if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
The Fundamentalist States of America
by Lee
Reason’s science correspondent Ronald Bailey sums up the recent Ron Paul revelation quite nicely.
Remember when three Republican presidential hopefuls raised their hands to declare their disbelief in biological evolution? Well, we can now add a fourth--Ron Paul. Republicans seem anxious to prove they are the party of scientific ignoramuses. Say it ain’t so Dr. No!
Well, he just officially lost my support. All the nazi stupidity that his detractors have been throwing around has been nothing but a pathetic smear attempt against him. What just sunk him in my eyes is the fact that he subscribes to this boilerplate Republican fundamentalist Christian idiocy.
Anyone ignorant enough to deny biological evolution is not fit to be the leader of anything, let alone the United States of America. I don’t care how much I agree with his other opinions, if he is this much of a monumental ignoramus, especially considering he’s a fucking doctor for God’s sake, then I officially withdraw all support for his campaign.
I’m back in no-man’s land, and the Republicans are regressing into the Dark Ages. It’s a sad day for America.
Comments
Lee, you are a man amongst boys.
Oddly enough, this is probably the last thing I would hold against him. After all, I grew up in Kansas and am therefore inoculated against being weirded out by Creationism.
Still, I’m impressed by your intellectual consistency, Lee. You have always been outspoken on the Creationism issue and I know it can’t be easy for you to suddenly criticize a candidate who you’ve supported so doggedly all these months.
Will you join me now in backing Thompson?
As a lifelong atheist, I don’t really give a shit what he thinks about ID/Creationism. I care that he’s for a Constitutionally limited federal government. I care that he has a consistent philosophy with regard to the proper functions of the government and will vote against encroaches on liberty even if he agrees with the premise of the legislation. I care that he wants to drastically reign in foreign aid and put a stop to these moronic foreign war adventures that almost every administration since Wilson has gotten us into. I care that he wants to stop the Federal Reserve from pumping endless credit into our economy and weakening the dollar even further.
I dunno. The fact that the rest of the clowns in the Evangelical Socialist Republican Party haven’t the faintest notions of fidelity to the Constitution still leaves me solidy supporting Dr. Paul.
Completly agree Lee, very disappointing.
It dosen’t bode well for scientific education in America; but still - it’s not like science has ever created and jobs or anything - and we all know that no one in China or India even thinks about learning science, so I am sure we will all just be fine.
It dosen’t bode well for scientific education in America; but still - it’s not like science has ever created and jobs or anything - and we all know that no one in China or India even thinks about learning science, so I am sure we will all just be fine.
Actually intelligence and a belief in creationism/ID are not mutually exclusive contrary to what you and Lee believe.
• Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
• Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
• Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
• Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
• Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
• Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
• Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) • Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
• Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
• David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
• Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
• Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
• Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
• Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
• Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
• Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
• Michael Faraday (helped develop science of
electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory
/ invented the electric generator)
• Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
• Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of
electronics / invented thermionic valve)
• Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
• Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
• John Grebe (chemist)
• Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and
the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
And the list goes on of scientist who also believe in creation or ID.
because of course every scientific discovery in the last 200 years was by an atheist.it’s not like science has ever created and jobs or anything
Whether you like Ron Paul or not, he is obviously an intelligent man. You cannot be a successful physician and not be intelligent. Just for the record I support Thompson.
Anyone ignorant enough to deny biological evolution is not fit to be the leader of anything, let alone the United States of America. I don’t care how much I agree with his other opinions, if he is this much of a monumental ignoramus, especially considering he’s a fucking doctor for God’s sake, then I officially withdraw all support for his campaign.
Anyone ignorant enough to deny man made global global warming........
It is unfortunate when we become so sure of our superiority that we become intolerant of others.
The only candidate that Lee or most people will agree with 100% of the time is themselves.
There just doesn’t seem to be anywhere us poor libertarian atheists can go. I really had high hopes for Paul. This is very disappointing.
Anyone ignorant enough to deny man made global global warming
Meh. People here don’t deny it. They debate (a) its magnitude, (b) its impact, and (c) its “solutions” as proposed by some “leaders”.
BTW - the politically correcter term is now “climate change”, because “global warming” doesn’t really hold any more.
