Dark Buzz

Natura non facit saltus
Debunking the Paradigm Shifters


Dark Buzz
RSS feed
Singular Values

About these blogs

Schlafly net

Powered by RogBlog


Wednesday, Aug 31, 2005
Most research is wrong
John sends this New Scientist article:
Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.
I don't think this describes the new paper correctly. It is written by a Greek epidemiologist named John Ioannidis. He is only talking about certain scientific fields, mainly in medicine. Perhaps it applies to most published medical research papers. I'll have to read it.

Tuesday, Aug 30, 2005
UK eminent domain
In the UK, the govt can just grab a home and rent it out if it looks like no one is using it.
Fred Reed attacks evolutionists
Andy sends this Fred Reed rant.
Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. ...

Second, evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science. The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles. You demonstrated chemistry, but believed evolution. If you have ever debated a Marxist, or a serious liberal or conservative, or a feminist or Christian, you will have noticed that, although they can be exceedingly bright and well informed, they display a maddening imprecision. You never get a straight answer if it is one they do not want to give. Nothing is ever firmly established. Crucial assertions do not to tie to observable reality. Invariably the Marxist (or evolutionist) assumes that a detailed knowledge of economic conditions under the reign of Nicholas II or whatever substitutes for being able to answer simple questions, such as why Marxism has never worked: the Fallacy of Irrelevant Knowledge. ...

Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. ...

I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn't a Creationist. They refused to believe it.

I have similarly been accused of being a Creationist. I am not. Reed describes evolutionists well. It is very difficult to reason with them. They are ideologues, not scientists.
Evolutionist articles get sillier
The NY Times continues its preoccupation with leftist-atheist-evolutionist propaganda. An Arts section article says:
Bobby Henderson, a 25-year-old with a physics degree from Oregon State University, had a divine vision. An intelligent god, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, he said, "revealed himself to me in a dream." ...

Soon he was flooded with e-mail messages. Ninety-five percent of those who wrote to him, he said on his Web site, were "in favor of teaching Flying Spaghetti Monsterism in schools." Five percent suggested that he would be going to hell. ... One woman even wrote in to say that she had "conceived the spirit of our Divine Lord," the Flying Spaghetti Monster, while eating alone at the Olive Garden.

The history books show that parody isn't always the smartest strategy when it comes to persuasion. Remember Galileo? Some recent scholars say that it may not have been his science so much as his satire, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems," that got everyone steamed up. Under threat of death, Galileo ended up recanting his view that the earth revolves around the sun, and had to wait 350 years for vindication.

No, Galileo wasn't threatened with death, and he didn't have to wait 350 years for vindication.

Then there is the Scientist at work column that interviews a political scientist [sic] named Jon D. Miller who has his own little scientific literacy project. The article says:

One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century. ...

Lately, people who advocate the teaching of evolution have been citing Dr. Miller's ideas on what factors are correlated with adherence to creationism and rejection of Darwinian theories.

These NY Times writers should get their stories straight. This one thinks that Galileo was vindicated back in the 17th century. Either way, tho, they always come to the conclusion that more evolution should be taught in the schools, and that various leftist causes will benefit.

Monday, Aug 29, 2005
Evolutionist Mike sends some flames
Some recent postings have gotten Mike excited. About Dennett, Mike says:
What you conveniently fall to notice is his use of the word "naysayers." Those books that fill our libraries and bookstores do point out how weird quantum effects are, but they don't deny their existence OR attempt to argue against the validity of the theory within the limitations of its domain. They're teaching science. Just as the evolutionists are.
Following Dennett's analogy, I don't deny evolution as it is defined in the evolution textbooks or as it has been experimentally observed. I don't know anyone who does. The arguments are about extrapolations and extensions of the basic theory. Everyone accepts micro-evolution and the fact that gene populations change from one generation to the next.

Those books on quantum mechanics and relativity certainly do argue against extrapolations and extensions of those theories. The books openly say that the theories must be fundamentally wrong on some level. Relativity predicts that the small-scale structure of spacetime is smooth, and that the expansion of the universe cannot accelerate. Quantum mechanics predicts the Schodinger Cat and all sorts of goofy things. The books openly say that the theories are too weird to be believable.

