| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2005 01:18:45 PM |
| Object: |
David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
From the article:
---------------------------------
The Intelligent Design movement is interested in opening the debate and to
letting science carry the day. But the popular culture and the education
establishment, while holding themselves out as guardians of science, fact, and
even reality, often refuse to allow any scientific objections to evolution to
be discussed in the classroom. They are the real censors and opponents of
science, all in the name of promoting science. You really should look into this
scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the controversy is
between superstitious anti-science Christians and enlightened, open-minded
scientific academics.
---------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2004/12/slamming_intell.html#more or
http://tinyurl.com/69j43
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Marvin" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
12 Jan 2005 04:13:55 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message news:qomdnaAfPOIztXjcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------
The Intelligent Design movement is interested in opening the
debate and to
letting science carry the day. But the popular culture and
the education
establishment, while holding themselves out as guardians of
science, fact, and
even reality, often refuse to allow any scientific
objections to evolution to
be discussed in the classroom. They are the real censors and
opponents of
science, all in the name of promoting science. You really
should look into this
scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the
controversy is
between superstitious anti-science Christians and
enlightened, open-minded
scientific academics.
---------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2004/12/slamming_intell.html#more
or
http://tinyurl.com/69j43
J. Spaceman
From the Limbaugh article:
"I certainly understand Louis's objection to the affirmative
teaching of Biblical creation in public schools, but in almost
all of the examples he cites, the issue was not Biblical
creationism, but efforts to have public school science
textbooks at least acknowledge that there are science-based
doubts about evolution theory."
Science based? I admit to a liberal arts, light on science
education, but I do pay attention. So far I haven't been
aware of any "science-based doubts about evolution theory."
Could someone named Limbaugh stoop to overstating his case?
I'm not familiar with this guy, though I've heard of another
with the same name. Could they be related?
I would think that the fact that 55% of Americans still
believe in creationism despite evidence to the contrary should
be comforting to fundamentalists. Their distortions are still
much more effective than sense would seem to give anyone
reason to suspect. I suppose to them it's one of those half
empty - half full issues. Anything less than 100% is
unacceptable.
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
12 Jan 2005 06:29:20 PM |
|
|
"Marvin" <marvin2@fogstarband.net> wrote in
news:0lcFd.16$XE6.12@fe25.usenetserver.com:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message news:qomdnaAfPOIztXjcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------
The Intelligent Design movement is interested in opening the
debate and to
letting science carry the day. But the popular culture and
the education
establishment, while holding themselves out as guardians of
science, fact, and
even reality, often refuse to allow any scientific
objections to evolution to
be discussed in the classroom. They are the real censors and
opponents of
science, all in the name of promoting science. You really
should look into this
scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the
controversy is
between superstitious anti-science Christians and
enlightened, open-minded
scientific academics.
---------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2004/12/slamming_intell.html#m
ore or
http://tinyurl.com/69j43
J. Spaceman
From the Limbaugh article:
"I certainly understand Louis's objection to the affirmative
teaching of Biblical creation in public schools, but in almost
all of the examples he cites, the issue was not Biblical
creationism, but efforts to have public school science
textbooks at least acknowledge that there are science-based
doubts about evolution theory."
Science based? I admit to a liberal arts, light on science
education, but I do pay attention. So far I haven't been
aware of any "science-based doubts about evolution theory."
Could someone named Limbaugh stoop to overstating his case?
I'm not familiar with this guy, though I've heard of another
with the same name. Could they be related?
There are science based doubts about the ToE but not the fact of
evolution. Let me explain.
Evolution occurs, we observe it happening now, we have literally tons of
evidence that it happened in the past. This is the *fact* of evolution.
The *theory* of evolution is an attempt to explain, *how* it happens.
This is where contention lies. There are so many possible mechanisms
that cause or contribute to evolution that we are not quite sure how
much each contributes. We may know a particular mechanism contributes to
evolution, but since there are other hypotheses that seem to explain
that evolutionary processe just as well it becomes difficult to
determine which applies in which case.
Science does not doubt whether evolution happened, nor that it is a
totally naturalistic process, any doubts we have are about the exact
processes involved and how much they contribute.