Oddly enough, this is probably the last thing I would hold against him
As usual, I agree. This is a pretty dumb litmus test you guys are adhering to. I would think things like respecting the Constitution, keeping government small and unintrusive (as much as this is possible), balancing the budget, eliminating waste and redundancy, protecting our interests both at home and abroad, I would think these are much more important than what exactly happened 4.5 billion years ago.
I don’t agree with Dr. Paul about everything. In particular, he and I do not see eye-to-eye about abortion, and now, it seems, ID/creationism...but I’m still supporting him.
The only time someone I agreed with more than I do with Dr. Paul ran for office, he was only on the ballot in Arizona.
Well if you want to get technical, Paul said neither evolution or creationism has absolute proof and therefore neither could be proven. If anything his crime is being a huge skeptic.
Somewhat off-topic, but padders has managed to FUCK UP another thread (Nigga Montigga) with an Amazon book link (he apparently refuses to use tinyurl), so I am responding here…
You don’t want evidence, you want to read about it in the bible; the source of your scientific knowledge.
I realize that providing actual evidence is difficult, and that it’s so much easier to spew intellectually vacuous nonsense, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you again elect the cop-out route.
And, for the record, I’m not surprised.
I said that if an organism fails to survive and replicate, it lessens the chances of that gene’s survival.Wrong, it may increase the change of the gene surviving if the death of the individual helps other members of the population with the same gene reproduce.
But I was responding to your assertion:
The only “role” of an organism is to ensure the survival of the gene;
So bringing up possible other organisms that share a given gene, and bringing up the the possibility that they may survive, is nothing more than moving goal posts.
All else being equal, if a survival machine fails in its role, which is to ensure the survival of the genes it’s carrying (your own assertion), logic suggests that the genes’ chances of survival into the next generation are lessened. Not eliminated. Just lessened. Based on your own assertion.
I am afraid that time and time again you make comments that show you have little to no understanding of the theory;
And like I said, comments taken out of context are often like that, but the problem is your lack of comprehension of the context.
that you did not understand the relevant difference to survival of an orgnaism and propogation of a gene is such a glaring mistake;
On what basis do you make this claim? Remember, when discussing individual organisms, I was discussing asocial vs. social behavior. I wasn’t discussing survival, at least not directly. So your conclusion is invalid.
little further evidence for your ignorance is needed.
Especially when your mind is already made up—jumping to erroneous conclusions is easy in such cases.
I don’t see a major distinction between social and non social;
Of course not. How convenient.
By social, I mean cooperation, like the ants, or bees, or any animal that hunts in packs as opposed to individually. That is what I was referring to when mentioning individual organisms, the lack of cooperation, individually vying for limited food supplies. That you morphed that into some kind of claim on my part that “evolution” is about the survival of organisms as opposed to genes is hardly surprising. Whatever straw man you can come up with to hurl the “ignoramus” epithet in my direction is perfectly justified, I’m sure.
I’ll concur that Ron Paul’s stance on evolution is imbecilic, but he’s still the best and most honest candidate out there.
Come home to McCain Lee. He’s a good man of prudence. I disagree with him a great deal, but we know he’s got the wits and experience for this moment in American history. He’ll be a finger in the eye of the fundies, intelligently combat terrorism, and will be a moderating force on domestic issues.
I think most people on this blog are favorable towards Thompson now.
I think most people on this blog are favorable towards Thompson now.
Not after he said that overturning Roe v. Wade was the most important issue facing the nation in a debate. Sorry, but not by a long shot. If he had said War on Drugs, I would be all ears ...
Well the War on Drugs isn’t a supreme court ruling that undermines Federalism and gives precedent for even more expanding of Federal power. I’m all for abortions for everybody, just I don’t believe that it is the Federal government’s job to decide that. I think overturning Roe v. Wade is a very important step towards ending this shithole War on Drugs, too. Get the momentum going in the right direction.
Not after he said that overturning Roe v. Wade was the most important issue facing the nation in a debate. Sorry, but not by a long shot. If he had said War on Drugs, I would be all ears ...
Not to mention that recent Cuban immigration debacle. Him and Romney aren’t doing themselves any favors in South Florida.
McCain seems reasonable on some issues (economy, torture), but I don’t like his stances on gun control and marijuana.
