(CNN) — Prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents criticized President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday for choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration next month.Warren, one of the most powerful religious leaders in the nation, has championed issues such as calling for the reduction of global poverty, human rights abuses, and the AIDS epidemic.But the founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, has also adhered to socially conservative stances — including his opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights that puts him at odds with many in the Democratic Party, especially the party’s most liberal wing.”[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now,” Andrew Sullivan wrote on the Atlantic Web site Wednesday.People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told CNN she is “deeply disappointed” with the choice of Warren, and said the powerful platform at the inauguration should instead have been given to someone who is “consistent mainstream American values.”There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson,” Kolbert said. “The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical.”Dobson, a social conservative leader, is founder and chairman of Focus on the Family.Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama, defended the choice of Warren, saying, “This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.”
Sorry, Mr. President, this will NOT be an inclusive event. If you are to dismiss the 16% of the population by INSISTING on preaching about God, you are not being inclusive. The prayer at the nomination was bad enough, and you’re making it worse for your inauguration by employing Rick Warren to preach at the country on your behalf.Reminder: You’re a Democrat.
castletonsnob
I notice your long citation above is dated 1990.
That’s the trouble with most scientific info that’s available online for free access: It’s old.
Since 1990, PE has stopped being controversial in the world scientific community. Even Richard Dawkins, who was no fan of Gould’s, has accepted it.
And jcc, in claiming “indisputable and unequivocal lack of evidence for PE”, is making a fool of himself. He would make an even bigger fool of himself if he really tried to engage Myers.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/was_that_fun_or_what.php
castletonsnob:
Thanks! Again, that was an interesting reference, but as usual, after doing some digging and reading up on the details of the study by Jackson and Cheetham that Gould cites, it’s clear that they did not observe a speciation event of the bryozoans. They merely determined that the morphologies of the genera they were looking at were a reasonable genetic match to those in the fossil record. They clearly did not breed new generations until they observed a completely new morphology or new species incapable of reproducing with the parent species. In essence, all their paper states is, “yep, brand new species do abruptly appear in the fossil record.” Its two most salient quotes are:
and:
Note: no indication of speciation being reproduced in the laboratory, and no explanation for the abrupt changes in the fossil record. You can read it for yourself at: http://tinyurl.com/85dltk
But, there’s no exclusion of “supernatural” in that definition either. In fact, the inclusion of “phenomena” in your definition can easily encompass the concept of “supernatural.”
You seem to be the one making that addendum to the definition. If science is the method by which knowledge is ascertained, then it cannot exclude evidence of supernatural phenomena.
Ergo the reason why their Senior Fellows, who are experts in their fields, hold advanced degrees in “legitimate science” from “legitimate” institutions of higher learning.
Oh yeah, you mean like the “science” that’s used to support PE and evolution?
Gee, that demand sounds vaguely familiar, where have I heard that before? Eh, how did you put it? — Oh yeah, “ask and you shall receive.” Ok, here ya go: http://tinyurl.com/9e8ljp
Actually, I’m just getting warmed-up.
…which can then be used to identify indications of design found in this world that could not be randomly produced by the natural world…
which again, is not anti-intellectual or un-scientific
Only to someone willing to accept slipshod, second-rate, mediocre and demonstrably poor “scientific” standards
You have all my sympathies for choosing to ride that sinking ship to its deserved watery grave.
Krys:
No.
Really? If that were true then that would make evolution the “Grand Unification Theory” of life and if it were true then I’d have expected it to have propelled our grasp of both those fields well beyond our current understanding by now.
You’re right. It topples quite well on its own.
You’re right, it is. In the real world, credentials talk, BS walks…
Still living in your deluded world of relativism I see. How sad. What shocker it’s gonna be for you when the day finally comes that slaps you up-side the head with the absolute reality of your own death.
HA! I treat evolution like theology? Oh man. My sides are splitting!!! Thanks Krys, I needed a good belly laugh!
jcc keeps harping on experimentation as if that was all there was to science. If s/h/i/t had her/his/its/their way, astronomy couldn’t be a science, because a planet or star can’t be brot into the laboratory and experimented on.
Fortunately, species can be, and have been.
Darwin explained that, you idiot. Mutation and natural selection.
You claim to be a scientist. If you were, you’d know your way around scientific journals.
JCC claims to be a scientist?! Really? What discipline? This ought to be good.
NotSoFast:
Yeah, you’re right. Corroborating experimental data is really just meaningless fluff; we all know that real scientists can’t be bothered by actually taking time to support their hypothesis with such nonsense.
Yer rite, a planit sertinly kant be brot into a laboratory… and the urth is really just a big blue marbul…
Right — the same way Ptolemy explained the retrograde motion of the planets with his scientifically verifiable “epicycles”…
In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve been the one here who’s had to carry castletonsnob’s water by keeping him honest with his so-called “scientific” references that he’s been shooting from the hip with.
And given your demonstrable ignorance on the subject (not to mention your abject lack of spelling skills), I’d be a little more judicious with casting such aspersions if I were you.