I hope this helps.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
13 Jan 2005 12:16:19 AM |
|
|
Marvin wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message news:qomdnaAfPOIztXjcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------
The Intelligent Design movement is interested in opening the
debate and to
letting science carry the day. But the popular culture and
the education
establishment, while holding themselves out as guardians of
science, fact, and
even reality, often refuse to allow any scientific
objections to evolution to
be discussed in the classroom. They are the real censors and
opponents of
science, all in the name of promoting science. You really
should look into this
scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the
controversy is
between superstitious anti-science Christians and
enlightened, open-minded
scientific academics.
---------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2004/12/slamming_intell.html#more
or
http://tinyurl.com/69j43
J. Spaceman
From the Limbaugh article:
"I certainly understand Louis's objection to the affirmative
teaching of Biblical creation in public schools, but in almost
all of the examples he cites, the issue was not Biblical
creationism, but efforts to have public school science
textbooks at least acknowledge that there are science-based
doubts about evolution theory."
Science based? I admit to a liberal arts, light on science
education, but I do pay attention. So far I haven't been
aware of any "science-based doubts about evolution theory."
Could someone named Limbaugh stoop to overstating his case?
I'm not familiar with this guy, though I've heard of another
with the same name. Could they be related?
Pretty sure he's Rush's brother. He's written a few books on his
brother's coattails
Glenn Arnold
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
13 Jan 2005 12:42:59 AM |
|
|
Glenn Arnold wrote:
Marvin wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message news:qomdnaAfPOIztXjcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------
The Intelligent Design movement is interested in opening the
debate and to
letting science carry the day. But the popular culture and
the education
establishment, while holding themselves out as guardians of
science, fact, and
even reality, often refuse to allow any scientific
objections to evolution to
be discussed in the classroom. They are the real censors and
opponents of
science, all in the name of promoting science. You really
should look into this
scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the
controversy is
between superstitious anti-science Christians and
enlightened, open-minded
scientific academics.
---------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2004/12/slamming_intell.html#more
or
http://tinyurl.com/69j43
J. Spaceman
From the Limbaugh article:
"I certainly understand Louis's objection to the affirmative
teaching of Biblical creation in public schools, but in almost
all of the examples he cites, the issue was not Biblical
creationism, but efforts to have public school science
textbooks at least acknowledge that there are science-based
doubts about evolution theory."
Science based? I admit to a liberal arts, light on science
education, but I do pay attention. So far I haven't been
aware of any "science-based doubts about evolution theory."
Could someone named Limbaugh stoop to overstating his case?
I'm not familiar with this guy, though I've heard of another
with the same name. Could they be related?
Pretty sure he's Rush's brother. He's written a few books on his
brother's coattails
Glenn Arnold
For once, the coattail rider is smarter than the one wearing the
coattails.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
13 Jan 2005 01:34:01 AM |
|
|
Fencingsax <Christocbd@gmail.com> wrote:
Glenn Arnold wrote:
Marvin wrote:
....
Could someone named Limbaugh stoop to overstating his case?
I'm not familiar with this guy, though I've heard of another
with the same name. Could they be related?
Pretty sure he's Rush's brother. He's written a few books on his
brother's coattails
Glenn Arnold
For once, the coattail rider is smarter than the one wearing the
coattails.
Sure. The rider is doing none of the work - that's *way* smarter...
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
13 Jan 2005 04:55:57 AM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Fencingsax <Christocbd@gmail.com> wrote:
Glenn Arnold wrote:
Marvin wrote:
...
Could someone named Limbaugh stoop to overstating his case?
I'm not familiar with this guy, though I've heard of another
with the same name. Could they be related?
Pretty sure he's Rush's brother. He's written a few books on his
brother's coattails
Glenn Arnold
For once, the coattail rider is smarter than the one wearing the
coattails.
Sure. The rider is doing none of the work - that's *way* smarter...
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Exactly. I mean for other riders, they at least *pretend* to be
original.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
13 Jan 2005 03:20:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:42:59 +0000 (UTC), "Fencingsax"
<Christocbd@gmail.com> wrote:
Glenn Arnold wrote:
Marvin wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message news:qomdnaAfPOIztXjcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------
The Intelligent Design movement is interested in opening the
debate and to
letting science carry the day. But the popular culture and
the education
establishment, while holding themselves out as guardians of
science, fact, and
even reality, often refuse to allow any scientific
objections to evolution to
be discussed in the classroom. They are the real censors and
opponents of
science, all in the name of promoting science. You really
should look into this
scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the
controversy is
between superstitious anti-science Christians and
enlightened, open-minded
scientific academics.
