Troglodytes disprove evolution

CitizenLink 11-20-09
Friday Five: Dr. Stephen Meyer, Discovery Institute
by Kim Trobee, editor

With the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species fast approaching, Dr. Meyer explains the holes in the theory of evolution and the magnificent ode to intelligent design.

Dr. Stephen Meyer is director and senior fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.

Gosh golly gee, Ms. Trobee, what is this Discovery Institute that you speak of?

Wikipedia:

The Discovery Institute is ... best known for its advocacy of intelligent design.

Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.

The Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.

In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

"What will it take for the scientific community to open up to the possibility of intelligent design?"

Dearest, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Intelligent Design is something that can be proven scientifically.

Intelligent Design is a religion. Defining religion as science is a lie.

And for those of you who are interested in fully appreciating the richness of the deceit and dishonesty of the Intelligent Design movement, watch PBS’s Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. They have plenty of resources, including a transcript of the show.


Oh, and by the way, since when is “materialistic” science required to prove the already-known "fact" of Adam and Eve?

Chris Matthews plays softball with Tancredo

That title brought to you by YouTube’s ChuckyJesus666:

“Chris tried to play hardball, but played an ineffectual game of softball with Tancredo, who tried to paint "Intelligent Design" as being evolution with god behind it. It's not; it's creationism, pure and simple, and he knows it. Sad thing is that Matthews did not know it.”

I would have worded that differently by saying that it’s a political power grab by the Religious Right to usurp the scientific method of discovery in order to take over the public school system for the sake of indoctrinating American youth... ...but that’s just me.

You can see my link ridden rant on the matter, here.

Transcribed for your convenience, and my unbiased commentary at the end.
Chris Matthews plays softball with Tancredo


Transcription: Chris Matthews, wed 5-6-09:

Chris Matthews: Welcome back to Hardball. Does the Republican Party have a problem when it comes to believing in science? Check out this exchange I had with Republican Congressional leader Mike Pence of Indiana last night, when I asked him about evolution.

Chris Matthews: I think you believe in evolution, but you’re afraid to say so because your conservative constituency might find that offensive.

Mike Pence (video): No, I’ve said to you, Chris, I believe with all my heart that God created the heavens and the Earth, the seas and all that is in them. How He did that, I’ll ask him about someday.

Chris Matthews: So are Republicans afraid to believe in things like evolution? Tom Tancredo is a former Republican congressman, of course, from Colorado, and of course, a man who ran for president, and delighted us in those debates. Mr. Tancredo, thank you sir. You definitely were a lighting rod in the debates I was dealing with.

Tom Tancredo: You’re welcome. Delighted…

Chris Matthews: Well thank you. Look I don’t want to get into religious tests…

Tom Tancredo:…delighted to a debate that worries me a little bit.

Chris Matthews: Well don’t get too worried, you’re at home here, you’re in your mother’s arms, uh, sir. I think it’s a strange thing…

Tom Tancredo: Bless you my child, bless you..

Chris Matthews: Ha ha ha. Look I don’t want to get into religious tests, we all have our own doubts about religion, our own beliefs, sometimes they’re overlapping each other, sometimes we believe things on different levels, and we sometimes have conflicts in what we believe… …what we were taught in our religion. Most of it I think sort of believe that God created the Earth, we have a belief in a deity, we also believe that somehow He did it through evolution--there was some kind of guidance to it from the beginning certainly, and He knew what He was doing -- He or She if you want to get really broad minded -- knew what He was doing and He did it His way. He didn’t do it in 7 days like we were taught, but He did it His way. Is that sort of your belief?

Tom Tancredo: I do, I believe what you’ve just described, by the way, is something that we call Intelligent Design. And therefore I’m not sure we have much of a debate. There’s Darwinian Evolution, There’s Intelligent Design, that’s the two conflicting points of view on this. And I suggest, Chris, that when you look at this very carefully, and believe me, I’m not a theologian, I’m not a scientist, I’m just a layman that looks at the evidence I have in front of me. And when you do look at it carefully, it does seem to me that the one is equal to the other, in terms of the number of people who support it, in terms--especially of their backgrounds and the research that’s out there, it’s not so clear cut.

