Bob Novak and the Writers’ Guild picket line.
By on Nov 11th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Bob Novak and the Writers’ Guild picket line.
Rachel Axler, one of The Daily Show writers, recounts her experiences on the Writers Guild of America picket line over the past week. From Monday, Nov. 5:
10:50 a.m. I think I see Bob Novak pass the line. He doesn’t say a word. At least we know nobody here is C.I.A.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Meanwhile, former White House faux reporter Jeff Gannon is hitting the blogs to pedal his book.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:38 amThe writers better watch their backs as Novak will print a lie and get paid by the White House for it.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:39 amLooks like all the top executives have joined the White House group by taking everything they can get.
The Bush reporters and of course Fox News will
always print the lies and will do anything for a
buck.
Washington, like many of his contemporaries, did not understand or believe in political parties, and saw them as fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility. When political parties began forming during his administration, and in direct response to some of his policies, he failed to comprehend that parties would be the chief device through which the American people would debate and resolve major public issues. It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.
Sometimes I wish people liked history.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:42 amYou should know that Novak knew exactly what cat he was letting out of the bag when he exposed Valerie Plame Wilson.
KKKarl gave him that scoop, and Busch and Cheney knew all about it.
These people are deceivers and traitors !!
∞
November 12th, 2007 at 2:24 amSometimes I wish people liked history.
Comment by definiteform — November 12, 2007 @ 12:42 am
——————
And then, how come Cubans are criticised for following Washinton’s advice, which will only let people who are involved in their communities vote and be elected?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:31 amHa
November 12th, 2007 at 8:18 amGovernor Schwarzenegger has urged the WGA to end the strike. Americans cannot do without mindless televised entertainment for one day longer…
November 12th, 2007 at 8:34 amahh Bob… The Insurgency wants to punch you in your fat funny head.
http://www.tshirtinsurgency.com
November 12th, 2007 at 8:43 amIt is scientific fact that members of the writers guild care more about the country than anyone else.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:56 am“10:50 a.m. I think I see Bob Novak pass the line. He doesn’t say a word. At least we know nobody here is C.I.A.”
And we will resume our program uncut, unedited, and no re-runs of the Daily Show with Dana Purina. Back to you, Jeff.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:02 amAmericans cannot do without mindless televised entertainment for one day longer…
Comment by comandanteagi — November 12, 2007 @ 8:34 am
If the Writers Guild stays on strike it guarantees that there will be an avalanche of reality tv. And you think scripted television is mindless? No Colbert or Daily Show and more The Bachelor and Dancing with Has Beens. Good plan.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:09 am“12:15 p.m. A man in a suit passes by. He yells, ‘I hope you all get fired!’ ”
This guy must have been a Republican anti-unionist who has a knee-jerk negative reaction to all picketers, or someone who would like to see television be all reality shows, all the time — which is what would happen if all writers were fired.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:28 amThe reality of Reality shows is they’re not real, either.
TV sucks. Big Time.
TV News spends more time hyping it’s own programming than delivering any ‘real’ news. I find myself watching BBC World News just to get glimpse of the truth.
Why does American TV hate the truth?
November 12th, 2007 at 9:35 am#11…perhaps they’d just hire trained chimps to bang away at typewriters to get more episodes of “24″. It seems to be what they did with our government, so why not our with our entertainment. I wish I could shut off the government as easily as I have the TV.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:38 amIt seems like we do this little dance with SAG and/or WGA every time a new technology allows for more money to be made from repeated entertainment.
1) Television reruns (created by Desi Arnaz when he decided to film “I Love Lucy” episodes instead of broadcasting them live)
2) VHS tapes
3) DVDs
4) internet downloads
5) future ways to make money off entertainment repeats?
The number of new technologies resulting in more money for the producers is increasing in rate. And with every new one, actors and writers will fight for a piece of the pie. We should get used to these strikes happening with greater frequency. It may even drive us back to reading books.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:09 amNo ThinkFast this morning? :(
November 12th, 2007 at 10:15 amon AP radio news, i heard a quote by TDS john oliver…
this is the closest i can find… MUCH much funnier in audio:
“It’s affecting us in the most visible way possible,” John Oliver, a writer and correspondent for “The Daily Show,” told CNN [...]
November 12th, 2007 at 10:16 am“We’re off the air,” Oliver said. “We’d much rather work than stand in the cold. Writers are people who fear the sunlight,” he added, smiling.
…
it’s a holyday, zooey…
no disrespect intended…
November 12th, 2007 at 10:16 amwhile searching for that oliver quote, i ran across this link…
entertaining, of sorts…
http://www.nofactzone.net/?cat=24
November 12th, 2007 at 10:25 am“The vast majority of bloggers out there are responsible correspondents doing fine work in niche reporting fields like Gilmore Girl fan fiction, or cute things their cats do, or photoshopped images of the Gilmore Girls as cats. That’s great. Where I draw the line is with these attack-bloggers. Just someone with a computer who gathers, collates and publishes accurate information that is then read by the general public. They have no credibility. All they have is facts. Spare me.â€
November 12th, 2007 at 10:26 am– Stephen Colbert
No fair!! I don’t get a day off. :(
Of course, I get the whole week off next week. :)
November 12th, 2007 at 10:27 amColbert is so great. Jon Stewart better watch out!
November 12th, 2007 at 10:28 amHi Zooey! Long time no read. Been busy bee. No think fast, but I am here at work on Veterans Day. At least I don’t have to teach tonight!
November 12th, 2007 at 10:28 amHowz school goin?
BTW our TV is used for sports, cartoons, cooking channel and that’s it. Except for an occasional DVD movie.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:30 amGood luck writers, but getting residuals out of the moguls would be something akin to turnip juice.
It is scientific fact that members of the writers guild care more about the country than anyone else.
Comment by Tony S. — November 12, 2007 @ 8:56 am
It may be that they care more about getting their way for the country. ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 10:33 amHi RUC. Good to read you. It has been a while, hasn’t it?