Mike also writes:

In "Human Zoo" and other bloggings you rant against teaching that man is just another animal. You have also carefully tutored your kids into accepting with pseudo-scientific arguments a list purporting to name the 10 most intelligent animals -- a list on which man doesn't appear.

If you disagree with the "man is an animal" hypothesis, offer an alternative. Exactly what do you think man is, if not an animal? (Do you at least concede that our bodies are made of animal cells? Or do you want to create a new category in cell biology?)

I really can't figure out your position on this issue.

My kids think that the smartest animals are (in order) the parrot, chimp, dolphin, crow, octopus, snow monkey, horse, pig, honeybee, dog. Mike is a dog-lover, and he was particularly annoyed that dogs were last on the list. It is hard to reason with someone who thinks that humans and dogs are on the same intellectual level.

Mike objects to my approving reference to the Kansas folks:

Be honest now... those Kansas folks deleted the teaching of evolution from the state science curriculum in 1999.

Deleted. As in no longer required. Evolution! You want your kids to go through school and never hear about it? That would have been fine in Kansas if "those folks" had had their way.

They didn't get away with it then, so they're now trying something weaker. Kinda' reminds you of the right wing approach to Roe v. Wade, doesn't it?

Yeah, let's confuse the hell out of those poor students by teaching all sorts of baseless, conflicting theories in school. They'll get the true story on Sunday anyway. What a plan.

Your information is incorrect. Kansas never deleted evolution. You can find the 1999 standards archived here, and see for yourself. What really infuriated the leftist-atheist-evolutionists was that the 1999 Kansas standards introduced the concept of falsification. That concept provides a useful way to distinguish science from non-science.

Finally, Mike says that the Ugandan govt has recalled defective condoms, and now:

Activists in both Uganda and the United States say the country is now in the grip of condom shortage so severe that men are using plastic garbage bags in an effort to protect themselves.
This sounds like a racist joke! I refuse to comment.

Mike responds:

Mike simply believes man belongs at the top of the "ten smartest animals" list. Mike also feels that dogs occupy a place well above bees.

Sunday, Aug 28, 2005
Another NY Times evolutionist
Philosopher Daniel C. Dennett defends evolution in the NY Times.
First, imagine how easy it would be for a determined band of naysayers to shake the world's confidence in quantum physics - how weird it is! - or Einsteinian relativity.
Libraries and bookstores are filled with dozens of books on how weird quantum mechanics and relativity are. Real scientists see that as a good thing. It is only the narrow-minded evolutionists who don't want you to know the limitations of the theory.

He goes on to complain that intelligent design is a distraction.

It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. ...

SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts.

I agree that intelligent design is not the only alternate theory that the evolutionists are censoring. Some of those other theories may not have many hard facts to support them, but they are still just as plausible as the standard evolutionist dogma, based on everything we know. That is why the folks in Kansas want all scientific alternatives discussed, and do not focus on intelligent design.

Saturday, Aug 27, 2005
More nutty NY Times supremacism
Adam Cohen and the NY Times continue to perpetuate silly myths about conservative judges. He says Clarence Thomas is an activist based on categorizing 42 opinions out of a sample of 64, and getting 65.63% The excess precision is a good clue that the study was bogus. Honest studies are not reported that way.

Then Cohen tries to blame conservatives for the notorious 1857 decision. Conservatives side with Republican Abe Lincoln's strong attacks on that decision.

Cohen's main complaint is that John Roberts "may hold extreme states' rights views" because he suggested that California toad might not affect interstate commerce. This is not states' rights. This issue involves whether the powers of Congress are those listed in the Constitution.

Friday, Aug 26, 2005
Human Zoo
London news:
Humans Are Ones on Display at London Zoo

By CASSANDRA VINOGRAD, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 26, 2:16 PM ET

Caged and barely clothed, eight men and women monkeyed around for the crowds Friday in an exhibit labeled "Humans" at the London Zoo.

"Warning: Humans in their Natural Environment" read the sign at the entrance to the exhibit, where the captives could be seen on a rock ledge in a bear enclosure, clad in bathing suits and pinned-on fig leaves. Some played with hula hoops, some waved.