You know, even Darwin said that in order to prove evolution, his kind of evolution, you would need literally thousands, maybe millions of fossils that were transitional, we should be able to find them. But of course, we haven’t been able to find them. We can all believe--I certainly believe that evolution occurs within species naturally. Human beings have grown taller over time. That’s certainly true, but crossing a species, there is no evidence of that, you have to make an assumption. And I’m just saying that assuming that, is just as tough as assuming that there’s intelligent design.

Chris Matthews: Ok, let me talk to you about what I think are the extremes on this position. That one extreme would be, there is no god, it’s all sort of random, we all ended up here, we don’t even know why we’re here, right? That would be a random, totally secular view of everything, I don’t think you or I are at that end.

The other end would be, it’s just like it’s written down in the Bible, we don’t have to figure out science, it’s all there. And if you really get into the Bible, and you’re totally literal about it -- and I don’t want to knock anybody’s belief -- you get to point of having to deny all the fossils out there because they all predated 4,000 of written history in the Bible, back to Adam and Eve, through the prophets all the way back.

Then you get into that crazy idea, well there’s a bunch of liberals that went around and buried all these bones in the ground to make it look like there was ancient history. Well, I don’t think most people believe that. I think most people accept the fact, there were dinosaurs, they were around here millions of years ago, it wasn’t covered in the Bible, etc. etc.

So, the question comes down to this, and this is why it’s relevant to discussions of climate change. Do you accept the scientific method? Now, I went to a Catholic school and I--the Christian brother taught us the first day, he said, now you can believe in evolution or not, we believe it here. And from the beginning of the education we had in biology, you had the kingdoms the classes the families, the genus’ the species, this is the way you learned about life. And among the way you understood things was the families, and in the family were People - us, and also apes.

Now, if you say there was no connection between the two, ever in history, that there was never any evolution that led to the creation of you and me -- that led to the creation, I accept the idea of guidance, and if you want to call it intelligent design, that’s fine with me -- but it ended up that way. If you don’t accept the science if you discover it, then you are really basing your whole life, just on belief. And then, you have a hard time dealing a person like that when it comes to scientific evidence on climate change, if they simply don’t want to believe it, ‘cause they don’t want to look at evidence. Are you a person that believes in the scientific method? Did you study biology in school like I did, which is based on these assumptions of evolution?

Tom Tancredo: Yes I went to Catholic schools for 12 years, yes I had biology, yes--first of all let me go back earlier to the first part of your statement about the time sequence. In Intelligent Design, there is no argument about whether the world was made eight thousand or eight billion years ago. Nobody argues that, it could have been any of those things, and there’s no religious dogma leading that particular discussion, it’s not a part of Intelligent Design. And so I certainly can accept that, the fact is that when you think about--if you go back and assume that all--you have to start thinking about what the beginning? You can see on the micro level, we see evolution, but can not make the assumption on it about the macro level, ‘cause there’s nothing there to look at, we have no scientific data.

You are absolutely right to say that we should use the scientific methods to make these kinds of decisions, but honest to god, Chris, there is no scientific data there, there’s nothing there we can look at to see that we’ve made this great leap. And so it’s an assumption, just like it’s an assumption about Intelligent Design. And I’m just saying to you, they’re equally valuable. I think they should be taught in schools together. Here’s a group of people, highly educated, well rounded and well respected in their field who believe in evolution, Darwinian Evolution. Here’s a group of people, highly respected, who believe in Intelligent Design. These are two theories, we should present both of them.

Chris Matthews: Ok, what’s the difference between saying you believe in evolution but you believe God’s behind it? What the difference between that and Intelligent Design?

