. If one was to assume that life in it's myriad forms was merely God's work, well fine, but that doesn't leave much to build off of. Evolution, OTOH, like many scientific theories, has advanced human understanding of the workings of life. However imperfect that understanding might be, it has produced a myriad of helpful contributions to mankind from medicine, to engineering, to Philosophy.

I believe (ha) that the absolutist nature of Religion often denies the possibility for questioning (and learning), that scientific theory often encourages, and so at a practical level is incompatible with any competing theory.

Nevertheless, as many a great scientist has attested to, the more they got involved with the intricacies of their field, the more they were convinced of the existence of the Divine. So to those who lament the exclusion of Christian thought from Education, your fears are often unfounded, as science is often just a different way of arriving at the same answer. IMO, it is also the better way, as it is an exercise in thought, in freewill, and as such, a respectable way to honor the gifts a creator may have bestowed on us.

[mactastic]

I've got no problem admitting the possibility that there is some overlap and possible more between the two. My problem comes in when people say we need to teach creationism as though it were as valid a theory as evolution.

This goes to the heart of the question of whether all theories are equally valid. If I teach a unit on space exploration, do I have to teach the kids that it's possible we never actually landed a spaceship on the moon? Do I have to tell them that there are people who believe (and claim to have evidence) that the whole moon landing was produced on a sound stage?

When a reporter does a story on the holocaust, is it ethical to give equal amounts of time to those who say it never happened as you do to those who survived it?

Similarly, is it fair to put a hard-right conservative up against a centrist liberal and call it representative of both sides? (Like the news media is wont to do.)

[skunk]

I've got no problem admitting the possibility that there is some overlap and possible more between the two. My problem comes in when people say we need to teach creationism as though it were as valid a theory as evolution.

This goes to the heart of the question of whether all theories are equally valid.
Exactly. If you're going to insist on Creationism being taught, then in all fairness you have to allow for any and all alternative creation myths to be taught also. What makes anyone think that any of the three creation stories in Genesis is the only valid version?

[IJ Reilly]

empiricism. some people can believe only what they can observe. except belief in god; let's chalk that one up to indoctrination at a very early age.

I think it's because the Bible doesn't include a chapter called "Gravity." As blackfox noted, the concepts of scientific observation and religious faith don't necessarily come into conflict unless we insist on reading the Bible completely literally. That particular affectation leads us down the path towards rejecting all evidence about the universe that we have acquired over the millennia, by virtue of our God-given senses and intelligence.

[blackfox]

Mac, it is interesting that those who might push for Creationism being as equally valid as Evolution, employ the tools of Humanism (ie relativism), to advance their goals. Sorta Ironic.

In any case, Creationism, to me, seems to imply an absolutism, as it is founded in Christianity/Judaism and as far as I remember, the concept of an all-powerful Creator is a lynchpin of the whole ball-o-wax. If you were to allow competing theories legitimacy, does that not imply that God's power has been compromised? I think that may be the source of much of the moral outrage against Evolution.

Of course, one could take the road of the Catholic Church, which co-opts nearly irrefutable scientific concepts as not a negation of their teachings, but as part of them. Of course, this kind of compromise does not sit well with everyone.

[mactastic]

The Bible is also open to selective interpretation. Just today I was reading an angry letter to the editor in my local paper from a woman who is angry that society has to pay to feed and house prisoners. She was suggesting that they work, a position I'm not terribly opposed to. But she ends her letter with a biblical quote saying 'As the Bible says, "If any would not work, neither should he eat."'

And I'm thinking, did she miss the part about kindness and turning the other cheek?

[Xtremehkr]

Hmmmm, I take one side, you take the other, isn't that the point?


Only if you continue to ignore my point, which is that there really is no valid base to the side of creationism. And yet it is expected to be taken as seriously as evolution. In that lays the problem because as there is no rational basis to creationism, it does not deserve equal standing.

Except if you continue to ignore that fact and push it anyway because it supports your religious ideology.

And that is when people start calling you a wingnut, because it is irrational to ignore solid science in lieu of something you like better.

Which is similar to abortion, it is not enough that you can make the choice not to have one, you aren't happy until no one can have one.

Again, that's not rational behaviour, you are subjecting others to your beliefs.

So, it is not simply a matter of me liking one thing and you liking another.

The line you have drawn does not divide as neatly as you would think it has. But I still am not going to legislate that you do what I think is right.

I'm not pushing for Evolution to be taught in churchs.

[Ugg]

All reproductive issues are highly charged, from birth control to fertility enhancement, because we are entering a mysterious, unknown world, and whether you believe in God or not, you begin playing God.

It is interesting that you asked that, because many who oppose abortion never give a thought to this other end. They don't even know it is an issue.

You have a good point. Unfortunately, environmental pollution coupled with stress is the major reason for infertility today. Isn't that a way of playing god as well? By ignoring his mandate to be good stewards of the earth?

The other aspect that is overlooked is that if couples are unable to conceive there is usually an overriding biological reason for this. Damaged genetic material is unlikely to produce viable foetuses without medical intervention. It's well documented that fertility techniques have a derogatory effect on the gene pool much less all those who survive to reproductive age due to medical intervention of other sorts. Although I understand all too well the biological need to reproduce, I also understand that those who go literally to the ends of the earth to reproduce are merely furthering human suffering and denying the existence of a natural process of life.

I've always viewed those who view abortion as evil and miscarriages due to environmental reasons as being the most hypocritical creatures on this planet.

We reap what we sow.....

[skunk]

Only if you continue to ignore my point, which is that there really is no valid base to the side of creationism. And yet it is expected to be taken as seriously as evolution. In that lays the problem because as there is no rational basis to creationism, it does not deserve equal standing.

Except if you continue to ignore that fact and push it anyway because it supports your religious ideology.

And that is when people start calling you a wingnut, because it is irrational to ignore solid science in lieu of something you like better.

Which is similar to abortion, it is not enough that you can make the choice not to have one, you aren't happy until no one can have one.

Again, that's not rational behaviour, you are subjecting others to your beliefs.

So, it is not simply a matter of me liking one thing and you liking another.

The line you have drawn does not divide as neatly as you would think it has. But I still am not going to legislate that you do what I think is right.

I'm not pushing for Evolution to be taught in churchs.
Very nicely put, X.

[MacDawg]

Sigh. I wonder why nobody is challenging the teaching of Newton's Theory of Gravitation in the schools or actively suggesting alternate explanations for the attraction of heavenly bodies. It is, after all, "only a theory."

Of course I can throw a ball up into the air and watch it fall, and make some assumptions about gravity.

The 'big bang', abiogenesis, or puncutated equilibrium are a little more difficult to reproduce.

[skunk]

The 'big bang', abiogenesis, or puncutated equilibrium are a little more difficult to reproduce.
Punctuated equilibrium's no easier...

[skunk]

Of course I can throw a ball up into the air and watch it fall, and make some assumptions about gravity.

The 'big bang', abiogenesis, or puncutated equilibrium are a little more difficult to reproduce.
You can watch galaxies receding and make all the assumptions you want about the cause, just as with gravity.

[pseudobrit]

You can watch galaxies receding and make all the assumptions you want about the cause, just as with gravity.

**** that, I don't see any galaxies receding. It's easier to give God credit.

[skunk]

**** that, I don't see any galaxies receding. It's easier to give God credit.
Gravity is no subject for levity.

[pseudobrit]

Radical Liberals.

The scent of Foxes.

Oh for the day when a Political Discussion on this forum is not completely loaded.

Most of the time there is no real understanding going on, just a mutual appreciation and back slapping.

Can me quite a good read though.

Thanks for contributing.

This isn't the first time I've noticed you stop on down here in the PolWar forums only to squat down and drop a nice little pile of irrelevant, antagonistic **** in the middle of a thread.

Do us a favour and keep these turds for yourself.

[skunk]

Antagonistic turds? Now there's a scary thought... :D

[pseudobrit]

Gravity is no subject for levity.

Well, Jesus walked on water and ascended into heaven (way before Bernoulli), so there! God must be running the gravity too; I can't believe we're teaching otherwise in schools.

[pseudobrit]

Antagonistic turds? Now there's a scary thought... :D

May be irritable bowels causing them.

[skunk]

Very good! :D


I agree with your complaint about the condescending drop-ins - or should that be droppings? - btw.

For God's sake, somebody get this back on topic. Quick!

[pseudobrit]

For God's sake, somebody get this back on topic. Quick!

I think, the title's a little, comma, heavy.

Proper grammar would suggest that it read "I am a right-wing radical nutcase."

[skunk]

I think, the title's a little, comma, heavy.

Proper grammar would suggest that it read "I am a right-wing radical nutcase."
My grandma would have suggested "right-wing, radical nutcase". And she was very proper...

[pseudobrit]

My grandma would have suggested "right-wing, radical nutcase". And she was very proper...

I would too, normally, but I'm a comma minimalist and try to get away with as little as humanly possible.

[skunk]

I would too, normally, but I'm a comma minimalist and try to get away with as little as humanly possible.
Don't you mean you would, too normally? :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

Don't you mean you would, too normally? :rolleyes:

Perhaps I would, too.

[MacDawg]

You can watch galaxies receding and make all the assumptions you want about the cause, just as with gravity.

Precisely the point. The 'red shift' and other evidences are only that... evidences that must lead to assumptions, but when assumptions don't meet all of the evidence, we should be willing to adjust.

[MacDawg]

It is quite fascinating to watch how this discussion has progressed. Mainly because it continues to digress towards arguments targeted at straw men... the fringe, so to speak, whose ideas are not being represented here.

For instance, I have not used the term "creationism" to describe my position at all, and have deliberated avoided it because of the negative connotations. Yet it continues to resurface. I have not made reference to Genesis in defense of my thoughts, or the Bible in general in regards to origins. Yet that thought continues to be brought up. I have not advocated teaching 'creationism' in public schools, and have even stated that I don't advocate it, yet that is still addressed as an issue.

Interesting....

Not that my thread was designed for this purpose, I will ignore my better judgment and wade out a little into the fray and try to address a few things anyway…

Only if you continue to ignore my point, which is that there really is no valid base to the side of creationism. And yet it is expected to be taken as seriously as evolution. In that lays the problem because as there is no rational basis to creationism, it does not deserve equal standing.

Except if you continue to ignore that fact and push it anyway because it supports your religious ideology.

And that is when people start calling you a wingnut, because it is irrational to ignore solid science in lieu of something you like better.

No valid base... not to be taken seriously... no rational basis... does not deserve equal standing... ignore facts... irrational to ignore solid science...

As already discussed above, the broad spectrum of the term evolution encompasses abiogenesis, macroevolution and microevolution. In terms of microevolution, there is little debate. The true issues are related to abiogenesis and macroevolution.

Darwinism, as a theory, tries to account for the evidence that we see around us. It is much like the CBS show "CSI", where the forensic scientists try to reconstruct the crime scene based on the evidence they have, which, by the way, always seems to take unexpected twists and turns before they reach the end of the hour. Or the new Fox show "House" where a quirky doctor with no bedside manner treats patients with interesting diseases. The doctors start with the symptoms and evidence they have, propose a theory that best accounts for everything and start treatment. Of course because the show is an hour long, they are wrong, and get unexpected results before they finally track down the real cause.

In much the same manner, Darwinism tries to account for the evidence that we see in the world around us. It in fact does account for some of the evidence, but it does not account for it all. It is a theory that proposes that through modified descent and natural selection, everything that we see around us can be accounted for through random chance. Strictly speaking, it does not address abiogenesis, which Darwin somewhat tried to sidestep.

MORE

[MacDawg]

Interestingly enough, Francis Crick, co-unraveler of DNA along with James Watson, addressed the difficulty of abiogenesis and the complexity of cellular life by proposing 'directed pan-spermia'.