Visitors stopped to point and laugh, and several children could be heard asking, "Why are there people in there?"

London Zoo spokeswoman Polly Wills says that's exactly the question the zoo wants to answer.

"Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals ... teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate," Wills said.

No doubt it is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist realization of the Copernican-Freudian-Gouldian principle.
War On Science
A new book titled The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney , will soon be released.

In Chap. 1, he complains that Pres. Bush promised about 60 embryonic stem cell lines in 2001, but some didn't work out, and now there are only 22 lines available.

Chapter 5 complains that the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was shut down in 1995. It wrote some reports attacking the Strategic Defense Initiative.

In Chap. 11, he complains about evolution criticism, and Pres. Bush saying, “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.”

Mooney does concede:

It must also be acknowledged that much of science emerges from the liberal-leaning academic world. In an interview, Harvard's celebrated cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, author of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, explained to me how this political reality tends to wall off certain areas of inquiry that might be seen as supporting conservative viewpoints: "When it's academics who wield the power, the political bias will be on the Left." ...

So give conservatives a few points, here and there, on the question of left wing science politicization.

I see the Leftist war on Science, but where is the attack from the Right? Even if Bush exaggerated the number of eligible embryonic stem cell lines, there are still plenty for all the ongoing federal research projects. Why the fuss?

Thursday, Aug 25, 2005
McCain also against censorship
Sen. John McCain may be running for president:
As the Gallup Poll noted, McCain has a generally consistent conservative voting record but forged a national reputation after a series of notable breaks with fellow Republicans.

On Tuesday, though, he sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools and Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who has come to personify the anti-war movement.

McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.

I guess it will be just the Democrats who take the side of censorship.
Flaws in the theory of gravity
Here is an evolutionist attempt at satire. It describes some problems with the theory of gravity, and suggests that schools teach the controversy.

The problem is that most people didn't get the joke. In the hard sciences, people believe that it is a good thing to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the theories. The article sounds very reasonable. It is only the leftist-atheist-evolutionists who are ideologically opposed to teaching alternate scientific theories.

Another flat-earth movement
Evolutionist Karl J. Hittelman praises Klinkenborg, and writes this nonsense:
Viewed over the long term, intelligent design is merely another flat-earth movement that will eventually dissipate as the overwhelming evidence for Darwinian evolution continues to accumulate.

It becomes all too obvious that intelligent design is simply not science, because it cannot be tested as required for a theory claiming to be scientific.

The first paragraph suggests that ID will be disproved by the evidence. If so, then the 2nd paragraph is wrong.

Of course, there has only ever been one flat-earth movement, and that consisted entirely of leftist-atheist-evolutionists who tried to ridicule religious folks.

Judges do make law
Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk try to justify activist judges in USA Today, but their first 2 examples involved the US Supreme Court trying to reverse the damage caused by earlier activist decisions. The third is hopelessly confused.

Wednesday, Aug 24, 2005
Evolution and gun control
Andy writes:
You mentioned your support of the right to bear arms, but the surest way to lose that right is to increase the percentage of Americans who believe in evolution. The more that people view humans as a form of animal, subject to animal instincts and lack of self-control, the more they will demand gun control. The chief difference between England and America is a much higher belief in evolution in England. Witness its socialism and gun control.
I don't agree with this. If people are animals, then I want a gun to defend myself. Evolution teaches that when a predator has a big advantage over prey, then the prey gets wiped out. The law abiding civilians need guns so that they will not be defenseless prey.
Evolutionists whine about Nazis
The NY Times has another article on the leftist-atheist-evolutionists:
Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."
It is amazing how the subject can reduce reputable scientists to babbling idiots. Stanford microbiology professor Leon T. Rosenberg writes in response:
It is entirely possible that with a sufficient expenditure of money, the country can be set back several centuries in its scientific education and made the laughingstock of the rest of the world.

Dangerous ideologies sometimes win for a while; witness Germany in the 1930's. Unfortunately, the evolution of ideas is not as well understood and is much more difficult to study than the evolution of life forms.

Those of us with faith in science and human intelligence will continue to speak out ...

So his faith leads him to want to censor dangerous ideologies; he is not sure how ideas evolve; and he wants to call his enemies Nazis. I think that is what he is saying.