He said that he doesn’t accept the theory, and went on to say that neither the Creationists nor the Evolutionists have an absolute handle on the truth of how we got here.
But of course, you guys ignore that last part.
It’s sheer idiocy to directly correlate “intelligence” with “acceptance of Darwinian dogma” to the exclusion of all else, but that’s exactly what appears to be happening.
Face it, you guys won’t be truly happy until an Darwinian atheist is at the helm, based on the rhetoric you’re spewing. Federalism? Roe vs. Wade (related to Federalism)? Constitutional integrity? All irrelevant. No, what really matters is whether the President believes in the Darwinian Creation Myth…
Iconoclast for President
You know what’s funny to me?
The most important scientific discoveries are the ones that completely revolutionize established theory. To condemn skepticism of the current model is to condemn the fundamental principles of science.
Anyone ignorant enough to deny biological evolution
Throughout the centuries scientists have faced people like Lee who have called them idiots for questioning current thinking. It is only that they put up with this sort of crap that we are able to uncover a better understanding of the world that we live in.
All I can picture is Lee standing at the head of the pack calling Copernicus a moron for postulating a heliocentric universe. Was Copernicus right? Not quite, but his theory lead us down a path of enlightenment that we could not have walked without his willingness to stand against those who would not diverge from the established model.
What in the world do you hope to accomplish by calling folks who don’t believe you idiots? Does that somehow strengthen the veracity of your model? I don’t think so.
Well the War on Drugs isn’t a supreme court ruling that undermines Federalism and gives precedent for even more expanding of Federal power.
Actually, I’d say that the War on Drugs is far more of a federalist issue than abortion. Look how many states have passed medical marijuana laws. Not only does the federal government intrude on their sovereign federal rights to do so, but the SCOTUS has upheld their activities. Until we return the right to set drug laws to the individual states I think the war on drugs is vastly more of an intrusive issue than abortion.
Throughout the centuries scientists have faced people like Lee who have called them idiots for questioning current thinking. It is only that they put up with this sort of crap that we are able to uncover a better understanding of the world that we live in.
All I can picture is Lee standing at the head of the pack calling Copernicus a moron for postulating a heliocentric universe. Was Copernicus right? Not quite, but his theory lead us down a path of enlightenment that we could not have walked without his willingness to stand against those who would not diverge from the established model.
What in the world do you hope to accomplish by calling folks who don’t believe you idiots? Does that somehow strengthen the veracity of your model? I don’t think so.
Fangbeer, scientifically prove to me that goblins don’t exist. You can’t prove it and neither can I. But if Ron Paul stated his belief in the possible existence of goblins I’d think he was as much of an idiot as I do over his evolutionary denial.
scientifically prove to me that goblins don’t exist.
Scientifically prove to me that someone loves you.
Love requires faith.
It cannot be measured.
Does love not exist?
Scientifically prove to me that someone loves you.
Love requires faith.
It cannot be measured.
Does love not exist?
I like that, fangbeer. Nice one.
Scientifically prove to me that someone loves you.
Love requires faith.
It cannot be measured.
Does love not exist?
Love as a concept exists. Love as a connection between two people is an act of faith. Anyone who has ever been cheated on or dumped can attest to the latter.
Can you be in love with some one and then fall out of love with them based on changing circumstances? Of course. The issue of the existence of goblins, or the veracity of biological evolution, is not subject to such variables—it either exists or it does not.
The issue of the existence of goblins, or the veracity of biological evolution, is not subject to such variables
Says who? You?
There are plenty of unexplained variables within the theory of evolution that are taken on faith due to faith in the theory. The fossil record itself is founded on a convoluted scaffolding of conjecture that relies on evolution as a given.
Do you know how they date fossils? They date them by looking at other fossils in the same area. Do you know how they date those other fossils? They guess based on how deep they usually find them in the ground. Once they find an unusual abundance of a specific type of fossil within the specific layer they then use that as a marker for other fossils within the same layer.
Trouble is, they often find marker fossils where they don’t belong. When this happens they do one of two things. They chalk up the find as a aberration, or they switch to a new marker within the previous marker’s layer. See the problem with that? They don’t change the time line, they just use a different fossil to mark a time that was originally marked with a faulty marker.
All of this due to the faith in the theory.