School is winding down — due dates abound. Oy…
I’m beginning to think Rumsfeld is one of my professors, since I’m being buried in paper. :-D
November 12th, 2007 at 10:33 amt may be that they care more about getting their way for the country. ;)
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 10:33 am
proof of the writer’s strike, ul makes even less sense than usual.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:37 amproof of the writer’s strike, ul makes even less sense than usual.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 12, 2007 @ 10:37 am
**snort**
November 12th, 2007 at 10:40 amThe Novak comment is the only thing noteworthy from Axler’s column? I guess maybe it is considering it is buried among such gems as, “Developmentally, we’re babies — still in the oral stage. When we finally get a new contract, the first thing we’re doing is sticking it in our mouths” and “The picket line has a delicate, unique ecosystem. Outside, it is sunny and brisk. Inside, any exposed skin immediately turns black and falls off. I put on another sweater.” The fewer people reading the thoughts of “writers” like that, the better. ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 10:44 amRe: #25 Heard Jenk on the radio this morning with Seymour Hersch comparing Rummy to Gates. No freakin comparison, except Rummy the whiny 12 year old versus Gates (at least he acts like a grown up)…
November 12th, 2007 at 10:50 amproof of the writer’s strike, ul makes even less sense than usual.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 12, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Aw c’mon lefty. Surely you don’t think I’m one of those lefty lib writers? The horror! ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 10:51 ammissmolly
Actually a writers strike is fairly unusual – 1988 was a fairly long time ago.
The thing is writers, particularly movie script writers, are treat like dirt normally by the rest of the production line, and thus feel angry and resentful.
They have no control over their product, it gets torn up by pompous directors, peed on by illiterate actors and then, if it flops, they get the blame and none of the credit if it doesn’t. It’s always the directors vision, it is never the writers vision, that gets praised.
Thus, they go on strike for more money. What they really want is some recognition and respect, but failing that more money for putting up with the BS will do.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:56 amWatching Condi stumble & mumble over her own words yesterday on the morning shows again was like watching life replayed in slow motion. She doesn’t have clue #1 about what to do in Pakistan. She was never trained in diplomacy and it’s apparent to the whole World.
Bush is hiding out in Crawford, (Western White House, my ass), pretending Pakistan isn’t on the verge of total anarchy.
You see, none of this fits their plans. In fact, it couldn’t come at a worse time; they want us all to be afraid of Iran, not watch Pakistan implode.
Odd, isn’t it; all the Rightards beating the Iran war drum while a so called democracy & ally establish martial law. Georgia, as well. Both Muslim ‘democracies’.
Did Mushareef blow Bush’s plan of martial law here with his own?
Will Condi dare to go to Pakistan?
Will Bush give a shit what happens?
November 12th, 2007 at 10:56 amComment by RUCerious — November 12, 2007 @ 10:50 am
No kidding. Rummy is a dangerous old geezer. Gates is younger.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:57 amAw c’mon lefty. Surely you don’t think I’m one of those lefty lib writers? The horror! ;)
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Um…I think ALL the WGA writers are on strike — not just the “lefty lib” ones. ;-)
November 12th, 2007 at 10:57 amAw c’mon lefty. Surely you don’t think I’m one of those lefty lib writers? The horror! ;)
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Thanks, ul, for confirming your inability to handle a single thought, never mind two.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:00 amUm…I think ALL the WGA writers are on strike — not just the “lefty lib†ones. ;-)
Comment by missmolly — November 12, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Well, I wasn’t sure if there were any other kind, what with the drivel I hear about on television these days. ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 11:03 amWell, I wasn’t sure if there were any other kind, what with the drivel I hear about on television these days. ;)
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Well, that would be the rightard writers’ stuff. reality shows, etc., made for the unimaginative, sloppy conservative sixpack joe and his brood of future cannon-fodder. The drivel you “hear about”; indicative of your usual spew of secondhand bullshit instead of actual research. Wingnuts are ever so proud of their laziness and ignorance.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:07 amUpright Left
snicker.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:10 amThis is why we have Fox News (they report the truth).
Comment by Daryll — November 12, 2007 @ 11:09 am
that’s why YOU have FAUX SNOOZ, because you can’t handle the truth. Go back downstairs and lift some more bibles, you moron. All studies have shown that watchers of FOX know less about current events than anybody in this country except Condi Rice.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:11 amGood shot, Bruce, right between the eyes.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:12 amNo ThinkFast this morning? :(
Comment by Zooey — November 12, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Disappointing, indeed.
Anyway, amusing story from across the pond -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JABTVAG2VZVTJQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/12/ntony112.xml
Blair’s old high school rips him a new one.
The play, The Which Blair Project, also features the invasion of a neighbouring private school, after a spurious claim that it possesses a laser capable of blowing up the world.
Gordon Brown appears as an embittered geek obsessed with the tuck shop accounts, David Cameron as a hash-smoking toff, and George W Bush as a crass pupil from America with learning difficulties.
The “special” relationship, intended for those with special needs.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:16 am31 – Bruce – HEY!! I’m one of those “illiterate actors” you mentioned – careful there, sparky! ;o)
A huge number of actors and writers – anyone in the creative biz – end up having to work very hard their whole lives for a small amount of success – or none at all. For any actor and/or writer that is hugely successful, there are hundreds – if not thousands – of actors and writers pounding the pavement looking for work. I’ve been there and done that – didn’t make it. (I haven’t given up quite yet, though!)
But remember, we are talking about UNION members, and big business is all about killing unions.
They need our support.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:17 amThink Progress, this is a post that lacks relevance to political and military current events. -Duhryl
As do all of your posts, Jesus Boy…pray for a difference. Yeah, that’ll do the trick…
November 12th, 2007 at 11:17 amWell, that would be the rightard writers’ stuff. reality shows, etc., made for the unimaginative, sloppy conservative sixpack joe and his brood of future cannon-fodder. The drivel you “hear aboutâ€; indicative of your usual spew of secondhand bullshit instead of actual research. Wingnuts are ever so proud of their laziness and ignorance.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 12, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Ah now I see, lefty. You don’t watch all that garbage because you like it. You are doing research! Bud, you need to clarify that so folks don’t think you enjoy it. Not to make you feel bad, but some people can tell without ever turning on the set that a show about cavemen living in 2007 isn’t going to be worthy of our time. But you take as long as you need to figure it out, bud. Aside from Tony’s silly claim that science has shown writers to be more concerned about our country than anyone else, what do you suppose would be the result of a poll to determine the political views of television/movie writers? Do ya think maybe the majority of them lean left? I’m not a betting person, but I’d put money on that one. I suspect we all know that lefties dominate the “entertainment” industry, bud. We know where the blame lies for the wasteland that it has become. Those folks are yours. ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 11:18 am38 – Hey, Darryll – I’ve got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn – only $99.99!!! Are ya interested…? I’ll even monogram it for you!
