Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hezekiah jones · 05-29-2002, 01:17 PM

Quote:

[A] battle is raging in Ohio over whether opposing theories to evolution should be taught in the classroom. Is this just a way for religious followers to sneak in creationism or a chance to teach competing theories about human development?

Rev. Barry Lynn, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Ken Conner, Family Research Council

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/crossfire/" target="_blank">Crossfire</a>

7 p.m. EST May 29

bluefugue · 05-29-2002, 02:28 PM

Oh brother. Does this mean snotty Tucker Carlson is going to have to argue against evolution?

Grumpy · 05-29-2002, 04:59 PM

Honestly, I don't have a lot of confidence in Barry Lynn's ability to argue against the subtleties of ID. It's a very nuanced strategy, and not well suited to his usual Establishment Clause bag o' tricks.

hezekiah jones · 05-29-2002, 06:21 PM

Well, that was sure crap.

Tucker "It's Only A Theory" Carlson and another braindead idiot from the Family Research Council. Formidable. No wonder 71% of Americans actually think there's evidence that debunks evolution. Too bad neither of those two morons had any handy.

Good quotes from Richard Dawkins and Tom DeLay though.

JamesKrieger · 05-29-2002, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
<strong>Well, that was sure crap.

Tucker "It's Only A Theory" Carlson and another braindead idiot from the Family Research Council. Formidable. No wonder 71% of Americans actually think there's evidence that debunks evolution. Too bad neither of those two morons had any handy.

Good quotes from Richard Dawkins and Tom DeLay though.</strong>

I thought Lynn did a good job of defending evolutionary theory. 20 minutes is not enough time though for a good treatment on the subject. Yeah, I got sick of the FRC guy talking about "all the weaknesses" in evolutionary theory and how "intelligent design" did a "better job" of explaining everything.

hezekiah jones · 05-30-2002, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JamesKrieger:
I thought Lynn did a good job of defending evolutionary theory. 20 minutes is not enough time though for a good treatment on the subject.

You're right. At least Barry Lynn acknowledged that none of them were scientists, and pointed out (correctly) that there isn't a single paper in the literature supporting "intelligent design" or "design theory."

Some representative drivel from the "disciples of ID":

Quote:

CONNOR: ... evolutionary theory is supported by very weak scientific foundation and a very strong ideological bias.

The usual Discovery Institute-type lie.

Quote:

CONNOR: If evolutionary theory is so strong, evolutionists ought not to resent or oppose the introduction of evidence to the Contrary ...

So what is it? They love to repeat this assertion, but never present any evidence, aside from misrepresenting the conclusions reached in papers they didn't even write, let alone understand.

Quote:

CARLSON: So why not tell school children that, the truth that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that. It's a theory. [...] A scientist would say to you, this is what we believe. These are the things we know. These add up to a series of -- this is conjecture. [...] It's a theory. It is ... Has it been proved?

Tucker doesn't even know the difference between "theory," "conjecture," and "proof."

Quote:

CONNOR: Is it really so far fetched when one sees a watch lying on the sidewalk to infer from that that there must have been a watchmaker because this is a precision instrument, orderly, systematic and the like.

Never heard that one before.

Quote:

CONNOR: I would suggest to you that the absence of transitional fossils from the fossil record in any number of gaps in the evolutionary history require more faith to believe in Darwin's view than to believe that a watchmaker made a watch ...

That was worthy of Hovind.

Quote:

LYNN: One of the reasons that we have a disarmingly high amount of scientific illiteracy in this country is because there have been special interest groups since 1925 trying very hard and very successfully to keep sound scientific ... education out of schools.

How true.

Quote:

CONNOR: If the theory is so strong ... why do you want to censor -- if the theory is so strong, why do you want to censor ... [...] What Barry Lynn is suggesting is basically that King Kong is our great uncle and that's why we like bananas on our cereal.

There you have it. The case for "intelligent design."

trunks2k · 05-30-2002, 11:32 AM

Connor kept going on about how you have to allow children to see alternate scientific theories in order to get a good science education. Of course children should be taught alternate scientific theories, but there aren't any other ones out ther besides evolution. There are different theories/hypothses inside the theory of evolution, but nothing outside of it. Connor fails to notice that ID theory is not any sort of scientific theory.
Lynn did a relatively good job of defending evolution, i.e. noting that nobody at the table were scientists and everyone had a very limited knowledge of the subject and it's supporting evidence. However, Lynn should have jumped on two points made by Connor and Tucker:

1. Evolution is "only" a theory
Lynn, did note that gravity was "only" a theory, but he should have put more emphises on exactly what scientific theory is.

