Archive for the ‘Evolution’ Category

>Creation Museum antics

February 14, 2011

>Not long ago I posted a Facebook status about “science” textbook I had come across that mentioned the earth being about 4000 years old.

There is nothing remotely related to science in that belief.

But I was going to let it pass, with hopes that the Mennonite children that might read it would become better educated later in life. I realize that I have no control and no voice in what a private religious organizations teaches its kids.

In and around that time I was involved in a discussion about the replica of Noah’s ark being built. This is being done at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. This is to be a full scale replica, big enough to carry specimens of every species, including extinct dinosaurs, I presume, since they believe dinosaurs roamed along with Fred Flintstone and every Australopithecus species and other early human examples.

Photo from exhibit in Creation Museum

I’m not really writing about how ludicrous it is to think that one man could (or would) capture every microscopic species on the earth, and every species of disease carrying mosquito and every species of bedbug and keep those living, even though they might require different environments and micro-climates to sustain them. Remember, some parasites require multiple hosts to complete their life cycle, and for Noah to understand this and be able work out the logistics is just not believable.

No, I am writing about an event the Creation Museum sponsored, a “Date Night” where loving couples were supposed to have a $71 a person dinner and a lecture about what makes a relationship work.

But a gay couple was denied admittance.

They explained to us that the Creation Museum Date Night was a “Christian environment”, therefore the presence of two men eating dinner together would not be allowed. The very sight of this would “add an un-Christian element to the event” and “disrupt the evening for everyone”

.

I assume the organizers of the event have never seen the famous picture of Jesus and his 12 disciples eating together, but I digress.

The gay couple’s tickets were actually purchased by a straight couple. Here is the straight guy’s account of the evening.

Let me just comment that my relationship with my partner is as strong as any straight couple’s relationship that I know, and we can do without the ramblings of any prejudiced instructor on how to make it better.

But still, the gay couple should have been allowed to attend with their straight friends, it seems.

Notice in this photo of an exhibit from the museum that Adam was created as a totally (hot) white guy from that time long ago, the 1960’s.

Maybe he was just ahead of his time…a foretelling of a future Republican congressman wanting to post his profile on Craig’s list.

OK, I’m getting off subject and the Grammy’s just came on so I’ll stop there.

Advertisements

>About Republicans and their beliefs

October 27, 2010

>I posted the following on Facebook yesterday.

Republicans believe our best days are behind us. I’m voting Democrat because they believe our best days are still to come.

And the other day I wrote that I’m voting a straight Democrat ticket.

Here are some reasons I cannot support any Republicans.

Monday night in Kentucky a (Republican candidate) Rand Paul campaign worker stepped on the head of a woman who was trying to get a picture of the candidate with her RepubliCorp sign.

The Republican candidate wrote this off as “passion.” And he wants to be a Senator.

Republican candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada has used anti-Hispanic rhetoric and pictures in an ad where she says “waves of illegal aliens streaming across our borders.”

First of all, Nevada does not have a border with any other country, let alone Mexico.

Second, crime actually decreases as immigrants come into our cities.

Yet she demonizes Latinos and insults the intelligence of Nevada voters (and the rest of America). She wants to be a Senator.

In 2007 the Republican presidential candidates debated and the question of evolution came up. That such a question even had to be asked of prospective leaders of the country amazes me, but when three candidates raised their hand after being asked who does not believe in evolution I couldn’t believe it.

The three were Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee.

Tancredo is now the Republican candidate for governor of Colorado.

Republicans in that state actually want to elect someone who does not believe in science to lead their state.

Republican Christine O’Donnell also does not believe in evolution (or self pleasure).


She says evolution is a myth. Republicans in Delaware (all 7 of them) chose her to represent their party. She wants to be a Senator also.

Oh, one more.

I am making an assumption here, (that this guy is a Republican), but Midland, Arkansas, School Board member Clint McCance has publicly stated (on Facebook) that he would only wear purple “if they (gays) all commit suicide” and that he “enjoy(s) the fact that they often give each other AIDS and die.”

This is a school board member, whose duty is to make policy, including providing a safe learning environment for kids. All kids. Except for the ones he wants dead.

He also said he would “disown” his kids if they were gay, and he would “absolutely run them off.” I can’t wait till one of them comes out…but I feel for them.