November 12th, 2007 at 11:19 amComment by Bruce Gorton — November 12, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Is that one of those “frivolous” lawsuits? Heh.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:20 amBruce, Zooey,
Conservatives getting screwed should be news in itself!
November 12th, 2007 at 11:21 amUpright Left
snicker.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 12, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Conservative writers of books as opposed to lib television/movie writers? Oh, what a shot, bud!
November 12th, 2007 at 11:21 amThis is why we have Fox News (they report the truth).
Comment by Daryll — November 12, 2007 @ 11:09 am
I’m going to need to see some proof of that, Daryll.
Your child-like wonder and innocence is becoming tiresome.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:22 amAhh, Daryll the wonder boy! Suckin at the teat of Fock Snooze again?
November 12th, 2007 at 11:27 amSays volumes about your inability to think critically. Not a wonder, given your piss poor curriculum at Oral Roberts.
RUC,
November 12th, 2007 at 11:28 amEver wonder if it was Daryll who put the Oral in Roberts?
Heh heh, you said Oral. Heh heh.
;)
November 12th, 2007 at 11:29 amThink Progress, this is a post that lacks relevance to political and military current events. Who cares. This is why we have Fox News (they report the truth).
Comment by Daryll — November 12, 2007 @ 11:09 am
This brings up an interesting point. Since Fox News has a tendency to report fiction, wouldn’t their writers be out on strike, too?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:21 pmWell, I wasn’t sure if there were any other kind, what with the drivel I hear about on television these days. ;)
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 11:03 am
This is probably a good time to rediscover the joy of reading books.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pmOf course Bob Novak isn’t going to saying anything, he’s about as anti union as you can get. He hates unions more than he claims to hate terrorists. This guy also claims to be a God fearing christian, but judging his actions, he’s fair from it. Once again a compassionate conservatives shows his ugly head. Bob Novak claims to love America, but clearly can’t stand his fellow Americans who are less fortunate than he is.
There is a special place in heaven waiting for Bob, don’t you know. He’s a great father, loving husband, a truly great American. They may write or say those words about him when he’s gone, but it will be all lies, with the possible except of the father and husband part. Bob you my friend are a JERK! And a traitor for outing a covert agent. The only reason you still have your job is because you are an anti American neo conservative idiot. If that was a bunch of money hunger republicans employers out there you would have brought them coffee and kissed their butts.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pmDaryll, if you look at Murdochs little empire you will find that its a tabloid, like National Enquirer.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:32 pmI suspect we all know that lefties dominate the “entertainment†industry, bud. We know where the blame lies for the wasteland that it has become. Those folks are yours. ;)
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 11:18 am
What a ridiculous, meaningless comment. Define “lefty’ in a way that then can be used to point out which “members” of the “left “dominate the entertainment industry”, you mindless nitwit.
Is there a “Lefties United Entertainment Union, Local 176″? Is there a “Institute For Lefty Values In Entrrtainment”? NO, no, and no.
As usual, you make sweeping, undefinable contentions that mean NOTHING, use them to condemn a completely non-existent group of poeple, then pat yerself on the back, as though you actually accomplished something of value, “bud”.
BTW, “bud”, while you’re busy condemning these fictious “dominating lefties in Hollywood”, did you know that Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp is one of the biggest producers of PORNOGRAPHY in the world?
So much for conservative values.
I’ve worked in film production for nearly 3 decades. I’ve probably FORGOTTEN more about the industry thatn you’ll ever know.
And no, that’s NOT 9 inches. It’s barely 3, more like 2&1/2, “bud”.
;-D!!
November 12th, 2007 at 1:47 pmThis is probably a good time to rediscover the joy of reading books.
Comment by missmolly — November 12, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
I never lost it. ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 12, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Dang, bud, got ya in quite a little snit there. Sorry about that. I didn’t realize that ya didn’t know what a lefty is. That would be those of you who hold political and social views that are mainly left of center. Those whose views are mainly right of center are righties. Those of us who hold some views from each side are centrists, commonly called independents. Cool how that works, eh bud? As for what lefties believe, it’s pretty much what you believe. Perhaps your fellow lefty, lefty patriot, can help ya out. Then check out the folks in the entertainment industry to see which ones share your views. I don’t think you really need me to do that for ya, do ya bud?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI’ll have to defer to you in the area of knowledge regarding porn. I’m quite sure you’ve forgotten more than I’ll ever know about that too. Seems rather degrading to women, one of the groups lefties claim to care so much about. ;)
The Shadow
The operative words in Rightwing religion are
god fearing.
They believe, they follow the doctrines up to where it means condemning others, and they are very happy to feel guilty about when they don’t (So long as that guilt doesn’t prompt them actually doing anything about it) but ultimately, they are god fearing folks.
And they fear their god for very good reasons.
Oh, and upright left, the illustrative point of that article I linked you to? The rightwing are very happy to moan about the social protections leftwingers helped society achieve, right up until those said rightwingers actually need them.
So excuse me while I take the rightwing’s views on unions with more then a pinch of salt.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:02 pmOh, and upright left, the illustrative point of that article I linked you to? The rightwing are very happy to moan about the social protections leftwingers helped society achieve, right up until those said rightwingers actually need them.