Take the coelacanth as an example. It was thought to have been extinct for hundreds of millions of years. No fossils have ever been found between then and now. Yet, they are still alive on the planet.
Does that revise the Coelacanth as a date marker? Nope…
I wrote the above post from memory.
The coelacanth was thought to have been extinct for 70-65 million years or so.
While we can’t discount the possibility that the coelacanth could have survived the extinction event, or the possibility that we just haven’t found the evidence we need to fill in the rather large gap, what we should be doing is calling everything that was dated using a coelacanth marker into question...something that science is quite hesitant to do.
I want to know what all of you thought about this when this happened. Back Room Buffoonery I’m sure you all laughed at how stupid it was, because it was stupid. This is how you look right now to those of us who don’t care about Ron Pauls religious views. One issue does not make a candidate. If you don’t happen to believe in the creation story, good for you. Quit feeling so smug compared to us mouth breathers. Seriously. This is the dumbest discussion I’ve ever heard.
Throughout the centuries scientists have faced people like Lee who have called them idiots for questioning current thinking. It is only that they put up with this sort of crap that we are able to uncover a better understanding of the world that we live in.
Right, and they’ve usually done so with something advanced or avant garde in thought.
All creationists are even attempting to do is challenge Darwinism with a conventional religious viewpoint.
They don’t like Darwinism because it conflicts with thier religious viewpoints. Icon and a few othershave seemingly more complex theories to deny Darwin’s model, but I feel the undercurrent for doing so is generated from the same place.
Scientifically prove to me that someone loves you.
This is a trap, but anyway.... I’d start with a theory about a chemical change in the brain and try to find some way to test the model.
I know this is going to be pounced upon with a typical ‘science is driven by science fiction’ conspiracy about the origin of the concept being rooted in faith, but the answer to the question would still need a scientific test.
Again, if one would like to knock Darwinism out of the box I (for one) would like to see it replaced with a more thorough model.
All creationists are even attempting to do is challenge Darwinism with a conventional religious viewpoint.
This sounds like a vast degree of ignorance of your opponent’s viewpoint.
Icon and a few othershave seemingly more complex theories
Oh I see. You can contradict yourself right in the very next sentence, but we are the idiots for disagreeing with your vastly more intelligent view.
Nice.
Next entry: Huckles and the Pakis
Previous entry: The Green Mountain Bust
Server Drive
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 2754
Total Logged in members: 4
Total guests: 53
Total anonymous users: 0
fangbeer,
Hal_10000,
Manwhore,
Rann,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
Happy 4th of July!
(1 total, Last @ 04:12)
Manwhore: PS: I’m sure Hal with his extraordinary writing skills will have a more in depth and philosophical thread at some point and as always won’t disappoint. No pressure though :) Hal's good, but you guys were selected by JimK to carry on this legacy, so give yourself some kudos. I…
The Founding Fathers
(1 total, Last @ 04:07)
Manwhore: This post may be one of the most underrated posts about the Founding Fathers. I think one of the most compelling aspects of the Founding Fathers *is* that they were just normal people. I live my life hoping to make some sort of a difference with my eighty. These guys…
The Resignacuda
(17 total, Last @ 03:55)
JimK: Friends in Alaska tell me to watch for ethics violations revolving around the building of her house and the Wasilla sports complex. You see how he can't just say he read it at Kos or one of the other nutroots blogs he reads? Has to make it all special about…
The Resignacuda
(17 total, Last @ 03:09)
Mississippi Yankee: Calling Sarah Palin "a quitter", at least in this and the AOGCC instances,would seem that you view her as a ROCK-EM SOCK-EM robot. Is toe to toe fighting the only form of warfare ya'll find honorable? It's like if someone were to constantly try to kick you in the crouch…
The Resignacuda
(17 total, Last @ 12:46)
Section8: Friends in Alaska tell me to watch for ethics violations revolving around the building of her house and the Wasilla sports complex. Same friends and family who pushed all the other rumors and troopergate etc? I can understand the concern over something like troopergate (which turned out to be mostly…
Last 30 Comments
Well, he’s still the guy that’s least likely to impose his personal religious beliefs on you. Yeah it’s pretty lame that he said that… but it will be even lamer and more depressing if he gets a sudden tiny burst in the republican polls because of it.