Readers sometimes wonder why I criticize evolutionists when they have Science on their side. The Klinkenborg article below is a good example of what's wrong with the evolutionists. His idea of evolution is to take a simple scientific fact -- the age of the Earth -- and claim that it implies animal rights. That is not science.

A Mistake Made in Haste
Rob Crowther says:
I have spoken briefly with New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller who penned the story today that included a misquote attributed to CSC director Stephen Meyer that he welcomed Bush's statement on intelligent design as promoting "free speech on BIBLICAL origins," when he actually said "biological origins." She apologized for the error saying it was "nothing more than a mistake made in haste" ...
One of many on the subject.

Tuesday, Aug 23, 2005
Evolution and animal rights
Mike recommends this evolutionist NY Times editorial by Verlyn Klinkenborg:
Nearly every attack on evolution - whether it is called intelligent design or plain creationism, synonyms for the same faith-based rejection of evolution - ultimately requires a foreshortening of cosmological, geological and biological time.
This is a dishonest straw man attack. The ID advocates do not argue for any foreshortening of time. The Earth's age is about 5 byrs and the Universe's age is about 14.5 byrs, and the evidence is overwhelming. The major ID gurus like Dembski and Behe agree with these age estimates.

Klinkenborg concludes:

The essential, but often well-disguised, purpose of intelligent design, is to preserve the myth of a separate, divine creation for humans in the belief that only that can explain who we are. But there is a destructive hubris, a fearful arrogance, in that myth. It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and the moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here.
These leftist-atheist-evolutionists become insufferable when they start lecturing us on morals and animal rights. He pretends to be taking a scientific view, and rambles about the age of the Earth. Sure, the age of the Earth is a scientific fact. But that's all he's got, and he jumps to these cockamamy conclusions.

This is not science. Klinkenborg seems to be persuaded by the Copernican-Freudian-Gouldian principle that the essence of science is knocking Man off his pedestal, and then that evolutionism supports his New Age beliefs.

Mike writes:

You should feel ashamed of yourself. Do you really want ID taught during the week, or can we restrict it to Sundays?
What I want is to teach good science in science classes. The leftist-atheist-evolutionists cannot resist promoting their unscientific ideologies, such as claiming that the age of the Earth implies animal rights. If they are allowed to teach such nonsense, then students should also learn that there are other points of view.

Mike writes:

Face it, what you really can't stand is a scientific theory that doesn't provide all the answers. But then none of them ever have. Newtonian mechanics did a great job for a long time, but gave way to the better GRT. Eventually, we may have quantum gravity or a ST replace or extend GRT. No theory yet invented gives all the answers.

So you can't knock ToE for not explaining the origin of life... especially since ID doesn't either. We need a better, or different, theory for that. (Like quantum effects GRT can't explain, origins may just be beyond the ToE.) ToE just happens to be the best theory so far for explaining the fossil record... which as far as I can tell ID simply disregards.

Ostriches bury their heads in the sand too. You just have to bend over farther when you're standing on that pedestal reserved for humankind.

I am not the one who claims that Science or Evolution explains everything. I side with the folks in Kansas who say that students should be taught scientific info about the theory's shortcomings.

Mike seems to be proposing his own variant of the Copernican-Freudian-Gouldian principle -- it may not be necessary for Science to knock Man off the pedestal if you can get him to stick his head in the sand. Can I call this the Copernican-Freudian-Gouldian-Mike-Ostrich principle?

Monday, Aug 22, 2005
We declared war on Iraq
The lying Bush-haters like to say that the Iraq War is illegal, but Volokh explains that it is a declared war.
Looking for a designer
The NY Times gives the evolutionist reponse to intelligent design:
A cell that had the faces of four presidents on it, while other did not, would no doubt prompt scientists to look for a designer.
But if all the cells had a copy of Mt. Rushmore, then they would say that science requires rejecting the design theory. And that is more analogous to what the ID folks claim, as they say that all cells have sophisticated features that show evidence of design.
Chimpanzee culture 'confirmed'
Evolution news:
Primate experts say they have proven that chimpanzees, like humans, show social conformity.

By training captive chimps to use tools in different ways, they have shown experimentally that primates develop cultural traditions through imitation.