So excuse me while I take the rightwing’s views on unions with more then a pinch of salt.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 12, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Then you should have addressed your comment to a rightwinger instead of to me. I fully support unions, right up to the point when they get as greedy as those running corporations and ask for pay and perks that hurt the companies upon which our economy depends. Unions are right to demand safe conditions, decent pay, and fair treatment. When unions become riddled with corruption and exist as much to get back at management as to help workers, they are as bad as management. ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 3:28 pmbut I’d put money on that one. I suspect we all know that lefties dominate the “entertainment†industry, bud. We know where the blame lies for the wasteland that it has become. Those folks are yours. ;)
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 11:18 am
I “suspect” that we all know that you’re dead wrong, and that the entertainment industry is dominated by conservative owners, who deal in pornography. The blame for the wasteland that is television is squarely on the conservative “free market” pigs, who will sell anything to anyone to make a profit, even if it literally kills the buyer. Greed over smarts, every time with you righties. And your claim to be a centrist is another lie, simple as that. you support unions only as long as they don’t cut into the profits of the super-rich rightwing owners. You’re pretty easy to see through.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:02 pmRachel Axler is a royal commie. Daily shows jokes have turned so stake since Hillary’s run started. towing the line
November 12th, 2007 at 5:14 pmturned “stale”. not stake
November 12th, 2007 at 5:15 pmI’ll have to defer to you in the area of knowledge regarding porn.
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Please point out where TRoS said HE had knowledge of porn.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:40 pmI’ll have to defer to you in the area of knowledge regarding porn.
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Please point out where TRoS said HE had knowledge of porn.
Comment by Zooey — November 12, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
He commented on it. I assumed he was making a statement that he knew to be true. Should I have assumed that he was lying and that he had no knowledge of it? ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 6:02 pmAnd your claim to be a centrist is another lie, simple as that. you support unions only as long as they don’t cut into the profits of the super-rich rightwing owners. You’re pretty easy to see through.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 12, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Sorry, bud, but your mind reading powers are off today. For a second there, I expected you to make the same comment as one of your fellow libs, marlow. He gets all upset when I’m too reasonable. Apparently he thinks there is no such thing as a centrist, only righties and lefties. Are you of the same opinion? Why does it bother you so for people to be centrists? Is it more difficult to hate people who aren’t diametrically opposed to your views? ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 6:34 pm“Why does it bother you so for people to be centrists? Is it more difficult to hate people who aren’t diametrically opposed to your views? ;)”
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 6:34
Centrism is just fence-sitting. Not a very courageous stance, just an attempt to not be responsible for anything. If you’re indeed a centrist, then triangulatin’ Hillary is your candidate.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:46 pmIs it more difficult to hate people who aren’t diametrically opposed to your views? ;)
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
hate? You’re hardly worth the effort. Ill save that for somebody who has the power to do something, not for a cowardly fence-sitter who is afraid to commit to a meaningful philosophy. You’re nothing but a pull-toy.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:24 pmIs it more difficult to hate people who aren’t diametrically opposed to your views? ;)
Comment by upright left — November 12, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
hate? You’re hardly worth the effort. Ill save that for somebody who has the power to do something, not for a cowardly fence-sitter who is afraid to commit to a meaningful philosophy. You’re nothing but a pull-toy.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 12, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Whatever gave you the idea that I meant me, bud? I was referring to the very people for whom you do reserve your hate. Why is it necessary to hate people just because they have a different viewpoint than you? So I’m a fence sitter. Everyone has to hold either your extreme views or the extreme views of the far right? No one can be a centrist, the extreme right is wrong. What does that leave? Apparently diversity of opinion really means you are right and everyone else is wrong. You’ve altered the lib mantra that all views should be respected to all views that match yours should be respected. Is there some concrete rating that lets us all know if a person’s views are far enough to the left to be acceptable for you? That’s quite an interesting philosophy you have there, bud. ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 11:58 pmupright left
When your views are favourable towards torture, censorship, invading countries because they happen to share the same race as someone who attacked you, declaring those who don’t share your beliefs traitors and calling for their deaths, murdering doctors for engaging in legal operations you disagree with, brainwashing everyone’s kids into following a largely discredited mythology, turning an annual celebration where people exchange gifts into a political football, declaring yourself morally superior but acting like thugs towards foreigners, blaming all of America’s ills on the previous administration, wrecking America’s credit rating, and then proclaiming the other side fiscally irresponsible then yes, hating you based on your views is justified.
November 13th, 2007 at 2:25 amComment by Bruce Gorton — November 13, 2007 @ 2:25 am
Dang, Bruce, when you are wrong, you really go all out, don’t ya bud. I don’t support torture and, yes, I consider waterboarding torture. I don’t support censorship, but I do support keeping filth out of general public view. You ought to have to make an effort to get filth so that others don’t have to be affected by it. I didn’t think we should have gone into Iraq and I don’t think it is worth the lives of our people. Abortion is muder, but that doesn’t make it right to murder those performing them. God doesn’t expect me to force anyone to accept Him. I do expect the views of Christians to be respected by those in our govt. It doesn’t hurt the children of athiests to hear that other people hold different beliefs. I have no problem with my children being taught about evolution as long as the view of a large majority of the population is mentioned along with it. Are you worried about kids hearing the other side? Your derision of Christianity doesn’t really fit with the prog claim of respecting all religions. (Shades of hypocrisy.) As for Christmas, if corporations are going to make millions of dollars from it, the least they can do is acknowledge it. Somehow you’ve confused the toy companies with Christians. I assure you there are many, many Christians for whom the holiday is not about lights and toys. You don’t see that because you don’t want to see that. Show me the evidence where I’ve claimed to be morally superior to foreigners and I’ll apologize for it. It is very common for politicians to blame the preceding administration for some of their failures and it’s wrong no matter the political affiliation. I didn’t “wreck” America’s credit rating or support the unbridled spending that has gotten into our current position. Neither do I go around crying that the sky is falling, trying to scare people into accepting my point of view as the only way to prevent America from imploding. See, the fact that I don’t hold the opinions that you attributed to me, nor the opinions that you hold is what made lefty call me a fence sitter. Get away from the lefty extremists and you’ll find that an awful lot of Americans are centrists. Most Americans have taditionally been Dems. Unfortunately, the Dem party isn’t what it used to be, which was the party for the average person not the party of the special interest. Maybe as more Americans return to the Dems, the party will move back toward the center somewhat. ;)
November 13th, 2007 at 9:56 amupright left
I don’t respect any religions, and I don’t preach respect for religion. I am not a multiculturalist, and I think “maintaining diversity” in human cultures is just a soft-pedalled form of the same arguments that brought about apartheid. If you have an argument and I think you are wrong I am going to say so because being “Nice” at the expense of being “Honest” ain’t exactly my definition of being a liberal.
