Rick 'The Hair' Perry Supports Intelligent-Design in TX Schools

[Phenomanul]

"never once brought up a legit scientific experiment to the table...."

WTF?
the biological world is an ongoing experiment.

The evidence FOR evolution is overwhelming. Evolution has strong powers of explanation and prediction.

I read a article in the past few months about experiments with the popular fruit fly showing that thru ONLY 50 generations, genetic differentiations/adaptations were visisble in two different control groups.

Now extrapolate to 1000s and 1000s of generations going back millions of years with huge variations in environmental stress and variations ....

and why don't IDers/creationist set up experiments to prove super-natural design and intervention?

"the biological world is an ongoing experiment. " And yet when IDers make the same assertion we are bashed... Double standard if I ever saw one.

Try looking up other experiments with said fruit flies.. Some that span even more 'generations' show than in the end... despite several phenotypic alterations... the fruit fly was still in fact... a fruit fly. Look up the last serious attempt by Dobzhansky with Drosophila (a butterfly). It is to his credit that he admitted failure, something the "establishment" conveniently ignores.

A species's, stored genetic content is so vast and varied, that changes can in fact occur. And given the need, an animal will adapt in order to survive.

Adaptation does not prove evolution, though many confuse the two mechanisms all the time.

Should we be considered a different species when compared to the indigenous Amazonian pygmies or when compared to several secluded tribes in Africa???? NO NO and a resounding NO!!! If a fossilized pygmy was found 10 feet below my fossilized remains would someone else then deduce that the pygmy was my ancestor??? Somehow anthropologists make such claims without a complimentary forensic case to back up said assessments.

Anyways, despite the obvious isolationism of the gene pool (in the case of the Amazonian pygmies, or other African tribes etc...), the fact of the matter is that they are still human. I tried explaining to CBF that if I fathered a child with say someone from a remote (and isolated) Korean village, that the child would be genetically more 'robust' than if that same mother conceived a child from someone else in that village. Why??? Because the 'hybridization' of our genes would re-establish some of the genetic richness that was lost over several generations of a broader form of genetic 'inbreeding' (i.e. pool inbreeding from lack of options).

Canines are a perfect example of that very same phenomena. In fact, all members of the genus Canis (wolves, dogs, jackals, coyotes, foxes, dingoes) are interfertile... that is... all species of the genus Canis can interbreed. All of them are only varieties of the same kind of organism in disregard of how 'speciation' is attempting 'to sell them' to deceive the fringe biologist (your typical high-schooler)...

Time after time I have seen that 'varieties' have been deliberately confounded with 'species' to sell the tale of Evolution, and the same can be said for thousands and thousands of other organisms.

[boutons_]

January 11, 2006
California Parents File Suit Over Origins of Life Course

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
A group of parents are suing their small California school district to force it to cancel a four-week high school elective on intelligent design, creationism and evolution that it is offering as a philosophy course.

The course at Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, which serves a rural area north of Los Angeles, was proposed by a special education teacher last month and approved by the board of trustees in an emergency meeting on New Year's Day. The 11 parents are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the course, which is being held during the session that ends on Feb. 3.

Last month, a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that it was uncons utional to teach intelligent design in a public school science class because it promoted a particular religious belief. After the ruling, people on both sides of the debate suggested that it might be cons utionally permissible to examine intelligent design in a philosophy, comparative religion or social studies class.

But the parents, represented by lawyers with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, contend that the teacher is advocating intelligent design and "young earth creationism" and is not examining those ideas in a neutral way alongside evolution.

Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent force. Young earth creationism holds to the biblical account of the origins of life and the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old.

In their suit, the parents said the syllabus originally listed 24 videos to be shown to students, with 23 "produced or distributed by religious organizations and assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance." They said the syllabus listed two evolution experts who would speak to the class. One was a local parent and scientist who said he had already refused the speaking invitation and was now suing the district; the other was Francis H. C. Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who died in 2004.

A course description distributed to students and parents said, "This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."

( "not rock solid" so that is the ID/creationist attack? Their objective is not only to disprove revolutionary theory but to destroy all of science by redefining science so it include their cultish beliefs in the super-natural. They are free to teach super-natural stuff in religious/Sunday schools, but not in public schools.)

The school principal referred inquiries to the superintendent, John W. Wright, who was in Washington and did not respond to an interview request.

