More toxic fallout from the Tea Party

| 54 Comments

A reader, Dan Phelps, tells me, “Looks like the ‘fiscal conservative’ school board member is going to cost his district a lot of money.” See here, and stay tuned to a local newspaper near you.

54 Comments

John Silvius, a former biology professor at Cedarville University, a Christian institution that teaches both evolution and creationism, said the two theories can co-exist, even in a public school classroom. “The joy of science, for me, is to raise questions that don’t necessarily have easy answers,” Silvius said. “If scientific inquiry is robust enough that it can reject false theories, why be so concerned?”

That last sentence…where to begin? Sigh. And he was a teacher. Another group of young people who now misled, and some of whom will show up in comments, earnestly arguing their point, unaware that their view of science is faulty at the basic philosophical level.

Myers said she believes in creationism, rather than evolution because evolution is “based on a theory that can’t even been proven.”

And somewhere another cephalopod dies. :)

–dan j. andrews

“My input on creationism has everything with me being a parent and not a member of the Tea Party,” she said. “We are motivated people who want to change the course of this country. Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means.”

This reinforces my belief that creationists, though they sort of realize that publicly talking religion in such cases is a legal shot in the foot, cannot, simply cannot, restrain themselves from doing so.

I agree that “eliminating God” ia a mistake. And a very effective way to “eliminate God” is to spread lies about evolution and the nature of science under the pretense of “critical analysis,” “academic freedom,” etc. To do that at taxpayer expense is doubly offensive to conservatives - unless they have been scammed, or are authoritarians perpetrating the scam, and “conservative” in name only.

Frank J said:

I agree that “eliminating God” ia a mistake. And a very effective way to “eliminate God” is to spread lies about evolution and the nature of science under the pretense of “critical analysis,” “academic freedom,” etc. To do that at taxpayer expense is doubly offensive to conservatives - unless they have been scammed, or are authoritarians perpetrating the scam, and “conservative” in name only.

Frank, it’s been at least 35 years since the word “conservative”, in US politics, came to mean “a group of people that includes a large number of radical authoritarians”, and at least 15 years since it came to mean “a group of people that includes a large number of radical authoritarians, from which everyone who isn’t a radical authoritarian has been eliminated as a ‘RINO’”.

As a Tea Party Conservative I resent the conflation of the Tea Party principles with those of traditional social conservatism. The Tea Party was founded as a group of fiscal and social conservatives, libertarians, independents and blue dog dems concerned SOLELY with fiscal matters, smaller government, lower taxes and federalism. No doubt…many social cons (which feature lots of fundies and YEC’ers) find a happy home in the Tea Party…but their statist, authoritarian goals in the social realm have nothing to do with Tea Party goals. Lets keep the Tea Party out of this and put the blame squarely on the Social Cons where it belongs. For the record…I am pro-Tea Party goals and anti-Social Con goals and a fervent believer in the both evolution and separation of Church and State…as are many of my fellow Tea Party members. We’ll take all the help we can get on getting our financial house in order…but the social cons have no right to mess with my kids scientific education. These idiots in Ohio will do nothing more than cost their district a bunch of money only to be voted out of office like the gang in Dover was. This one is a slam dunk as there isn’t even a pretense of ID “science”.

@sailcamaraderie You big tent includes some real losers. If you hate the conflation, don’t let them in otherwise you are stuck with some of the most appalling, ignorant, bigoted and divisive folks in politics today.

For example, how do you square Bachmann with fiscal conservatism? She is dumber than a bag of hammers, spouts social con positions all day long, advocates unconstitutional positions (creationism in school), advocates gay reversion therapy, and once in a while makes a fiscal con token nod. She is the ‘Tea Party candidate’.

Yeah, I can’t see the Tea Party as a movement with a well-specified ideological agenda; it’s more like a blanket conservative populist movement. These things come and go in American history – before World War II it was the “America Firsters”, though they were mostly focused on isolationism. Pearl Harbor literally destroyed America First overnight.

Silvius:

“If scientific inquiry is robust enough that it can reject false theories, why be so concerned?”

That is an easy one.

Because dead theories keep coming back as Zombies. Then you have to kill them again. And again. Creationism was dead over a century ago.

Zombie plagues aren’t common, but do happen. The public schools have enough problems without having to deal with the Flat Earth, Geocentrism, and Creationism Zombies at the same time.

This reinforces my belief that creationists, though they sort of realize that publicly talking religion in such cases is a legal shot in the foot, cannot, simply cannot, restrain themselves from doing so.

At its base, creationism is a primitive religious idea based on 2 pages from a magic book. Unless they start babbling on about UFO aliens as the creators, it always ends up being their sockpuppet god.

Even the original Iron age authors almost certainly didn’t take it literally. They did put in two different creation myths right next to each other that aren’t even close to the same.

Kohls is the head of the Warren County Tea Party. Although she said her desire to teach creationism is not directly related to the emerging political movement, it’s not inconsistent with Tea Party ideals.

There might not be a pefect 100% overlap between the Tea Party, Geocentrists, and creationists, it is likely to be very close. IIRC, the polls show something like 90% of the Tea Partiers being creationist. Presumably the other 10% were unable to read and understand the question.

“My input on creationism has everything with me being a parent and not a member of the Tea Party,” she said.