Oh, and differing views? Not in a flipping science class if there is no scientific evidence supporting the differing view you don’t. If teachers handled creationism with the same gloves they handle real science in science classes you can bet some fundie would come out against it because, creationism doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory.
Creationism is a evidence free hypothesis, and until it actually starts coming up with real evidence, it shouldn’t be taught in science classes because kids trust their teachers to teach them the truth, not a load of lies based on a magic sky fairy.
Oh, and as to how sacred you hold Christmas? Yeah so sacred that every year you take the birth of your holiest figure, traditionally used as a chance to celebrate generosity and good will – one of the very good things about Christianity – as a chance to spread hate and intollerance for other people. You hold it about as sacred as those toy companies you lambast.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:59 amOh, and another thing, in an America where Bush Snr was elected president after saying:
The kids gloves are off. I do not see why atheists in America should treat you religious !@$!ers with anything more then the respect you afford them.
November 14th, 2007 at 2:04 amupright left
Oh, and as to your views on torture and all of that? No, your views are just “Slam anybody who wants to do anything about it as being loony lefties.” You don’t hold those things as being good, you just help defend it by preventing anybody doing anything about it.
November 14th, 2007 at 2:40 amComment by Bruce Gorton — November 14, 2007 @ 2:40 am
Evolution and the scientific theories about the origin of the earth are just that, bud, theories. So your demand for proof of God is weak. As for not mentioning God in school, are you really concerned that a teacher saying some people believe God created man is going to result in a classroom full of salvation? Sorry, bud, but it takes more than that. You’ll notice we don’t have a lot of kids running around who believe that the earth is flat.
——
“Oh, and as to how sacred you hold Christmas? Yeah so sacred that every year you take the birth of your holiest figure, traditionally used as a chance to celebrate generosity and good will – one of the very good things about Christianity – as a chance to spread hate and intollerance for other people. You hold it about as sacred as those toy companies you lambast.”
I assume you have some evidence that I do that. Otherwise, your just a liar, bud. I’d hate to think that’s true. ;)
——
“The kids gloves are off. I do not see why atheists in America should treat you religious !@$!ers with anything more then the respect you afford them.”
I respect the right of atheists to believe what they choose. I know it’s wrong and I’ll say it’s wrong, just as I expect you to say I’m wrong. That’s not disrespect. So, again, show me your proof that I’m disrespectful to you due to your athiesm as opposed to your hypocrisy.
——
“Oh, and as to your views on torture and all of that? No, your views are just “Slam anybody who wants to do anything about it as being loony lefties.†You don’t hold those things as being good, you just help defend it by preventing anybody doing anything about it.”
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 14, 2007 @ 2:40 am
Sorry, bud, but you really need to work on the mind reading powers. Heh, heh, heh. It just really ticks you off that I oppose torture. I would think you would be happy about that, since you claim to be so opposed to torture yourself. Kind of makes it seem that it’s not so much torture you oppose, but that you just like having that to bash conservatives with and resent when it doesn’t apply. C’mon, bud, there are problems enough in this world. You don’t have to hunt for demons where there are none. ;)
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 14, 2007 @ 1:59 am
November 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pmupright left
BS upright left, we have been reading posts since you got here. Your very bloody name is about slamming leftwingers.
As to saying my demand for evidence is weak? How about this: For evolution to accepted into science classes it required a fossil record, evidence by geneticists, evidence gathered by observations in the wild, and experimentation.
Creationism on the other hand? Even the Catholic Church, the oldest church, declared unscientific. It has gone to court repeatedly and the peddlers of “Creation science” have lost repeatedly. You want to teach it, introduce a class like “Theology” or maybe “Philosophy.”
Like a lot of atheists I would like to see the Bible taught in schools so that at least when I am arguing mythology with some bloody ignorant smug son-of-a-idiot they at least get their bloody mythology right. I have no objection to Christianity being taught in schools along with Hindu beliefs, Shinto and Animism, I have every objection to the book of genesis, frequently shown to be false throughout our history, being taught as scientific truth.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:04 amBS upright left, we have been reading posts since you got here. Your very bloody name is about slamming leftwingers.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 15, 2007 @ 1:04 am
I settled on upright left because of the inability of any lib here to ever admit to their hypocrisy. I freely admit that there is a lot of hypocrisy among conservatives who are more concerned with getting their own way than what is right. Not one lib has been willing to acknowledge the same about their kind, though it is pointed out repeatedly. That’s the problem with extremists, both right and left. You can never see your own flaws, only those of others.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:57 amYou spent way more time than was necessary with your little piece on teaching Christianity in schools. I suppose you simply reacted without thinking. All I said was that I would like for teachers to acknowledge, when teaching the theory of evolution, that a majority of the population believes God created man. That is a statement of fact and hardly qualifies as teaching religion. And it doesn’t require even mentioning any specific religion. You really needn’t fear that any children hearing that are going to fall on their knees in prayer.
By the way, since you despise all religions equally, and you’ve made clear your wilingness to disparage Christianity, what kinds of slams do you and your atheist friends make about Islam? It doesn’t escape your disdain does it? Do you have any common phrases that you use to trash Muslims? And do you use those phrases in public like you do with Christianity? Just making sure there is no hypocrisy in your religion bashing. ;)
upright left
Mohammed was a peodophile. The current states which are least accepting of the illegality of slavery are all Muslim. Islam outright declares females as being worth less then males, and Islamists are so afraid of competing ideas that whenever someone goes out and contradicts them on their beliefs they either declare a fatwa or a riot.
Want me to carry on?
November 15th, 2007 at 3:25 amupright left
As to the majority believing in creationism?
Belief isn’t science. It does not belong in a science class, it belongs, at best, in a sociology class.
