Antimulticulture
2005-10-20 13:24:36 UTC
Kangaroo Court
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8908
By George Neumayr
10/20/2005
No sooner had the Darwinists ended their 80th anniversary celebrations of
the Scopes trial than they turned their attention to conducting censorship
trials of their own. The ACLU has gone from defending teachers to
prosecuting them. In a federal courtroom this week, the ACLU argued that
science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania, are not free
under the Constitution to question evolutionary theory. That the Dover
school board has to defend the constitutionality of its science curriculum
before a federal judge is one more illustration of the insane First
Amendment jurisprudence of the last 50 years.
The elite, sensing a chance to score a victory against critics of Darwinism,
are watching the trial breathlessly. Slate has assigned famed correspondent
Hanna Rosin to cover the trial; the New York Times dispatched Laurie
Goodstein -- note that she is a religion not science reporter for the
paper -- to cover it. There is an all-hands-on-deck feel to the reporting,
which has been made even more critical by the presence of the Dover school
board's star witness, Lehigh university biochemist Michael Behe. A dreaded
scientist who perversely refuses to accept the "overwhelming and obvious
consensus" in favor of Darwinism.
While neither Rosin nor Goodstein are up to the task of explaining
evolutionary theory convincingly, they do realize the sacred duty of
stopping this scientist. He's wandered much too far on to the Darwinists'
turf.
Garbling the elite's dogmatic schema, Goodstein, in the Wednesday edition of
the Times, had Behe challenging the "Darwinian theory of random natural
selection." Random natural selection? No, no, Ms. Goodstein, nature selects
not randomly but necessarily, choosing random mutations that happen to prove
useful, under Darwin's theory. What is nature? And how does it choose with
such incredible precision and marvelous efficiency? Well, that's not
important and certainly not within the province of science, even if
Aristotle, who probably believed in Gods and went to temple, did consider
these questions in The Physics and concluded that nature requires an
intelligent cause.
Goodstein doesn't have the Darwinian terminology down, but she is keenly
aware of the elite's favorite argument for evolutionary theory: the
scientific establishment says it is so and no reasonable person would
question these omniscient scientists. Here's how she presents that point:
"Scientific critics of intelligent design -- and there are many -- have said
for years that its proponents never propose any positive arguments or proofs
of their theory, but rest entirely on finding flaws in evolution."
What delightful casualness.
[Ed. Evolution, as the supposedly "accepted" viewpoint in the classroom and labs
needs to address these flaws, not go on a wild goose chase picking apart ID,
which is but one idea as to the origin of life, universe and everything...]
Never mind that through history scientists -- and there are many -- have
considered it "science" to examine a theory and find it inadequate if it
couldn't explain the facts they did know, such as that beings in nature
contain awe-inspiring intricacy, beings they couldn't replicate with their
own intelligence. But then what do they know next to the scientific experts
at the ACLU?
Aristotle was one of those creationists in a cheap toga who concluded that
the abundant design in nature points to an intelligent cause even if that
cause isn't visible. "For teeth and all other natural things either
invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the
results of chance or spontaneity is this true," he wrote in The Physics, a
book that the ACLU would argue violates the separation between church and
state.
[Ed. Which is code for a separation of morality and state, all part of the
same nilhistic agenda, y'see...]
Though Darwinism resembles an astonishing fable of chance -- the Greek
mythmaker Empedocles, not Darwin, deserves credit for launching the idea
that nature is undesigned and the product of genetic happenstance --
Goodstein feels confident enough to lampoon Intelligent Design as no more
scientific than "astrology." She provides no proof in her story, but leads
with the claim that Behe "acknowledged that under his definition of a
scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as intelligent design."
Doesn't Goodstein know that astrology is one of her secularist audience's
favorite hobbies?
The problem with Behe's testimony for Hanna Rosin was not too little
scientific explanation but too much. She found it all very taxing.
"The courtroom, it turns out, is a poor place to conduct a science class.
Behe runs through specific examples of 'irreducible complexity' -- his idea
that certain biochemical structures are too complex to have evolved in
parts: blood clotting cascades, the immune system, cells," she writes. "He
claims his critics have misread crucial bits of data. To a nonscientist such
as myself (and presumably the judge), this is like Chinese: I recognize the
language, but I have no idea whether the speaker is faking it. I have no
context, no deeper knowledge of the relevant literature. The reporter seated
next to me has written only four lines of notes for three hours of
testimony. The mere fact that the trial is being conducted in such highly
technical language means, for the moment, ID is winning."
Nevertheless, she is sure Behe's wrong, and adduces herself as evidence that
intelligent design is impossible, "I need look no further than myself for
counter-evidence: weak ankles, diabetes, high probability of future death.
If there is a designer, she doesn't seem so intelligent."
[Ed. You have to laugh, they whinge and whine about their opponents defending
through attack then she turns around and offers this non-explanation for how
evolution go to give us ankles in the first place! :-D]
Scientists who stood alone used to inspire a little more deference in the
left. But Michael Behe is one nonconformist they won't defend. The silencers
of unpopular science once feared ACLU lawyers. Now they retain them.