"He speculated that conditions might have been more favorable on some distant planet. That move leaves the problem of getting life from the planet of origin to earth. First in a paper with Leslie Orgel and then in a book of his own, Crick advanced a theory that he called 'directed pan-spermia'. The basic idea is that an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, possibly facing extinction, sent primitive life forms to earth in spaceship. The spaceship builders couldn't come themselves because of the enormous time required for the interstellar travel: so they sent bacteria capable of surviving the voyage and the severe conditions that would have greeted them upon arrival on the early earth. What kind of scientific evidence supports directed pan-spermia? Crick wrote that if the theory is true, we should expect that cellular microorganisms would appear suddenly, without evidence that any simpler forms preceded them. We should expect to find that the early forms were distantly related but highly distinct, with no evidence of ancestors because these existed only on the original planet. This expectation fits the facts perfectly, because the archaebacteria and the eubacteria are at the same time too different to have evolved from a common ancestor in the time available, and yet also too similar (sharing the same genetic language) not to have a common source somewhere. Those who are tempted to ridicule directed pan-spermia should restrain themselves, because Crick’s extraterrestrials are no more invisible than the universe of ancestors that earth bound Darwinists have to invoke.”

Those aren’t my words, those come from Phillip E. Johnson, a Harvard grad and a grad of the University of Chicago in his book “Darwin on Trial”, p. 110 as he writes of Francis Crick, the co-unraveler of DNA, who wouldn’t be considered a quack in science circles.

Is this the kind of solid science I am ignoring?

Or perhaps I am ignoring the solid science behind the punctuated equilibrium proposed by Stephen Jay Gould, and the http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf002/sf002p04.htm ( “hopeful monster” theory that would help to overcome the problems associated with macroevolution?

Does evolution/Darwinism really account for the evidence?

Where is the “solid science” evidence for abiogenesis?
Where is the “solid science” evidence for macroevolution?
What accounts for the Cambrian explosion, the ‘big bang’ of biology?

MORE

[MacDawg]

Since evolution/Darwinism proposes modified descent by natural selection through random chance, everything we see must have come from that single common ancestor as illustrated through Darwin’s ‘tree of life’.

How does modified descent through natural selection span the vast chasms that exist between…
…fish and amphibian?
…amphibian and reptile?
…reptile and bird?
…reptile and mammal?

How do those little teeny, tiny modifications associated with mutations (almost all of which are bad, harmful and result in no selective advantage), and natural selection account for such differences as…
… the laying of eggs and birth of live young?
… the development of the feather?
… the differences in hearts, respiration, etc.?

Ahhhh, the feather, there is a sticky wicket. The feather, the wing and flight. A very difficult nut to crack.

Does the feather, wing and flight develop from the ground up, or from the tree down?
Neither advocate has a reasonable explanation that can be explained from modified descent through natural selection.

And what of those other irreducible complexities that have no intermediaries to explain them…

The eye
The feather
The wing
The avian heart
The clotting of blood

Where is the solid science that shows their potential, hypothetical development (since all fossil record for such is lacking)?

Archaeopteryx? Fully developed wing and feather. Where did he get them?

Gould’s solution is punctuated equilibrium, the “hopeful monster” that would span the chasm with a gigantic leap. Solid science?

My only point here is that evolution/Darwinism doesn’t explain all of the facts as we know them… so Dr. House (remember the reference to the Fox TV show?), where do we go from here? Do we keep trying to make the treatment fit the disease, or do we look elsewhere?

One side note here…
Why is it that you never hear that we are related to the pinecone and the acorn, the daffodil and the dandelion, the water chestnut and the wheat stalk? According to Darwin’s ‘tree of life’ ALL life sprang from the same source and evolved up the different branches, plant and animal.

Just wondering…


I'm not pushing for Evolution to be taught in churchs.

Nor have I advocated the teaching of creationism in the public schools. One difference though is that church is voluntary on the part of its participants. School is mandatory by the government.

What I have advocated in this thread is an honest presentation of Darwinism to the students and not just heavy handed rhetoric.

MORE

[MacDawg]

Which is similar to abortion, it is not enough that you can make the choice not to have one, you aren't happy until no one can have one.

Again, that's not rational behaviour, you are subjecting others to your beliefs.

So, it is not simply a matter of me liking one thing and you liking another.

The line you have drawn does not divide as neatly as you would think it has. But I still am not going to legislate that you do what I think is right.

OK, let’s talk about abortion and legislation…

Let’s take legislation first…
Neither one of us is powerful enough to enact legislation on our own, one way or the other. Legislation is enacted by representatives that the masses vote on (whether they are informed, uniformed is no the issue, nor is whether there is voter fraud). The point is, we elect, they legislate. Legislation is then usually based on the majority of opinion, and is always the subjecting others to beliefs. A person may think that they have the perfect right to drive 100 mph on the freeway because they are sane, healthy and have a great car. However, the belief that it is safer to drive at 55 mph is legislatively imposed on you. Your belief may be that if a man cheats with your wife, he deserves to die and you kill him. However, the beliefs of others have been legislated on you that you must stand trial for murder. All legislation is the imposition of a set of beliefs upon the masses. Now, a world view that supports Darwinism, sees all of that as quite relative, and hence no absolutes, so that imposition is always by the ones with the most strength, money, or numbers. Laws change and are modified because that set of beliefs may change. When the beliefs are yours, you are content and happy with the laws. When they go contrary to your set of beliefs, they are imposed on you.

Now, let’s put that into the perspective of abortion.
The laws are such that in many cases an underage girl can get an abortion without parental consent and without notifying the father. Some view that as proper. The laws are imposing that belief on others who feel they have a vested interest in the situation.

When it comes to abortion itself, I would ask the question, “when is it proper to kill a child?”

After it is born?
After it is born with a defect? (or even the wrong sex or eye color?)
How about before it is born?
Before it is born with a defect (or wrong sex, eye color, etc.)?
Why is the location of its residence (womb, outside the womb) an issue, or is it?
Before the third trimester?
Before the second trimester?
Before quickening?
Before viability (even though technology is changing this all the time)?
Before cells differentiate?

What is the cutoff point of when it is acceptable to take the life of this human child?
There is life at conception. It is unquestionably human life based on genetic evidence.
Nothing is added to this life except nutrition and time.
When does it make the transition from tissue to child, from life to personhood?
Who makes that decision and imposes it upon the rest of us?
That belief is certainly imposed on the child that loses its life.

No, I would agree, the line doesn’t divide very neatly.
I’m curious, where do you draw that line?

[blackfox]

Very interesting posts macDawg.

This reminds me for some reason of a hypercube. A four-dimensional (spatial) cube, which cannot be conceptualized by our feeble intellects. Yet, it could exist, and we can make educated guesses about it's nature by analyzing it's shadow, which looks like a cross made out of cubes (you may remember a picasso painting featuring this).

I cannot say that Evolution is a perfect theory, because of course it is not. I still happen to think it is the best we have to work with at this point. It cannot explain everything, neither can science in general, but that doesn't necessarily decrease it's obvious utility. The fact that evoking God can explain everything, albeit poorly, is not a great substitute.

Did I make sense? It is early over here on the W. Coast.

*edit* MD, I do hope I am not seen as trying to put words in your mouth here...

[blackfox]

MacDawg, as to your abortion question, not to be flippant but I know that some animals (I'm thinking Rabbits in particular), the mothers eat their young when there is a risk of over-population, demographic/resource inequity. Is that moral? Which is more moral?

Yes, I know these are rabbits, and Watership Down notwithstanding, they are not human. Nevertheless, we humans are animals beneath the veneer of our fancy brains, and subject to many of the same impulses/instincts that drive the rest of the animal kingdom.

Just something to muse over, or not.

[skunk]

All legislation is the imposition of a set of beliefs upon the masses.
Not necessarily. Some legislation is the result of public pressure to limit the damage of unrestrained self-indulgence in the interests of a fairer society.

There is life at conception. It is unquestionably human life based on genetic evidence.
Nothing is added to this life except nutrition and time.
When does it make the transition from tissue to child, from life to personhood?
Who makes that decision and imposes it upon the rest of us?
That belief is certainly imposed on the child that loses its life.

No, I would agree, the line doesn’t divide very neatly.
I’m curious, where do you draw that line?
Do you draw any line at all? Millions of women die during childbirth. Millions of pregnant women are forced to live and work in unsanitary and dangerous conditions. Millions of pregnant women smoke and drink during their pregnancies. Is the life of the mother less important or more important than the life of her unborn child? Mothers are divided.

[skunk]

I cannot say that Evolution is a perfect theory, because of course it is not. I still happen to think it is the best we have to work with at this point. It cannot explain everything, neither can science in general, but that doesn't necessarily decrease it's obvious utility. The fact that evoking God can explain everything, albeit poorly, is not a great substitute.
I certainly agree that saying "I can't figure it out, ergo there must be a God" is a bit of a feeble response.

[mactastic]

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that what we think about the big bang, abiogenesis, and macroevolution is just a guess at this point. I'm fairly confidant that our knowledge level will continue to grow over time. Just think about what we didn't know about/understand 100 years ago. Imagine what we'll know in another 100.

What I don't get is how critically thinking people can look at the evidence and say that the most likely explanation is that 'God is behind it'. After all we've learned as a species, and with the number of times 'God' has been used as an explanation that has later been proven wrong, you'd think that people would be a little more cautious in invoking God as an explanation. The people who invoke God have a vested interest in you believing, yet that doesn't bother most believers. I dunno, it's just not me. Spirituality is a personal thing. It shouldn't require organizations and tax-exemt status.

To me the process of discovery and the fact that homo sapiens is a very self-curious species make me hopeful that over time we will know more about our own origins. Again we may never know. But the questioning is just as important as the answer, no?

[IJ Reilly]

In the end, these discussions always come down to the difference between knowledge and belief. Knowledge is forever going to be, by definition, incomplete, and belief is always a perfectly wrapped package. Many people are so disturbed by the open-ended quality of former that they cling to the latter. MacDawg, you protest that you've proposed nothing with respect to the teaching of faith-based theories of origins. But of course you have, if only indirectly. And if we've got you wrong some how, perhaps you ought to explain precisely what you think ought to be taught in schools. Forgive me if you've said already, but I can't find it definitively stated over the course of the last 100+ posts.

[Ugg]

Since evolution/Darwinism proposes modified descent by natural selection through random chance, everything we see must have come from that single common ancestor as illustrated through Darwin’s ‘tree of life’.


The reason that Darwin's theory remains a theory is that our forensic record is incomplete. The reason for dissent amongst the ranks is due to the missing pieces of the puzzle. It's hard enough for us to figure out how the Mayans lived much less the connection between winged and furred creatures. To turn one's back on the theory of evolution after such a short time when so many pieces are still missing is a sign of impatience and arrogance. As with all theories, Darwin's has been modified over time as additional information has been discovered. His tree of life was somewhat inaccurate, and would be more accurately described as a liana, with multiple roots, stems and directions.

[MacDawg]

I cannot say that Evolution is a perfect theory, because of course it is not. I still happen to think it is the best we have to work with at this point. It cannot explain everything, neither can science in general, but that doesn't necessarily decrease it's obvious utility. The fact that evoking God can explain everything, albeit poorly, is not a great substitute.



Saying that it "the best we have to work with at this point" and acknowledging some challenges is a huge improvement over dogma I am used to hearing, and a solid start towards progress I believe, for both sides.

I think that both sides have a bias, I am willing to admit that, but we have to try to be as objective as possible. I think it is too easy to just dismiss someone who believes in intellegent design as a nonthinking boob. I would say that it is just as likely that someone has an agenda and vested interest in believing in Darwinism as well... i.e. no restraints, no accountability.

Dawg

[MacDawg]

Nevertheless, we humans are animals beneath the veneer of our fancy brains, and subject to many of the same impulses/instincts that drive the rest of the animal kingdom.


I would probably agree with that assessment if I held a worldview that started with Darwinism. In fact, I have to admit that if I held to Darwinism, I doubt I would have a problem with abortion.