---------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2004/12/slamming_intell.html#more
or
http://tinyurl.com/69j43
J. Spaceman
From the Limbaugh article:
"I certainly understand Louis's objection to the affirmative
teaching of Biblical creation in public schools, but in almost
all of the examples he cites, the issue was not Biblical
creationism, but efforts to have public school science
textbooks at least acknowledge that there are science-based
doubts about evolution theory."
Science based? I admit to a liberal arts, light on science
education, but I do pay attention. So far I haven't been
aware of any "science-based doubts about evolution theory."
Could someone named Limbaugh stoop to overstating his case?
I'm not familiar with this guy, though I've heard of another
with the same name. Could they be related?
Pretty sure he's Rush's brother. He's written a few books on his
brother's coattails
Glenn Arnold
For once, the coattail rider is smarter than the one wearing the
coattails.
That's not saying much.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
15 Jan 2005 01:52:44 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Glenn Arnold <oldnoah@att.net> wrote:
Pretty sure he's Rush's brother. He's written a few books on his
brother's coattails
Either he's using a teeny font, or writing very short
children's books, or else those are some HUGE coattails!
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
15 Jan 2005 06:16:18 AM |
|
|
Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote:
In talk.origins Glenn Arnold <oldnoah@att.net> wrote:
Pretty sure he's Rush's brother. He's written a few books on his
brother's coattails
Either he's using a teeny font, or writing very short
children's books, or else those are some HUGE coattails!
If they have to cover a big fat arse...
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mushinronsha" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
13 Jan 2005 12:44:06 AM |
|
|
Marvin wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message news:qomdnaAfPOIztXjcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------
The Intelligent Design movement is interested in opening the
debate and to
letting science carry the day. But the popular culture and
the education
establishment, while holding themselves out as guardians of
science, fact, and
even reality, often refuse to allow any scientific
objections to evolution to
be discussed in the classroom. They are the real censors and
opponents of
science, all in the name of promoting science. You really
should look into this
scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the
controversy is
between superstitious anti-science Christians and
enlightened, open-minded
scientific academics.
---------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2004/12/slamming_intell.html#more
or
http://tinyurl.com/69j43
J. Spaceman
From the Limbaugh article:
"I certainly understand Louis's objection to the affirmative
teaching of Biblical creation in public schools, but in almost
all of the examples he cites, the issue was not Biblical
creationism, but efforts to have public school science
textbooks at least acknowledge that there are science-based
doubts about evolution theory."
Science based? I admit to a liberal arts, light on science
education, but I do pay attention. So far I haven't been
aware of any "science-based doubts about evolution theory."
Could someone named Limbaugh stoop to overstating his case?
I'm not familiar with this guy, though I've heard of another
with the same name. Could they be related?
They are brothers. (By way of having the same set of parents, not that they are
a couple of black guys). So yes, they are related, and share a common nurture.
Mushy
I would think that the fact that 55% of Americans still
believe in creationism despite evidence to the contrary should
be comforting to fundamentalists. Their distortions are still
much more effective than sense would seem to give anyone
reason to suspect. I suppose to them it's one of those half
empty - half full issues. Anything less than 100% is
unacceptable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
12 Jan 2005 10:52:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:13:55 +0000 (UTC), "Marvin"
<marvin2@fogstarband.net> said in alt.atheism:
From the Limbaugh article:
"I certainly understand Louis's objection to the affirmative
teaching of Biblical creation in public schools, but in almost
all of the examples he cites, the issue was not Biblical
creationism, but efforts to have public school science
textbooks at least acknowledge that there are science-based
doubts about evolution theory."
Science based?
Yep.
Many scientists question Punctuated Equilibrium, one of the theories
of evolution. Many scientists question Classical Darwinism. Many
scientists question other theories of evolution.
It doesn't say, "science-based doubts about evolution", it says
"science-based doubts about evolution theory".
I would think that the fact that 55% of Americans still
believe in creationism despite evidence to the contrary
There's evidence of no creation? Please - post it. (Seriously -
there's a difference between evolution being a fact, there being no
evidence of any god and there being evidence contrary to creationism.)