These are just a few examples of the uncaring, hateful, uneducated, bigoted, racist, frightening Republicans running for or already in office. How can anyone support a party that believes in these things.?

>Discourse: Us v Them

October 18, 2010

>The public discourse over the last 100 years or so has really not changed. We think the current contentious campaigns for public office are something new. Conservatives act as though this is the first time liberals have threatened to implement a progressive agenda, and progressives are raising the alarm that Christian extremists will return us to the dark ages.

I was watching the PBS series God in America between football games yesterday and learned that during the 20th century the dominant debate revolved around the inerrant nature of scripture, highlighted by the “Scopes monkey trial” in Dayton, TN in 1925.

But let’s go back to 1895. In that year, the Woman’s Bible was published by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. This challenged the traditional role of subservience for women that was the common Christian interpretation of the Bible. The nation was shocked. Some conservatives still resist the ways that women serve in the work place and in politics. Just ask Lilly Ledbetter.

In 1915, conservative Protestants published a series of pamphlets titled “The Fundamentals”. The series stresses the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth and the resurrection of the body. The Fundamentalist movement began and the name still identifies those with such strict beliefs.

In the 1920’s, commercial radio programming began, and Christian evangelists dominated the airways, as they still do. Billy Sunday, Sister Aimee McPherson and Father Charlie Coughlin were popular radio personalities of the 1920’s and 1930’s.

In 1925 the Scopes trial pitted fundamentalist orator William Jennings Bryan against trial attorney Clarence Darrow. While the trial focused on the accusation that high school biology teacher John Scopes was violating the law by teaching evolution, the underlying theme was whether the Bible should be interpreted literally or not. Darrow got the court to agree to let Bryan take the stand to defend the Bible. Darrow tore him up. The proceedings were broadcast nationwide over the radio. The trial judge throws out Bryan’s testimony, Scopes is found guilty of teaching evolution, the decision is overturned on a technicality, and Bryan dies a few days later.

The press claims the trial is a big defeat for the fundamentalists, and thus begins (or reinforces) the animosity between conservatives and the mainstream media that continues today.

With Bryan’s death the fundamentalists retreated from the public sphere. Modernist thought expands.

Of course history tells us that the fundamentalists make a resurgence in the latter half of the 20th Century.

History also tells us that we can go back even further to document the divide in this country. President Obama is criticized for his statement that we are not a Christian nation.

“One of the great strengths of the United States,” the President said at a press conference in Turkey in 2009 , “is … we have a very large Christian population — we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

Maybe, rather than being an indication that Obama is not a Christian (he is) it is an indication that he is educated (many are not).

In 1797 president John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, assuring the Muslim nation that we will not start a religious war. Article 11 states:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Now Adams was present when the documents that created our country were written. In fact, he was one of the Founding Fathers and therefore should have a pretty good idea what the consensus was.

Religious conservatives want to deny history and deny science. The battle continues.

Update: A reader has strongly suggested seeing the movie, “Inherit the Wind” staring Spencer Tracy, about the Scopes Monkey Trial. Here it is on Netflix. I second his recommendation.

>Alabama Republicans are a symptom

June 29, 2010

>It’s as if someone has brought a really, really sick cat into the vet’s office. A good veterinarian will do a thorough examination, probably order some lab tests and/or radiographs, and begin supportive treatment while awaiting results. The doctor and staff will be encouraged by signs of improvement, and will not be dismayed by recurring symptoms of the illness. Rather, they will adjust their treatment plan with confidence, knowing that a successful outcome is probable.

The same is true of Alabama politics. The loudest voices are those of the conservative sickness that represent an era and mindset that we have been trying to overcome for decades.

The rest of the country, and many in our own state, see Alabama as a backward and racist, in spite of the fact that as individuals we are pretty much like everybody else in the country. For instance, we look at evolution as a matter of science , and a necessary part of education and not a political tool. And we get along with our co-workers and neighbors who are of a different race.

But then Republicans and conservative groups open their mouths. You can pick almost any of them, but for the purpose of this blog, I will choose three examples. Just hearing any of these might be enough to make a progressive pack up and give up. But the things we are hearing are just a symptom of a disease that is being defeated.

Jeff Sessions

Yesterday at the opening hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III took shots at the future justice and in doing so (once again) embarrassed all of us from Alabama.