Tom Tancredo: Well I don’t think there is an--much at all

Chris Matthews: So then you just have to have a little introduction in each chapter in the biology book that says, God did this, God did this, God did this, and that’s Intelligent Design. I mean, is that the distinction?

Tom Tancredo: You don’t even have to call it god, you don’t have to say anything, you just have to say that these people believe that there was something that designed all of this. You can call it god or…

Chris Matthews: I’m not going to fight you on that, congressman. I guess our distinction here is, are we willing to accept the scientific method, and if we discover these artifacts or these connections, the “missing link” is what it’s always been called, that we’re not just going to reject it and say, that can’t be because that runs in the face of my religion. Are we going to accept that there could be climate change and man could be causing it, and we better damn well do some changes if that’s the case?

All I want is an understanding of how reasonable we’re being in understanding the world that God gave us. That’s all I’m asking. And you say we’re all trying to understand it together.

Tom Tancredo: That’s a wonderful way to put it, the world that God gave us, all of us I think are looking exactly for that answer, that understanding. And I appreciate the way you put it, because frankly, I don’t think there’s a heck of a lot of argument here, although we’ve done we’ve done a pretty good job for seven minutes or so.

Chris Matthews: Well I appreciate that. Thank you for coming on, but I think we got way of the course of our secular beliefs, which I think I’d like to stick to. But I’m trying to figure out, if we’re every going to understand this argument over climate change, unless we accept the fact that we’re trying to get the truth, and not simply always stepping back and saying, I’m skeptical of all this, and just ending the conversation there. At some point you have to have a method of understanding truth, and make some assumptions, or else you’re stuck in the mud.

Thank you Tom Tancredo, run for president again. We’ll cover you.

Tom Tancredo: Next time. We’ll do it again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Tancredo:
--These are two theories, we should present both of them.
--And I’m just saying to you, they’re equally valuable.
--you just have to say that these people believe that there was something that designed all of this. You can call it god or….

Both are just “theories” eh…

Here’s my theory:

Me: By characterizing ID as science-worthy, Tancredo attempts to raise the theological tenets of ID to the level of scientific inquiry.

In essence, my theory can beat up your theory, Tom. But try the quantum physics guys, I hear they're looking for the "God particle."

Matthews nails it in the end though.

Chris Matthews: But I’m trying to figure out, if we’re every going to understand this argument over climate change, unless we accept the fact that we’re trying to get the truth, and not simply always stepping back and saying, I’m skeptical of all this, and just ending the conversation there. At some point you have to have a method of understanding truth, and make some assumptions, or else you’re stuck in the mud.

"At some point you have to have a method of understanding truth, and make some assumptions, or else you’re stuck in the mud."

Well fortunately there’s scientists a whole section of society that would just love to answer that question. But what the heck, I’ll give it shot.

Unlike the “theory” of Intelligent Design, the “theory” of evolution employs the use of scientific inquiry for its information.