She is lying here. It has everything to do with being a member of a fundie xian death cult.

“We are motivated people who want to change the course of this country.

“We are motivated people who hate and want to destroy this country.” Fixed. Yeah, We know that.

Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means.”

What in the hell does an Invisible Sky Fairy have to do with our budget problems? In fact, the poorer and more fiscally wrecked states with budget problems have the most fundie death cultists.

Using her reasoning, we should all send them Hex symbols to ward off the Sky Fairies.

Tea Party Closely Linked to Religious Right, Poll Finds - The Note blogs.abcnews.com/…/tea-party-closely-linked-to-religious-right-pol… - CachedSimilar

Oct 5, 2010 – Eight out of ten Americans who identified with the Tea Party were … men and more than half were 50 or older, according to the survey. …

My estimate of 90% of the Tea Partiers being creationists is about right.

According to survey data, 80% claim to be members of the religious right. Who are all creationists.

raven said: Unless they start babbling on about UFO aliens as the creators, it always ends up being their sockpuppet god.

It is fairly well understood by creationists – maybe not universally but widely recognized – that when pushing creationism in public, it’s a BAD IDEA to even MENTION religion, mostly because it’s like tacking on a SHOOT ME sign for the courts.

But I have to marvel that though they try, they CANNOT, simply CANNOT, maintain the pretense. Since their fundy thinking underlies their entire existence, it’s like holding their breath – they can only do it for so long.

sailcamaraderie said:

As a Tea Party Conservative I resent the conflation of the Tea Party principles with those of traditional social conservatism. The Tea Party was founded as a group of fiscal and social conservatives, libertarians, independents and blue dog dems concerned SOLELY with fiscal matters, smaller government, lower taxes and federalism.

That may have been YOUR intention, but guess what! YOU GOT SCAMMED! The Tea Party NEVER should have accepted help from Republican charlatans and idiots like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann among others known to be social conservatives. The moment it did that, it BECAME part of the Republican Party and thus its efforts became pointless.

No doubt…many social cons (which feature lots of fundies and YEC’ers) find a happy home in the Tea Party…but their statist, authoritarian goals in the social realm have nothing to do with Tea Party goals. Lets keep the Tea Party out of this and put the blame squarely on the Social Cons where it belongs.

I would indeed argue that the only real conservatives left are libertarians, whether those like Ron Paul or those who are actual members of the Libertarian Party. Again, you were sucked into a movement that was probably never real and just a tool to attack Obama and engineer a Republican comeback last year.

For the record…I am pro-Tea Party goals and anti-Social Con goals and a fervent believer in the both evolution and separation of Church and State…as are many of my fellow Tea Party members. We’ll take all the help we can get on getting our financial house in order…but the social cons have no right to mess with my kids scientific education. These idiots in Ohio will do nothing more than cost their district a bunch of money only to be voted out of office like the gang in Dover was. This one is a slam dunk as there isn’t even a pretense of ID “science”.

Can you and other Tea Party members FINALLY learn your lesson and join the LIBERTARIAN PARTY and leave the Republican Party behind in the dust to die out?

http://www.lp.org/

sailcamaraderie said:

As a Tea Party Conservative I resent the conflation of the Tea Party principles with those of traditional social conservatism. The Tea Party was founded as a group of fiscal and social conservatives, libertarians, independents and blue dog dems concerned SOLELY with fiscal matters, smaller government, lower taxes and federalism. No doubt…many social cons (which feature lots of fundies and YEC’ers) find a happy home in the Tea Party…but their statist, authoritarian goals in the social realm have nothing to do with Tea Party goals. Lets keep the Tea Party out of this and put the blame squarely on the Social Cons where it belongs. For the record…I am pro-Tea Party goals and anti-Social Con goals and a fervent believer in the both evolution and separation of Church and State…as are many of my fellow Tea Party members. We’ll take all the help we can get on getting our financial house in order…but the social cons have no right to mess with my kids scientific education. These idiots in Ohio will do nothing more than cost their district a bunch of money only to be voted out of office like the gang in Dover was. This one is a slam dunk as there isn’t even a pretense of ID “science”.

Thanks for speaking up. I am sympathetic to the Tea Party Movement myself, but am not a member of it. As many know already here, I am a Deist and a Republican with strong Libertarian tendencies, as well as a defender of the teaching of sound mainstream science like biological evolution.

I thought the references in the first few quotes in the article to “the history of the country” might be seen as a new opening or nuance in the attempt to get creationism into the curriculum.

A lot of people have said “Don’t teach creationism in science class, it belongs in history.” Well, it could be that we are being taken at our word. I won’t be any happier if my child’s history class turns into a creationist sermon than if their biology class does. I can see that the supplementary materials for that lesson plan will start at Gen 1, and run out of time just before Edwards v. Aguillard.

Sailcamaraderie -

No doubt…many social cons (which feature lots of fundies and YEC’ers) find a happy home in the Tea Party…but their statist, authoritarian goals in the social realm have nothing to do with Tea Party goals.

If Tea Party goals are not statist and authoritarian, then why isn’t there a Tea Party platform that makes that explicit?

Why do authoritarian theocrats feel at home in your party?

I would never under any circumstances associate with any political party that welcomed authoritarians.