However, my world view looks at man differently than the animal kingdom, something foreign to Darwinism.

Dawg

[mactastic]

I would say that it is just as likely that someone has an agenda and vested interest in believing in Darwinism as well... i.e. no restraints, no accountability.

Dawg

No restraints or accountability from those who believe in evolution??? Come on Dawg, you've been pretty levelheaded so far in this discussion. Show me how proponents of evolution lack restraint or don't care about accountability.

It sounds like you think that morals cannot exist in the absense of God.

[mactastic]

However, my world view looks at man differently than the animal kingdom, something foreign to Darwinism.

It's always nice to think of yourself as chosen or special.

[MacDawg]

Do you draw any line at all? Millions of women die during childbirth. Millions of pregnant women are forced to live and work in unsanitary and dangerous conditions. Millions of pregnant women smoke and drink during their pregnancies. Is the life of the mother less important or more important than the life of her unborn child? Mothers are divided.

All life is important.

I would certainly say that a mother who drinks and/or smokes is placing their unborn child at great risk, and should abstain. Of course that would be good advice for all :rolleyes:

This is the great conundrum, life of the mother, life of the baby. The doctor tells the husband, I can save one or the other, which is it? Who would want to face such a decison? Many would reply without hesitation, 'the wife'. But that condemns a child to death. "I can have another baby." But they are not interchangeable.

Many draw a line for abortion with rape, incest or the danger to the life of the mother. I think that is far better than abortion on demand, but I can't draw the line there. Rape is horrible, to be sure, and incest would be considered horrible by many, and genetically unsound by most. And yet an innocent life has been conceived that will bear the burden of that choice to terminate its life.

My answer to the conundrum? I would probably say, 'do your best to try and save them both', beyond that I will live with the result. If it were possible, I would be more than willing to give my life in exchange for either, but that would not be possible. If pressed, I would have to answer honestly that my gut would lean towards the mother. I don't feel good about it though.

Dawg

[MacDawg]

I certainly agree that saying "I can't figure it out, ergo there must be a God" is a bit of a feeble response.

I would agree, if that were the ONLY reason for such a response.

Dawg

[MacDawg]

What I don't get is how critically thinking people can look at the evidence and say that the most likely explanation is that 'God is behind it'.

I agree, and that gives rise to superstition. We have rightly progressed beyond the pantheon of gods for this and that, wind, fire, rain, etc.

I understand the temptation by some to lump all religion into the same category, but I don't think that is a logical conclusion.

Dawg

[mactastic]

I agree, and that gives rise to superstition. We have rightly progressed beyond the pantheon of gods for this and that, wind, fire, rain, etc.

I understand the temptation by some to lump all religion into the same category, but I don't think that is a logical conclusion.

Dawg

What religions would you lump together? And by what criteria do you group them?

[skunk]

Many draw a line for abortion with rape, incest or the danger to the life of the mother. I think that is far better than abortion on demand, but I can't draw the line there. Rape is horrible, to be sure, and incest would be considered horrible by many, and genetically unsound by most. And yet an innocent life has been conceived that will bear the burden of that choice to terminate its life.
And the life of the innocent mother? She will bear the burden either way.

My answer to the conundrum? I would probably say, 'do your best to try and save them both', beyond that I will live with the result. If it were possible, I would be more than willing to give my life in exchange for either, but that would not be possible. If pressed, I would have to answer honestly that my gut would lean towards the mother. I don't feel good about it though.
Weird kind of husband you'd be... :confused:

[MacDawg]

MacDawg, you protest that you've proposed nothing with respect to the teaching of faith-based theories of origins. But of course you have, if only indirectly. And if we've got you wrong some how, perhaps you ought to explain precisely what you think ought to be taught in schools. Forgive me if you've said already, but I can't find it definitively stated over the course of the last 100+ posts.

I would be comfortable with teaching the evidence as it is, but in an open ended way, apart from dogma. I am not completely opposed to introducing Darwinism as a possible explanation , but I do oppose it being presented as the only explanation. Do all possible explanation need to be discussed? I would say 'no'. If you want to say that Darwinism is a possible explanation and is the best we have so far... I can live with that. I don't believe it, but I can live with it.

Discussing only the data that supports the theory and leaving off those things that don't fit produces students who haven't been educated, but rather have been indoctrinated. School is not church, and church is not school. I am not advocating that they mix in any way. When it comes to faith based explanations, leave that to me. I will teach my own children at home. I wouldn't expect the school to teach them that. But don't ridicule them, persecute them, and penalize them because they don't fully embrace with open arms a theory that has many inconsistencies and challenges to it. Allow them the intellectual freedom to examine the evidence and make informed decisions.

Dawg

[Ugg]

When it comes to abortion itself, I would ask the question, “when is it proper to kill a child?”


Ah, the old wifebeater argument. Many US states and the Feds seem to think that it's ok to execute those under the age of 18. Why are you not concerned about them? Is it because they fall under some biblical command to kill those who have killed?

Polarization is the only possible reaction to your abuse of the word proper. If what you want is to create a topic of serious discussion then your statements need to properly constructed.

[MacDawg]

The reason that Darwin's theory remains a theory is that our forensic record is incomplete. The reason for dissent amongst the ranks is due to the missing pieces of the puzzle. It's hard enough for us to figure out how the Mayans lived much less the connection between winged and furred creatures. To turn one's back on the theory of evolution after such a short time when so many pieces are still missing is a sign of impatience and arrogance. As with all theories, Darwin's has been modified over time as additional information has been discovered. His tree of life was somewhat inaccurate, and would be more accurately described as a liana, with multiple roots, stems and directions.

Record is incomplete... missing pieces of the puzzle...
My point exactly. But it wasn't taught that way in school to me, was it to you? How about colleges today? Is it not presented much as it is on this board... that it is a proven fact, and anyone who doesn't believe it is considered to have a poached egg for a brain?

Your point about the Mayans is well taken. Through in the Egyptians and the pyramids too. Too much is unknown. So lets not close off intellectual inquiry by elevating Darwinism to an unquestionable status.

Dawg

[katchow]

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

I'm sure you can handel it.

ok, i feel a little dim, i just got that one. it's strange, that's about the third time messiah has come up this week. though, what's with debussy and milk?

unless perhaps, debussy is a ***** cat? i dunno... :)

[Xtremehkr]

First of all, unless you are apolitical and only hold these positions without voting, you are participating what is going on through supporting the Republican Party.

You also argue these points on the internet, with gusto, which suggests to me that you vote.

You cannot rationalize taking away other peoples rights simply because it is right in your mind, no matter what they think.

If you honestly wanted to know about evolution, you would put in half the time you have on this thread researching it. You simply don't want to know about it.

Intelligent Design and Creationism are based entirely on theory and perceived holes in Evolution (that are quite easily explainable btw) which makes them so much weaker than the knowledge and solid scientific findings that are fact right now.

There's no point in discussing this with you. Not only do you claim persecution for holding your views if someone disagrees with you, but you are not willing to to even consider somone elses point of view.

So what's the point, that's a fanatical position.

[Xtremehkr]

Does everything that dies leave a fossil?

why not?

[Xtremehkr]

Evolution of the Eye (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html)

Evolution of the Eye:



When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Bilogists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.


Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations. Starting with a simple patch of light sensitive cells, Nilsson's model "evolves" until a clear image is produced. Examples of organisms that still use the intermediary forms of vision are also shown. From Evolution: "Darwin's Dangerous Idea."



Credits: © 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. All rights reserved.


Results 1 - 10 of about 3,970,000 for Evolution of the eye. (0.12 seconds)

That wasn't so hard, try it.

[Xtremehkr]

Evolution of the Eye, with animation. (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp)

[MacDawg]

No restraints or accountability from those who believe in evolution??? Come on Dawg, you've been pretty levelheaded so far in this discussion. Show me how proponents of evolution lack restraint or don't care about accountability.

It sounds like you think that morals cannot exist in the absense of God.

If we are all descendants of pond scum by some random chance through modified descent and natural selection, then we are by nature no different than the animal kingdom. There is no purpose to life, no destiny ahead. All is empty and meaningless, hence the philosphers who have opined of the "despair" for man. [short version]

Restraint and accountability then, have no foundation, and one man's law is another man's freedom. Where do standards and restraints come from then? Who sets the rules to hold me accountable to anything, and who gives them the right to do so. Rule by majority? By money? By force? Am I not capable and even further, committed to being a law unto myself?

What about the "good of mankind" or "society says" then? What gives them the right to exercise any authority over me? Life's a bitch, and then you die becomes the mantra.

No, I am not saying morals cannot exist apart from God, for clearly there are those who do not believe in a God who exercise morality. But they may do so to function in society, to make the best of their world or for a number of reasons.

Dawg

[MacDawg]

Ah, the old wifebeater argument. Many US states and the Feds seem to think that it's ok to execute those under the age of 18. Why are you not concerned about them? Is it because they fall under some biblical command to kill those who have killed?




What makes you think that I wouldn't be concerned about the execution of someone under 18?

I have already stated above that I believe the death penalty to be a valid response in certain circumstances, so I won't revisit that.


Polarization is the only possible reaction to your abuse of the word proper. If what you want is to create a topic of serious discussion then your statements need to properly constructed.

OK, I missed something here. Please clarify.

Dawg

[Xtremehkr]

Does an Objective llok at the human eye show evidence of creation? (http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml)

This one uses a variety of different examples, including one of reverse evolution when it comes to the development of the eye.

Darwin was challenged repeatedly on this matter. Critics would point to the precision and design features of the eye and claim that an organ of this perfection could not possibly have been produced by an accumulation of small changes, each of which made the eye work slightly better. A grossly imperfect eye, which could be improved by this process, would supposedly never evolve in the first place. Slight improvements in one part, such as the retina, would be useless without an exactly matching improvement in another, such as an increased precision of the lens. This is an utterly fallacious kind of reasoning. An improved retina may be useless without an improved lens, but both retinas and lenses are subject to individual variation. Some of the better retinas would be found in individuals who also had better lenses, so that the improvements, on average, could be favored.

The criticisms were also factually erroneous, and their proponents were ignorant of biology. As Darwin pointed out, familiarity with the animal kingdom shows the existence today of just about every stage in a plausible sequence from primitive light-sensitive cells on the surfaces of tiny wormlike animals, through the rudimentary camera eyes of scallops, to the advanced optical instrumentation of squids and vertebrates. Every stage in this sequence is subject to variation, and every stage is clearly useful to its possessor." (page 13-14)
Another creature to consider is the mole rat. Which theory holds water when the eye of the mole rat is considered? The ancestor of the mole rat presumably used its eyes as it lived above ground and needed them for survival. However, the mole rat has adapted to living underground in complete darkness. Its eyes have become useless--indeed, they have been buried beneath skin and fur and couldn't be used even if the mole rat came into the light. The neurons that were used for sight have been put to better use in the mole rat's brain for other sensory functions. Evolution by natural selection perfectly explains the eyes of a mole rat. A creationist must resort to faith and/or a poor designer. (See Lucy's Legacy p. 25 and Jared Diamond's "Competition for brain space" in Nature 382: 756-757.)

Now what?

[blackfox]

I would be comfortable with teaching the evidence as it is, but in an open ended way, apart from dogma. I am not completely opposed to introducing Darwinism as a possible explanation , but I do oppose it being presented as the only explanation. Do all possible explanation need to be discussed? I would say 'no'. If you want to say that Darwinism is a possible explanation and is the best we have so far... I can live with that. I don't believe it, but I can live with it.

Discussing only the data that supports the theory and leaving off those things that don't fit produces students who haven't been educated, but rather have been indoctrinated. School is not church, and church is not school. I am not advocating that they mix in any way. When it comes to faith based explanations, leave that to me. I will teach my own children at home. I wouldn't expect the school to teach them that. But don't ridicule them, persecute them, and penalize them because they don't fully embrace with open arms a theory that has many inconsistencies and challenges to it. Allow them the intellectual freedom to examine the evidence and make informed decisions.