“Ms. Kagan has associated herself with well-known activist judges. She clerked with Judge Mikva and Justice (Thurgood) Marshall, each well known activists. These justices really don’t deny their activist ideas, they advocate it. And they openly criticize the idea that a judge is merely a neutral umpire.”

Sessions and his Republican counterparts at the hearing referenced Thurgood Marshall (negatively) 35 times. Marshall’s son, Thurgood Marshall, Jr, sat in the audience and listened.

Thurgood Marshall is best known as the Supreme Court’s first African-American justice, but as a practicing attorney and solicitor general before that he argued before the high court on numerous occasions. The most famous was Brown v Board of Education, the landmark case that did away with separate but equal public education because it could not be equal. He won 29 out of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court.

Here see Sessions and other Republicans criticizing this American judicial hero.

Senator Sessions: the year is 2010, not 1965. Segregation is over. Gone. Done away with. It’s not coming back. Give it up.

Unfortunately, Senator Sessions gets to continue his assault today (in fact, as I write this, he is grilling the appointee on her views regarding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell).

Rick Barber

Rick Barber is in the Republican runoff with Martha Roby to challenge for the congressional seat held by DINO Bobby Bright of Montgomery. Barber has run ads which have been criticized for advocating gun violence and now is running an ad in which he and an Abraham Lincoln portrayer agree that health care reform is a form of slavery. I won’t force you to watch his ad, but here’s a screen shot.

Rick: as has been pointed out, President Lincoln imposed the first Federal income tax in 1861 for the purpose of raising money to fight the Civil War. That is not too unlike using tax money to promote the general health and welfare of the nation. And Rick, the south lost that war, and as a result, Barack Obama was able to run for president. I don’t think Zombie Abe and you see eye to eye on this issue.

But you did a good job of embarrassing us in front of the rest of the nation.

Christians against Bradley Byrne

I heard a political ad on the radio, in which Republican front runner Bradley Byrne was criticised for promoting evolution, profiting from gambling, and supporting Sunday liquor sales. Then the voice said or indicated that Byrne was (paraphrased) distancing himself from the Bible.

Whoever put this ad out: First, evolution is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life that we find on our planet. Second, show me in the Bible where it says thou shalt not sell liquor on Sunday. Third now explain why your beliefs about such things, based on your biblical worldview, should apply to all of us. Fourth, isn’t your entire ad sort of gossipy, and doesn’t that sort of distance you from the Bible?

So, these examples of Republican silliness show us that Alabama conservatives want to return us to the good old days. Remember, the Tea Party people carry signs advocating taking the country back, and all indications are that they want to take it back to the 1950’s.

But we keep reminding ourselves. This is 2010. These guys are just symptoms of the illness that affected our state a half century ago. An illness characterized by inequality and ignorance.

In reality, we are past that. We are (for the most part) an educated populace that believes in science and equality and celebrates the historical figures that got us here, most notably in this case, Thurgood Marshall.

So as progressives we recognize that these vestiges have a limited life, and we will continue to educate and inform and push our state forward, not pull it back.

>Evolution and Constitutions

February 13, 2009

>Yesterday was Darwin Day (along with Lincoln’s birthday) and in view of that, Wayne at Niches posted a link to this video from Seed Magazine. It portrays the 4.6 billion years of our planet in 60 seconds. Things really get cranking at the end, when evolution was facilitating changes from things like blue-green algaes and eukaryotic cell organisms to the first vertebrates and finally (don’t blink) Homo erectus and Homo sapiens and domesticated dogs and writing (stop the video close to the end and look at what is going on). It only lasts a minute, worth watching.

We, and all our ancestors, are significant only in the last teeny bit of earth history.

It was during that teeny bit of time that the 1901 Alabama Constitution was passed. It’s odd, when you think about it, that a milliblip in time could hold so much suffering and despair as was caused by that document. And when one looks at the entire universe, and the entire expanse of time, is that suffering really significant in comparison?

You’re damn right it is.

The 1901 Constitution was written, as the Choctaw Advocate wrote, “by white men, for white men.” The paper also urged whites (men) to “stand together”.

A lot has been said and written about the 1901 Constitution and how it unfairly burdened blacks and elevated whites, and how blacks were not “at the table” when the document was written.

Let’s list the others who were not at the table. Women, poor whites, Native Americans.