Lets keep the Tea Party out of this and put the blame squarely on the Social Cons where it belongs.

The article is about the actions of a specific social conservative individual, who is a member of the Tea Party using her elected position to push creationism into a specific public school system.

How could anyone possibly report that honestly while “keeping the tea party out of it”?

For the record…I am pro-Tea Party goals and anti-Social Con goals and a fervent believer in the both evolution and separation of Church and State…as are many of my fellow Tea Party members.

Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.

If you support authoritarian theocrat candidates for ANY reason, you support them.

A lot of people have said “Don’t teach creationism in science class, it belongs in history.”

Preaching narrow sectarian dogma as official truth is unconstitutional, regardless of the name of the class.

sailcamardie -

I am happy, however, to see finally see some right wing conservatives with whom I completely and profoundly disagree on other issues stepping up and defending the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is not political. It does not tell us what is “good” or “bad”.

What it does is, explain the diversity and relatedness of life on earth.

“The joy of science, for me, is to raise questions that don’t necessarily have easy answers,” Silvius said. “If scientific inquiry is robust enough that it can reject false theories, why be so concerned?”

–biology professor John Silvius

Silvius is raising a excellent point (and he’s certainly putting the correct question on the public table).

Nevertheless, the Tea-Partiers of Springboro and Warren County must start small, start wisely, and work their way up.

If they insist on either the Springboro board or the Ohio state school board immediately changing the policy to allow teaching biblical creationism, such an effort will fail automatically under an ACLU counterattack.

In fact, according to the article, the state school board preident, who is also with the Tea Party, “isn’t even going there.” And wisely so.

So Anderson and Kohls must work on building alliance, building coalitions, both with Tea Partiers who already agree with them and those Tea Partiers who are not ‘social conservatives’ and therefore don’t agree with them.

They must work seriously at developing a compromise science-education proposal that a majority of Springsboro and Warren County residents and officials (including those who are NOT Tea Partiers or conservatives) can safely agree with.

They must develop and promote a science-education policy that Ohio’s ACLU evolutionist vampires won’t be able to bite.

******

Fortunately, the pro-science people of Louisiana have developed and produced just such a policy – a law that fits the bill perfectly.

If Anderson, Kohls, and others really want to see more Science Education and less Darwin Indoctrination, HERE is the field-tested model that they need to follow. Let’s hope they’ll do so.

AN ACT

To enact R.S. 17:285.1, relative to curriculum and instruction; to provide relative to the teaching of scientific subjects in public elementary and secondary schools; to promote students’ critical thinking skills and open discussion of scientific theories; to provide relative to support and guidance for teachers; to provide relative to textbooks and instructional materials; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for effectiveness; and to provide for related matters.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:

Section 1. R.S. 17:285.1 is hereby enacted to read as follows:

§285.1. Science education; development of critical thinking skills A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the “Louisiana Science Education Act.”

B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.

Section 2. This Act shall become effective upon signature by the governor or, if not signed by the governor, upon expiration of the time for bills to become law without signature by the governor, as provided by Article III, Section 18 of the Constitution of Louisiana. If vetoed by the governor and subsequently approved by the legislature, this Act shall become effective on the day following such approval.

FL

Brilliant idea, FL! And in physics, we can have the kids discuss the controversy over whether gravity acts as predicted by general relativity on the scale of galaxies?

What? You’re saying high school students don’t have the background to analyze scientific principles on this level? That the entire point of high school is to teach students the basics in the first place?

FL said:

“The joy of science, for me, is to raise questions that don’t necessarily have easy answers,” Silvius said. “If scientific inquiry is robust enough that it can reject false theories, why be so concerned?”

–biology professor John Silvius

Silvius is raising a excellent point (and he’s certainly putting the correct question on the public table).

Silvius is a disingenuous idiot. Creationism is not a science, and can not explain anything: teaching it in a science class, instead of actual science, confuses students, and wastes precious time that would have otherwise be spent teaching science.

Fortunately, the pro-science people of Louisiana have developed and produced just such a policy – a law that fits the bill perfectly.

Bullshit, FL.

I’ve asked you hundreds of times how this anti-science, anti-education, anti-student bill is helping students in Louisiana learn science, even though the test results show that the bill has made Louisiana’s educational program among the worst in the entire country.

mharri said:

Brilliant idea, FL! And in physics, we can have the kids discuss the controversy over whether gravity acts as predicted by general relativity on the scale of galaxies?

What? You’re saying high school students don’t have the background to analyze scientific principles on this level? That the entire point of high school is to teach students the basics in the first place?

Better yet, why don’t we teach heresies in Sunday school, too!

Since FL thinks that Christianity is robust enough a religion, why not teach the Aryan Heresy that denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, or one of the Gnostic Heresies, that teaches the Devil made the world in order to trap souls in physical bodies to promote suffering?

After all, if Christianity is robust as FL says it is, there would be no problem wasting children’s time teaching them heresies.

harold said:

sailcamardie -

I am happy, however, to see finally see some right wing conservatives with whom I completely and profoundly disagree on other issues stepping up and defending the theory of evolution.