DawgThe same could be said for History. Or many of the Social Sciences. Or Literature.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but the real difference seems to be the value (or values) of a topic of such import. I would submit that you seem to imply little trust or dare I say, faith, both in the Nature of Science and that of humanity in worrying about "indoctrination" of our youth by various scientific theory. Science is about curiousity, flexibility and questions among other things. I must wonder if you have ulterior motives here, even if they are not conscious motivators.

The school system is inherently biased for Culture, learning some topics at the exclusion of others (equally worthy). As I mentioned, History and Literature are among those affected. If your real concern is this larger problem, then let's talk about that. We need not necessarily include Darwinism to do so.

[Ugg]

Record is incomplete... missing pieces of the puzzle...
My point exactly. But it wasn't taught that way in school to me, was it to you? How about colleges today? Is it not presented much as it is on this board... that it is a proven fact, and anyone who doesn't believe it is considered to have a poached egg for a brain?

Your point about the Mayans is well taken. Through in the Egyptians and the pyramids too. Too much is unknown. So lets not close off intellectual inquiry by elevating Darwinism to an unquestionable status.

Dawg

I'm in my early 40s and was educated in a conservative school district in central Montana. Evolution was never presented as a complete puzzle but as a work in progress. Even at the fairly liberal university I attended, there was a lot of debate about missing links, etc. BUT, evolution is the single best theory out there. Science is about proof, creationism or intelligent design is about faith and ignoring the unprovable.

Your debate centers on two incompatible ideas. Science and faith. You can believe whatever you want and have faith in whomever you want. If you want to call faith a poached egg, so be it, but science should never be treated so cavalierly. Since there is no possible way that intelligent design can be proved, it has no place in science and therefore no place in the public school system. I'm all for expanding our knowledge of the world in which we live but I am not interested in funding a bunch of pseudo-scientists/theists to endlessly debate whether evolution is a natural process or one decreed by some higher power. The only single way to prove such a thing would be if that higher power were to reveal itself and its intentions to us. Until that day comes, I am simply not interested in second guessing however if that day comes I will maintain an open mind. My guess is that it will never happen, but who knows, right? I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.

Remember, faith does not equal science.

[MacDawg]

First of all, unless you are apolitical and only hold these positions without voting, you are participating what is going on through supporting the Republican Party.

You also argue these points on the internet, with gusto, which suggests to me that you vote.

I do participate and vote. However you have made a very stereotypical assumption by identifying me with the Republican Party. I have voted for many Democrats in my life.



You cannot rationalize taking away other peoples rights simply because it is right in your mind, no matter what they think.

My rights and your rights are always limited and/or taken away by society, whether your or I like it or not. My right to drive 100 on the Interstate has been taken aways. Many things you support probably take away rights I feel I have.



If you honestly wanted to know about evolution, you would put in half the time you have on this thread researching it. You simply don't want to know about it.

Intelligent Design and Creationism are based entirely on theory and perceived holes in Evolution (that are quite easily explainable btw) which makes them so much weaker than the knowledge and solid scientific findings that are fact right now.

I have read much and researched much on evolution. I don't want to sound condescending, but I have probably read more in support of Darwinism than you have read challenges to it. I could be wrong, and I have no way of knowing this, but your challenge to me that I 'simply don't want to know' and have not researched it is just as baseless a claim.



There's no point in discussing this with you. Not only do you claim persecution for holding your views if someone disagrees with you, but you are not willing to to even consider somone elses point of view.

So what's the point, that's a fanatical position.

Whooaaaaa... where have I claimed that I have been persecuted?? And why do you say that I am not willing to even consider someone else's point of view? Is it because you don't like what I say, or is it because any challenge of Darwinism equates to being closed minded?


So what's the point, that's a fanatical position.

So I guess your answers is "yes", "you are a right wing, radical, nut case" :)

Dawg

[MacDawg]

Does everything that dies leave a fossil?

why not?

No

Soft tissue

[IJ Reilly]

I would be comfortable with teaching the evidence as it is, but in an open ended way, apart from dogma. I am not completely opposed to introducing Darwinism as a possible explanation , but I do oppose it being presented as the only explanation. Do all possible explanation need to be discussed? I would say 'no'. If you want to say that Darwinism is a possible explanation and is the best we have so far... I can live with that. I don't believe it, but I can live with it.

Discussing only the data that supports the theory and leaving off those things that don't fit produces students who haven't been educated, but rather have been indoctrinated. School is not church, and church is not school. I am not advocating that they mix in any way. When it comes to faith based explanations, leave that to me. I will teach my own children at home. I wouldn't expect the school to teach them that. But don't ridicule them, persecute them, and penalize them because they don't fully embrace with open arms a theory that has many inconsistencies and challenges to it. Allow them the intellectual freedom to examine the evidence and make informed decisions.

Dawg

See, this is the very heart of the problem IMO. You repeatedly refer to scientific theory as "dogma," (which by definition means a belief held without respect to verifiable evidence), when in fact science is entirely evidence-based and it is religion that is predicated on dogma. I also object to the constant reference to "Darwinism," as though the general theory of evolution was born fully-formed with Darwin 150 years ago. We know, or at least we should, that this is far from the case, and in the ensuing century and a half evolution has become one of the cornerstones of modern science, if not entirely in the form Darwin conceived it -- just as Newton's theory of gravitation has done. This has occurred by virtue of the ability of science to verify the process, not some belief that it occurs absent any facts.

I take it from your education response that you somehow think it is the role of the schools to reconcile issues of science and faith. If to simply teach your children widely accepted scientific theory constitutes "ridicule, persecution and penalization," then I think you are bound to be at odds with the fundamental precepts of science in a way that no amount of patient discussion will alter.

[MacDawg]

The same could be said for History. Or many of the Social Sciences. Or Literature.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but the real difference seems to be the value (or values) of a topic of such import. I would submit that you seem to imply little trust or dare I say, faith, both in the Nature of Science and that of humanity in worrying about "indoctrination" of our youth by various scientific theory. Science is about curiousity, flexibility and questions among other things. I must wonder if you have ulterior motives here, even if they are not conscious motivators.

The school system is inherently biased for Culture, learning some topics at the exclusion of others (equally worthy). As I mentioned, History and Literature are among those affected. If your real concern is this larger problem, then let's talk about that. We need not necessarily include Darwinism to do so.

I would agree with what you have said about other topics needing to be included in the discussion.

Dawg

[Ugg]

What makes you think that I wouldn't be concerned about the execution of someone under 18?

I have already stated above that I believe the death penalty to be a valid response in certain circumstances, so I won't revisit that.



OK, I missed something here. Please clarify.

Dawg

You stated when is it proper to kill a child. It might be improper to wear a tie with a flannel shirt, or it might be improper to throw garbage on your neighbor's driveway. Killing a child is a topic that deserves a little more gravity than the use of the word proper. It's a moral issue, not one of taste or convention.

[MacDawg]

I'm in my early 40s and was educated in a conservative school district in central Montana. Evolution was never presented as a complete puzzle but as a work in progress. Even at the fairly liberal university I attended, there was a lot of debate about missing links, etc. BUT, evolution is the single best theory out there. Science is about proof, creationism or intelligent design is about faith and ignoring the unprovable.

Your debate centers on two incompatible ideas. Science and faith. You can believe whatever you want and have faith in whomever you want. If you want to call faith a poached egg, so be it, but science should never be treated so cavalierly. Since there is no possible way that intelligent design can be proved, it has no place in science and therefore no place in the public school system. I'm all for expanding our knowledge of the world in which we live but I am not interested in funding a bunch of pseudo-scientists/theists to endlessly debate whether evolution is a natural process or one decreed by some higher power. The only single way to prove such a thing would be if that higher power were to reveal itself and its intentions to us. Until that day comes, I am simply not interested in second guessing however if that day comes I will maintain an open mind. My guess is that it will never happen, but who knows, right? I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.

Remember, faith does not equal science.

I agree that faith does not equal science, and I have not advocated the teaching of faith in the schools.

None of the theories of origins can ever be "proved". A one time, non reproducible singularity will never be duplicated by science.

Dawg

[pdham]

Xtremehkr,

I find it interesting that you are so quick to assume MacDawg is unwilling to understand evolution... lets say Macroevolution for clarity. Because if anyone did substantial research they will see that holes and problems do exist in the THEORY of evolution that is why it is still a theory. Now lets remove all thought of creationism from this conversation. It would be fair and indisputable to say that there are scientists that now have many questions with the applications of Macroevo and abiogenesis to all species and instances in this varied landscape we call life. I have recently viewed a DVD that was produced by evolutionary scientists (I dont have their names right now but I should be able to find them) that looked at how Darwin's theory is flimsy at best when applied to the flagellar motor. What if I said that I am unwilling to whole heartedly accept Darwinism but I think there is another scientific explanation out there that has nothing to do with a God or religion. Would you still be so quick to label me "fanatical." MacDawg has never said our children must be taught about creationism but only that it is not presented as fact in our educational institutions. I attend the University of Wisconsin - Madison, possibly the undesputed leader in genetic research - The human genome project was pioneered here and stem cell research was invented here. Now I have heared of people that majored in bio or genetics and didnt learn about the flaws with an all inclusive Darwinian approach until independent research at the masters of PhD level. That seems contrary to the scientific approach.

Why is that people have such trouble pursuing a scientific process when it comes to Macroevo and abiogenesis. My personal thought is that people are afriad that someone will invoke God or belief and it is just easier not to deal with that.


Paul

[blackfox]

If to simply teach your children widely accepted scientific theory constitutes "ridicule, persecution and penalization,"

I believe MD was referring to the consequences of kids not fully accepting Evolution as truth, as a type of passive coercion.

Otherwise, excellent points and excellent post.

[Xtremehkr]

Let's not jump to Macroevolution so quickly, I want to discuss the claim made about the eye first. There is obviously a huge disconnect here because Creationists are claiming improbability and evolutionists have examples of eyes at every stage of creation and solid ideas about how they got that way.

We can do Macroevolution next.

[Sun Baked]

With the new direction of this thread...

I'd like to change my vote to nut case.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2622http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2622

[blackfox]

OK, this discussion is covering so much ground that I think some clarity is needed, otherwise we may be talking past each other forever.

So I ask MacDawg, in particular, to attempt to succintly represent his point, so that we can all likewise make more relevant responses/counterpoints resulting in a more coherent discussion.

Jumping around from Creationism to Darwinism to Evolution (macro and micro) to Intelligent Design to Abortion, while interesting, is diffusive and is making my head hurt/spin.

[MacDawg]

See, this is the very heart of the problem IMO. You repeatedly refer to scientific theory as "dogma," (which by definition means a belief held without respect to verifiable evidence), when in fact science is entirely evidence-based and it is religion that is predicated on dogma. I also object to the constant reference to "Darwinism," as though the general theory of evolution was born fully-formed with Darwin 150 years ago. We know, or at least we should, that this is far from the case, and in the ensuing century and a half evolution has become one of the cornerstones of modern science, if not entirely in the form Darwin conceived it -- just as Newton's theory of gravitation has done. This has occurred by virtue of the ability of science to verify the process, not some belief that it occurs absent any facts.

Isn't a theory something that hasn't been verified by evidence?
If it has been verified, then it is no longer a theory, but a fact.

I'm sorry the reference Darwinism is offensive. If evolution fits the bill better, I will use it. I referred to Darwinism as mainly an indication of macroevolution in distinction to microevolution or abiogenesis, but I never really stated that. Evolution is a broad term, and can be twisted, but I will use it, if it fits better.

But when it comes to evolution, it can't be both ways... scientific fact AND theory. Either it is a theory, and hence just that, or it is a proven fact, which it is not.