The scientific method, and the use of Scientific Inquiry is a fact, and can be proven. Also, scientific inquiry is based on the use of logic, and Logic requires critical thinking, and as we all know, critical thinking is of the devil... ...but I digress.
~~~
A Google search for “scientific inquiry” brought up these:

1) Scientific inquiry is a term that encompasses a variety of techniques that scientists use to explore the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence they find.

2) Basic Skills of Scientific Inquiry:
· Observing
· Classifying and sequencing
· Communicating
· Measuring
· Predicting
· Hypothesizing
· Inferring
· Defining, controlling, and manipulating variable in experimentation
· Designing, constructing and interpreting models
· Interpreting, analyzing and evaluating data

3) Scientific Inquiry and Higher Order Thinking Skills

For more information on this fake controversy, please visit Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Breaking: Intelligent Designer Not Intelligent

(I covered this story awhile back, so consider this the unabridged version.)

Some ammunition for those of you who … … ID/creationist proponents.

Most of this is rehashed -- except for my argumentational illustration at the end.

If you’re not so familiar with the subject matter or need a refresher course, I’ve tried to arrange this piece in as simple, yet in as thorough a way possible. (It’s kinda long)

Anyway, if you don’t need the background, jump to the Intelligent Designer section at the end.

No Segue
On 2-12-09, Citizenlink had a teaser article up, linking to an opinion piece in U.S News and World Report by Candi Cushman, Focus on the Family’s education analyst:

Intelligent Design Belongs With Darwin in Classrooms; Political Correctness Does Not

She begins with the mention of Darwin’s approaching 200th birthday, and goes on to contend that if the movie Inherit the Wind “celebrated as an eloquent protest against attacks on freedom of thought” were made today, the roles would be reversed.

In true to FOF persecution complex form, she states: “This time the person sitting in the prosecution box would be an educator who dared to challenge any part of Darwin's theory.” And then goes on to claim that professors and scientists are essentially being persecuted for “daring” to suggest “design” in nature.

(Incidentally, this was the same approach Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” took. Nothing to do with demonstrating that ID was scientific, only to highlight those who were supposedly being unfairly persecuted.)

Cushman then cites the example of a teacher “who was reassigned to earth science after daring to present both sides of the debate.” (bold mine)

As in, Teach the Controversy
Some Background (bold mine):

In 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania school board established a policy that science teachers would have to read a statement to biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution called intelligent design. Intelligent design, or ID, claims that certain features of life are too complex to have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The Dover high school science teachers refused to comply with the policy, refused to read the statement. And parents opposed to the school board's actions filed a lawsuit in federal court.

Fortunately the ID proponents’ arguments in court went handily down in flames. There were no survivors.

However, “teaching the controversy” can be perfectly legitimate, in science or in any other field. But in the case of ID, there is no legitimate controversy, because there is no scientific controversy. By characterizing ID as one “side of the debate,” Cushman and ilk attempt to raise, without merit, the theological tenets of ID to the level of scientific inquiry.

As the ruling Judge John E. Jones III said:

The goal of the ID movement is to foment a revolution

Intelligent design, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents' as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce intelligent design to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, intelligent design's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not intelligent design itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the intelligent-design movement is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design.

Cushman continues: “More than 700 scientists have signed their names on a petition (launched by The Discovery Institute in 2001) stating their skepticism that natural selection can sufficiently account for the complexity of life.”

I thought U.S News and World Report (the host of her article) was popular because it had journalistic standards, but with her mention of the Discovery Institute, those 700 scientists may as well have been 700 Scientologists.

The Discovery Institute is the main instigator in the effort to rebrand creationism as scientific theory. They are also the authors of the Wedge Document:

From Wikipedia:

The Wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3]

And then Cushman feigns the proverbial wail ‘Won’t somebody please think about the children!’:

“Shouldn't students have the opportunity to investigate what … may point to evidence of design?”

I think the last part of that statement encapsulates how baseless and surreptitious their complaint is.