Pardon me for saying so harold, but you’ve been dealing with at least two here at Panda’s Thumb for years: Timothy Sandefur and yours truly.

apokryltaros said:

FL the ever delusional mendacious Xian creobot crowed:

“The joy of science, for me, is to raise questions that don’t necessarily have easy answers,” Silvius said. “If scientific inquiry is robust enough that it can reject false theories, why be so concerned?”

–biology professor John Silvius

Silvius is raising a excellent point (and he’s certainly putting the correct question on the public table).

Silvius is a disingenuous idiot. Creationism is not a science, and can not explain anything: teaching it in a science class, instead of actual science, confuses students, and wastes precious time that would have otherwise be spent teaching science.

Fortunately, the pro-science people of Louisiana have developed and produced just such a policy – a law that fits the bill perfectly.

Bullshit, FL.

I’ve asked you hundreds of times how this anti-science, anti-education, anti-student bill is helping students in Louisiana learn science, even though the test results show that the bill has made Louisiana’s educational program among the worst in the entire country.

Thanks for your terse rebuttal to Floyd’s latest pathetic example of breathtaking inanity; you’ve saved me the trouble of dealing with his mentally-challenged stupidity again. Like you I look forward to his defense of the sadly misguided and poorly worded “Louisiana Science Education Act” (Am delighted that the leader of Save Science in Louisiana, Zack Kopplin, hasn’t given up the struggle yet to overturn this law, even though he’ll be busy with his studies as a freshman at an out-of-state private university this fall.).

John said:

I look forward to his defense of the sadly misguided and poorly worded “Louisiana Science Education Act” (Am delighted that the leader of Save Science in Louisiana, Zack Kopplin, hasn’t given up the struggle yet to overturn this law, even though he’ll be busy with his studies as a freshman at an out-of-state private university this fall.).

What defense? He always hoots about how great the “Louisiana Science Education Act,” yet, whenever someone asks him how it’s supposed to help students when it clearly is not, he disappears like a ghost in the night.

And remember, there WAS NO TEA PARTY until a “black” man was elected President.

Coincidence?

“I am pro-Tea Party goals and anti-Social Con goals and a fervent believer in the both evolution and separation of Church and State…as are many of my fellow Tea Party members.”

I hear this claim quite a bit, but it’s highly doubtful that “many” Tea Party members are “fervent” believers in both evolution *and* the separation of Church and State. Indeed, all surveys of self-described Tea Party members indicate that they are, as a group, indistinguishable from right-wing conservative Republicans.

I have very little doubt that any kind of evolutionist and Church and State separationist, let alone fervent ones, are extremely rare in the Tea Party. And certainly, there is no indication that the people they vote for are a different breed from the typical hard-right Republican – the votes in Congress certainly don’t show any respect or even sense for libertarian ideals.

Just Bob said:

And remember, there WAS NO TEA PARTY until a “black” man was elected President.

Coincidence?

I could have sworn that he’s a Romulan. I swear he’d make the perfect Romulan Praetor in the next “Star Trek” film.

However, seriously, the term “Tea Party” emerged when some reporter from MSNBC was commenting from the floor of the Chicago stock exchange back in February, 2009 and suggested that we have a “tea party”. Whether the President is Black or Muslim is irrelevant, and your risible insinuation that the “Tea Party” movement is racist simply for opposing the policies of the first black man to be elected President of the United States is utterly contemptible.

Over on Facebook this past weekend, I made the following observation to an atheist who is an enthusiastic supporter of Obama and I think it bears repeating here:

“He is a failed community organizer and was a mediocre Illinois state senator and a mediocre United States Senator. He has failed to end the economic recession that started a few months before he was inaugurated and, by the judgement of many economists, his remedies have made that recession far worse. His political philosophy runs counter to that of many Americans who harbor a more centrist, center-Right political view. These are valid reasons to be critical of Obama, not that he may be a Muslim or that he is an Afro-American.”

apokryltaros said:

John said:

I look forward to his defense of the sadly misguided and poorly worded “Louisiana Science Education Act” (Am delighted that the leader of Save Science in Louisiana, Zack Kopplin, hasn’t given up the struggle yet to overturn this law, even though he’ll be busy with his studies as a freshman at an out-of-state private university this fall.).

What defense? He always hoots about how great the “Louisiana Science Education Act,” yet, whenever someone asks him how it’s supposed to help students when it clearly is not, he disappears like a ghost in the night.

Absolutely, I agree with your most apt, quite terse, assessment of Floyd’s “enthusiastic” support of LSEA.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/n2WhMtEQrvsR[…]DNMct2#93ec7 said:

John Silvius, a former biology professor at Cedarville University, a Christian institution that teaches both evolution and creationism, said the two theories can co-exist, even in a public school classroom. “The joy of science, for me, is to raise questions that don’t necessarily have easy answers,” Silvius said. “If scientific inquiry is robust enough that it can reject false theories, why be so concerned?”

Guess it hasn’t occurred to him that creationism is not a scientific theory.

bigdakine said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/n2WhMtEQrvsR[…]DNMct2#93ec7 said:

John Silvius, a former biology professor at Cedarville University, a Christian institution that teaches both evolution and creationism, said the two theories can co-exist, even in a public school classroom. “The joy of science, for me, is to raise questions that don’t necessarily have easy answers,” Silvius said. “If scientific inquiry is robust enough that it can reject false theories, why be so concerned?”