This has long been suspected from observations in the wild, but has not been shown directly.

It suggests that culture has ancient origins, scientists write in Nature.

The study was carried out by a team at the University of St Andrews in the UK and the National Primate Research Center of Emory University in Atlanta, US.

This is not culture. This is just some chimps mimicking other chimps in using a stick to retrieve food. The research can be summarized in 2 words: apes ape. Where do they think the word comes from? The evolutionists will be saying that this research proves that human culture is no better than ape culture.

Sunday, Aug 21, 2005
Ape to Man
The History Channel had heavily promoted special titled Ape To Man. It was evolutionist propaganda with a heavy emphasis on missing links. The stars were Piltdown Man and Lucy.

These are not missing links, they are scientific frauds. There is no good reason to believe that Lucy was a human ancestor. Lucy was just an ape. The only thing human-like about Lucy is that some suggest that she could walk upright. However, even that is hotly disputed, and some say that Lucy was a knuckle-dragger who might have occasionally walked upright only about as well as modern chimps do.

Koreans are cloning dogs, and evolutionist implications
Jacob Weisberg of Slate says:
In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs, can the U.S. afford — ethically or economically — to raise our children on fraudulent biology? But whatever tack they take, evolutionists should quit pretending their views are no threat to believers.
When evolutionists claim that they have a theory that explains all life on Earth and censor alternate points of view, then they are teaching our kids fraudulent biology.

BTW, Weisberg is a judicial supremacist, a leftist-atheist-evolutionist, and a lying Bush-hater, so it is pure accident if he gets anything right. Weisberg is mainly known for publishing "Bushisms", which are out-of-context quotes or misquotes that Bush-haters find amusing. Here are some of Weisberg's Slatisms.

Saturday, Aug 20, 2005
NY Times attacks Discovery Institute
John sends this NY Times article about evolution critics. As usual, the leftist-atheist-evolutionists want to scrutinize the political and religious beliefs of their critics, but refuse to openly discuss their own.

George writes:

It is only the politics and religion of the creationists and intelligent design advocates that is relevant. Their views about evolution are directly inspired by religion, even if they deny it.
Imagine if a major American newspaper published an article about academic Marxists, listed those who were Jewish, and hinted that there was some sort of Jewish conspiracy. There would be huge outcries about religious bigotry. But when the leftist-atheist-evolutionists display religious intolerance, the mainstream media just cheers.
Defending this blog
A old college buddy of mine tracked me down on a Santa Barbara beach, and expressed bewilderment that I could be expressing fringe opinions on this blog. He wanted to know when and where I got such nutty ideas.

In particular, he was disturbed by my attacks on judicial supremacists, lying Bush-haters, and leftist-atheist-evolutionists. He has been in academia so long that he was puzzled at how anyone could think that Ronald Reagan was a better president than Jimmy Carter.

My positions are not really so radical. My opinion on judicial supremacists was the dominant opinion among legal scholars for the first 150 years of USA history, and judicial supremacy has never been accepted by the American people.

Pres. Bush has taken some controversial stands, and I can see why some people might disagree with some of them. But Bush was reelected by a majority of the people, and the Bush-haters are concentrated in a handful of coastal cities.

Many, if not most, of those Bush-haters resort to lying in their attacks on Bush. I have no respect for those folks. I am referring to people like Michael Moore, Joe Wilson, and their supporters. Just listening to the mainstream media cheer for those kooks is reason enough to support Bush.

Then there are the leftist-atheist-evolutionists who have unfortunately taken over our scientific and academic institutions. I come from a background in math and the hard sciences, where new ideas are tolerated until disproved. I dislike it when phony hacks with a political agenda masquerade as having a monopoly on scientific correctness. I prefer to take the side of science and logic. The leftist-atheist-evolutionists are the most intolerant and unscientific folks around. Again, I believe that my views are squarely within the mainstream of the American public.

Mike writes:

And no doubt with the no-child-left-behind policy the number of you rightist-jesusfreak-creationists will be increasing. It's worse than seeing the country go to the dogs. I'm considering relocating in the Netherlands.
You want the land of dope-smoking, prostitution, and euthanasia? It sounds like an evolutionist utopia. There were a bunch of folks who claimed that they'd relocate to Canada if Bush were reelected, but it hasn't happened.