It is often brought up that voter fraud is what allowed the 1901 Constitution to be passed. Vote totals for passage in several counties was greater than the total number of registered white voters in those counties.

So a suit has been filed to declare the 1901 constitution unratified and to order a new vote, or a constitutional convention to write a new constitution. Good idea.

If there was a re-vote and the current constitution failed to pass, would that mean we would be operating under the Constitution of 1875 until a new one was passed? That would be interesting.

1875 Constitutional Convention

To find out more about what is wrong with Alabama’s constitution and what is being done about it (there is some good news) click here. And follow the suggestions to help us get out from under this burden.

1. Iowa 2. Creationism 3. Recipe for left over ham

January 4, 2008

1. The big winner in last night’s Iowa caucus was…the Democratic Party!

Barack Obama walked away with 38% support, and John Edwards followed with 30% and Hillary Clinton with 29%.

Clinton would have like to have won, no doubt, but this is not a death knell for her candidacy. Look at history, in 1988 Richard Gephardt won the Iowa Caucus, but fizzled after that, and Michael Dukakis became the nominee. The results were so close, that any one of the three leaders could go on to secure the nomination.

But the Democratic Party attracted over 220,000 participants, compared to only 114,000 Republicans. This was almost an 80% increase in the number of particpants for the Democrats, compared to an increase of about 30% for the Republicans. The White House will be painted Blue in 2008! Figuratively, don’t worry.

The Democratic Party also showed that in conservative (60% of Republican identified as evangelicals), white (>90%) Iowa they are not afraid to support a minority candidate. This is in a system where your vote is not secret…you stand in a corner with like minded voters and somebody counts heads. You wouldn’t see this in the Republican party, that’s for sure.

And here is a reason Hillary’s third place finish is not as significant as it looks. As an example of how the Democratic caucuses work, CNN took actual numbers from the first round of a caucus, then showed how those with less than 15% of the votes had to drop out, so their voters had to re-align with other candidates. In the example they showed, Clinton had the most votes in the first round, but of the re-aligned votes, she got none, so Edwards and Obama benefitted. As Bobby said, Obama won in a state where people get to vote twice. If in Iowa everyone got to vote just once, Clinton probably would have won.

If anyone felt the death knell, it was Mitt Romney. Good. He is so lame, here is what he said trying to explain his lie that he once saw his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr. “You know, I’m an English literature major as well. When we say, ‘I saw the Patriots win the World Series,’ it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there. Excuse me, the Super Bowl.”

The Patriots play at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro in Romney’s home state, and he can’t even keep it straight what sport they play? Romney thinks his looks can get him elected, but if looks were all it took then Tom Brady would be running as Massachusetts’ favorite son:

from Most Beautiful Man

But even this didn’t just happen. Here’s Brady’s NFL Scouting Combine picture from 2000:

from The Big Lead

How quickly the focus can shift from politics to…

2. Science, Evolution and Creationism. This is the title of a new book published by the National Academies that was featured on NBC nightly news last night and is being released today. The book explains why Creationism or Intelligent Design should not be taught in Science classes, although it may have a role in other subjects in schools. Read the Summary Brochure or view or buy the book here .

Read my post on Intelligent Design is not Science here.

3. Tired of leftover ham. Ham or other parts of the pig are commonly served on New Years Day, and leftover ham sandwiches get old. Try this soup. I cooked it last night and got good reviews. Of course, the cornbread I made to go with it helped.

Ham and Bean Soup.

1 pound dried Great Northern beans

6 cups of water

1 1/2 pounds cubed cooked ham

2 tsp salt

1 tsp dried thyme (whole or powdered)

4 peppercorns

3 cloves garlic, minced

1 bay leaf

2 cups water

4 potatoes, peeled and quartered

3 carrots, scraped and cut into 1/2 inch slices

1 medium onion, chopped

With the beans, sort and wash and cover with water and let soak overnight, or do like I did and bring to a boil and gently cook about an hour or so. Drain. Then add 6 cups of fresh water, and the ham and the next 6 ingredients. Bring to a boil, cover and reduce heat and simmer about an hour or so, then add the remaining water and vegetables. Cover and simmer about 30 more minutes until the veggies are tender.