Evolution is a design. There are processes on Earth, and universally, that are by definition, designs. That’s precisely what science is “designed” to do - figure out how those designs work, and how they came to be, and it just so happens that science is part of that design too. In fact, one might even consider science to be design itself, trying to understand itself.

But no, not you, Candi Cushman. Curses! It’s those dreaded defenders of the definition of science itself that are the enemy!

“extreme efforts to shut their voices down - people shouldn't have to fear losing their jobs simply because they want to question a theory - cuts at the heart of the freedoms this nation holds dear - free speech - the right to express controversial ideas without fear - oppressive climate - police-state climate.

But the good news is that wherever there's tyranny, there's always rebellion.”

So that’s the good news, she and her FOF BFF's, and their ardent followers are the victims in all this. And let’s not forget all those poor poor students who are being SO unfairly denied the Focus on the Family perspective when it comes to all of known history.

Demonizing Evolutionary Biology
In a two page article, Cushman mentions “Darwin” in some form, 9 times: Darwin's 200th birthday approaches, Darwin's theory, Darwinian evolution, Darwinian evolution, Darwinian evolution, Darwin's theory, Darwinian evolution, Darwin's theory of evolution, and the title: Intelligent Design belongs with Darwin in classrooms.

This is NOT without intent.

The following is not the article I had originally read to make my point here, but this paragraph sums up the gist of it (again, bold mine):

Let’s Get Rid of Darwinism
Olivia Judson

To return to my argument: I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.

Which is precisely what the continual referral of evolution as “Darwinian” is intended to do - deny that Darwinian evolutionary theory has taken on a scientific life of it’s own.

As far as I recall, the story goes that Darwin was religious, then discovered/studied natural selection -- the inherent tenet of evolution -- and then became atheist/agnostic. (See Wikipedia’s section on Charles Darwin’s views on religion.)

So, by repeatedly referring to evolutionary biology as “Darwinian,” all science based on Darwin’s theories can be maligned (when need be) as the rantings of an atheist out to prove that there is no god.

Fortunately we have reality to refer to.

I’ve linked to that website several times now, so just to make it official, it’s a wellspring of information on the whole ID attempted power grab rebranding. I would even say that it’s basically all you need to refute any ID/creationism argument. You can watch the entire program online, and/or read the full transcript, and there are a host of additional articles that expound on some of the intricacies of the subject matter. I can’t recommend it highly enough.

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

A couple of my favorite ID arguments
--The missing link between apes and humans: Archeology has been around for some 150 years, they should have found it by now.

--Carbon dating: We don’t know how fast carbon decayed before the invention of carbon dating, therefore all carbon dating measurements are irrelevant.

On With The Show
As Answers in Genesis freely admits:

Dinosaurs certainly did roam the Earth in the ancient past! Fossils of dinosaurs have been found all over the world, and their bones are displayed in museums for all to see. Scientists have been able to reconstruct many of their skeletons, so we know much about how they may have looked.

And from that same page:

What Did Dinosaurs Eat?

The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.

Here’s a Google search of creationism dinosaurs vegetarian for further reference. Point being that the above example is only one of many.

Intelligent Designer
Now, if intelligence is the ability to understand the order of importance, then why would an intelligent designer create vegetarians with teeth and claws that were designed for flesh ripping?

Some say that it wasn’t until after man’s “fall from grace” that certain animals became predacious, but that still doesn’t answer the question as to why they were designed for predation in the first place.

Evolutionary biology is pretty much settled on the whole “natural selection,” “survival of the fittest” thing. Predator eats prey, prey adapts, predator adapts, and so on. Those who don’t adapt, perish.

Adaptation IS evolution.

The more adaptation, the more species.
The more species, the more complexity.
The more complexity, the more intelligence.

Throw in a few ages and eras, and the next thing you know you’re infested with 7 Billion human animals.

It is precisely the “design” of the predator/prey - adaptation/evolutionary process that has resulted in human intelligence.

So again, if intelligence is the ability to understand the order of importance, why would an intelligent designer, make humans, and then make the process necessary to make humans?

Focus on the Family: Inheriting the wind as we speak.

Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink had a teaser article entitled: “Intelligent Design Belongs with Darwin in Classrooms; Political Correctness Does Not”
2-12-09
by Candi Cushman, an education analyst for Focus on the Family.

They then link to the full online opinion piece in US News & World Report. I was under the impression that they were a legitimate news source, apparently not.