I take it from your education response that you somehow think it is the role of the schools to reconcile issues of science and faith. If to simply teach your children widely accepted scientific theory constitutes "ridicule, persecution and penalization," then I think you are bound to be at odds with the fundamental precepts of science in a way that no amount of patient discussion will alter.

No, I do not think it is the role of the school to reconcile issues of science and faith. Far from it.

What I meant when I said 'ridicule, persecution and penalization' was not related to the teaching of a theory. What I said was if they did not embrace it with open arms. Lets say a child in school writes a well researched, well written paper quoting reputable sources about something involving evolution, and it challenges some aspect. If a teacher, grades it down because it doesn't fit his or her perspective, and publicly points it out to the class for a laugh... I think that fits the bill.

As far as the fundamental precepts of science, would we agree the scientific method would qualify as such?

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation

How does this relate to abiogenesis? macroevolution?
Neither have been observed.
Neither are reproducible.

Dawg

[Ugg]

I agree that faith does not equal science, and I have not advocated the teaching of faith in the schools.

None of the theories of origins can ever be "proved". A one time, non reproducible singularity will never be duplicated by science.

Dawg

Science is not interesting in duplicating, it is interested in verifying theories. A great example of this is cloning, an exact replica can never exist. Since creationism and its ilk are unverifiable it can't be considered as science. Unless you're willing to create an entirely new field that excludes faith, then there is no way that this should be taught in schools.

It is strictly a religious and or faith based theory so if it's not verifiable then why get so hot and bothered about it if we can never, ever prove it? It seems as though it's just an easy way out for those who are trying to integrate the completely mystifying passages of the bible with scientific evidence. IMO, it's just a big cop out. The scientific evidence is clear although not complete. That's a heck of a lot more than creationism has going for it.

[MacDawg]

You stated when is it proper to kill a child. It might be improper to wear a tie with a flannel shirt, or it might be improper to throw garbage on your neighbor's driveway. Killing a child is a topic that deserves a little more gravity than the use of the word proper. It's a moral issue, not one of taste or convention.

You are absolutely right and I agree.

How about this... when is it morally right to kill a child

Dawg

[Don't panic]

MacDawg,

first of all, I am pleased to note that you agree that Genesis is at best an allegorical tale and that Literal Creationism belongs in the same chapter as all other mytologies and cosmogonies, in the Social Studies section.
It's a start.

So let's move to Intelligent Design.

There are several flavors of it, and from some of your previous post it seems to me that you prefer the least conservative of them.
In other words i assume (correct me if I am wrong) you don't dispute the "reality" of the "evidence" (fossil record, geological strata, datation systems, phylogenetic analysis, paleonthology, genetic, biochemical and molecular data): that is, you accept the same data as evolutionists do, but differ on the interpretation of some aspects of it, mostly dealing with what you call "macroevolution" and "abiogenesis", while you seem to accept "microvolution".

- if misunderstood and you believe that that evidence was just "put there" to fool us by some Almighty Armani with an imperscrutable sense of humor, then I guess we can stop pretendings to discuss science

to summarize, it seems to me that you DO believe in evolution, with the difference that you think that there is "master project" for it, and that your ID intervened from time to time to "nudge" chance-driven evolution in the "right" direction. This is pretty much the position of the catholic church, which in its modern aspects co-opts science and changes its framework of beliefs enough to make everything fit.

However, the arguments you quote against evolution boil down to "I don't get this aspect so the theory is wrong", and a lot of the specific "gap" examples you push as unchangeable facts (feathers, eyes, flight, clotting an so on cambrian explosion and so on) are inexistent and/or based on old data and have debunked many times.
There is, in fact, a ton of solid data that trace, for example, the origins and/or morphogenesis of feathers, both from fossils and by genetic/biochemistry means. Some of it is recent (last 5-10 years -maybe the creator got sidetracked on more important issues and decided to drop this one).
All of it is conveniently ignored by ID proponents.
There were/are many theories about the origin (or better, the multiple origins) of flight. Some are better supported by data than others and will eventually become the measuring stickyards for flight theories, only to be substituted by a different, better one.
Such is science: you define a problem and work toward a solution. Sometimes the data solve the problem, some times they redefine it, but the sciences moves on. With pseudosciences like ID there is no scientific method, there is no experimental programs, there is nothing but (mostly lame) nitpicking on ever-shrinking areas that are not YET well explained by science.
ID is a loud PR effort, that has nothing to do with science.
"I believe it is so because I believe it is so" doesn't cut it for me, sorry.

As many have mentioned before, the theory of evolution as it is today is not perfect yet, but it "evolved" and it fits the ever-growing body of data better (with NO major inconsistencies), than the one originally formulated by darwin, but the major tenets (common ancestors, changes are naturally-driven and then fixed) remain unchanged and undisproven.
It is, essentially, correct.
The amount of data that support it is overwhelming. The entire body of evidence is consistent with it, while there is very little (if any) data that contradicts it. No significant one that I am aware of.

So why shouldn't it be thought? If it's not explained correctly, than it should be explained better, but that is no ground to have ID explained on equal grounds. They are NOT on equal grounds.
One is supported by evidence and the other is not.

Going back to a previous example is like claiming that the Holocaust should be questioned or holocaust deniers should have equal space because some of the headshowers used in nazi camps where possibly not consistent with theirusage for gas, or that there is no written document signed by Hitler ordering it. So what? Millions of man and womens and children where herded like animals and killed just because they or their relatives were jews, communists, gipsies, homosexuals - different -. The fact that they maybe were 5.5 millions and not 6 millions does not make that crime less heineous or the charges less true.

Of course there are some things that are hard to explain. we don't know everything and probably we never will. But we know more than we did, and less than we will.

If you have something better, let us see it.
But let us also see the data to support it and the experiments to test it.
Then you can teach it.

[MacDawg]

With the new direction of this thread...

I'd like to change my vote to nut case.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2622http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2622


Thanks for the vote of confidence sun baked!! :p

Glad somebody got us back on the original point of the thread!!

[stubeeef]

Quick question please, if man has evolved, what did he evolve from? What was the organisim that was the original organism? What is the theory and probability of it?

[MacDawg]

MacDawg,

first of all, I am pleased to note that you agree that Genesis is at best an allegorical tale and that Literal Creationism belongs in the same chapter as all other mytologies and cosmogonies, in the Social Studies section.
It's a start.


Did I say that somewhere??


If you have something better, let us see it.
But let us also see the data to support it and the experiments to test it.
Then you can teach it.

Never advocated being able to teach it in the public schools.

Dawg

[Xtremehkr]

Xtremehkr,

I find it interesting that you are so quick to assume MacDawg is unwilling to understand evolution... lets say Macroevolution for clarity. Because if anyone did substantial research they will see that holes and problems do exist in the THEORY of evolution that is why it is still a theory.

No. [/QUOTE]Was Darwin Wrong? (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/) More than just a theory now.

Now lets remove all thought of creationism from this conversation.

Why?


It would be fair and indisputable to say that there are scientists that now have many questions with the applications of Macroevo and abiogenesis to all species and instances in this varied landscape we call life. I have recently viewed a DVD that was produced by evolutionary scientists (I dont have their names right now but I should be able to find them) that looked at how Darwin's theory is flimsy at best when applied to the flagellar motor.

I can't take this seriously without a real reference or link.

What if I said that I am unwilling to whole heartedly accept Darwinism but I think there is another scientific explanation out there that has nothing to do with a God or religion. Would you still be so quick to label me "fanatical."

What if? That's completely different.


MacDawg has never said our children must be taught about creationism but only that it is not presented as fact in our educational institutions.

The information taught is factual and based in science.

I attend the University of Wisconsin - Madison, possibly the undesputed leader in genetic research ( really) - The human genome project was pioneered here and stem cell research was invented here.(Does that make you more knowledgable by osmosis or something?) Now I have heared of people that majored in bio or genetics and didnt learn about the flaws with an all inclusive Darwinian approach until independent research at the masters of PhD level. That seems contrary to the scientific approach.

How so? Do you believe everything you hear? Go see Alexander, it's a great movie.

Why is that people have such trouble pursuing a scientific process when it comes to Macroevo and abiogenesis. My personal thought is that people are afriad that someone will invoke God or belief and it is just easier not to deal with that.

Do they? I find your post a little disingenuous. Not only did you misconstrue what I said but you seem to be trying to muddy the water more than clearing anything up.

[Xtremehkr]

Did I say that somewhere??



Never advocated being able to teach it in the public schools.

Dawg

The people whom you support politically do, so it is not that easy to rid yourself of fault.

[Xtremehkr]

MacroEvolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html)

What is macroevolution?

n science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, a macrophage means a bigger than normal cell, but it is only a few times bigger than other cells, and not an order of magnitude bigger.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.

There are various kinds of dynamics of macroevolution. Punctuated equilibrium theory proposes that once species have originated, and adapted to the new ecological niches in which they find themselves, they tend to stay pretty much as they are for the rest of their existence. Phyletic gradualism suggests that species continue to adapt to new challenges over the course of their history. Species selection and species sorting theories claim that there are macroevolutionary processes going on that make it more or less likely that certain species will exist for very long before becoming extinct, in a kind of parallel to what happens to genes in microevolution.


The history of the concept of macroevolution

In the "modern synthesis" of neo-Darwinism, which developed in the period from 1930 to 1950 with the reconciliation of evolution by natural selection and modern genetics, macroevolution is thought to be the combined effects of microevolutionary processes. In theories proposing "orthogenetic evolution" (literally, straight line evolution), macroevolution is thought to be of a different calibre and process than microevolution. Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s.

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

Non-Darwinian evolutionists think that the processes that cause speciation are of a different kind to those that occur within species. That is, they admit that macroevolution occurs, but think that normal genetic change is restricted by such proposed mechanisms as developmental constraints. This view is associated with the names of Schmalhausen and Waddington, who were often characterised as being non-Darwinians by the modern synthesis theorists.

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist. Moreover Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition.

In Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species, he began by saying that "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution" (1937, page 12), thereby introducing the terms into the English-speaking biological community (Alexandrov 1994). Dobzhansky had been Filipchenko's student and regarded him as his mentor. In science, it is difficult to deny a major tenet of one's teachers due to filial loyalty, and Dobzhansky, who effectively started the modern Darwinian synthesis with this book, found it disagreeable to have to deny his teacher's views (Burian 1994).

The term fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories. As a result, apart from Dobzhansky, Bernhardt Rensch and Ernst Mayr, very few neo-Darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Those who do are generally working within the continental European traditions (as Dobzhansky, Mayr, Rensch, Goldschmidt, and Schindewolf are) and those who don't are generally working within the Anglo-American tradition (such as John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins). Hence, the term is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not (Eldredge 1995: 126-127).

The term has been revived by a number of authors such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibrium theory (see Eldredge's 1992 Macroevolutionary Dynamics ), but there is a tendency in these authors to revert to the orthogenetic view that something other than within-species processes are causing macroevolution, although they disavow the orthogenetic view that evolution is progressing anywhere.


Conclusion

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.


References

Alexandrov, DA: 1994. Filipchenko and Dobzhansky: Issues in Evolutionary Genetics in the 1920s. In The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky, ed. MB Adams, Princeton University Press.

Bowler, PJ: 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism, Johns Hopkins University Press

Burian, RM: 1994. Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background. In The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky, ed. MB Adams, Princeton University Press.

Dobzhansky, Th: 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press

Eldredge, N: 1992. Macroevolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill

Eldredge, N: 1995. Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, Weidenfeld and Nicholson

Goldschmidt, R: 1940. The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press

Gould, SJ: 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Norton

Want more?

[blackfox]

Quick question please, if man has evolved, what did he evolve from? What was the organisim that was the original organism? What is the theory and probability of it?
an ameoba. As proof, I occasionally revert back to that state, usually after a large meal, and couple of beers whilst "lounging" on my couch.

