Comments on: In Berkeley. . .the children’s clothing boutique features Che shirts for kids

By: rawmuse

rawmuse — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:07:07 +0000

Zombie, just a word of support. I have always been a huge fan of yours, and have tremendous regard for your intellectual and investigative powers.

I stepped away from the LGF soup a while back, haven’t missed it. I will keep hitting your blog. Keep up the good work.

By: Paula Parker Connell Is A Lying Welfare Whore « Paula Parker Connell Is A Lying Welfare Whore

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:48:16 +0000

[...] Example #2 she lied about zombie, without punishment [...]

By: Beckaholic

Beckaholic — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:07:02 +0000

Forgot to mention the obvious way to get the evidence out- write a book! There’s tons of them out there that have no meat in them. You have to wonder why that is if there’s all this evidence hanging around struggling to “get out.” A publishing house conspiracy, too?

By: Beckaholic

Beckaholic — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:21:44 +0000

You might not be giving people enough credit for being open minded. But the ID crowd has hawked so many bogus memes, like irreducible complexity, that were easily blown out of the water, that the whole ID movement is viewed as crying wolf. Their best efforts to date have been really poor scholarship. If any real “evidence” did crop up, it would be put thru the wringer to see if there was anything there. And this could be done in any number of ways- sending the results to scientists in the field to read, posting on science blogs, giving talks about the data to the public. It’s not like the only way to get the info out there is to go through a journal. If there was anything reasonable there, it would find it’s way to a publication. The problem is, that every smidgen they’ve generated so far has not panned out and they’ve been cought lying about their methods which really puts a crimp in being taken seriously during round two, ya know?

Can I ask you why would anybody “believe” in ID and creationism when there is no evidence for either? And if one does believe, it becomes in the realm of religion and must be taken on faith, and so how could this person expect the university to also believe in the same way and fund their efforts. I think that’s asking way too much, not surprised it doesn’t happen.

By: Bolero

Bolero — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:42:35 +0000

beckaholic: Okay, show me the evidence in the one paper that was peer-reviewed. I’ll accept any that truly exists.

That is the challenge, beckaholic. Mention anything about ID, no one who desires to keep in good graces with evolutionists would touch it with a ten foot pole. I have a friend who is pursuing Masters in Plant Physiology in a California State University who reported to me that one of his professor who was very much against ID and creationism. The subject is so toxic politically that if you want to survive the rigors of university politics, one has to keep his beliefs secret and in closet. That does not meet the scientific / university criteria of pursuing truth for its own sake. About the peer reviewed system...it is supposed to be self regulating and it is supposed to guarantee a good science. The case with the Korean scientist involved with cloning showed a glaring example of the failure of peer review system. His papers were peer reviewed. And yet it was proven later to have falsified data and conclusion.

By: Don-Quixote

Don-Quixote — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:24:43 +0000

Ken, #286, with apologies to the latest National Review
“The Empire states building, an enduring symbol of capitalism and aspiration, was defaced: lit up red and yellow in honor of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. There are many things to celebrate about the people and history of China, but the establishment of the Communist regime in Beijing is not one of them. That government has killed millions and oppressed uncounted numbers. It is the government of Red Guard terror, the horrors of the Cultural Revolution, famine, labor camps, organ harvesting, the oppression of ethnic and religious minorities—its story is a catalogue of misery and evil. The history of China did not begin with the establishment of the Communist regime, nor will it end when Mao’s heirs join Stalin’s in the dustbin of history. Light up the Empire States Building for that.”
Precisely my point. I might add Tianamen square. Where is the apology for that? How about the Falun Gong? A bunch of crackpots yes, but they would be laughed at in our country. In China they are rounded up, shot, imprisoned and mercilessly belittled in the news. The Whitewash isn’t working Ken. Someday when China emerges from this disgusting and immoral Government those who defended the current regime will be mocked. Much like they were in Russia until an old/new commy goon named Putin came along.

By: beckaholic

beckaholic — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:05:37 +0000

Gosh, thanks, that’s the nicest thing I’ve ever been called. You’re a real teddy bear. “Filthy, dogmatic, materialist inquisitor.” Is that anything like “Damn, dirty Atheist?”, lol. Some kind of burr just got under your saddle there, fella, and I must tell you that you come across like a bug-eyed lunatic.

Okay, show me the evidence in the one paper that was peer-reviewed. I’ll accept any that truly exists. What, in that particular paper, was proven? You say evidence should have won out, but the whole of science is just one big Godless conspiracy to keep good-folk like you and your evidence oppressed. So go ahead, show it to me. I’ll wait. I hope you are not going to tell me I have to take your word for it, lol.

You seem to think that anyone and everyone that thinks Evolution is not an ideology, but a simple fact of biology, is a Progressive, a Communist a Marxist or a Secular Humanist. I forget, so tell me again, which one is the Pope? Or is he a filthy, materialistic, dogmatic Inquisitor, as well? Are you really willing to go there? If I deserve your spittle, then so does he. Go for it-give it your best shot. Add in to that mix as well as any other denominations/religions you care to. i want you to tell me where your dividing line is. Tell me what you really think.

And just for the record- what do you think I’m lying about? What do you think I know that I’m not telling you as part of the grand conspiracy against you? Be specific, please. Thanks.

By: John R. McFarlan

John R. McFarlan — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:34:29 +0000

#291 beckaholic

> There is only one place on this earth in which anyone is attempting
> to “shut out” I.D. and that is in public school science class.
> That’s it! You can talk about it anywhere else you want, in any
> other class you want, (philosphy?) with any person you want
> (including your own children, BTW ) anytime you want.