Putting me in the same category as evolutionary science! Flattery will get you nowhere.
JCC
Please sum up the thesis of your argument. If you can.
OT
“His IQ is 125. Are you smarter than Barack Obama? Take the IQ test.”
http://wboy.com/story.cfm?func=showstories&catid=2
I didn’t take it myself. I think IQ tests are crap.
Ah, I might point out that jcc here
Completely screws the pooch, as his citation clearly states this:
Because our results have been consistent across three distantly related genera, our studies support punctuated equilibrium as a measurable reality. So far as living and fossil bryozoans can tell us, patterns of punctuation and stasis–rather than slow and steady gradual evolution–really do exist in the history of these ancient colonial creatures.
Since he’s been hollering ‘PE’s false’, his citation says otherwise, it’s not just egg on the face, it’s the whole freakin’ omelet.
Also:
It’s obviously propelled both of those way past YOUR grasp of either field, that’s for sure.
And I’m STILL NOT A RELATIVIST, you idiot.
& I’ve never said there weren’t some absolutes, but scientists usually don’t speak in terms of absolutes.
Clearly, allegory rots the mind of some people.
Krys:
Given the Darwinists compulsion to camouflage their obvious scientific inadequacies with lots of techno-gobbledyook, I realize it can be difficult to follow what they sell as science in their publications, so let me try explaining this again. Jackson’s and Cheetham’s (what a great name for a Darwinist
) study clearly made no attempt at reproducing a controlled speciation event. Instead, they merely determined that the genetic makeup of the living specimens they were studying contained no “cryptic” species within the genus. In other words, they wanted to make sure that there was no latent potential for the genetic expressions of different morphologies. Gould’s own description :
Once they determined that, then they genetically tied that genera’s distinct exoskeleton morphology to that found in the fossil record:
Once that link was established, then they proclaimed that
which neither validates that an evolution of the species actually occurs nor explains how it occurs — it just acknowledges that a new species suddenly appears. They simply claim victory by saying because we can tie living species to those in the fossil record, and new species appear abruptly in it, then PE is a measurably “real” mechanism of evolution. despite the fact that they didn’t demonstrate that a sub group had been isolated, or by what, or for how long, or what environmental pressures caused the evolution. Yeah, that’s real good science there. And Krys, you’re the one in need of a napkin.
Well, ya sure don’t talk like it.
I still think it was you who once said something like “absolutes only exist in a computer.”
Of course not, that way they never have to admit they were ever wrong about anything.
Sure. In a nutshell, the “theory” of evolution is without scientific merit. A speciation event of the type that Darwinists claim the fossil record supposedly contains has yet to be duplicated by a controlled experiment on a contemporary, living species. Yet, despite that lack of corroborating, repeatable evidence, evolution (like the “theory” of man-made global warming) is an assumed absolute “truth” of a postmodern, amoral, humanistic, materialistic culture that simultaneously and hypocritically ostracizes anyone who strives to abide by an absolute code of morality.
Example of speciation in a controlled, laboratory environment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5080298.stm
Of course, the butterfly didn’t transform into a horse or an octopus so this is unlikely to convince jcc of anything… unless Drudge decides to link to it.
How anyone can think they can actually salvage this:
while bad-mouthing PE is…well, mind-boggling.
So, tally of fallacies jcc has performed (note I say ‘performed’, because Giacomo’s been at it again):
A. Tu quoque
B. Ad hominem
C. Loki’s wager
D. Non sequitur, &
E. Equivocation.
Wow, jcc’s competing for the phallacy master award for 2008. Watch out, Phreddy, you got competition!
JCC
In 1905 de Vries found an unusual variant among the primroses he studied. The usual species has a chromosome number of 14. The variant he observed had a chromosome number of 28. He was unable to breed the variant with the usual species. Is that an laboratory observed instance of speciation? If a new variant is viable and reproduces yet is unable to breed with the old variant then you have a new species. Are you really going to deny that? Are you going to argue that the experiment wasn’t “controlled”? So what. It was observed.
Really man, what is with you and evolution?
You might as well ask what’s with him and climate change, or what’s with him and the biological origin of petroleum, or what’s with him and his selective citing of so-called NDE ‘research,’ or what’s with him and his buying into every wacky conspiracy theory that the “Barack The Magic Negro” originator spews out over the radio, or what’s with him and his delusion that he somehow has access to more information than liberals, or what’s with him and his obsession with this blog.
Many questions.
Krys:
And what boggles my mind is how, after a research paper had been clearly shown to have failed to demonstrate any details on how an asserted instance of PE occurred, someone could continue to remain unskeptical of it…
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Interesting article, thanks. Though it mentioned nothing of the “new species” not being able to cross-breed with either of its “parent” species (which, I believe, is a defining characteristic of a species), so if anything, this so-called “hybrid speciation” serves only to further blur the definition of the already nebulous concept of what constitutes a species. But even so, this is the complete opposite of what Darwinists suppose has happened in the fossil record — and directly contradicts the premise of PE (which requires the isolation of a sub group, not the interbreeding with another very similar species.