I then proceed to look at the bright-colored box, which does not require me to think above a unicellular level and occasionally am amused by higher mammals looking cute through a fish-eye lens.

[blackfox]

The people whom you support politically do, so it is not that easy to rid yourself of fault.
Come on now, I think you are being a little unfair. Who knows why MD voted the way he did, it could've been for any number of reasons.

I usually vote Democratic, does that make the sins of the Democratic Party in specific instances, my responsibility to absolve?

[MacDawg]

Quick question please, if man has evolved, what did he evolve from? What was the organisim that was the original organism? What is the theory and probability of it?

Hi there stubeeef!
I was wondering if you were ever going to drop in!

BTW, interestingly enough, this is NOT an evolution thread. :o


OK, this discussion is covering so much ground that I think some clarity is needed, otherwise we may be talking past each other forever.

So I ask MacDawg, in particular, to attempt to succintly represent his point...

OK boys and girls, lets wind this up...
The point of this thread was stated in the beginning...
Based on my original statements, answer the question, like sun baked did...

Am I a right wing, radical, nut case?

Vote now...
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Maybe

Funny, I remember writing a note to a girl once with those same options...
"I like you, do you like me, check box..."

Anyway, vote NOW... and hanging chads, provisional ballots and absentee votes WILL be counted. Nobody will be disenfranchised here!!

[MacDawg]

Come on now, I think you are being a little unfair. Who knows why MD voted the way he did, it could've been for any number of reasons.

I usually vote Democratic, does that make the sins of the Democratic Party in specific instances, my responsibility to absolve?


Thanks for having my back blackfox ;)

The only vote I disclosed was for Bush.
As stated above, I have voted for candidates from both parties often.

[Don't panic]

Hi there stubeeef!
I was wondering if you were ever going to drop in!

BTW, interestingly enough, this is NOT an evolution thread. :o



OK boys and girls, lets wind this up...
The point of this thread was stated in the beginning...
Based on my original statements, answer the question (like sun baked did...

Am I a right wing, radical, nut case?

Vote now...
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Maybe

Funny, I remember writing a note to a girl once with those same options...
"I like you, do you like me, check box..."

Anyway, vote NOW... and hanging chads, provisional ballots and absentee votes WILL be counted. Nobody will be disenfranchised here!!


intelligent design......................nut
exclusive “right” religion............nut
no prayer in school...................reasonable
no abortion..............................reasonable
overturning of roe vs wade.........right wing
no embryonic stem cell..............right wing
oppose homosexuals.................nut
flat tax...................................right wing
agnostic on iraq.......................reasonable
voted for bush.........................right wing

the verdict:
you are a reasonable right winger with a nutty aftertaste ;)

[MacDawg]

intelligent design......................nut
exclusive “right” religion............nut
no prayer in school...................reasonable
no abortion..............................reasonable
overturning of roe vs wade.........right wing
no embryonic stem cell..............right wing
oppose homosexuals.................nut
flat tax...................................right wing
agnostic on iraq.......................reasonable
voted for bush.........................right wing

the verdict:
you are a reasonable right winger with a nutty aftertaste ;)


Wow, the first vote tallied is a write in... didn't see that coming! :p

The polls are still open, and CNN has yet to call this one, so your vote still counts (although I must confess the exit polls don't look promising, but what the heck... they aren't always right!)

[blackfox]

MacDawg, I did remember the original impetus behind this thread, I just figured since it had evolved we might clarify our argument(s) on those (broad) topics. Anyway, as to your original question:

I do not think you are a nut-case. I just see some bleeding of your emotional/ideological priorities into the more reasonable part of your thinking. That is the case, to some degree, with everyone. If you felt that you learned something in the discussion here, then I would say you are fine. If not, then at least your insanity is mild-natured.

I do think you are right-wing. Still, you strike me as pretty Centrist. Basically, you are my favorite type of Right-Winger, in that you seem to have a somewhat open mind and do not exclusively vote party ideology. The vote for Bush hurts you though. Bigtime.

I am not sure about the Radical label. Some of the ideas you have presented are definitely radical, but your presentation and suggestions for implementation are less so. Nevertheless, since you are essentially advocating turning over the status-quo on Abortion and Evolution and some parts of Education, you earn the title.

We disagree on much, but you are certainly not ushering in the apocalypse.

[IJ Reilly]

Isn't a theory something that hasn't been verified by evidence?
If it has been verified, then it is no longer a theory, but a fact.

No, and no. A theory verified by evidence is still a theory; it simply becomes a more convincing theory the more evidence to support it is presented. It doesn't become a fact, at least insofar as fact=proof. Proofs are only available in mathematics, and not always then.

The reference to Darwinism isn't offensive, it simply isn't accurate. The basic theory posited by Darwin has been advanced in many directions by thousands of scientists over 150 years. To call everything that's been developed subsequently "Darwinism" is to miss the point, IMO.

I still don't understand how you think the schools ought to teach this subject. I feel that if the schools simply taught science as science, that students would go away with the understanding that scientific theories are open-ended propositions subject to challenge, change and (dare I say it), evolution. They would also understand that this is why science is the opposite of dogma.

[stubeeef]

MacDawg, you are doing great. Most will tell you that it is much better than I do.

I have enjoyed following your discussion, and have concluded your a left wing socialist wingbat! :p (you know I'm kidding-glad we're not into labels though)

Wether or not you are a nut job or not, you are in the majority as far as the us popular opinion on many of your subjects. I guess you will have to choose, macadamian or walnut? Peanut is ok but so lower class.

just waiting till we explore Bergsonism.

[Don't panic]

Quick question please, if man has evolved, what did he evolve from? What was the organisim that was the original organism? What is the theory and probability of it?

man evolved from its ancestors, the actual form of which depends on how much you want to go back in time.
eventually you get to some form of unicellular organism.
the theory is evolution.
the probability is 1.

[mactastic]

I hadn't heard that a majority in the US wanted Roe v. Wade overturned.

MacDawg is in the majority on some issues, but not on all of them.

[pseudobrit]

If we are all descendants of pond scum by some random chance through modified descent and natural selection, then we are by nature no different than the animal kingdom. There is no purpose to life, no destiny ahead. All is empty and meaningless, hence the philosphers who have opined of the "despair" for man. [short version]

Restraint and accountability then, have no foundation, and one man's law is another man's freedom. Where do standards and restraints come from then? Who sets the rules to hold me accountable to anything, and who gives them the right to do so. Rule by majority? By money? By force? Am I not capable and even further, committed to being a law unto myself?

What about the "good of mankind" or "society says" then? What gives them the right to exercise any authority over me? Life's a bitch, and then you die becomes the mantra.

No, I am not saying morals cannot exist apart from God, for clearly there are those who do not believe in a God who exercise morality. But they may do so to function in society, to make the best of their world or for a number of reasons.

Why the hell do people find the need to explain God as a meddling, hand-holding father figure?

And why does this simplistic (childlike would almost be a better word) view preclude the possibility of evolution?

It's almost like people fill a parental role in their life with the notion of God after reaching adulthood and becoming independent of their parents.

[skunk]

you are in the majority as far as the us popular opinion on many of your subjects.
Since when was that a good thing?

[pseudobrit]

You are absolutely right and I agree.

How about this... when is it morally right to kill a child

Dawg

When God, speaking through a burning bush, tells you to sacrifice one.

[MacDawg]

I hadn't heard that a majority in the US wanted Roe v. Wade overturned.

I guess we will never know since it will probably never come to a vote. :(


Why the hell do people find the need to explain God as a meddling, hand-holding father figure?

I really said that??



Vote people... vote!

[skunk]

When God, speaking through a burning bush, tells you to sacrifice one.
Fair enough.

"God speaking through a burning Bush": now there's an image to conjure with....

[MacDawg]

When God, speaking through a burning bush, tells you to sacrifice one.

Great answer pseudobrit, but the Kobayashi Maru (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?KobayashiMaru) was averted when the conditions changed... Jehovah Jireh, Hebrew for "the Lord will provide", as God provided the actual sacrifice himself in the Biblical account.

Dawg

[pseudobrit]

Great answer pseudobrit, but the Kobayashi Maru (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?KobayashiMaru) was averted when the conditions changed... Jehovah Jireh, Hebrew for "the Lord will provide", as God provided the actual sacrifice himself in the Biblical account.

So why does God continue to kill babies?

[MacDawg]

So why does God continue to kill babies?


Does He?

[dsharits]

So, these "right-wing radical nut cases" ignore science by believing in Creation, huh? Prove it. Show me scientific proof for evolution. For that matter, show me how science doesn't DISPROVE evolution. I would love to see your feeble attempts at it.

Daniel

[mactastic]

I would love to see your feeble attempts at it.

Daniel

Nice. Sounds like you aren't interested in talking about this rationally.

[pdham]

Now lets remove all thought of creationism from this conversation.


Why?


Because I am trying to suggest that the only reason that people oppose any criticism of Macroevolution (and Darwinism in as far as it applies to Macroevo) is because they don't like the discussion of creationism. I am wondering if I came to you with a purely scientific answer that has no bearing on religion would the dismisal be as quick?



I can't take this seriously without a real reference or link.


The DVD I was refering to is called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" The contributing scientists and scholars included -
Dean Kenyon: Dr. in Biophysics and the author of the extremely important book on prebiotic evolution "Biochemical Predesdination." Since he penned this book he has questioned all of the ground breaking evolutionary theory he helped to form.
Michael Behe: Dr. of BioChem at Leigh Univ.
William Dembski: Mathametician at Baylor
an others included philosophy of science scholars and other Biology and Biochem researchers.
You can google the DVD title for more info. But I must warn you that they do explore the idea of intelligent design so they are probably all "fanatical"


The information taught is factual and based in science.


I am just asking that it be presented in compilation with the science community that questions it. And in reference to my antecdote of a people who have studied in the field of genetics. I have heard from their own mouths that they were not presented with the idea that Darwinism is indisputable while undergrads, so yes I do have a tendancy to believe first hand accounts.



I apologize if I have misrepresented anything you have said, I sincerely did not mean to do that or muddy the waters as you said. I just want you to consider why you are so quick to discredit all protest when there ARE scientists that are questioning Darwin and isnt the point of science to be continually refining positions.. If you admit that Darwinian thought might have holes that does not mean you must believe in God.

In fact, below is a statement circulated in the scientific community to gain signatures by those that are ready and desiring to expand our views on traditional evolutionary thought. Are all these scholars fanatical because they question the science you hold so tightly to? Or are they just fullfilling their role as scholars and scientists?

Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

*
*

[MacDawg]

Interesting how 2 intelligent people can look at the same thing and see something totally different... I guess it is a paradigm shift.

“We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburbs of one of a hundred thousand million galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence.”
- Stephen Hawking to the BBC



“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, All sheep and oxen--Even the beasts of the field, The birds of the air, And the fish of the sea That pass through the paths of the seas. O LORD, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth!”
- David in Psalm 8:3-9

[pseudobrit]

So, these "right-wing radical nut cases" ignore science by believing in Creation, huh? Prove it. Show me scientific proof for evolution. For that matter, show me how science doesn't DISPROVE evolution. I would love to see your feeble attempts at it.

Daniel

So, these "left radical nut cases" ignore God by believing in evolution, huh? Prove it. Show me scientific proof for creation. For that matter, show me how science doesn't DISPROVE creation. I would love to see your feeble attempts at it.

****ing awesome.

[themadchemist]

More later, but you, MacDawg, seem to way heavy with the inertia of enacted legislation. You define the morality (or lack of morality) in a particular debate based upon current legality. You also express willingness to change your conception of morality once "society is ready." If legislation defines morality and morality should be the basis of legislation, then neither will ever change.

It is disconcerting to see that, in many important discussions, you find "proof" of the ethical approvability of your positions in current societal norms and legislative conceptions.