If you need the cornbread recipe, let me know. Yum

>1. Iowa 2. Creationism 3. Recipe for left over ham

January 4, 2008

>1. The big winner in last night’s Iowa caucus was…the Democratic Party!

Barack Obama walked away with 38% support, and John Edwards followed with 30% and Hillary Clinton with 29%.

Clinton would have like to have won, no doubt, but this is not a death knell for her candidacy. Look at history, in 1988 Richard Gephardt won the Iowa Caucus, but fizzled after that, and Michael Dukakis became the nominee. The results were so close, that any one of the three leaders could go on to secure the nomination.

But the Democratic Party attracted over 220,000 participants, compared to only 114,000 Republicans. This was almost an 80% increase in the number of particpants for the Democrats, compared to an increase of about 30% for the Republicans. The White House will be painted Blue in 2008! Figuratively, don’t worry.

The Democratic Party also showed that in conservative (60% of Republican identified as evangelicals), white (>90%) Iowa they are not afraid to support a minority candidate. This is in a system where your vote is not secret…you stand in a corner with like minded voters and somebody counts heads. You wouldn’t see this in the Republican party, that’s for sure.

And here is a reason Hillary’s third place finish is not as significant as it looks. As an example of how the Democratic caucuses work, CNN took actual numbers from the first round of a caucus, then showed how those with less than 15% of the votes had to drop out, so their voters had to re-align with other candidates. In the example they showed, Clinton had the most votes in the first round, but of the re-aligned votes, she got none, so Edwards and Obama benefitted. As Bobby said, Obama won in a state where people get to vote twice. If in Iowa everyone got to vote just once, Clinton probably would have won.

If anyone felt the death knell, it was Mitt Romney. Good. He is so lame, here is what he said trying to explain his lie that he once saw his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr. “You know, I’m an English literature major as well. When we say, ‘I saw the Patriots win the World Series,’ it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there. Excuse me, the Super Bowl.”

The Patriots play at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro in Romney’s home state, and he can’t even keep it straight what sport they play? Romney thinks his looks can get him elected, but if looks were all it took then Tom Brady would be running as Massachusetts’ favorite son:

from Most Beautiful Man

But even this didn’t just happen. Here’s Brady’s NFL Scouting Combine picture from 2000:

from The Big Lead

How quickly the focus can shift from politics to…

2. Science, Evolution and Creationism. This is the title of a new book published by the National Academies that was featured on NBC nightly news last night and is being released today. The book explains why Creationism or Intelligent Design should not be taught in Science classes, although it may have a role in other subjects in schools. Read the Summary Brochure or view or buy the book here .

Read my post on Intelligent Design is not Science here.

3. Tired of leftover ham. Ham or other parts of the pig are commonly served on New Years Day, and leftover ham sandwiches get old. Try this soup. I cooked it last night and got good reviews. Of course, the cornbread I made to go with it helped.

Ham and Bean Soup.

1 pound dried Great Northern beans

6 cups of water

1 1/2 pounds cubed cooked ham

2 tsp salt

1 tsp dried thyme (whole or powdered)

4 peppercorns

3 cloves garlic, minced

1 bay leaf

2 cups water

4 potatoes, peeled and quartered

3 carrots, scraped and cut into 1/2 inch slices

1 medium onion, chopped

With the beans, sort and wash and cover with water and let soak overnight, or do like I did and bring to a boil and gently cook about an hour or so. Drain. Then add 6 cups of fresh water, and the ham and the next 6 ingredients. Bring to a boil, cover and reduce heat and simmer about an hour or so, then add the remaining water and vegetables. Cover and simmer about 30 more minutes until the veggies are tender.

If you need the cornbread recipe, let me know. Yum

Intelligent Design is Not Science

November 15, 2007

A reader suggested that I provide the link to the organization that is providing the laptops that Larry wants the Birmingham schoolchildren to receive. The group, called One Laptop Per Child, can be found here and from here you can donate for one laptop and they will match it with another.

Tuesday night there was a program on NOVA that I wish I had urged readers to watch. The show was about the controversy in Dover PA regarding science teaching, where evolution went on trial once again. You know the story: religious conservatives wanted to teach creationism in schools, so they found a book that touted “intelligent design” and weaseled it into the schools.