If something is to be taught in a class it has to fit what the class is about. I do not see French people demanding French be taught in an English class do you?
November 15th, 2007 at 3:39 amThey are scientific theories.
Straight from Wikipedia:
This as opposed to creationism, which is not testable, has no predictive value and cannot be falsified because excuses can be made ad infinitum by simply invoking the magic sky fairy.
Your “It’s just a theory” doesn’t take into account that your frigging hypothesis isn’t even a theory.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:03 amMore from wikipedia on “It’s just a theory bub”
Starting to see the problem with teaching creationism is science classes yet?
November 15th, 2007 at 5:09 amComment by Bruce Gorton — November 15, 2007 @ 3:25 am
Congratulations, bud! You are the only atheist I’ve encountered who even has the nerve to say something against Islam on this blog. Though only one of your statements comes near what you say about Chrisitanity, you at least seem to have the courage of your convictions. I’m impressed. As for all the statements regarding evolution and creationism, evolution is still a theory. Making the statement that most people believe God created man hardly constitutes “teaching creationism.” It does constitute acknowledgement that evolution and origin of the earth theories are theories and are disbelieved by a majority of the people. ;)
November 15th, 2007 at 8:09 amupright left
Most people?
Outside of America, Australia, whose Young Earth movement boasts that Australia is a particular stronghold of creationism has about 5% of its population buying that bunk.
And that is what they were boasting.
And what teacher do you know would just love to use false consensus to undermine their own subject? What, do you want your Spannish teacher to say “Most Americans view this language as funny bird noises”?
November 15th, 2007 at 8:33 amMost people?
Outside of America, Australia, whose Young Earth movement boasts that Australia is a particular stronghold of creationism has about 5% of its population buying that bunk.
And that is what they were boasting.
And what teacher do you know would just love to use false consensus to undermine their own subject? What, do you want your Spannish teacher to say “Most Americans view this language as funny bird noises�
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 15, 2007 @ 8:33 am
I’m sorry, are you taxed for Australian schools or get to vote in their elections? I assumed be were talking about U.S. schools. Do schools in your districts decide what to teach based upon Australian society? In my district, kids have a unit on world cultures, including the major religions, (by the way, my kids weren’t converted to Hinduism, Islam, Judaism or any other religion by hearing that there are people who have those beliefs) but the majority of the of their classes are taught from the perpsective of our culture. That is generally the way schools operate. I’m aware of two teachers in our district who are atheists. They don’t share this with the students, but in conversation with parents, they’ve said they see no problem stating during the lesson on evolution that it is a theory and that many people believe that God created man. In fact, they said students usually mention their belief that God created man. Would you believe that those teachers actually acknowledge to the class that many people believe in God, that scientists have yet to produce conclusive evidence one way or the other, but that evolution is the prevailing opinion of a majority of scientists? They don’t encourage kids to accept God, they don’t belittle the kids who do, the class goes on and no one is hurt. Cool, huh?
November 15th, 2007 at 9:53 amOkay, it doesn’t like Wikipedia Sources.
look up Kitzmiller V Dover as an answer to your last post.
Particularly nice is the following:
As to your idea that atheist teachers would handle it that way? I think, to be absolutely honest, that you are lying. You don’t undermine your own subject.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:13 am“The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.â€
C’mon, bud, revolution? Acknowledging that most Americans believe in God will cause a revolution? Not only do you think little of the ability of our kids to make their own decisions, but you have precious little understanding of what it takes to start and sustain a revolution. A majority of Americans want us out of Iraq and nothing is happening. Our people are dying everyday and there isn’t the slightest sign of a revolution and you think there is a chance of a revolution over whether to point out a simple fact in a classroom? Where do live that you are able to hold on to such nutty ideas? Seattle? Get out a little, bud. Get to know people a little better. Don’t worry, no one will convert you against your will. ;)
——
“As to your idea that atheist teachers would handle it that way? I think, to be absolutely honest, that you are lying. You don’t undermine your own subject.”
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 15, 2007 @ 11:13 am
First you were trying to tell me what I believe, now you’re trying to tell me what I know? I keep telling ya, bud, you are a lousy mind reader. You refuse to believe that I hold moderate views and all atheists must share your rabid anti-religion views? Do you really think there are no teachers who respect the religious views of their students? It must be awfully hard for you to get along in this world, bud, with people refusing to be and believe as you choose. Isn’t it a common lib accusation that conservatives are intolerant and rigid in their thinking? I don’t think I’ve ever heard a conservative so dead set on telling people what they believe and what they know to be true as you. ;)
November 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pmLegal opinion on the subject which was passed as recently as 2 years ago. Go read the particulars of the case, get to see what it was all about. If you want religion in your schools, give it its own subject, it doesn’t need to be mentioned in science classes.
Teachers may well respect their student’s views, but by saying “You know most Americans see this as total nonsense” what you are telling the kids is “Hey, don’t bother studying it because most Americans think it is wrong anyway.” If you were a teacher would you take that approach?
And remember, you are dealing with kids, who haven’t reached the point where they are that capable of thinking for themselves. There are very good reasons why kids are not held entirely legally responsible in a court of law.
While the student bringing it up is good, and a teacher should deal with it from that point of view and explain what constitutes a scientific theory and why creationism fails to make the grade (In other words, why it is not taught) the teacher shouldn’t be bringing it up unprompted.
Indeed learning what constitutes a scientific theory would have done YOUR education wonders, because right now you seem to be totally ignorant on the subject. “Evolution is just a theory, just like gravity” as the old chestnut goes.
In a philosophy class or a history class creationism would actually be a valuable part of it because it is a philosophical movement with a historic impact. (Note that I am not saying keep it out of school, simply keep it out of science classes because it is not science.)
November 16th, 2007 at 2:04 amupright left
There is a difference between a belief in god and a belief in creationism. There is even a movement that feels that evolution is simply a mechanism in god’s design (IE: Creationism, in principle is right in that god created everything, evolution just explains how he made life.)
Indeed that is the basis of the Catholic “What is a day” argument (Which attempts to make evolution and creationism compatable.) As I pointed out earlier, the Catholic Church has publically come out in support of evolution.