She begins by referring to the movie “Inherit the Wind,” describing it as “an eloquent protest against attacks on freedom of thought.”

I recently watched that movie, and the title comes from the Biblical passage Proverbs 11:29 - “He who brings trouble on his family will inherit only wind, and the fool will be servant to the wise.”

Meaning that those who unnecessarily stir up trouble with their families, communities, society, will eventually be abandoned and left alone. They will “inherit” only the air that surrounds them.

And true to Focus on the Family persecution-complex form, Ms. Cushman states the following:

But if the film were reproduced to reflect today's events, there'd have to be a role reversal. This time the person sitting in the prosecution box would be an educator who dared to challenge any part of Darwin's theory.

And again with the whole “tolerance” meme, AKA those who tout the merits of tolerance should also be tolerant of intolerance:

Those leading our public education systems constantly proclaim their love of diversity, tolerance and academic freedom. But actions speak louder than words.

She then dismisses any concern that “secularists” may have about the teaching of religion in schools, and that even people of faith wouldn’t want this.

And finally, the plot point: “The majority of parents do, however, want their kids to examine all the scientific evidence…both information for and against Darwinian evolution to be presented.”

And what would that information against “Darwinian evolution” be? Intelligent Design. She concludes that not teaching ID along side evolution is a “double standard.”

This is called teach the controversy -- if you can’t win your argument on merit, you might be able to convince people that the arguments are equal, and thus, fair and balanced to teach both. In some cases this is appropriate, but evolution is based on science, Intelligent Design is not. The real “controversy” attempting to be taught here is that science itself is equal to religious belief, despite Candi Cushman’s denials that this is the case.

She claims “Students should be allowed to hear all the evidence” and “They [evolutionists] claim there is no room for new evidence.” Problem is, there is no scientific evidence to back up ID.

Here’s an informative yet very easy to read Q & A from the ACLU on ID.

I should say here that I believe in an intelligent designer, a created evolution if you will, but I’m not about to call that scientific evidence, nor especially intelligent design, for fear of being associated with these buffoons.

And I love this next part:

More than 700 scientists have signed their names on a petition (launched by The Discovery Institute in 2001) stating their skepticism that natural selection can sufficiently account for the complexity of life.

If you’re not familiar with the Discovery Institute, they are one of, if not the main players in this “teach the controversy” Intelligent Design charade.

Secondly, I canvassed that site a couple years ago looking for anything even remotely scientific, and found nothing. No experiments, no scientific theories, nothing. However, I did find this little gem called “The Wedge Document.”:

The Wedge Document is an internal memorandum from the Discovery Institute (the leading proponent of Intelligent Designer "Theory") that was leaked to the Internet in 1999. The Discovery Institute later admitted to its authenticity. Since then, Discovery Institute hasn't talked very much about the document, or the strategy it outlines. The reason is crushingly obvious, since the Wedge Document makes it readily apparent that the Discovery Institute is flat-out lying to us when it claims that its Intelligent Designer campaign is concerned only with science and does not have any religious aims, purpose or effect.

The Wedge Document is reproduced here, in full.

She goes on:

Shouldn't students have the opportunity to investigate what…may point to evidence of design?

Again, I believe in an intelligent designer, but the word “design” used in this context, is a euphemism for consciousness. And if anyone is going to prove the consciousness responsible for designing matter itself, it’s going to be the quantum physicists.

We then get more persecution complex, oh woe is me, won’t somebody please think about the children, etc.

They are simply protecting educators' and students' First Amendment rights to have a free and open dialogue.
The very fact these protections are necessary, should send a wake-up call to those who truly do care about tolerance and academic freedom in this country.

“First Amendment,” “Tolerance,” and “Freedom.”

Here’s how the ACLU describes it:

Q: Why not "teach both sides"?
A: This would be like teaching astrology in an astronomy course or alchemy in a chemistry class. There are not "two sides" to the science.

Clearly this woman is not very learned, or she would know about the PBS program called “Intelligent Design on Trial,” which can be watched online for free, along with tons of resources. It also provides the transcript of the show, the most striking part of was this:

NARRATOR: Barbara Forrest's testimony would make a strong case that the Dover school board was thrusting religion into the classroom. And in comparing the Of Pandas and People drafts, Forrest discovered that the authors had apparently made their revisions in haste.