Guess it hasn’t occurred to him that creationism is not a scientific theory.

Nope.

If Silvius understood science to begin with, he wouldn’t have made such a stupid statement.

sailcamaraderie said:

As a Tea Party Conservative I resent the conflation of the Tea Party principles with those of traditional social conservatism. The Tea Party was founded as a group of fiscal and social conservatives, libertarians, independents and blue dog dems concerned SOLELY with fiscal matters, smaller government, lower taxes and federalism. No doubt…many social cons (which feature lots of fundies and YEC’ers) find a happy home in the Tea Party…but their statist, authoritarian goals in the social realm have nothing to do with Tea Party goals. Lets keep the Tea Party out of this and put the blame squarely on the Social Cons where it belongs. For the record…I am pro-Tea Party goals and anti-Social Con goals and a fervent believer in the both evolution and separation of Church and State…as are many of my fellow Tea Party members. We’ll take all the help we can get on getting our financial house in order…but the social cons have no right to mess with my kids scientific education. These idiots in Ohio will do nothing more than cost their district a bunch of money only to be voted out of office like the gang in Dover was. This one is a slam dunk as there isn’t even a pretense of ID “science”.

I think you have been co-opted. What you wrote sounds reasonable, but it seems the Tea Party’s paymasters have a different agenda. Hard to explain Bachman as the Tea Party candidate given her social agenda if it is what you claim it is. And if shes isn t the Tea Party candidate, where are all the hopping mad partiers claiming the Bachman doesn’t represent them. Sorry but so far, I see scant evidence that the Tea Party doesn’t have a strong social agenda.

bigdakine said:

sailcamaraderie said:

As a Tea Party Conservative I resent the conflation of the Tea Party principles with those of traditional social conservatism. The Tea Party was founded as a group of fiscal and social conservatives, libertarians, independents and blue dog dems concerned SOLELY with fiscal matters, smaller government, lower taxes and federalism. No doubt…many social cons (which feature lots of fundies and YEC’ers) find a happy home in the Tea Party…but their statist, authoritarian goals in the social realm have nothing to do with Tea Party goals. Lets keep the Tea Party out of this and put the blame squarely on the Social Cons where it belongs. For the record…I am pro-Tea Party goals and anti-Social Con goals and a fervent believer in the both evolution and separation of Church and State…as are many of my fellow Tea Party members. We’ll take all the help we can get on getting our financial house in order…but the social cons have no right to mess with my kids scientific education. These idiots in Ohio will do nothing more than cost their district a bunch of money only to be voted out of office like the gang in Dover was. This one is a slam dunk as there isn’t even a pretense of ID “science”.

I think you have been co-opted. What you wrote sounds reasonable, but it seems the Tea Party’s paymasters have a different agenda. Hard to explain Bachman as the Tea Party candidate given her social agenda if it is what you claim it is. And if shes isn t the Tea Party candidate, where are all the hopping mad partiers claiming the Bachman doesn’t represent them. Sorry but so far, I see scant evidence that the Tea Party doesn’t have a strong social agenda.

It’s really hard to say bigdakine, since I’ve encountered either in person or online, Tea Party loyalists who reject the social conservative agenda. But I do agree with your assessment of Bachmann.

apokryltaros said:

bigdakine said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/n2WhMtEQrvsR[…]DNMct2#93ec7 said:

John Silvius, a former biology professor at Cedarville University, a Christian institution that teaches both evolution and creationism, said the two theories can co-exist, even in a public school classroom. “The joy of science, for me, is to raise questions that don’t necessarily have easy answers,” Silvius said. “If scientific inquiry is robust enough that it can reject false theories, why be so concerned?”

Guess it hasn’t occurred to him that creationism is not a scientific theory.

Nope.

If Silvius understood science to begin with, he wouldn’t have made such a stupid statement.

From a history of science perspective, true “scientific creationists” included the likes of William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick (who was Darwin’s geology professor at Cambridge and one of those instrumental in getting his appointment to HMS Beagle as the “gentleman companion” to Royal Navy captain Robert Fitzroy; though of course, Darwin functioned as the ship’s naturalist.), but theirs was a perspective informed by the scientific method and Newtonian mechanics, not an active interventionist GOD of the kind favored by Professor Silvius. However, this is a distinction lost on Floyd and many other mentally-challenged people who contend that there is something “scientific” about “scientific creationism”.

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny. Tsk, tsk. Look at pictures and video from early Tea Party rallies. You want contemptible–there’s contemptible!

And I note that you dodged the question: Is it coincidence that Tea Partiers have accused THIS president of being a communist, unAmerican, Muslim, not a citizen, having faked his credentials, … ad nauseum? And started bringing assault weapons to political rallies, advocating “2nd Amendment remedies”, and urging each other to “take back our country.”

How come there was no Tea Party during the Clinton years?

Do you seriously believe we would have the same Tea Party if the President had the same politics, and had the same family history–except for a father from Sweden and a last name of Jorgensen instead of Obama?

John said:

Just Bob said:

And remember, there WAS NO TEA PARTY until a “black” man was elected President.

Coincidence?

I could have sworn that he’s a Romulan. I swear he’d make the perfect Romulan Praetor in the next “Star Trek” film.