This is not about belief in God, this is about keeping science classes scientific and you know it.
If ever a science teacher actually explained creationism and its flaws to his or her class with a full scientific argument you can bet there would be screaming from the religious right because that explaination is the one thing that creationists have been striving to avoid with their doctrine of “Teach the controversy.”
The massive holes in creationism as a hypothesis, including the fact that it relies not on evidence but on faith for its proof, the circular logic in its proofs (Aquinas’ all complex things had to have a creator, therefor there is a creator) the sheer lack of a real argument for it could well turn more then one Christian student atheist pretty quick.
And much as though I as an atheist would like to see that, I do not want to see yet another trial where some good teacher gets brought to court for advocacy against the Christian religion. Leave religion out of your science classes. It doesn’t belong there.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:26 am“There is a difference between a belief in god and a belief in creationism. There is even a movement that feels that evolution is simply a mechanism in god’s design (IE: Creationism, in principle is right in that god created everything, evolution just explains how he made life.)”
If you believe in creationism, you believe in God. Why split hairs over something like that? It has nothing to do with our discussion.
——
“This is not about belief in God, this is about keeping science classes scientific and you know it.”
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 16, 2007 @ 2:26 am
This is about belief in God and you know it. Students in a public school classroom, for which atheists and believers alike pay taxes, are being taught a scientific theory that contradicts the religious beliefs of a majority of the population. Of course, you’ll never have a problem with anything that contradicts a person’s religion because it’s not your belief. I don’t have a problem with teaching evolution. It is a theory. I do have a problem with teaching something that contradicts the beliefs of the majority without acknowlwdging that contradiction. Obviously, we will never agree on this. But, you must admit that I’m more tolerant than you because I acknowledge your unproven belief and you refuse to acknowledge mine.;)
November 16th, 2007 at 10:47 amupright left
I am actually more honest, because while you cry “Tolerance” I cry “Truth.”
Tolerance is a trap sprung on the left by the neocons shortly before they joined the right. It is an ideology based on viewing others as being inferior but putting up them rather then actually doing something about it.
As an example of this: If you tolerate black people then frankly you are still a racist because you don’t tolerate people you view as being equals.
If a belief is wrong is should be challenged, unfortunately creationism is wrong and if it was challenged in America’s schools the law suits you would get from it would make the current case history look slim.
This is an argument which has already been settled in court, it is why I told you to look up that case as an argument, or don’t you believe in America being a nation of laws?
As to what this majority believes?
Evidently it isn’t what the Bible teaches past genesis.
That is why as an atheist I argue in favour of having classes teaching world religions in your schools – as their own subject.
You keep saying that evolution is just a theory, you don’t even know what a theory is, don’t you think that maybe there is something wrong with your education system?
Oh, and stop saying its the majority’s belief, it is 45% of the population’s belief, just under half the population’s belief, not the majority’s belief. If what school was about was belief, then frankly you would have to teach geography without maps because even though you have a war going on there, well, lets let the article talk for itself.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article361584.ece
November 17th, 2007 at 2:51 am“I am actually more honest, because while you cry “Tolerance†I cry “Truth.â€
Tolerance is a trap sprung on the left by the neocons shortly before they joined the right. It is an ideology based on viewing others as being inferior but putting up them rather then actually doing something about it.”
Dang, bud, it’s almost like two different people are posting under your name. Most of your posts make sense and then there are ones like this. When did tolerance come to mean “putting up with inferiority?” I’ve not come across any discussion in which it was meant that way. That’s one thing for which the left should be happy to take credit. Tolerance, recognizing and respecting the beliefs and differences among us, is what has allowed minorities to make the gains that they have. You can’t change the meaning just because you now have the chance to affect others with your intolerance. The shoe is on the other foot now, bud. ;)
——
“If a belief is wrong is should be challenged, unfortunately creationism is wrong and if it was challenged in America’s schools the law suits you would get from it would make the current case history look slim.”
This is an argument which has already been settled in court, it is why I told you to look up that case as an argument, or don’t you believe in America being a nation of laws?”
You believe creationism is wrong. You can’t prove it. No court has stated that creationism is wrong. Courts have said you can’t teach the Biblical view of creation. Even you must be able to see the difference.
——
“As to what this majority believes?
Evidently it isn’t what the Bible teaches past genesis.”
If you want to change the discussion from what peope believe to knowledge of the Bible, then, yes, general knowledge of the Bible is seriously lacking. By the same token, you believe in evolution with bits and pieces of evidence, but nothing conclusive. That, my friend, is a theory. You have no proof of how the earth began, you have theory. I have a different theory. I could go into how events in the Bible are verified in history, but I’m sure you know that and have dismissed it. Since I can’t provide proof of miracles, and that is what you would require, that would be fruitless. If you need to tell yourself your beliefs are proven to get along, that’s fine by me, bud. Just don’t accept me to go along with your thoeries.
——
Oh, and stop saying its the majority’s belief, it is 45% of the population’s belief, just under half the population’s belief, not the majority’s belief. If what school was about was belief, then frankly you would have to teach geography without maps because even though you have a war going on there, well, lets let the article talk for itself.
http://news.independent.co.uk/ world/ americas/ article361584.ece
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 17, 2007 @ 2:51 am
The site of your last link is down temporarily. I’ll try it again later. Don’t jump to the conclusion that I’m ignoring it like some of your fellow libs who don’t get an immediate response to a link. Although, if the site says only 45% of Americans believe in God, you’ll have to provide more than one link for that and preferably one from the U.S. because that would be one heck of a decline in a couple of years. We all know it’s declining and will continue right along with the decline in morals. I don’t dispute where we are headed. (In fact it was predicted.) But I don’t believe we’ve gotten that far yet. ;)
November 17th, 2007 at 10:14 amIf what school was about was belief, then frankly you would have to teach geography without maps because even though you have a war going on there, well, lets let the article talk for itself.
http://news.independent.co.uk/ world/ americas/ article361584.ece
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 17, 2007 @ 2:51 am
Well, I saw the site and I fail to see why you felt it had anything to do with the discussion unless it’s that a few young people don’t believe it’s important to be able to place other countries on a map. If that was your point, I agree that Americans need to increase their knowledge of geography. But it hardly compares to one’s belief in God and has nothing to do with teaching a theory that is in direct conflict with with that belief and whether we should acknowledge that contradiction. ;)
November 17th, 2007 at 3:03 pmupright left
Lets see: Bits of pieces of evidence versus absolutely no evidence whatsoever except for what some guys said after they spent too much time out in the sun without adequate provisions and possibly prior to the invention of the hat. And that’s not even getting into the trustworthiness of a guy who spent the bulk of his time prior to getting in God’s good books trying to prostitute his wife (Abraham.)