Friday, Aug 19, 2005
Evolutionists say scientific theory is a paradigm
Mike writes:
I suggest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Note that the article starts by stating that the word is about to be defined as it is used in science. Non-scientific laypersons do not use the word in the same sense. To confuse these different uses is to demean the scientific method.

The article actually says:
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, ...
You can tell that this was written by leftist-atheist-evolutionists, because they are the only ones who believe that a scientific theory is a "paradigm".

The usage is not correct. Physicists commonly refer to string theory, even though the theory hardly explains or predicts anything. Most ordinary layman theories are more testable than string theory.

Mike goes on:

In fact, according to the first paragraph of the "Theory" entry, it is correct to refer to the "theory of evolution," but incorrect to refer to a "theory of intelligent design." It should be "hypothesis of intelligent design."
I am not sure how that would follow. The article says:
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."
So for evolution to be a theory, it must satisfy this definition. What is the accuracy of the theory? How many arbitrary elements does it have? What are the definite predictions?

Mike writes:

As far as whether string theories are testable, here's what Witten has to say:
Witten: The theory has to be interpreted that extra dimensions beyond the ordinary four dimensions the three spatial dimensions plus time are sufficiently small that they haven't been observed yet. So we would hope to test the theory, conceivably directly at accelerators. I suspect that's a long shot. More likely we'll do it indirectly by making more precise calculations about elementary particles based on the existence of extra dimensions.
Wikipedia says:
No string theory has yet made falsifiable predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested. Work on string theory has led to advances in mathematics, mainly in algebraic geometry. String theory has also led to insight into supersymmetric gauge theories, which will be tested at the new Large Hadron Collider experiment.
So it's successful, even if it can't currently be tested.

So maybe we can agree to call STs "fledgling theories." When it becomes possible to test a prediction (or those of SGTs to the same extent as in the ToE, we'll elevate its status to that of a true theory.

I am not sure what Mike's point is. I am not the one who is trying to redefine the word "theory" for some ideological purpose. I am merely reporting on common usage. There isn't any big difference between layman and scientist use of the word "theory". The leftist-atheist-evolutionists claim that there is a big distinction, and they are wrong.

It is just not true that everyone agrees that string theory is not yet a true theory. Mike's quote above shows that Witten calls it a theory, even tho there is no known way to test the theory.

Mike further clarifies that the Wikipedia article distinguishes between a "theory" and a "good theory". Evolution is just a theory, and not a good theory. String theory might not be a theory, but Witten is the authority, and if Witten says it is a theory, then it is a theory. Intelligent Design (ID) is a theory under the layman's definition (which he prefers to call the "layperson" definition), and he notes that not all ID advocates have the same views. Evolutionists also have varying views, but Mike says that the differences are exaggerated by my quotes from "that lunatic Stephen Jay Gould". He didn't say so, but I guess he also includes the lunatics who gave Gould tenure at Harvard, the lunatics who elected him president of the AAAS, the lunatics who bought his best-selling books, and the lunatics who made him the best-known and most widely-read scientist.

The proof is out there
Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the Seti (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) institute, California, says:
The good news is that the latest polls confirm that roughly half of all Americans believe extraterrestrial life exists. The weird news is that a similar fraction think some of it is visiting Earth. ...

The UFO advocates are asking us to believe something very important. After all, there could hardly be any discovery more dramatic than visitors from other worlds. If they could prove that the aliens are here, I would be as awestruck as anyone. But I still await a compelling Exhibit A.

There is something strange about the way the leftist-atheist-evolutionists have faith in intelligent life on other planet, and want to devote resources to looking for it, but they don't want to be associated with the kooks who think that it has already been found. It is a bit like certain religious folks who profess to believe in various miracles, but are extremely skeptical when anyone claims to have experienced one.

It is also a little strange how these folks claim to be able to recognize intelligent design in outer space, but claim that it cannot be recognized here on Earth.

Appeals Court Tosses Judge's Wiccan Order
John sends this AP story:
INDIANAPOLIS - A judge who ordered two Wicca believers to shield their son from their "non-mainstream" faith overstepped his authority, an appeals court said Wednesday in dismissing the order.