But Mr. Wright said in a letter on Jan. 6 in response to a complaint from Americans United, "Our legal advisers have pointed out that they are unaware of any court or California statute which has forbidden public schools to explore cultural phenomena, including history, religion or creation myths."

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said, "This is apparently the next wave of efforts to bring creationism to schools, and that's why we want to dry it up immediately."

( whether evoluationary theory is/not rock solid is a question for professional scientists in standard scientific debate, not for dumb highschool students. )

The school district, with 1,425 students, serves several towns in a mountain area where many students are home schooled. The special education teacher, who is married to the pastor of the local Assemblies of God church, amended her syllabus and the course le, from Philosophy of Intelligent Design to Philosophy of Design after parents complained. The course was approved by the trustees in a 3-to-2 vote, despite testimony from science and math teachers that it would undermine the science curriculum. The parents who brought the lawsuit said 13 students were enrolled in the class.

Kitty Jo Nelson, a trustee, said the community was split.

"If we had to describe this in one word," Ms. Nelson said, "it would be 'controversial.' "

• Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[spurster]

How come people that support evolution don't want an opposing view?

Science is not a democracy with minority rights. Science is based on performance, with the winner having more evidence to support it and to refute the losers.

ID's main evidence seems to be holes in the current state of the genetic theory of biology (evolution is not a theory by itself, but is part of the genetic theory). Of course, there are holes in theories. What do you think research scientists work on? Science is not complete, inerrant "truth" coming from a holy book.

As for Rick Perry, he is a joke, but that seems to fit with the kind of people we like to elect.

[Phenomanul]

January 11, 2006
California Parents File Suit Over Origins of Life Course

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
A group of parents are suing their small California school district to force it to cancel a four-week high school elective on intelligent design, creationism and evolution that it is offering as a philosophy course.

The course at Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, which serves a rural area north of Los Angeles, was proposed by a special education teacher last month and approved by the board of trustees in an emergency meeting on New Year's Day. The 11 parents are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the course, which is being held during the session that ends on Feb. 3.

Last month, a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that it was uncons utional to teach intelligent design in a public school science class because it promoted a particular religious belief. After the ruling, people on both sides of the debate suggested that it might be cons utionally permissible to examine intelligent design in a philosophy, comparative religion or social studies class.

But the parents, represented by lawyers with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, contend that the teacher is advocating intelligent design and "young earth creationism" and is not examining those ideas in a neutral way alongside evolution.

Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent force. Young earth creationism holds to the biblical account of the origins of life and the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old.

In their suit, the parents said the syllabus originally listed 24 videos to be shown to students, with 23 "produced or distributed by religious organizations and assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance." They said the syllabus listed two evolution experts who would speak to the class. One was a local parent and scientist who said he had already refused the speaking invitation and was now suing the district; the other was Francis H. C. Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who died in 2004.

A course description distributed to students and parents said, "This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."

( "not rock solid" so that is the ID/creationist attack? Their objective is not only to disprove revolutionary theory but to destroy all of science by redefining science so it include their cultish beliefs in the super-natural. They are free to teach super-natural stuff in religious/Sunday schools, but not in public schools.)

The school principal referred inquiries to the superintendent, John W. Wright, who was in Washington and did not respond to an interview request.

But Mr. Wright said in a letter on Jan. 6 in response to a complaint from Americans United, "Our legal advisers have pointed out that they are unaware of any court or California statute which has forbidden public schools to explore cultural phenomena, including history, religion or creation myths."

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said, "This is apparently the next wave of efforts to bring creationism to schools, and that's why we want to dry it up immediately."

( whether evoluationary theory is/not rock solid is a question for professional scientists in standard scientific debate, not for dumb highschool students. )

The school district, with 1,425 students, serves several towns in a mountain area where many students are home schooled. The special education teacher, who is married to the pastor of the local Assemblies of God church, amended her syllabus and the course le, from Philosophy of Intelligent Design to Philosophy of Design after parents complained. The course was approved by the trustees in a 3-to-2 vote, despite testimony from science and math teachers that it would undermine the science curriculum. The parents who brought the lawsuit said 13 students were enrolled in the class.

Kitty Jo Nelson, a trustee, said the community was split.

"If we had to describe this in one word," Ms. Nelson said, "it would be 'controversial.' "

• Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

Keep on fishing boutons.... just who are you trying to sway???