BARBARA FORREST: In cleansing this manuscript, they failed to replace every word properly. I found the word "creationists." And instead of replacing the entire word, they just kind of did this, and got "design proponents" with the "c" in front and the "ists" in the back from the original word.

NICK MATZKE: So the correct term for this transitional form is "Cdesign proponentsists." And everyone now refers to this as the "missing link" between creationism and intelligent design. You've got the direct physical evidence there of a transitional fossil.

The whole point of Intelligent Design is to undermine scientific inquiry, and thus the need to educate our youth on the importance of rational thought. Thus they confuse the issue by making it sound like evolution and ID are scientifically equal, hence “teach the controversy.”

It’s just another veiled theocratic ploy to wrest power from the government and anyone who disagrees with them.

But since when was Focus on the Family known for its integrity? It’s mostly their absence of embarrassment that baffles me. Unless they actually think they’re right, in light of the evidence, in which case I would ask how it’s possible to be that stupid?

She didn’t even make an argument, she didn’t even try. It was little more than a whiney diatribe on how science isn’t catering to their redefinition of it.

A couple of shorts. "Darwinism" / Dominitionsim

This first one is a short read, but a worthy one I think.

Creationists and ID proponents often make it a point to characterize anyone who believes in evolution as an atheist.

As this article points out, the attempt to label evolution as being anyting "Darwinistic," or more specifically "Darwinian" or "Darwinism." It's a code speak subtle attempt to portray that belief-in-evolution as being religious in nature - BUT IN THE ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY THAT RELIGION as being on par with the supposed "atheist religion" of science:

In the US, "Darwinism" is about political power. Evolution is not.

Dr. Kate correctly pointed out recently on the Thoughts From Kansas blog:

Creationists insist on calling [evolution] "Darwinism." If they can get enough people to think that science is a religion, then they can argue that their religion ought to get as much time in the science classroom as "our" religion does.

More information here, and especially here as to how evolution has already transcended so called "Darwinism.":

The test of time

Q: How do you answer the charge that evolution has never been tested?

Miller: Evolution is tested every day in the laboratory, and it's tested every day in the field. I can't think of a single scientific theory that has been more controversial than evolution, and when theories are controversial, people devise tests to see if they're right. Evolution has been tested continuously for almost 150 years and not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.

Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of continuous testing is a pretty darn good theory. We use evolution to develop drugs. We use evolution to develop vaccines. We use evolution to manage wildlife. We use evolution to interpret our own genome. Every one of these uses of evolution is a test, because if the use turns out to be inadequate, we would then go back and question the very idea of evolution itself. But evolution has turned out to be such a powerful, productive, and hardworking theory that it's survived that test of time.

Just something to keep an eye out for in conversations. ~~~~~Also, an excellent article here by Mel Seesholtz (Jul 24, 2008) on dominionism. If you're unnfamiliar with the threat of dominionism, or need a refresher, it's a thorough read and replete with quotes and hyperlinks.

A couple of my favorites parts:

“Protect traditional marriage.” What does “protect” mean? If gay and lesbian couples marry, will heterosexual couples stop? If that were the case, then prohibiting same-sex marriage would “protect” heterosexual marriage. But that is not the case. Heterosexual couples still marry in Massachusetts and California. In fact, heterosexual marriage in those states has been totally unaffected by marriage equality. So one has to conclude that by “protect” Dominionists mean reserve a civil right to a civil institution for some people and deny it to others: the definition of discrimination.

And:

From Chris Hedges’ American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America: “Dominionism is a theocratic sect with its roots in a radical Calvinism. . . . It teaches that American Christians have been mandated by God to make America a Christian state. . . . America becomes, in this militant Biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan.

“Under Christian dominionism, America will no longer be a sinful and fallen nation but one in which the 10 Commandments form the basis of our legal system, and the media and the government proclaim the Good News to one and all. Labor unions, civil-rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the workforce to stay at home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship. . . .

“The death penalty is to be imposed not only for offenses such as rape, kidnapping and murder, but also for adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, astrology, incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, ‘unchastity before marriage.’ . . .

If interested, more info on dominionism here at Religious Tolerance.