The Indiana Court of Appeals said state law gave a custodial parent the authority to determine a child's upbringing, including religious training. A judge could find that certain limitations were needed to protect a child from physical or emotional harm.

Courts have no business telling parents how to raise their kids, whether they are married or divorced.

Friday, Aug 12, 2005
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Chris sends this joke article:
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It also tries to correlate global warming with piracy, using phony data. I am not quite sure if it is trying to make fun of the evolutionists or the ID folks, or just science in general.

Here is an article about evolutionist attacks on George Gilder, and a New Republic article on intelligent design. (I logged in with john9241 - trooper.)

Sunday, Aug 07, 2005
Evolutionist word dance
Here is an evolutionist letter in the NY Times:
One of the most effective arguments used by proponents of creationism or intelligent design to create the impression that the scientific consensus on evolution has shaky foundations is that evolution is "just a theory."

That this statement really is persuasive to many people reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "theory" in a scientific context.

It does not imply fundamental disagreement; quite the contrary. The word theory is applied only to an idea supported by facts and analyses of those facts by experts on the subject.

That scientists do not refer to evolutionary theory as fact is only a reflection of the scientific mentality of continuing to question assumptions and being open to new evidence; it does not imply that there is any competing theory that is considered viable by the scientific community.

Elizabeth S. Meckes, Palo Alto, Calif., Aug. 5, 2005

So she says evolution is a fact, but evolutionists don't want to call it that because they want to pretend that they are open to new ideas. And they are only open to evolutionist ideas, and not creationist or design ideas.

This is nutty. No one misunderstands the word "theory". Scientists use it with the same meaning as non-scientists.

Federalist Society has no ideology
John sends this NY Times letter:
The Federalist Party, the party of Washington, Adams and Hamilton, stood for a strong central government. The Federalist Society stands for negative government and states' rights. If its members were honest, they would call themselves, in the terms of the 1790's, the Anti-Federalist Society.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr., New York, Aug. 1, 2005

Schlesinger is an idiot. No one stands for negative govt and states rights.

Here is a NY Times article that tries to find out what the Federalist Society stands for. It quotes someone saying, "the society ... has no stated philosophy other than the exchange of ideas", but suggest that maybe it has a "secret handshake". The society's stated purpose is:

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.

Saturday, Aug 06, 2005
Flat Earth Evolutionists
Leftist-evolutionist-atheist Paul Krugman says:
I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth." The headlines on many articles about the intelligent design controversy come pretty close. ...

But intelligent design, which spreads doubt about evolution without being too overtly religious, may succeed where creation science failed.

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory.

The Flat Earth Myth has been entirely promoted by leftist evolutionists like Krugman.
Both sides ought to be properly taught
The evolutionist blog Red State Rabble wonders whether Bush would support the schools teaching alternative points of view regarding condom use and atheistic secular humanism.

Sure. The evolutionists are so intolerant and narrow-minded that they cannot imagine people genuinely wanting diverse views to be taught.

Unaccountable evolutionist teachers
A San Jose newspaper letter says:
Teachers need tenure protection

People seem to forget that tenure is necessary to teach. Teachers need to be able to teach evolution without fear of being fired ...

Michael Goldman, Sunnyvale

California teachers get tenure after 2 years. There will be a ballot proposition to extend the requirement. I will be voting for it. The evolutionists who want to brainwash your kids without any public accountability will launch a massive propaganda campaign against the ballot initiative.

Thursday, Aug 04, 2005
Bob writes:
I personally find evolutionist pejorative. It makes evolution sound like like a religion. My opinion of evolution is based only on the scientific evidence. There probably are people who make a religion of evolution, but it is unfair to tar those who accept evolution for scientific reasons with that brush. There is no term I know of for those who accept evolution for only scientific reasons. A lot of people who accept evolution for scientific reasons accept the term evolutionist, but to me it has the ring of homosexuals who call themselves queer, or black people who call themselves nigger.
Strange. I don't know why the term would be any more pejorative than biologist or ornithologist. It refers to someone who believes in, or advocates, the theory of evolution.