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multiculty
"Abolish Multiculty and String Up The Traitors!"
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8908
By George Neumayr
10/20/2005
No sooner had the Darwinists ended their 80th anniversary celebrations of
the Scopes trial than they turned their attention to conducting censorship
trials of their own. The ACLU has gone from defending teachers to
prosecuting them. In a federal courtroom this week, the ACLU argued that
science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania, are not free
under the Constitution to question evolutionary theory. That the Dover
school board has to defend the constitutionality of its science curriculum
before a federal judge is one more illustration of the insane First
Amendment jurisprudence of the last 50 years.
The elite, sensing a chance to score a victory against critics of Darwinism,
are watching the trial breathlessly. Slate has assigned famed correspondent
Hanna Rosin to cover the trial; the New York Times dispatched Laurie
Goodstein -- note that she is a religion not science reporter for the
paper -- to cover it. There is an all-hands-on-deck feel to the reporting,
which has been made even more critical by the presence of the Dover school
board's star witness, Lehigh university biochemist Michael Behe. A dreaded
scientist who perversely refuses to accept the "overwhelming and obvious
consensus" in favor of Darwinism.
While neither Rosin nor Goodstein are up to the task of explaining
evolutionary theory convincingly, they do realize the sacred duty of
stopping this scientist. He's wandered much too far on to the Darwinists'
turf.
Garbling the elite's dogmatic schema, Goodstein, in the Wednesday edition of
the Times, had Behe challenging the "Darwinian theory of random natural
selection." Random natural selection? No, no, Ms. Goodstein, nature selects
not randomly but necessarily, choosing random mutations that happen to prove
useful, under Darwin's theory. What is nature? And how does it choose with
such incredible precision and marvelous efficiency? Well, that's not
important and certainly not within the province of science, even if
Aristotle, who probably believed in Gods and went to temple, did consider
these questions in The Physics and concluded that nature requires an
intelligent cause.
Goodstein doesn't have the Darwinian terminology down, but she is keenly
aware of the elite's favorite argument for evolutionary theory: the
scientific establishment says it is so and no reasonable person would
question these omniscient scientists. Here's how she presents that point:
"Scientific critics of intelligent design -- and there are many -- have said
for years that its proponents never propose any positive arguments or proofs
of their theory, but rest entirely on finding flaws in evolution."
What delightful casualness.
[Ed. Evolution, as the supposedly "accepted" viewpoint in the classroom and labs
needs to address these flaws, not go on a wild goose chase picking apart ID,
which is but one idea as to the origin of life, universe and everything...]
Never mind that through history scientists -- and there are many -- have
considered it "science" to examine a theory and find it inadequate if it
couldn't explain the facts they did know, such as that beings in nature
contain awe-inspiring intricacy, beings they couldn't replicate with their
own intelligence. But then what do they know next to the scientific experts
at the ACLU?
Aristotle was one of those creationists in a cheap toga who concluded that
the abundant design in nature points to an intelligent cause even if that
cause isn't visible. "For teeth and all other natural things either
invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the
results of chance or spontaneity is this true," he wrote in The Physics, a
book that the ACLU would argue violates the separation between church and
state.
[Ed. Which is code for a separation of morality and state, all part of the
same nilhistic agenda, y'see...]
Though Darwinism resembles an astonishing fable of chance -- the Greek
mythmaker Empedocles, not Darwin, deserves credit for launching the idea
that nature is undesigned and the product of genetic happenstance --
Goodstein feels confident enough to lampoon Intelligent Design as no more
scientific than "astrology." She provides no proof in her story, but leads
with the claim that Behe "acknowledged that under his definition of a
scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as intelligent design."
Doesn't Goodstein know that astrology is one of her secularist audience's
favorite hobbies?
The problem with Behe's testimony for Hanna Rosin was not too little
scientific explanation but too much. She found it all very taxing.
"The courtroom, it turns out, is a poor place to conduct a science class.
Behe runs through specific examples of 'irreducible complexity' -- his idea
that certain biochemical structures are too complex to have evolved in
parts: blood clotting cascades, the immune system, cells," she writes. "He
claims his critics have misread crucial bits of data. To a nonscientist such
as myself (and presumably the judge), this is like Chinese: I recognize the
language, but I have no idea whether the speaker is faking it. I have no
context, no deeper knowledge of the relevant literature. The reporter seated
next to me has written only four lines of notes for three hours of
testimony. The mere fact that the trial is being conducted in such highly
technical language means, for the moment, ID is winning."
Nevertheless, she is sure Behe's wrong, and adduces herself as evidence that
intelligent design is impossible, "I need look no further than myself for
counter-evidence: weak ankles, diabetes, high probability of future death.
If there is a designer, she doesn't seem so intelligent."
[Ed. You have to laugh, they whinge and whine about their opponents defending
through attack then she turns around and offers this non-explanation for how
evolution go to give us ankles in the first place! :-D]
Scientists who stood alone used to inspire a little more deference in the
left. But Michael Behe is one nonconformist they won't defend. The silencers
of unpopular science once feared ACLU lawyers. Now they retain them.
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multiculty
"Abolish Multiculty and String Up The Traitors!"