Yeah, it’s-a-changin’ all right; nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer: global cooling = global warming. http://tinyurl.com/8p7d83
Yeah! What’s up with that anyway? http://tinyurl.com/8oup45
Oh geeze.
That’s a good one — you’re still a dupe of the drive-bys: http://tinyurl.com/2qu2sw
That’s even better! Yeah, I have the “super-secret decoder ring” that liberals don’t have for accessing hidden info on the internet!
Better yet, what’s with your obsession with me?
With many answers.
jcc
This is progress:
Yep, exactly. Nature doesn’t divide organisms into species – that’s just something humans do, and rather imperfectly. So if you understand that much, I’m not sure why you demand some sort of verifiable speciation experiment as proof. Assuming such an experiment is even possible, what exactly is supposed to be our yardstick, given the “nebulous concept of what constitutes a species?”
How scientific.
In a word, fringe. Doesn’t mean it’s not true, just that it’s foolish as hell to place your bets there.
Actually, the ‘drive by media’ has been very clear about David Ehrenstein’s role in the controversy. (And for the record, that fella is WAY further to the left than I’ll ever be.) But only a crass son-of-a-bitch like Rush would have the gaul to play that song day in and day out, and then make lame excuses for his lack of class by claiming it’s a ‘parody of white guilt’ or that it is his job is to ‘illustrate absurdity by being absurd.’ Yeah, tell that to Paul Rodriguez. Truth be told though, I hope he keeps it up. Just like with the Rev Wright controversy, we need to get these feelings out into the open so that we’ll all realize how stupid they are.
More progress – you see the absurdity as well.
A fair question. Really, why do any of us bother with you? I’m willing to entertain the possibility that it’s all just a childish game of oneupsmanship. But the fact remains that you’re the conservative christian who leaves daily comments on an atheist blog. I’m not doing anything comparable, nor have I ever felt the temptation.
Point out a missing link and the creationist says now there are two more. Point out observed speciation (observation is the basis of all science) and the creationist asks for an “speciation experiment”. God-o-gaps.
jcc
Gosh, the depth of your understanding of evolutionary theory is mind-boggling!
And I bet you’ve even learned how to count past 10 with your shoes on — and now think you’re a better mathematician than Gauss or Newton.
I left out red herrings too, it appears.
The research paper you cited clearly gives the nod to PE constituting a reality – while you keep harping on how it’s not.
Anyone w/half a brain doesn’t cite a paper that runs contrary to what they’re stumping on, @ least w/caveats, which you didn’t supply.
Truthfully, I’m not sure where I stand on PE, & this whole topic is boring the hell outta me, so take your imagined victory & run w/it.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Nice of you to finally concede that…
Because that’s what objective science should demand, not just me. Besides, what’s sauce for the goose; ya know, two can play the “show me the evidence of your claim” game.
That’s partially the point. Any concept that is supposedly scientifically base should lend itself to being experimentally reproduced.
How about a thoroughly controlled and documented experiment that produces a daughter organism that is genetically and morphologically distinct from its progenitors — complete with demonstrable transitional forms at every new morphological step?
You’re tellin’ me. If only Algore had so much as half a brain.
Actually, I think it’s more like, “thinking outside the box.”
Really? Like there’s never been an instance of a significant scientific advancement that resulted from “unconventional thinking?” It’s no wonder you guys can’t get past this whole, “well since there’s no other explanation we’ll accept, evolution, has to be true,” mentality.
I’d have to see it to believe it.
Wow, so you actually have listened to him!! So, what does Rodriguez have to do with Uh-bama being the “magic negro?”
Yeah, you’d think that after 20 years, this country would’ve gotten sick and tired of his “stupidly” and quit listening long ago…
Yes, it was quite absurd for you to somehow think I thought I had access to more information than you guys.
Yep, and it can be fun at times.
You don’t have to. In a culture fed by a media so steeped in atheistic materialism, I’m just trying to level the playing field by coming here.
jcc,
Even though I feel like this conversation really needs to end, I simply can’t help but point this out. You originally said:
And when I first called you on it, you held your ground:
So who was being absurd again?
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Sorry, I thought you understood that since the vast majority of liberals (and atheists here) will not read Drudge, or tune into to FNC or Rush or Hannity or any of the “alternative” media, they are unwittingly restricting themselves to essentially only what the NYT deems as “newsworthy.” So, by consuming news from those other sources, I am exposing myself to “a far greater variety, far more objective, and far more unfiltered sources than where [they] get [theirs],” and that does make me “aware of more information than most liberals are here.”
jcc,
I can’t speak for all the liberals here, but most of the ones I know personally do spend time on the right wing news sites and a few that I know will even flip on right wing radio as a sort of ‘ironic’ (remember this is Portland) form of entertainment. My sister was completely addicted to reading comment threads at foxnews.com during the entire election cycle. (Not commenting, just reading)
It’s not a daily exercise, and no we don’t always catch every new conspiracy theory, but you can be assured that we are aware.