Perhaps Bob is referring to the fact that evolutionists nearly always also advocate a variety of goofy leftist and atheist causes. They claim to be scientists, but they have some of the most narrow-minded and unscientific views as you will find in all the sciences.

Bush and ID theory
Pat Sullivan reports that the Air America radio show (that he calls Scare America) polled its audience, and found that a majority disagreed with Bush about intelligent design.

I have a problem with the way the Left is reporting this story. The Wash. Post story leads with:

President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.
The AP story leads with:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
The stories quote Pres. Bush as saying "intelligent design", but he did not. Here is the transcript:
Q I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

Q Both sides should be properly taught?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.

Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

So Air America, AP, and the Wash. Post were all misquoting Bush. It is just another example of lying on the part of the Bush-haters in the media.

Wednesday, Aug 03, 2005
Scientific Bush-haters
NY Times evolutionist letters:
President Bush, in suggesting that there should be time given over to teach intelligent design, continues to display a shameful degree of science illiteracy, consistent with his attitudes toward global warming and stem cell research.

Since most drug research, including most Alzheimer's treatment research, is based on the principles of evolution, would you recommend stopping that research or financing an effort based on intelligent design?

A few questions like that would probably end this "debate."

No, there is no nontrivial principle of evolution that has ever been applied to drug research. These folks are just mindless Bush-haters.

Georgia writes:

Evolution principles have been used to study drug resistance. Evolution teaches that if an antibiotic kills some bacteria but not other bacteria in an infection, then the bacteria which is not killed will be more likely to grow. It is a excellent example of Survival Of The Fittest.
I am sure that the ID theorists all agree that an antibiotic might kill some types of bacteria, but not others.

Tuesday, Aug 02, 2005
No More Monkey Trials
Charles Krauthammer says in Time magazine:
And then, as if to second the evangelical push for this tarted-up version of creationism, out of the blue appears a declaration from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist."

... The scandal is to teach this as science--to pretend, as does Schönborn, that his statement of faith is a defense of science. "The Catholic Church," he says, "will again defend human reason" against "scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity,'" which "are not scientific at all." Well, if you believe that science is reason and that reason begins with recognizing the existence of an immanent providence, then this is science. But, of course, it is not. This is faith disguised as science. Science begins not with first principles but with observation and experimentation.

There is no observation or experimentation about divine providence, and there is no science to contradict what Schönborn said. Krauthammer has been duped by the evolutionists.
California supremacists
Gay news:
California's highest court ruled Monday that country clubs must offer gay members who register as domestic partners the same discounts given to married ones — a decision that could apply to other businesses such as insurance companies and mortgage lenders. ...

"The Legislature has made it abundantly clear than an important goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to create substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a five-judge majority. "We interpret this language to mean that there shall be no discrimination in the treatment of registered domestic partners and spouses."

There was also a popular California referendum against same-sex marriage. Private clubs ought to be able to draw the same distinctions that the state draws.
Bush endorses teaching the controversy
AP News:
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush's voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.

Only the narrow-minded leftist-evolutionists want to censor alternate points of view. There is almost no scientific evidence about how the creation of life on Earth happened, and evolution has no good theory for it.
String Theory
The NY Times reports on String Theory. It is supposed to be the theory of everything, they don't really have any evidence or a coherent theory or anything resembling actual scientific work. What they do have is a lively debate over whether they should be guided by the anthropic principle or the Copernican-Freudian-Gouldian principle. It is called the Princeton-Stanford split. Those on the West Coast want to put Man on the pedestal, and those on the East Coast want to knock Man off the pedestal.

At least they are not trying to teach it in the schools yet.

Monday, Aug 01, 2005
Public views on stem cell research
Bob sends me polls (like this) on whether the public supports stem cell research. Every poll I've seen shows Pres. Bush's position squarely in the majority. He does not need to change it for any political reason.

For example, the above poll says that "57% favor federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. So does Pres. Bush. It was Bush who took the initiative in that funding.

Bob also sent a Harris poll (from the WSJ, not freely online) that asked:

Do you think this research [on stem cells from leftover embryos] should or should not be allowed?
74% said yes, and agreed with USA law and Bush policy. Such research is indeed allowed under USA law. (I believe that some countries don't allow it.)