[Phenomanul]

Science is not a democracy with minority rights. Science is based on performance, with the winner having more evidence to support it and to refute the losers.

ID's main evidence seems to be holes in the current state of the genetic theory of biology (evolution is not a theory by itself, but is part of the genetic theory). Of course, there are holes in theories. What do you think research scientists work on? Science is not complete, inerrant "truth" coming from a holy book.

As for Rick Perry, he is a joke, but that seems to fit with the kind of people we like to elect.

ID proposes that 'evolutionary principles' don't explain everything that is observed today. Many people scoff at "irreducible complexity" without understanding its inherent implications. But for life to arise and give way to 'evolution,' a step which had to occur at somepoint; mathematical probability beyond comprehension would have to be superceded. This improbability solidly negates any attempt for life, more specifically, DNA and proteins, to be formed out of nothingness.

This is more than just a 'hole', this is a gaping flaw. Anyways, I'm still waiting for someone to post definitive experimental data that proves evolution.

[Yonivore]

Go Hair!

[Blake]

Finally this ass is gone.

Lol if he ends up as POTUS.

[Blake]

More ID nutjob politicians trying to give a college a hard time:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ourse/6444311/

[angrydude]

The answer to this is so obvious.

Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught as science.

It should be taught as "this is what some people in America believe."

And then move on.

[Nbadan]

har, har...

[boutons_deux]

It should be taught as "this is what some people in America believe."

it, and other beliefs, shouldn't be taught at all.

[boutons_deux]

Rick Perry And How The Press Loves To Treat GOP Campaign Losers Like Winners

Thirty months after flaming out on the Republican primary campaign trail, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whose aborted 2012 run logged a fifth-place finish in Iowa and a sixth-place showing in New Hampshire before being suspended, is suddenly enjoying a Beltway media resurgence. With the issue of America's border security and the influx of unaccompanied children generating headlines, Perry has been out front criticizing President Obama, and the governor's performance is earning raves.

"People love his ass" is what "one Republican operative close to Perry" told Buzzfeed (anonymously). On TheMcLaughlin Group this weekend, so many panelists sang Perry's praise ("shrewd," "winning," "absolutely terrific") that host John McLaughlin announced, "a star is born."

Time has been in full swoon mode lately, touting Perry as "swaggering," "handsome and folksy," and insisting he's "refreshed his message, retooled his workout routine and retrained his sights toward the national stage." Meanwhile CNN's Peter Hamby claimed Perry is "completely underrated" as a 2016 contender. Why? Because "other than Chris Christie, it's hard to think of another Republican candidate with the kind of charm and personal affability, and frankly just good political skills, that Rick Perry has."

Keep in mind, Perry recently compared gays to alcoholics (and then acknowledged he "stepped right in it"), and suggested that the Obama White House might somehow be "in on" the wave of immigrant refugees crossing the U.S. border. He also became something an punch line last week when this sourpuss photo of his meeting with Obama lit up Twitter:




Perry's soft press shouldn't surprise close observers of the Beltway press corps. It's part of a larger media double standard where Republican campaign trail losers now routinely get treated like winners. (Think: John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney). The trend also extends to Republican policy failures, like thediscredited architects of the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, who have been welcomed back onto the airwaves to pontificate about Iraq, despite the fact they got almost everything wrong about the invasion eleven years ago.

And no, the same courtesy is not extended to Democrats. John Kerry did not camp out on the Sunday talk shows after losing to President Bush in 2004 and become a sort of permanent, television White House critic, the way McCain did after getting trounced by Obama in 2008.

But wait, Hillary Clinton lost in 2008 and she's treated as a serious contender, so why shouldn't Perry be?

First, Clinton collected nearly 2,000 primary delegates during her run, whereas Perry earned exactly zero.

Second, Clinton enjoys an enormous lead in Democratic nomination polling if she chooses to run. Perry barely even registers among GOP voters.

Last month the Texas Republican Party held a straw vote and among possible 2016 hopefuls, the Texas governor finished a distant fourth, among Texas Republicans. Outside of Texas, his support remains even thinner. A recent WMUR Granite State poll from New Hampshire had Perry winning a barely-there two percent of Republican support for the 2016 GOP primary.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07...eat-gop/200102

[pgardn]

har, har...

Swaggering, handsome AND folksy.
I see it.