However, seriously, the term “Tea Party” emerged when some reporter from MSNBC was commenting from the floor of the Chicago stock exchange back in February, 2009 and suggested that we have a “tea party”. Whether the President is Black or Muslim is irrelevant, and your risible insinuation that the “Tea Party” movement is racist simply for opposing the policies of the first black man to be elected President of the United States is utterly contemptible.

Over on Facebook this past weekend, I made the following observation to an atheist who is an enthusiastic supporter of Obama and I think it bears repeating here:

“He is a failed community organizer and was a mediocre Illinois state senator and a mediocre United States Senator. He has failed to end the economic recession that started a few months before he was inaugurated and, by the judgement of many economists, his remedies have made that recession far worse. His political philosophy runs counter to that of many Americans who harbor a more centrist, center-Right political view. These are valid reasons to be critical of Obama, not that he may be a Muslim or that he is an Afro-American.”

And how have economists graded the remedies of his opponents?

bigdakine said:

John said:

Just Bob said:

And remember, there WAS NO TEA PARTY until a “black” man was elected President.

Coincidence?

I could have sworn that he’s a Romulan. I swear he’d make the perfect Romulan Praetor in the next “Star Trek” film.

However, seriously, the term “Tea Party” emerged when some reporter from MSNBC was commenting from the floor of the Chicago stock exchange back in February, 2009 and suggested that we have a “tea party”. Whether the President is Black or Muslim is irrelevant, and your risible insinuation that the “Tea Party” movement is racist simply for opposing the policies of the first black man to be elected President of the United States is utterly contemptible.

Over on Facebook this past weekend, I made the following observation to an atheist who is an enthusiastic supporter of Obama and I think it bears repeating here:

“He is a failed community organizer and was a mediocre Illinois state senator and a mediocre United States Senator. He has failed to end the economic recession that started a few months before he was inaugurated and, by the judgement of many economists, his remedies have made that recession far worse. His political philosophy runs counter to that of many Americans who harbor a more centrist, center-Right political view. These are valid reasons to be critical of Obama, not that he may be a Muslim or that he is an Afro-American.”

And how have economists graded the remedies of his opponents?

I think your question is irrelevant since it’s Obama who is President, not his opponents. But this Nobel Prize laureate economist gave a talk at the University of Washington in May in which he observed that we may be in a depression now due to Obama’s bungling of the economy:

http://www.econ.washington.edu/news[…]llimansl.pdf

Just Bob said:

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny. Tsk, tsk. Look at pictures and video from early Tea Party rallies. You want contemptible–there’s contemptible!

And I note that you dodged the question: Is it coincidence that Tea Partiers have accused THIS president of being a communist, unAmerican, Muslim, not a citizen, having faked his credentials, … ad nauseum? And started bringing assault weapons to political rallies, advocating “2nd Amendment remedies”, and urging each other to “take back our country.”

How come there was no Tea Party during the Clinton years?

Do you seriously believe we would have the same Tea Party if the President had the same politics, and had the same family history–except for a father from Sweden and a last name of Jorgensen instead of Obama?

There has been a longstanding history of accusing presidential candidates and Presidents of being wife cheaters, Socialists, etc. etc. ever since George Washington was elected President (Only he was relatively immune from criticism). Considering all of the vile comments that Democrats hurled at Dubya during his two administrations (As an aside I’m not necessarily a supporter of his - especially since one of my cousins was falsely accused of treason and locked up in the United States Navy brig in Charleston, SC for 76 days in solitary confinement back in 2003 - but I think history will be kinder to him than it will be to Obama.).

I insulted Obama here by claiming that he’s a Romulan. How come you’re not worked up over that too?

Just Bob said:

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny. Tsk, tsk. Look at pictures and video from early Tea Party rallies. You want contemptible–there’s contemptible!

And I note that you dodged the question: Is it coincidence that Tea Partiers have accused THIS president of being a communist, unAmerican, Muslim, not a citizen, having faked his credentials, … ad nauseum? And started bringing assault weapons to political rallies, advocating “2nd Amendment remedies”, and urging each other to “take back our country.”

How come there was no Tea Party during the Clinton years?

Do you seriously believe we would have the same Tea Party if the President had the same politics, and had the same family history–except for a father from Sweden and a last name of Jorgensen instead of Obama?

Just Bob, it’s John not Johnny.

If a President Jorgensen was as committed a Leftist as Obama has been, you bet we’d have a Tea Party Movement now.

There has been a longstanding history of accusing presidential candidates and Presidents of being wife cheaters, Socialists, etc. etc. ever since George Washington was elected President (Only he was relatively immune from criticism). Considering all of the vile comments that Democrats hurled at Dubya during his two administrations, I think Obama is being treated with kid gloves by some of his detractors (As an aside I’m not necessarily a supporter of Dubya - especially since one of my cousins was falsely accused of treason and locked up in the United States Navy brig in Charleston, SC for 76 days in solitary confinement back in 2003 - but I think history will be kinder to him than it will be to Obama.).

I insulted Obama here by claiming that he’s a Romulan. How come you’re not worked up over that too?

The ICR looks at everything through “biblical glasses.” On display here are your “anti-Obama glasses.” And that’s all I have to say about that.