2. "If you find a watch on the street you assume that it was made by someone"
Lynn failed to address this point. This point is illogical. First of all a watch is not a living organism and doesn't change and is not subject to natural selection etc. Second of all it's a bad analogy because of the limits of human imagination. The only reason we think the watch was made by someone is because WE MAKE THEM. We have no other reason to think otherwise, we have no way of thinking how it could have come about without human intervention. But for organisms, we HAVE thought up a way in which they can come about naturally

JamesKrieger · 05-30-2002, 02:04 PM

I think Lynn also could have jumped on Connor's comment about "no transitional fossils." People uneducated about evolution eat these type of comments up and assume that this is true about evolutionary theory.

bluefugue · 05-30-2002, 02:19 PM

Carlson seems like a smart guy. Probably went to a good college, Ivy League I would assume. Maybe he got straight A's in A.P. bio in high school for that matter. Does he actually believe what he argues here, or is he forced to toe the party line because he has styled himself a "conservative"?

theyeti · 05-30-2002, 03:41 PM

Here's another one, right from the opening statement:

Quote:

CONNOR: Well I think my position is that all theories of origins ought to have equal access to the marketplace of ideas. It was Clarence Darrow (ph) in the Scopes' trial who said it is bigotry to teach only one theory of origins in the public school.

Darrow never said any such thing. This is another creationist fabricated quote, right up there with Darwin's death-bed confession. I wish Lynn would have called him out on that, but he probably didn't know. It would have been better to have someone more familiar with the arguments of creationism, but Lynn is doing a good job by speaking out against the religious right politicking on this issue.

I also thought that Begala did an excellent job, at least judging by the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/29/cf.00.html" target="_blank">transcript</a> (I didn't see it live). He obviously came prepared. I really liked the way he juxtaposed the quote from the Pope with that from Tom DeLay. I also liked this one:

Quote:

CONNOR: Why -- if the evidence is so strong, why are you willing to censor alternative points of view? Why are you willing to muzzle ...

BEGALA: We censor two plus two equals five...

And my favorite line of all:

Quote:

CONNOR: What Barry Lynn is suggesting is basically that King Kong is our great uncle and that's why we like bananas on our cereal.

This seemingly came out of nowhere. I guess that shows us where Connor's real objection to evolution lies.

theyeti

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2002, 02:28 PM	#2
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	Oh brother. Does this mean snotty Tucker Carlson is going to have to argue against evolution?

05-29-2002, 04:59 PM	#3
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Honestly, I don't have a lot of confidence in Barry Lynn's ability to argue against the subtleties of ID. It's a very nuanced strategy, and not well suited to his usual Establishment Clause bag o' tricks.

05-29-2002, 06:21 PM	#4
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Well, that was sure crap. Tucker "It's Only A Theory" Carlson and another braindead idiot from the Family Research Council. Formidable. No wonder 71% of Americans actually think there's evidence that debunks evolution. Too bad neither of those two morons had any handy. Good quotes from Richard Dawkins and Tom DeLay though.

05-30-2002, 11:32 AM	#7
trunks2k Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 6,997	Connor kept going on about how you have to allow children to see alternate scientific theories in order to get a good science education. Of course children should be taught alternate scientific theories, but there aren't any other ones out ther besides evolution. There are different theories/hypothses inside the theory of evolution, but nothing outside of it. Connor fails to notice that ID theory is not any sort of scientific theory. Lynn did a relatively good job of defending evolution, i.e. noting that nobody at the table were scientists and everyone had a very limited knowledge of the subject and it's supporting evidence. However, Lynn should have jumped on two points made by Connor and Tucker: 1. Evolution is "only" a theory Lynn, did note that gravity was "only" a theory, but he should have put more emphises on exactly what scientific theory is. 2. "If you find a watch on the street you assume that it was made by someone" Lynn failed to address this point. This point is illogical. First of all a watch is not a living organism and doesn't change and is not subject to natural selection etc. Second of all it's a bad analogy because of the limits of human imagination. The only reason we think the watch was made by someone is because WE MAKE THEM. We have no other reason to think otherwise, we have no way of thinking how it could have come about without human intervention. But for organisms, we HAVE thought up a way in which they can come about naturally

05-30-2002, 02:04 PM	#8
JamesKrieger Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Washington Posts: 1,490	I think Lynn also could have jumped on Connor's comment about "no transitional fossils." People uneducated about evolution eat these type of comments up and assume that this is true about evolutionary theory.

05-30-2002, 02:19 PM	#9
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	Carlson seems like a smart guy. Probably went to a good college, Ivy League I would assume. Maybe he got straight A's in A.P. bio in high school for that matter. Does he actually believe what he argues here, or is he forced to toe the party line because he has styled himself a "conservative"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.