If society becomes better in a certain way, then laws are not necessary after the fact (except to keep those corners of society that have not improved as much). Rather, laws should be crafted to pursue a better society. To approach the ideal society more closely, one where diversity is respected, order is maintained, and justice is served, we must approach Jefferson's vision of law: To legislate against that which harms others and to protect that which "neither picks [others'] pocket[s] nor breaks [their] leg[s]."

[IJ Reilly]

This thread has provided ample scientific evidence to support the theory of devolution. I'm out.

[Don't panic]

Now lets remove all thought of creationism from this conversation
Why?

Because I am trying to suggest that the only reason that people oppose any criticism of Macroevolution (and Darwinism in as far as it applies to Macroevo) is because they don't like the discussion of creationism. I am wondering if I came to you with a purely scientific answer that has no bearing on religion would the dismisal be as quick?


science discussed and analyzed the various criticisms of 'macroevolution' advanced in this thread and have repeatedly rejected them based on scientific evidence. when you will have a scientific answer or theory that has no bearing on religion propose it to the scientific community and it will be evaluated.

I can't take this seriously without a real reference or link.

The DVD I was refering to is called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" The contributing scientists and scholars included -
Dean Kenyon: Dr. in Biophysics and the author of the extremely important book on prebiotic evolution "Biochemical Predesdination." Since he penned this book he has questioned all of the ground breaking evolutionary theory he helped to form.
Michael Behe: Dr. of BioChem at Leigh Univ.
William Dembski: Mathametician at Baylor
an others included philosophy of science scholars and other Biology and Biochem researchers.
You can google the DVD title for more info. But I must warn you that they do explore the idea of intelligent design so they are probably all "fanatical"

except you claimed that they were "evolutionary" scientists, while they are among the loudest promoter of intelligent design. They don't "explore the idea" of ID, they made up the whole thing. Interstingly enough, they have produced NO data whatsoever in support of it, and the claims of Behe and Dembski have been repeatedly debunked, including the one about the flagellar motor

I have recently viewed a DVD that was produced by evolutionary scientists (I dont have their names right now but I should be able to find them) that looked at how Darwin's theory is flimsy at best when applied to the flagellar motor.



I can't take this seriously without a real reference or link.

[MacDawg]

This thread has provided ample scientific evidence to support the theory of devolution. I'm out.


Awwwwwww... you left without voting!

[mactastic]

Interesting how 2 intelligent people can look at the same thing and see something totally different... I guess it is a paradigm shift.

It's really not a fair comparison to put two statements from 2000 years apart and look at them with the same frame of reference. Remember, at the time of David everyone KNEW the earth was flat.

Newton and Einstein looked at the same things and saw things differently, no? Difference is that Einstein had a more advanced body of knowledge to draw from.

[MacDawg]

More later, but you, MacDawg, seem to way heavy with the inertia of enacted legislation. You define the morality (or lack of morality) in a particular debate based upon current legality. You also express willingness to change your conception of morality once "society is ready." If legislation defines morality and morality should be the basis of legislation, then neither will ever change.

If I have given that impression, then I have misled you. I do not define morality that way at all. I have only been stating what I observe to be true, trying to remove as much taint of religious bias as I could.

To the contrary, I have very strong feelings about morality, and absolutes, whether legislated or not by society. Society can legislate and be dead wrong in my opinion.

It is disconcerting to see that, in many important discussions, you find "proof" of the ethical approvability of your positions in current societal norms and legislative conceptions.

What I have tried to do was to stay in the game and play on the visitor's field, in other words, the first time I said anything of a "religious nature", I would be boooed off the board and not been given a hearing at all, which would defeat the purpose of the thread. My ethics are fairly rock solid and are not the product of society. To be sure, the dilemma of the husband and this wife/child is a difficult ethical question, but hardly enough to place my convictions in a state of flux.

Dawg

[MacDawg]

It's really not a fair comparison to put two statements from 2000 years apart and look at them with the same frame of reference. Remember, at the time of David everyone KNEW the earth was flat.

Newton and Einstein looked at the same things and saw things differently, no? Difference is that Einstein had a more advanced body of knowledge to draw from.

I certainly understand your perspective, I really do...
but I still tend to think that David saw more clearly then,
which was actually more like 3,000 years apart. :o

Dawg

[MacDawg]

So, these "left radical nut cases" ignore God by believing in evolution, huh? Prove it. Show me scientific proof for creation. For that matter, show me how science doesn't DISPROVE creation. I would love to see your feeble attempts at it.

****ing awesome.

For the record... I never approached the thread this way, and it is this kind of rhetoric that I find counterproductive, from either side.

Dawg

[Ugg]

Yes to all but the 'nut case' bit. I would use "misguided under the pernicious force of interpretive religion for political purposes." I tried to shorten it but nothing else seemed to fit what you have to say about all the issues you brought up.

I will say though that you started one of the largest post count in the shortest amount of time threads that this forum has seen in awhile, outside of the "imminent arrival of the G5 Powerbooks" that is ;)

You've only strengthened my convictions and made me realize that the anti-intellectual movement in this country has spread even to those who aren't ill-educated. I pity the children of this country for the anti-science, anti-free thought world they will grow up in.

[pseudobrit]

For the record... I never approached the thread this way, and it is this kind of rhetoric that I find counterproductive, from either side.

Which was exactly my point.

[MacDawg]

Which was exactly my point.

I know, I just wanted to distance myself from it.

Dawg

[MacDawg]

Well.... here is the vote tally so far!

don’t panic
intelligent design......................nut
exclusive “right” religion............nut
no prayer in school...................reasonable
no abortion..............................reasonable
overturning of roe vs wade.........right wing
no embryonic stem cell..............right wing
oppose homosexuals.................nut
flat tax...................................right wing
agnostic on iraq.......................reasonable
voted for bush.........................right wing

the verdict:
you are a reasonable right winger with a nutty aftertaste


blackfox
I do not think you are a nut-case. I just see some bleeding of your emotional/ideological priorities into the more reasonable part of your thinking. That is the case, to some degree, with everyone. If you felt that you learned something in the discussion here, then I would say you are fine. If not, then at least your insanity is mild-natured.

I do think you are right-wing. Still, you strike me as pretty Centrist. Basically, you are my favorite type of Right-Winger, in that you seem to have a somewhat open mind and do not exclusively vote party ideology. The vote for Bush hurts you though. Bigtime.

stubeeef
Whether or not you are a nut job or not, you are in the majority as far as the us popular opinion on many of your subjects. I guess you will have to choose, macadamian or walnut? Peanut is ok but so lower class.

ugg
Yes to all but the 'nut case' bit. I would use "misguided under the pernicious force of interpretive religion for political purposes." I tried to shorten it but nothing else seemed to fit what you have to say about all the issues you brought up.


I guess I need to run a 'get out the vote' campaign because the turnout is low.
Of course that is better than having more votes than registered voters... right! :o

Dawg

[dsharits]

The fact is, science clearly does not allow for evolution to be possible. Several major scientific laws disallow even the si9mplest foundation of evolution to be remotely possible. Furthermore, Creation vs evolution is not religion vs science. Far from it. Evolution is just the foundational component of secular humanism, which IS a religion. If you can give me a list of ways that science allows evolution to be possible but not Creation, I would be happy to respond to each point accordingly.

Daniel

[stubeeef]

Since when was that a good thing?

When the US took out Hitler, and a bunch since then and before it. :rolleyes:

[stubeeef]

I hadn't heard that a majority in the US wanted Roe v. Wade overturned.


I never mentioned specifics like abortion, partial birth vs rape, yada blah yada blah....But thankyou for agreeing with me.
MacDawg is in the majority on some issues, but not on all of them.

[zimv20]

The fact is, science clearly does not allow for evolution to be possible. Several major scientific laws disallow even the si9mplest foundation of evolution to be remotely possible.
i'm not familiar w/ these laws. what are they?

[Ugg]

The fact is, science clearly does not allow for evolution to be possible. Several major scientific laws disallow even the si9mplest foundation of evolution to be remotely possible. Furthermore, Creation vs evolution is not religion vs science. Far from it. Evolution is just the foundational component of secular humanism, which IS a religion. If you can give me a list of ways that science allows evolution to be possible but not Creation, I would be happy to respond to each point accordingly.

Daniel

So are you saying that all science is secular humanism? Because I find nothing that would indicate evolution to be anything other than a scientific theory applied by, for the most part, very christian people using very scientific methods. Lay it on us, buddy.....

[MacDawg]

Uh oh... clear the streets... I sense some very intense, heated, Jr. High name calling fights about to begin!! :rolleyes:

Focus people, focus here... re-read the title of the thread and VOTE! :mad:

Based on my original posts (before all of the side bar stuff), am I a right wing, radical, nut case?
BTW, just so there is no confusion, the "I" is MacDawg, since you might have lost your focus.

That is the question.

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Maybe
[ ] Write in vote _________

Rock the vote!

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[atszyman]

This is the great conundrum, life of the mother, life of the baby. The doctor tells the husband, I can save one or the other, which is it? Who would want to face such a decison? Many would reply without hesitation, 'the wife'. But that condemns a child to death. "I can have another baby." But they are not interchangeable.

FYI, being a recent father, I pondered this question a few times during my wife's pregnancy. I believe that question is rarely, if ever, asked now.

While going through labor and all of the fun questions they asked about a living will for my wife. We had none. They basically told us that it really didn't matter in this case since once the baby starts coming they baby's well being is the highest priority. It was an eventful night and I may have heard wrong, but if my memory serves this means that if it is a choice between wife and baby the baby will always win. Of course that could be hospital policy, state law or any number of other local rules that may not apply nationally much less globally. This does make some sense to me since I know I would sacrifice my life to save my daughter's life as would my wife. I would have made the same sacrifice during my wife's pregnancy as well.

[pseudobrit]

The fact is, science clearly does not allow for evolution to be possible. Several major scientific laws disallow even the si9mplest foundation of evolution to be remotely possible. Furthermore, Creation vs evolution is not religion vs science. Far from it. Evolution is just the foundational component of secular humanism, which IS a religion. If you can give me a list of ways that science allows evolution to be possible but not Creation, I would be happy to respond to each point accordingly.

Daniel

The fact is, science clearly does not allow for creation to be possible. Several major scientific laws disallow even the si9mplest [sic] foundation of creation to be remotely possible. Furthermore, evolution vs creation is not religion vs science. Far from it. Creation is just the foundational component of nonsecular orthodoxy, which IS a religion. If you can give me a list of ways that science allows creation to be possible but not evolution, I would be happy to respond to each point accordingly.

Rule: a gratuitous assertion can be negated with an equally gratuitous assertion

Since your arguments are so thoroughly ambiguous, all I needed to do was swap two words around a couple times (and give the opposite of secular humanism, your one unique phrase) and have successfully dispatched your thesis.

[pseudobrit]

i'm not familiar w/ these laws. what are they?

I'm guess it's not going to be the 1st law of thermodynamics. :rolleyes:

[jefhatfield]

Uh oh... clear the streets... I sense some very intense, heated, Jr. High name calling fights about to begin!! :rolleyes:

Focus people, focus here... re-read the title of the thread and VOTE! :mad:

Based on my original posts (before all of the side bar stuff), am I a right wing, radical, nut case?
BTW, just so there is no confusion, the "I" is MacDawg, since you might have lost your focus.

That is the question.

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Maybe
[ ] Write in vote _________

Rock the vote!

Woof, Woof - Dawg


only maybe because from where i see you, you have the right wing and radical down, but i don't consider you a nutcase, but more of a conservative republican

i saw "all the president's men" last night, again, and i think many of us can agree that nixon fit the description of nutcase ;)

[MacDawg]

Rule: a gratuitous assertion can be negated with an equally gratuitous assertion

Since your arguments are so thoroughly ambiguous, all I needed to do was swap two words around a couple times (and give the opposite of secular humanism, your one unique phrase) and have successfully dispatched your thesis.