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
13 Jan 2005 03:19:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:13:55 +0000 (UTC), "Marvin"
<marvin2@fogstarband.net> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message news:qomdnaAfPOIztXjcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------
The Intelligent Design movement is interested in opening the
debate and to
letting science carry the day. But the popular culture and
the education
establishment, while holding themselves out as guardians of
science, fact, and
even reality, often refuse to allow any scientific
objections to evolution to
be discussed in the classroom. They are the real censors and
opponents of
science, all in the name of promoting science. You really
should look into this
scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the
controversy is
between superstitious anti-science Christians and
enlightened, open-minded
scientific academics.
---------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2004/12/slamming_intell.html#more
or
http://tinyurl.com/69j43
J. Spaceman
From the Limbaugh article:
"I certainly understand Louis's objection to the affirmative
teaching of Biblical creation in public schools, but in almost
all of the examples he cites, the issue was not Biblical
creationism, but efforts to have public school science
textbooks at least acknowledge that there are science-based
doubts about evolution theory."
Science based? I admit to a liberal arts, light on science
education, but I do pay attention. So far I haven't been
aware of any "science-based doubts about evolution theory."
Could someone named Limbaugh stoop to overstating his case?
I'm not familiar with this guy, though I've heard of another
with the same name. Could they be related?
I would think that the fact that 55% of Americans still
believe in creationism despite evidence to the contrary should
be comforting to fundamentalists. Their distortions are still
much more effective than sense would seem to give anyone
reason to suspect. I suppose to them it's one of those half
empty - half full issues. Anything less than 100% is
unacceptable.
Brothers I believe.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
13 Jan 2005 06:05:16 PM |
|
|
And exactly what are the "scientific objections" to evolution?? All I've
seen are religion based objections.
There is NO scientific evidence to support the evolution claims to creation.
Bill
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:qomdnaAfPOIztXjcRVn-vg@rogers.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------
The Intelligent Design movement is interested in opening the debate and to
letting science carry the day. But the popular culture and the education
establishment, while holding themselves out as guardians of science, fact,
and
even reality, often refuse to allow any scientific objections to evolution
to
be discussed in the classroom. They are the real censors and opponents of
science, all in the name of promoting science. You really should look into
this
scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the controversy
is
between superstitious anti-science Christians and enlightened, open-minded
scientific academics.
---------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2004/12/slamming_intell.html#more
or
http://tinyurl.com/69j43
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent
to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh |
13 Jan 2005 07:26:44 PM |
|
|
David Limbaugh wrote a book about the liberal war against Xianity going
on in Bizarro world right now:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261111/103-7364572-5599014?v=glance
This is, of course, precisely the opposite of the truth in every way,
e.g.:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec04/Muslim.Poll.bpf.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Shelby" |
|
| Title: Re: David Limbaugh: Slamming Intelligent Design |
20 Jan 2005 09:32:23 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------
The Intelligent Design movement is interested in opening the debate and to
letting science carry the day. But the popular culture and the education
establishment, while holding themselves out as guardians of science, fact, and
even reality, often refuse to allow any scientific objections to evolution to
be discussed in the classroom. They are the real censors and opponents of
science, all in the name of promoting science. You really should look into this
scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the controversy is
between superstitious anti-science Christians and enlightened, open-minded
scientific academics.
---------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2004/12/slamming_intell.html#more or
http://tinyurl.com/69j43
well, the original Louis was utterly wrong:
"Religious conservatives are trying to upset Scopes vs. Tennessee, the
1925 'monkey trial' that struck down a law prohibiting the teaching of
Darwin's theory of evolution."
The Scopes trial did not overturn anything, and in fact, the creationist
side *WON* that one (Scopes was fined $100, overturned 2 years later
only on the technicality that the jury shouldn't have let the judge
decide the sentence and the judge should have known that).
the law was rescinded in 1967, by an act of the state's legislation,
with no pressure from the courts or "activists judges" or anything of
that nature.
the case where the supreme court struck creationism down as being a
violation of separation was the Edwards case, coming from Louisiana, in
1987.
If Limbaugh knew his history, he could have discredited Louis on those
grounds and ignored the rest. Instead, just like his brother, he opens
his big fat mouth and makes himself look even more foolish.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