Parents objected, the ACLU took the case. The judge was a Bush appointed conservative republican, intelligent design was ruled “not science” and the entire slate of pro intelligent design candidates for school board lost their election. Nova produced a show. The Christian judge was called an athiest and received death threats.

Apparently there was no “intelligent design” to the case that the conservatives tried to make in defense of the non-theory. Advocates for true science were able to find a newspaper article from the 1980’s where someone wrote about a book being written that presented creationism along with evolution. Drafts of the book which later became “Of Pandas and People” (the book the school board distributed) were requested, and in an early draft Barbara Forrest found the following definition: Creation means that various forms of life began abrupty through the agency of an intelligent creator with the distinctive features already intact–fish, with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”

At that time in 1987, the U. S. Supreme court ruled in a case that creation could not be taught in schools, and in the next draft of the book, the definition was changed to the following: Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact,–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”

For the proponents of science, this was the single best piece of evidence that the Dover school board was thrusting religion into the curriculum.

Forrest also discovered that when they were “cleaning up” the draft of references to creationism, they improperly replaced the word “creationist” with “design proponents” in one instance, forming the phrase “cdesign proponentsists” instead. Certainly a lack of intelligence there, as they formed the “missing link” between “creationism” and “intelligent design” that would later prove their hypocrisy in promoting the idea as a science.

Here is Barbara Forrest talking about evolutionary theory, and why it is science, and intelligent design “theory”, and why it is not science (or even “theory”). Barbara Forrest (2 minutes)

There are more audio and video links on the Nova site of scientists and philosophers talking about what is science and what is not . Scientists .

Beginning tomorrow you can watch the entire show , called “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” It is two hours long, but it is worth watching both for a better understanding of science and evolution, but also to see how tricky the right wing is in trying to deceive the public. Remember, this is during the time of an administration that redfines science and edits scientific testimony and reports before they are released. Watch their every move!

I love science, by the way, in case you couldn’t tell.

>Intelligent Design is Not Science

November 15, 2007

>A reader suggested that I provide the link to the organization that is providing the laptops that Larry wants the Birmingham schoolchildren to receive. The group, called One Laptop Per Child, can be found here and from here you can donate for one laptop and they will match it with another.

Tuesday night there was a program on NOVA that I wish I had urged readers to watch. The show was about the controversy in Dover PA regarding science teaching, where evolution went on trial once again. You know the story: religious conservatives wanted to teach creationism in schools, so they found a book that touted “intelligent design” and weaseled it into the schools.

Parents objected, the ACLU took the case. The judge was a Bush appointed conservative republican, intelligent design was ruled “not science” and the entire slate of pro intelligent design candidates for school board lost their election. Nova produced a show. The Christian judge was called an athiest and received death threats.

Apparently there was no “intelligent design” to the case that the conservatives tried to make in defense of the non-theory. Advocates for true science were able to find a newspaper article from the 1980’s where someone wrote about a book being written that presented creationism along with evolution. Drafts of the book which later became “Of Pandas and People” (the book the school board distributed) were requested, and in an early draft Barbara Forrest found the following definition: Creation means that various forms of life began abrupty through the agency of an intelligent creator with the distinctive features already intact–fish, with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”

At that time in 1987, the U. S. Supreme court ruled in a case that creation could not be taught in schools, and in the next draft of the book, the definition was changed to the following: Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact,–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”

For the proponents of science, this was the single best piece of evidence that the Dover school board was thrusting religion into the curriculum.

Forrest also discovered that when they were “cleaning up” the draft of references to creationism, they improperly replaced the word “creationist” with “design proponents” in one instance, forming the phrase “cdesign proponentsists” instead. Certainly a lack of intelligence there, as they formed the “missing link” between “creationism” and “intelligent design” that would later prove their hypocrisy in promoting the idea as a science.

Here is Barbara Forrest talking about evolutionary theory, and why it is science, and intelligent design “theory”, and why it is not science (or even “theory”). Barbara Forrest (2 minutes)

There are more audio and video links on the Nova site of scientists and philosophers talking about what is science and what is not . Scientists .

Beginning tomorrow you can watch the entire show , called “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” It is two hours long, but it is worth watching both for a better understanding of science and evolution, but also to see how tricky the right wing is in trying to deceive the public. Remember, this is during the time of an administration that redfines science and edits scientific testimony and reports before they are released. Watch their every move!

I love science, by the way, in case you couldn’t tell.