How true.
This is a simple variation of the Jr. High name calling game, (or even the Presidential debate game for that matter ). :rolleyes:


Woof, Woof - Dawg

[wowser]

As a Brit, I would say you were simply a moderate who has an interest in Religion. And this is coming from someone who has lived in the Bay Area :p

[MacDawg]

I believe that question is rarely, if ever, asked now.



I think you are right about that. It has become more of just a brain teaser now, more so than it was in the past when child birth was far more challenging. I don't mean to minimize the wonder of conception, maturation and child birth today, but the mortality rate of the baby and the mother has certainly improved over previous generations. That is, if we remove the statistical data of babies who lose their lives through abortion. :rolleyes:


Woof, Woof - Dawg

[skunk]

When the US took out Hitler, and a bunch since then and before it. :rolleyes:
???
History revised again?
Anyway, what on earth does this have to do with US popular opinion?

[skunk]

unless perhaps, debussy is a ***** cat? i dunno... :)
de *****...
Edit: Oh, that didn't go down too well with the thought police.

[stubeeef]

???
History revised again?
Anyway, what on earth does this have to do with US popular opinion?

WHO MOVED YOUR CHEESE?

You asked Since when was that a good thing? about this Originally Posted by stubeeef
you are in the majority as far as the us popular opinion on many of your subjects.
from me.

It was a good thing that the populace was in support of things like removing Hitler and such, DON"T YA THINK? Otherwise they may never have happened! See in this country more often than not, the majority rules. Not to say there aren't plenty of exceptions, but very little major change happens without the support of the group, explictly or implicitly. It was a great reason to start this country, and why many others like England, eventually caught on to this kind of government. After a lot of protest from many in the nation (US) we got out of Vietnam, Impeached a President, enacted Civil Rights Legislation, .........

Now the fact that MacDawg is with the majority of his opinions, would make it less likely that he is on the fringe, as in a "nut". GET IT! :)

[MacDawg]

i saw "all the president's men" last night, again, and i think many of us can agree that nixon fit the description of nutcase ;)

Lived through it, but didn't read the book till last year. Found the book very interesting. Never saw the movie though. I would be more interested in the movie now than I would have been when it came out.

I was not old enough to vote in either of his elections, (but was old enough to have been drafted at the end of Viet Nam, but wasn't). However, I am certain I would have voted for him and not McGovern. And yet that does not mean I advocate all he did, nor did I know all he would ultimately do. He was a very paranoid man for some reason.

Makes for some interesting questions though... about how the world would be different in certain scenarios. Maybe the topic of another thread though.

What if Nixon had not debated Kennedy on TV and won the election instead?
No Bay of Pigs, and what of the Cuban missile crisis? No grassy knoll and conspiracy to talk about.

What if Watergate broke before the election and McGovern had won instead of Nixon?
No Watergate, no Colson. What of the Viet Nam war then?

What if Reagan and not Ford had run against Carter and beaten him?
What of the Iran hostage crisis? No Nightline and Ted Koppel? No Carter running around the world today.

What if Reagan loses twice?
Where would the cold war be today? No Reaganomics. No Nancy talking about stem cell research today.

And just think, if Bush the elder had won, we would have no Monica to talk about, no 'the meaning of is', no Hillary. Hmmmm, maybe that would be a good thing. But I digress. Of course it would be argued that we would have had no economy either.

How would the world be today if Dukakis/Ferraro had won?
Would we have a woman president now? Hillary?

Where would we have been after 9/11 with Gore as President?
Would we be in Afghanistan? Iraq? In hiding?

Where would we be in Iraq today if Kerry were President?

All interesting questions I suppose, with only speculation for answers, but isn't that what makes life fun? :)


Woof, Woof - Dawg

[skunk]

It was a good thing that the populace was in support of things like removing Hitler and such, DON"T YA THINK? Otherwise they may never have happened!
I see. So when Hitler declared war on the USA, there was a choice, was there?
Actually, I was taking issue with your historical revisionism in implying that the US "got rid of Hitler". Ask a Russian, Canadian, Brit, Aussie, Kiwi, Pole.

See in this country more often than not, the majority rules.
Hmmm. Is that a good thing?

Not to say there aren't plenty of exceptions, but very little major change happens without the support of the group, explictly or implicitly. It was a great reason to start this country, and why many others like England, eventually caught on to this kind of government.
I don't think you mean this. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. 5th century Athenians might not be so kind.

Now the fact that MacDawg is with the majority of his opinions, would make it less likely that he is on the fringe, as in a "nut". GET IT! :)
I might regard majority opinion in the States as nutty. In fact, in some respects I do. So that line of reasoning doesn't wash with me.

With regard to - and with some grudging respect for - MacD's arguments, I'd vote for "moderately nutty" (though not by American standards), but unplaceable on a political spectrum which would mean anything here. We simply don't have a Religious Right in England.

[stubeeef]

Wow, now a discussion on WWII.

War was declared by both on Dec 11, 1941. It was only a formallity, because the gears had been turning for a long time. Lend Lease was proposed almost exactly 11 months earlier. It was a group effort, no doubt, but let us not kid ourselves about who the 800# gorrilla in the room was.
Actually my favorites were the Brit Pilots and the Battle of Britian, to be frank. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

As far as the majority being a good thing, I believe it better than tyranny, hows about youins.

Majority opinion in the states as nutty, eh. Sorry it doesn't wash with you, but it scrubs me just fine.

Good afternoon to ya. :)

[skunk]

War was declared by both on Dec 11, 1941. It was only a formallity, because the gears had been turning for a long time. Lend Lease was proposed almost exactly 11 months earlier. It was a group effort, no doubt, but let us not kid ourselves about who the 800# gorrilla in the room was.
No, let's not: it was so obviously Russia.

As far as the majority being a good thing, I believe it better than tyranny, hows about youins.
How do you feel about the Tyranny of the Majority?

Majority opinion in the states as nutty, eh. Sorry it doesn't wash with you, but it scrubs me just fine.

Good afternoon to ya. :)
I see Cultural Relativism is alive and well. :)

[MacDawg]

Actually, I was taking issue with your historical revisionism in implying that the US "got rid of Hitler". Ask a Russian, Canadian, Brit, Aussie, Kiwi, Pole.
Actually, that is what I thought you meant, but I wanted to let you speak for yourself.


I don't think you mean this. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. 5th century Athenians might not be so kind.
Agreed, I was thinking the same thing.


I might regard majority opinion in the States as nutty. In fact, in some respects I do. So that line of reasoning doesn't wash with me.
I think sometimes, at least for me, I forget how global the board really is. I'm getting better about it, but I tend to think everybody lives in the deep South of the USofA with me. I try to look at locations on profiles, but many, like my own, are not helpful with that.

I agree, what may be popular, majority opinion in the US, may not be the majority opinion in the world. Or the UN for that matter. :rolleyes:

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[stubeeef]

MacDawg, I liked your comments about Nixon and the what ifs.

As far as the last election, I find that many that voted against W were just that, not voting FOR kerry. Therefore were, in my opinion asking for a worse set of problems. My vote was almost the same as theirs, only in reverse, I was more scared of what kerry would have messed up, than what we had, and my vote was 50% anti-kerry, and 50% pro W.

thankyou for holding yourself out so completely, I haven't found anyothers willing to expose their soft side as you have. Your are both sharp, and with a lot of time. This has been a great thread.

Now who is going to ask, " Am I a left wing, radical, nut case?"

[MacDawg]

No, let's not: it was so obviously Russia.

Russia played a HUGE role, without question, but Hitler made some critical errors that really turned the war too... Dunkirk, and dividing the fronts with Russia to begin with, just to name two. WWII was decided by multiple factors, any of which could have turned the tide. What if the V2 had been completed on schedule before the wars end? I love reading about WWII, and WWI for that matter. Viet Nam is fascinating, but for different reasons, as is the US Civil War. WWII will remain the legendary war I suppose, at least for many in the US and in Europe/Britain.


How do you feel about the Tyranny of the Majority?

Majority rule is imperfect to be sure.
Especially if you are the minority! :rolleyes:
But I prefer it to a dictatorship of one, rule by the elite, communism, or (shudder) rule by the democrats. (oops, did I say that out loud?) :p [just kidding]

It is an imperfect world, so all rule will be imperfect.

I guess that's why here in the States we have "militia" that arm themselves and live in the backwoods defying the right of anyone to rule over them. :p

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[MacDawg]

As far as the last election, I find that many that voted against W were just that, not voting FOR kerry. Therefore were, in my opinion asking for a worse set of problems. My vote was almost the same as theirs, only in reverse, I was more scared of what kerry would have messed up, than what we had, and my vote was 50% anti-kerry, and 50% pro W.

Votes are often, if not usually, the lesser of the 2 evils I think. That is why it is misrepresentative, I feel, to try to paint the US as Red states/Blue states, etc. or even Republican/Democrat. Even conservative/liberal will fall apart under scrutiny. Hence the postulate of this thread.

There are so many issues involved, and I have voted for many Democrats myself. I tend to vote issues, not parties, and I will vote for/against issues.

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[skunk]

What if the V2 had been completed on schedule before the wars end? I love reading about WWII, and WWI for that matter.
Read some more, then. :rolleyes:
I'm sure the inhabitants of London would be delighted to hear that the 500 V2s which landed on them were unfinished.

‘The first two V2 rockets to land in London arrived within sixteen seconds of each other, the first in Chiswick, to the West of London,
the second in Epping, just north of the capital. A total of 1,359
rockets were fired against London during the ensuing autumn and
winter, of which 1,190 actually succeeded in leaving the launch pad.
More than half of those fell short of England's capital, but the five
hundred that did get to London killed 2,724 people and injured 6,476
more.'
http://www.what-if-you.com/ww2memorial/wwii__chapter_39.htm

As over 500 V2 rockets were dropped on London between September 1944
and March 1945, it is unlikely that every location and date is
documented. The government didn't even officially recognise that V2's
were being dropped until Churchill admitted to the fact on 10th
November 1944, by which time over 100 had already landed.

‘…by November four to six were being reported each day. Officials were
told to talk about the incidents as gas mains explosions but Londoners
were suspicious about this explanation.’
http://www.holnet.org.uk/learningzone/londonatwar/airraid/p_vweapons.htmlEast End.

Majority rule is imperfect to be sure.
Especially if you are the minority! :rolleyes:
But I prefer it to a dictatorship of one, rule by the elite, communism, or (shudder) rule by the democrats. (oops, did I say that out loud?) :p [just kidding]
All of these systems, including the last, have produced good government at one time or another.

[stubeeef]

No, let's not: it was so obviously Russia.



You have to be joking right?

[skunk]

You have to be joking right?
No. Why? Hitler should have read Stendhal's Life of Napoleon.

[takao]

Russia played a HUGE role, without question, but Hitler made some critical errors that really turned the war too... Dunkirk, and dividing the fronts with Russia to begin with, just to name two. WWII was decided by multiple factors, any of which could have turned the tide. What if the V2 had been completed on schedule before the wars end? I love reading about WWII, and WWI for that matter. Viet Nam is fascinating, but for different reasons, as is the US Civil War. WWII will remain the legendary war I suppose, at least for many in the US and in Europe/Britain.

side note: the V2 (also known as the A4) was _very_ finished before the war was over the only "problem" (or from todays perspective our luck) was the reliability...
the so called "wunderwaffen" were far away from deciding the war..if the germans would have scrapped all those futuristic weapon projects and focused on producing more average equippment the war easily would have last 1-2 years longer and thus resulting in a A-Bomb being dropped on berlin

to sum it up: the war was decided on the 20 june '41... and at the end of august 41 when the first snowflakes of the (thanks god..) early Russian Winter ..

[stubeeef]

if the ruskies were so great, why was the US sending them supplies in the lend lease? Not to belittle the russians, who were and are a great people and warriors, but at the time, Hitler was pressing pretty hard on'em. I would say they were a 600# gorilla, and it took more than a ton of gorillas to win it, but not THE 800#er.