Oh, and if you can call Byers “Booby”, then I can call you “Johnny”–or Deefy Wildermood if I feel like it.

It would be neigh impossible to get a Tea Party supporter to admit they are motivated primarily by their prejudice against Obama’s skin color. But they are.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/DpO32Ng7jMMI[…]H_vCs-#a8a34 said:

It would be neigh impossible to get a Tea Party supporter to admit they are motivated primarily by their prejudice against Obama’s skin color. But they are.

That’s a risible canard, especially when some of the most prominent members of the Tea Party Movement are Afro-Americans, or that they are motivated by someone like Thomas Sowell, a distinguished economist who just happens to be Afro-American.

Just Bob said:

The ICR looks at everything through “biblical glasses.” On display here are your “anti-Obama glasses.” And that’s all I have to say about that.

Oh, and if you can call Byers “Booby”, then I can call you “Johnny”–or Deefy Wildermood if I feel like it.

Spoken like the true Pharyngulite moron that you are. I call Byers “Booby” since he’s a deranged Canadian creotard. I don’t deserve your moronic belittling simply because my poltiical philosophy is different than yours, especially since I have been a staunch opponent of creationism for years in case you haven’t noticed already.

OK, that’s enough! Please stop feeding the John troll.

Matt Young said:

OK, that’s enough! Please stop feeding the John troll.

That’s John Kwok, actually. In terms of trolling, he is actually more tolerable (to me, at least) than bigoted reality deniers like FL and IBIG.

John said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/DpO32Ng7jMMI[…]H_vCs-#a8a34 said:

It would be neigh impossible to get a Tea Party supporter to admit they are motivated primarily by their prejudice against Obama’s skin color. But they are.

That’s a risible canard, especially when some of the most prominent members of the Tea Party Movement are Afro-Americans, or that they are motivated by someone like Thomas Sowell, a distinguished economist who just happens to be Afro-American.

Okay Matt, my last response to John’s posts.…his response to my post is easily decoded to “some of my best friends are black”. That’s it…my Dear John post

based upon the actual things candidates who claim Tea Party affiliation say/do and the views expressed by “officials” of the various Tea Parties - I find it difficult to see any difference between the “Tea Party” and the extreme right of the “Republican” party - they seem to be funded by individuals/organizations that traditionaly fund Republicans (Koch brothers and others) and Tea Party congressmen consider themselves part of thge republican caucas (although they don’t seem to be as easy to convice to ‘tow the party line’ as previous freshman have been - but I suspect this is more about Cantor wanting Boener’s job than philisophical differences)

bottom line - if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck - most likely a duck (or so similar as to be a disctintion without a difference)

circleh said:

Matt Young said:

OK, that’s enough! Please stop feeding the John troll.

That’s John Kwok, actually. In terms of trolling, he is actually more tolerable (to me, at least) than bigoted reality deniers like FL and IBIG.

Thanks for your reminder, Dale. I’ve have had some private e-mail correspondence with Matt, and apparently he has forgotten that I, as a troll, wrote a comprehensive positive Amazon.com review of his “Why Intelligent Design Fails” that he co-edited with his colleague physicist Taner Edis that I posted on Darwin Day 2009. If I was really a troll, do you think I would have been capable of writing this:

“Every major principle of Intelligent Design is subjected to intense, rigorous scrutiny by an international team of authors, representing disciplines ranging from mathematics to astrophysics, and from forensic anthropology to vertebrate paleobiology. Matt Young succinctly demolishes both Behe’s mousetrap model of irreducible complexity and Dembski’s probabilistic “arrow” model of specified complexity (Chapter Two). Biologist Gert Korthoff weighs in with a most compelling affirmation of common descent, successfully refuting Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Paul Nelson’s inane objections (Chapter Three). Biochemist Matt Ussery, among Behe’s most effective critics, shreds apart Behe’s inane assertion of “Darwin’s Black Box” (Chapter Four), demonstrating how “irreducibly complex” structures like the bacterial flagellum are not so irreducibly complex at all (An important point which molecular pharmacologist Ian Musgrave elaborates at length in a succeeding chapter (Chapter Six).). Last, but not least, vertebrate paleobiologist Alan Gishlick explains how the evolution of avian flight was the product of natural selection, and not the consequence of some irreducibly complex process (Chapter Five).”

“This book concludes with two relatively short chapters devoted to the possibility of an anthropic principle in the formation and history of the universe and whether or not Intelligent Design creationism could be construed as science. Cosmologist Victor Stenger gives a thorough, quite persuasive, examination of several anthropic principles that contend that the universe was “fine-tuned” to permit the existence of life, especially sapient life like Earth’s humanity. Not surprisingly, he concludes with a most resounding “No” (Chapter Twelve). The same harsh verdict for Intelligent Design creationism is stated succinctly, by Young and Edis, as a most lucid summary, discussing how one ought to define science (Chapter Thirteen). Collectively, the essays truly demonstrate that Intelligent Design creationism should be regarded not only as unscientific, but, especially, in light of the gross errors and distortions stated repeatedly by Dembski, Behe and their sympathetic colleagues and supporters, as a sterling example of mendacious intellectual pornography.”

Although this blog is about evolution and creationism, I feel compelled to note something for the sake of accuracy.

President Obama is not “leftist” or “socialist”.