Further, the “Bits and pieces” of evidence, such as the formation of the earth (Which is largely based on how suns formed) have proved highly good on a predictive level. The answers gained from these theories have proven consistent and have rested upon multiple sources.
You still haven’t put across your knowledge of what a scientific theory is, mostly because you are too stupid to actually figure it out. The God Hypothesis is untestable, we have centuries of animal breeding, hybridisation and genetic research testing evolution. Never mind the tons of evidence based off of observations of the natural world, and fossil evidence. Evolution is a theory pretty much on the same level as gravity is a theory.
About the only serious country that believes in creationism is America, everywhere else the bloody creationists are termed crack-pots along with the AIDS deniers and flat-earthers. The case came up in the Scopes Monkey Trial, and oh wow, did the rest of the world end up laughing at America.
The majority of Americans can’t point out Iraq on a map. Even though you are at war there.
If belief was what we based scientific education on, you would end up with Iraq being placed somewhere in the middle of the Sahara desert, which would likely be placed in the north poll and peopled by elves.
Belief isn’t science, science is based on testable hypothesis, and your “Creationism” is an untested, untestable hypothesis. Sure, there is room for it on a curriculum, put in its own class and teach world religions, but don’t put it in a science classroom.
Science is there to teach scientific knowledge and theories. Not untestable hypothesis that are only taken seriously at all because the vast majority of Americans haven’t even bothered to read the book.
November 18th, 2007 at 8:40 am“Lets see: Bits of pieces of evidence…”
As long as that’s good enough for you, bud, more power to ya.
——
“You still haven’t put across your knowledge of what a scientific theory is, mostly because you are too stupid to actually figure it out. The God Hypothesis is untestable, we have centuries of animal breeding, hybridisation and genetic research testing evolution.”
Getting a little testy, there bud? I’ve told you repeatedly what a theory is. I’ve even given you an example: evolution. A proposed idea that can’t be proven.
——
“Evolution is a theory pretty much on the same level as gravity is a theory.”
Just one small difference, bud. Gravity has been proven, evolution hasn’t. ;)
——
“About the only serious country that believes in creationism is America…”
I suppose that statement could be true depending upon your definition of a serious country. I assume, by that, you mean predominately lib nations. What happened to the lib view that all nations, no matter how small or whether they agree with us, are equally worthy? Hypocrisy. ;)
——-
“The majority of Americans can’t point out Iraq on a map. Even though you are at war there.”
I had as much to do with starting that war as you did, bud. ;)
——
“Science is there to teach scientific knowledge and theories. Not untestable hypothesis that are only taken seriously at all because the vast majority of Americans haven’t even bothered to read the book.”
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 18, 2007 @ 8:40 am
Generally, scientists seek proof for their theories and refrain from trying to coerce society to go along with them until they are proven. Except in the case of evolution and the origin of the earth. Your standards of proof wane regarding that. You can’t prove your belief, nor can I. It’s too bad that God didn’t chose to prove himself to mankind. But, then, He is God, He gets to make that decision. I’m sure you will have a brief opportunity to question that in the end. ;)
November 18th, 2007 at 10:20 amupright left
There is plenty of proof with evolution. There is the fossil record, there is genetic testing, there are vestigial organs, there are animals that demonstrate the usability of a “part” of an organ (Flat worms for example have eyes that can only percieve light or dark, eagles have eyes that are much better then our own. The flying squirrel uses a primitive version of a bat’s wing to glide from tree to tree.)
There are animals which are closely related enough to breed infertile young, we have developed new species of plants, we have developed an inumerable number of breeds of cats, dogs, sheep, cows, etc…
We have even noted how different species are particularly well adapted to living in particular places, heck we even have different races of humans which have different tolerances to sunlight based on where they live (White guys suffer more from skin cancer.)
We even have wild evolution being verified in bugs developing immunities to poisons, new strains of diseases coming out every year (In fact it is why there is no cure to AIDS, the AIDS virus mutates at such a rate that any cure for it is almost impossible.)
About all we don’t have is a thousands of years old book, which includes major not-explain-awayable lies (Jesus’ crucifixion and the tradition of clemency for example, or Jesus birth and the census) to say god told us so.
The principal of evolution, on a whole has been proven. On specific details? Not entirely, there are things we don’t know about because like most theories it is a large concept that requires further study. Hence why it is a theory, we don’t know everything about it but we know enough to state that this is pretty much proven.
Theory in science and in common parlance are two different words. A theory in science means there is evidence for it, it is falsifiable, and that it can be used to predict an outcome. Evolution has passed all of these hurdles and what is more, is central to the teaching of biology.
Creationism hasn’t passed a single one of those hurdles. It is not testable, it is not falsifiable, and it is not useful as a predictive mechanism.
About all it is, is included in a book that would hold that the Romans, renowned for their administrative abilities, would declare a census which would have Jesus’ father go to the city of his distant ancestor (Which the Romans probably didn’t know or even particularly care about) in order to fill out a census form – examples of which seem to have illuded archeologists ever since, along with any other records pertaining to it.
The nearest to verification that particular story has is a local census taken 40 years later that has a much more sensible means of being done (Local officials taking it rather then long treks to other cities.)
Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism isn’t.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:06 am“…we don’t know everything about it but we know enough to state that this is pretty much proven.”
Comment by Bruce Gorton — November 19, 2007 @ 4:06 am
It’s good, for future reference, to know this is an acceptable measure in your mind. Very scientific. ;)
November 19th, 2007 at 4:38 pm