Does materialistic ideology supporting itself with science belong in public school? If so, then so does intelligent design. Conversely, if intelligent design is to be forbidden because it’s ideology, so is Darwinism.

Darwin’s theory of evolution is nothing but the world-view of materialism trying to support itself by science. Evolution and intelligent design are on an equal level, much though you wish to deny it. Keep both materialism and theism out of public school, or neither of them. But not just one of them! There’s no reason why materialism-supporting science should be given to theism-supporting science.

> You just cannot pretend that it is a theory on par with Evolution or
> that it has a single shred of evidence to back it up or that
> Evolution is now on shaky ground because of it, because none of that
> is true.

Because you say it, it must be true.

What evidence for intelligent design are you going to accept? For years, Darwinists complained the ID movement didn’t publish in peer-reviewed journals. So when, finally, ID theorists got a research paper published in the journal of the Biological Society of Washington, did the Darwinists rescind their accusations and accept ID as a legitimate scientific enterprise? Yeah, and I’ll be the king of Lower Slocomotia. The Darwinists forced a statement from the Biological Society of Washington that the paper was not to scientific standards. So much for peer review, and so much for any possibility of accepting ID as science!

The game is rigged. Evidence and reason should win, should have long ago won the field for ID, but the BiolSocWash affair showed evidence and reason aren’t players here. Never were.

Take your “Defensor Scientiae” badge and shove it down your lying, dishonest mouth, you filthy, dogmatic Materialist Inquisitor.

> You think ID is some secular attempt to explain the universe? If you
> do, you are being bamboozled just like everyone else who takes it
> seriously.

You think Evolutionism is some neutral attempt to explain the universe? If you do, you are being bamboozled just like everyone else who thinks it’s ideology-free. Darwinism is materialism seeking scientific support, not science leading to an “inevitable conclusion of materialism.” ‘Twas so in the 19th century, ’tis so now.

> and way beyond a 17 year old’s scope to discern political and
> religious manipulations and make sense of them and how they are
> being used as pawns in the battle.

And it’s not beyond a 17-year-old’s scope to discern that he’s being presented the world-view of materialism in a scientific wrapper, is it? Not beyond the capability of a teenager to see he’s being primed as a soldier in the army of Secular Humanism? Hypocrite. Flaming hypocrite.

One day, however long it may take, education will no longer be in the exclusive hands of Progressivists, Communists, Marxists and Secular Humanists. That day it will finally be possible to debate the merits of Evolutionism and Intelligent Design in a fair and just way, just as they were (albeit in rudimentary form) in the days of the Greeks and Romans. I hope I’ll live to see that day.

By: beckaholic

beckaholic — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:59:16 +0000

There is only one place on this earth in which anyone is attempting to “shut out” I.D. and that is in public school science class. That’s it! You can talk about it anywhere else you want, in any other class you want, (philosphy?) with any person you want (including your own children, BTW ) anytime you want. You just cannot pretend that it is a theory on par with Evolution or that it has a single shred of evidence to back it up or that Evolution is now on shaky ground because of it, because none of that is true. It’s a farce, meant to confuse school children in order to “save their souls.” It’s prosetylizing for Christian religions in the public schools and that is not allowed, and you don’t want that allowed, by the way- because if it is, then you have to allow Muslims and Hindus and Wiccans and whoever else feels like it equal time to be able to present their own version of origins mythology in science class as pure fact, because there is exactly the same amount of evidence to back up the idea that the earth is being held up by a stack of turtles as there is to back up the idea that some supernatural force was required for a gene to mutate in a specific direction in order to create a human.
But really, the key issue here is not primarily whether or not ID is a scientific concept, but whether or not it is religion masquarading as science, which in Dover it was declared to be (and is obvious to anybody who follows the topic and the players involved.) Remember the part about not promoting one religion over another in the constitution? Think about that. You think ID is some secular attempt to explain the universe? If you do, you are being bamboozled just like everyone else who takes it seriously. It may be an interesting topic for the dinner table with your children, but as a scientific theory with evidence to back it up, it is not ready for prime time and way beyond a 17 year old’s scope to discern political and religious manipulations and make sense of them and how they are being used as pawns in the battle.

And that’s why the attempt to promote this idea as a scientific theory backed up by evidence when there isn’t any pisses me off so much.

By: John R. McFarlan

John R. McFarlan — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:30:05 +0000

# 289 Bolero

> I could not understand where the 7th Day Adventist comments came
> from

I think I do. Ron Numbers, a science historian who writes about creationism, traces the source of modern young-earth creationism to George McCready Price, a SDA who wrote a book called “The New Geology” in the 1920′s. However, Numbers himself admits Price had little influence in his day, and the great watershed event in the popularization of YEC was Morris and Whitcombe’s “The Genesis Flood”, in the 1960′s. Numbers also neglects to mention the Scriptural Geologists of the 19th century, who already voiced most of the familiar YEC arguments.

The age of the earth/universe didn’t used to be such an important topic. William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor in the notorious Scopes Trial, was an Old-Earth Creationist holding to the Day-Age view (one Genesis creation day = millions of years). As for Catholics, it makes sense that they’re a majority in the ID movement, because Catholics in general care much more about the question of God’s involvement than more peripheral issues like chronology and cladistics. Michael Behe, for example, has expressed his readiness to agree with Darwinists about almost everything except the issue of Irreducible Complexity.

ID is a rival school in a debate, much like Socrates’ and Plato’s schools were. That’s why the attempt to shut ID out pisses me off so much.