He is an authoritarian right wing militarist plutocrat, as are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

His opponents, to the extent that they can be said to have any coherent ideology beyond hysterical rejection of anything they associate, directly or indirectly, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are also authoritarian right wing militarist plutocrats.

However, there are some differences. Obama’s party is more or less secular, does not accept egregious homophobia and racism in public, and allows some spectrum of views.

His opponents tolerate egregious racism and homophobia (*the official strategy is simply to play word games, denying that anything, for example, can ever be ‘racist’ - everything is always either not racist enough, or else was a ‘joke’*). They don’t tolerate as much ideological diversity. And although their ideology is more or less in violation of Christian ethics as they have been understood for the past 1700 years or so (*I am not religious, just noting reality*), they are theocrats, seeking to impose a bizarre, radical, post-modern cult of hate and reality denial which, in extreme Orwellian fashion, calls itself “conservative Christianity”.

However, both sides are authoritarian, plutocratic, economically right wing, and militaristic. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate.

harold said:

Although this blog is about evolution and creationism, I feel compelled to note something for the sake of accuracy.

President Obama is not “leftist” or “socialist”.

French President Nicolas Sarkoszy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel would most likely disagree with your assessment of Obama, harold. But you’re entitled to your opinion; the rest of your screed is not worthy of comment.

Earlier this morning I heard Michael Graham on the Don Imus Radio Show and thought I’d share with you the link to his Boston Herald column on the First Loser of the United States:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/op[…]#articleFull

Michael Graham quotes from Peggy Noonan’s Wall Street Journal column from last week in which she notes, harold, that, “He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist. He is a loser. And this is America, where nobody loves a loser.”

So maybe you’re right, harold, Obama isn’t a leftist or a socialist. He just happens to be the worst President of the United States within my lifetime, and I look forward to rendering whatever assistance I can legally to ensure that he leaves the Oval Office permanently on January 20, 2013.

After this I will discipline myself, but…

French President Nicolas Sarkoszy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel would most likely disagree with your assessment of Obama, harold.

They might, although given that they both endorse policies that include stronger social safety net, less regressive tax system, less extreme income and wealth disparity, and far less wasteful military spending/adventurism, it would be odd for them to do so.

He just happens to be the worst President of the United States within my lifetime

He’s the second worst in mine, but mainly because the worst was George W. Bush and he retains and reinforces many of George W. Bush’s policies.

However, I suspect that the Republican ticket for 2012 will contain someone far worse. At this point I’m not even sure I would describe Romney as “far” worse, but there are two spots on a ticket.

Republicans may not be racists–but racists are Republicans. Double down for the Tea Party. And that’s all I have to say about that.

Johnny.

harold said:

After this I will discipline myself, but…

French President Nicolas Sarkoszy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel would most likely disagree with your assessment of Obama, harold.

They might, although given that they both endorse policies that include stronger social safety net, less regressive tax system, less extreme income and wealth disparity, and far less wasteful military spending/adventurism, it would be odd for them to do so.

He just happens to be the worst President of the United States within my lifetime

He’s the second worst in mine, but mainly because the worst was George W. Bush and he retains and reinforces many of George W. Bush’s policies.

However, I suspect that the Republican ticket for 2012 will contain someone far worse. At this point I’m not even sure I would describe Romney as “far” worse, but there are two spots on a ticket.

In my lifetime the second worst President was Jimmy Carter, who has been a far more successful ex-president primarily for his Habitat for Humanity. George W. Bush doesn’t even come close, especially when he prevented another major terrorist attack on American soil following 9/11 (Reluctantly, the Obama Administration has been forced to adopt most of his security measures.). And I say this even though his first Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, approved of the United States Army’s witch hunt against my cousin James Yee, who was the Muslim chaplain stationed at Guantanomo Bay.

Does this mean that I approve of Bush’s handling of the Iraq invasion? No. But, in comparison to Obama, Bush was a ldecisive leader willing to listen to advice from his advisors, especially those at the Pentagon.

As for Sarkozy and Merkel, they’ve demonstrated that they have a better understanding of the current dismal economic climate than does Obama, recognizing that they need to rein in the growth of their governments and foster more free market-oriented solutions.

Just Bob said:

Republicans may not be racists–but racists are Republicans. Double down for the Tea Party. And that’s all I have to say about that.

Johnny.

I’ve met Democrats who are racist in the sense they think it’s impossible for Afro-Americans to achieve anything without government assistance (Without touting my high school alma mater too much, they need to look at the careers of fellow alumni Thelonious Monk, Thomas Sowell and Roy Innis to name but a few; only Sowell was an academic disaster and flunked out, but he ultimately redeemed himself by earning a GED and paying for his Harvard undergraduate education via the GI Bill. In a similar vein, the writer Samuel Delany and astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson were able to succeed at Bronx Science - the arch rival to my high school - without getting any preferential treatment for minorities. So, Just Bob, I would contend that condescending liberal Democrats who think that Afro-Americans need assistance in order to succeed are as racist IMHO as the usual wingnut rightwing suspects in Aryan Nations and the Ku Klux Klan.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on August 1, 2011 10:21 AM.

Freethought Blog Network Startup was the previous entry in this blog.

Crotalus adamanteus is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter