Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design is at its heart a book of persuasion. shermer divides the world into three types of people:

True Believers, Fence Sitters, and skeptics. Religious True Believers will never change their minds no matter what evidence is presented to them, and science-embracing skeptics already accept evolution. The battleground is for the Fence Sitters - those who have heard something about a claim or controversy and wonder what the explanation for it might be.

Thus, from the start, the book is not really directed at me, as I whole-heartedly accept evolution. However, I quite enjoyed reading it, as evidenced by the fact that I could hardly put it down. Here's why.

First, Shermer presents an entertaining history of intelligent design and creationism in the United States, and why they persist in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution. In so doing, he provides riveting accounts of William Jennings Bryan's boisterous prosecution of the Scopes trial, and most memorably of all a debate between he and the namesake of the Hovind Scale, the fast-talking creationist and current jailbird Kent Hovind. His account of this debate can also be found on the website of Skeptic Magazine.

In the meat of the book, Shermer systematically dismantles the arguments for Intelligent Design, finding them all unequal to rigorous standards of science. He then exposes the real agenda behind the ID movement, most memorably by recounting the words of Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski at the annual conference of the National Religious Broadcasters:

...intelligent design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God... The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ... And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.

To close as Shermer does throughout the book, Q. E. D.

Finally, and most challengingly for me, Shermer devotes a large portion of the book to explaining why evolution is perfectly compatible with both Christianity and conservativism. The reason for the first is obvious: most Americans and virtually all American creationists are Christian, and to sell evolution to doubtful Christians is to convince them that it does not contradict their faith. The need for the second is less obvious. What reason would a conservative have for doubting evolution, except that most conseratives in the United States are Christian? Still, Shermer cites poll data showing that some 60 percent of Republicans are creationists. Clearly something is at work here. To woo conservatives to the side of evolution, Shermer cites 19th century economist Adam Smith, whose posited "invisible hand" works in precisely the same way as Darwin's natural selection. (In his review of Expelled for Scientific American, he recounts memorably his reminder of this fact to Ben Stein, during his interview for the film.)

I say that this part of the book was challenging for me because I have difficulty with the arguments for the compatibility of religion and evolution. It is certainly true that there is nothing in evolution, or in science in general, that precludes the existence of a god, but this is because nothing in science could do so; God is by definition not a part of the natural universe, and so not amenable to empirical observation. God is therefore superfluous, unnecessary, a cheap rhinestone pasted on the scientific edifice to increase its appeal to the religiously-minded. Still, as long as God is technically compatible with science, and as long as most humans believe in one god or another, the smartest tactic may be to stress the compatibility point, and confront creationists on their so-far successful ploy of equating evolution with atheism.

Having said all this, by far the most entertaining part of the book for a scientific True Believer like me is its coda, Genesis Revisited, in which Shermer rewrites the book of Genesis to fit in with creationists' insistence on its literal truth. Here's a representative excerpt:

And God saw that the land was barren, so He created animals bearing their own kind, declaring Thou shalt not evolve into new species, and thy equilibrium shall not be punctuated. And God placed into the rocks, fossils that appeared older than 4004 BC that were similar to but different from living creatures. And the sequence resembled descent with modification. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Q. E. D.

I recommend the book heartily, whether you are a skeptic or a Fence Sitter; it will entertain either variety. Hell, I recommend it to the creationist True Believers as well. Shermer was such at one point, and you never know when a tendril of truth will sneak through a crack in the stone wall of denial.

The Gather Round Children Variety Show.
A Lively Night of Lit and Music For Kids 18 and Up

Featuring Chris Bachelder (author of U.S.!, Bear v. Shark), Jeannie Hoag, Ari Feld (of the Handsome Truants), Sara Blaylock, Ben Stein, Hanuman Goleman and Tina Antolini (of NPR).

Amerst Books, 8 pm, Thursday, August 21
Hosted by Gabe Durham

15. Intelligent Design video game didn’t count toward college credit as promised

14. Line for Richard Dawkins piñata too long

13. Kirk Cameron wouldn’t stop hugging me, even after my wife complained

12. Social-Darwinism lecture hit too close to home

11. Animatronic Einstein sounded identical to animatronic Fred Flintstone. Or was it the other way round?

10. Snack bar ran out of the Ken Ham & Cheese Sub. Had to order the Duane Gish Knish. It was stale.

9. Ray Comfort’s banana demonstration was inappropriate for children

8. Gift shop charged extra for framing creation science degree. Signed, Chuck Norris, PhD.

7. Price of admission didn’t include ride on “Skippy: The Friendly Dinosaur”

6. Sciency DNA exhibit made my brain hurt

5. Sciency Noah’s Ark exhibit made my brain hurt

4. Kent Hovind was seen standing between Adam & Eve statues

3. My child didn’t receive free “God Hates Evilutionists” t-shirt

2. Charles Darwin look-alike complained when I hit him

1. Jesus-shaped bathroom soap gave me a Jesus-shaped rash

I know personally the confusion a young woman is facing when she finds out she is pregnant and it is unplanned. But I have to say it really angers me that "Planned" Parenthood has become the default place for  women to go. These young women are programmed their whole lives by the entertainment industry, news media, academia etc. that Planned Parenthood is good. This is a lie. This lie carries on to further, that Planned Parenthood=Good * Pregnancy Care Centers=Bad.  This is such an illustration of what the Bible says that will occur in these end days. Isaiah 5:20 illustrates what God thinks of this: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Can you imagine how twisted the minds of young people have become? This poor girl apparently thinks that a Pregnancy Care Center is evil  in their mission of  trying to help women through an unplanned pregnancy situation with love, free pregnancy tests, free ultrasounds, wise counsel... And yet she and many think erroneously that Planned Parenthood is good. Planned Parenthood does sound nice, I suppose. It is a very euphemistic name or "eugenic" name to be more correct. But what they do is refer women and young girls for ABORTIONS. And that is all they do. Other than giving out free birth control pills and encouraging women to be as sexually free as they wish. And when their "sexual freedom" has conceived via sin of fornication a human life, then Planned Parenthood conveniently sends them to a place where they can destroy the evidence of their sins i.e. their unborn babies.

Our country has been going downhill and lying to its children for so long that the young people really do see Good as Evil and Evil as Good. Woe unto this country. One landmark in our degradation was when the US took prayer out of schools in 1963. One can see the downward spiral that has occurred from that alone. Not to mention teaching the kids in public schools the Theory of Evolution as if it were absolute fact and scientific truth.

I must say that being taught  Evolution really did mess up my mind and helped to shape my whole worldview. I can remember taking Honors Biology in 1986 with Ms. Hanes. She stood there and showed us the drawings of Ernst Haeckel. A German Evolutionary Biologist from the 19th century.

Haekel's postulation used to be called the "recapitulation theory". It has long been eliminated from "real" scientific literature, but it is still being presented as a scientific reality by some evolutionist publications, including school textbooks. And it was so in my middle school text book in 1986.  The term "recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorised that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.

It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus.It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that had been identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, writes: Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. (For full article see expert from book Harunyahya).

I mention this scientific stuff because, again, as I said, it affected me and my worldview and thusly my life-choices. As an intelligent and bookish pre-teen taking an Honors Biology class, I took what they taught me as fact.  Now I see that I was lied to and deceived mostly because the people that were teaching me were also lied to and deceived and were simply repeating and teaching what they had been taught as fact.

I shudder to think how many public schools still teach Evolution as fact. I know that in recent years there has been some progress in persuading some to also teach Intelligent Design. But this is limited. And so much damage has already been done. 

Is our nation going to be like the nation Israel? In Isaiah Chapter 5. God clearly shows us that though Israel was planted as a beloved vineyard, that it brought forth wild grapes. Isn't that just like the U.S.? God has so richly blessed and cared for this country and planted it as a Christian Nation from its inception. But look at it now. Wild, Wild, Wild.... And God says in Isaiah 5: 20-23  Woe, Woe Woe!

5:20  Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

5:21 "Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"

5:22 "Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink

5:23 "Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!"

It goes on to say in verse 25: "Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."

If our Holy and Righteous Lord has stretched out his hand in anger to Israel, then what do you think He will do to a nation who teaches lies and does abominations such as mass murder of innocents?

I think we, as a nation, have been warned. But if we go on with Pride and Impudence our county will continue to be destroyed, even utterly. God is not mocked.

Remember the Alamo... I mean the 2007 Republican Debate.

McCain states in the video that he believes in evolution, but then adds that the "hand of god" can be seen in the Grand Canyon at sunset. In essence he gives a non-answer; he sits his ass on the fence. It's almost as if he had rehearsed his response, but for a moment forgot the second half of the answer, the part that appeases the creationists. (Line, line. Where's the director? Where's my bottled water? The teleprompter isn't working and neither is my ear-piece. Someone get me a moist towelette. I'm John McCain, a freaking war hero.)

I'm convinced that McCain actually does "believe" in evolution. But I also think he desperately wants to be president, and will say anything, or do almost anything, to attain and keep that position. If he has to be indirectly responsible for damaging science education, so be it. If he does win the election, he'll most likely fuel a new creationist fire, for the very reason that he needs the approval of the Christian-right. He'll be their enabler. Earlier this year, he courted the Intelligent Design vote. And Intelligent Design is just creationism with an easier-to-swallow coating. (But it's still a hard pill to swallow.)

Don't forget the 2007 Republican Debate... or the Alamo.

Well the courts threw it out in mid July landing on the side of the producers.

One must ponder the irony of Ono suing a company for copyright infringement of a song which contains the lyrics "imagine no possessions" and "imagine all the people, sharing all the world."

Almost as ironic as Lennon posthumously laughing at the approving nods from fans of his sentiment whilst sitting in a stately home the size of a small third world town playing a piano that Elton John could only dream of affording. Oh the irony of post modernism. Only Lennon and Ono could pull it off so well.

What do you think? Is Darwin outed forever?

Gotta run. Someone is knocking at the door -- Mencken's Ghost, probably.

Could be Ben Stein, I suppose.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Kevin Fisher, Texas Citizens for Science.

Now I know how Ben Stein felt in that famous scene from Ferris Bueller's Day Off when no one would respond to his inquiries into Ferris Bueller's whereabouts. When Ben Stein discusses the issue of taxes, no one is home. In an op-ed piece in Saturday's New York Times, Stein expresses his dismay about John McCain hewing to Republican orthodoxy on the matter of taxes. While it is certainly up in the air if John McCain is a die hard supply-sider, the smart bet is no, he is promising to extend the Bush tax cuts. All of the Bush tax cuts.

Ben Stein comes from a different era of Republicanism. Before Ronald Reagan, Republicans viewed a balanced budget as the be all, end all of government policy. While a balanced budget is important, the manner in which it is achieved is even more so. If a balanced budget could only be achieved by raising taxes then so be it.

While the idea of government spending no more than it takes in is admirable and should be the goal of any administration, the amount government takes in is the issue. Buying into the belief that balancing the budget is the most important goal of government and that raising taxes is necessary to do so, one must accept several flawed assumptions. Accepting that balancing the budget through tax increases is good public policy, one must accept that the money people make is not theirs but the government's. People can do with less because their paycheck is not really the product of their labor, but an allowance that government decides they get. That view is akin to saying government is king and the people are nothing but serfs. When the King wants more he says "Give me." In reality, that is exactly what government does. Government is best defined as force. It uses coercive force to get what it wants. If you do not believe me, try not paying your taxes for a few years and see what happens.

A balanced budget is important. But what is more important is the philosophy that is behind it. Any individual who spent more than they earned would be forced to cut spending until revenues were in line with expenses. For some reason we do not believe that simple line of thinking applies to government. It's offensive to me that pundits and politicians often ask the American public to make sacrifices and to do without so Government can maintain its bloated, oppressive and failed bureaucracies and programs. It's high time someone asked the government to make sacrifices because after all, it supposedly works for us, we do not work for it.

But there was a question hanging over the head of this particular writer in the LA Times, namely, how the hell did Maher get so many people to agree to an interview?

We even had a fake title for the film. We called it 'A Spiritual Journey.'

They lied. They also didn't tell anyone who would be interviewing them. Whilst sneaky, this at least I can understand, and if your faith is strong, does it matter who'll be questioning you? But interviewing them under a false film title smacks of hypocrisy, especially since the producers of that famous folly 'Expelled' used exactly the same trick to interview a bunch of atheists and scientists who would have refused if they had known the real premise behind the flick.

I can't sit here and say 'go Maher!!' when I criticised Ben Stein for the same trick, much as I'd love to. Maybe I'm a hypocrite at heart even if I try not to be by my actions and my words. We all root for the home team I guess.

Result? I'll watch 'Religulous' when I get the chance to watch 'Expelled', or I won't watch either.

Meanwhile, Ben "Yes, I Have Seen the Tape" Stein is lashing out at Paris Hilton, calling her a "little tramp" (via) who is "a porn star -- and not a very good porn star at that." And how does Mr. Stein know that? By his own admission, he's seen the Paris Hilton sex tape. How's that for faith and values? Just another prominent Republican caught with his pants down and his hypocrisy showing.

It describes how I reacted to this article today.  The short of it is, Andrew Yarrow, vice president and director of the Washington, D.C. office of the nonprofit, allegedly nonpartisan research organization Public Agenda, says retiring on schedule or early will "suck money out of the economy."  (Must be that "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot was always talking about.)  Instead people ought to work a few extra years to put more productivity into our shriveled and battered economic system.

Yarrow calls such on-schedule retirement "profoundly selfish and unpatriotic."

Here's my reply.  I'm taking off my pants and mooning you, Yarrow.

You want to know what's profoundly selfish and unpatriotic?  It's the companies that got rich off the labor of their employees and then ditched them, hired barely-competent replacements from India or China or Mexico, and then split to the Cayman Islands with the savings, avoiding U.S. business taxes.  It is largely because of those traitorous bastards that the U.S. economy is in the shape it's in today---that and politicians' vote-pandering by spending more while cutting taxes.

Yarrow notes that when people work longer, they not only continue to pay taxes and produce additional goods and services to spur the economy, but also slow the growth of the debt.

That debt was not caused by them, Yarrow.  It was not caused by rank-and-file workers who worked nights and weekends for less than they were worth, only to get laid off when the company became successful and wanted to go from making profits to making obscene amounts of money by hiring illegal labor.

So, why should they work to pay it off?

How about the people who caused it, reading this right now in their beach houses in Cancun?  How about their "patriotism"?

I always love the type of people who are called upon to sacrifice.  It's never people who have anything they can afford to give up.

Further in the article, economist and actor Ben Stein says "things are going to change" vis-a-vis Social Security.

I agree with him there, but then he blows it.  He says, "Wealthy people are going to pay much, much, much more tax."

That's where he gets it wrong, and proves he doesn't understand the American political system.  Wealthy never pay more tax.  The government will just charge it to the credit card of future generations, as it's been doing for 40+ years.  No one has the guts to tax the wealthy.  Politicians keep passing the buck while telling us everything's fine.

By Yarrow's definition, by the way, I'm very unpatriotic.

And Goddamned proud.

Watch the video and try to spot the skeptic.

America has decayed into a state of gullibility. Example, CNN's Larry King now dedicates many of his shows to subjects like the paranormal and UFO's. Recently, he interviewed half a dozen UFO "witnesses" and "experts", and one lone skeptic, Dr. Seth Shostak, an astronomer from SETI. For most of the show, Larry King followed his standard format; he asked a softball question and then allowed the guests to ramble on, except the skeptic, who was kept in reserve most of the time. Also, the show was an hour long, but Dr. Seth Shostak was only on for the first thirty minutes. Of course, CNN has a history of stupidity.

I remember once when that Southern dumbell Nancy Grace (Headline News) sat in for Larry King. Her topic was ghosts and spirits. What particularlly disturbed me was when she grasped for the word "skeptic" but instead came out with the word "cynic". Is anyone who withholds their approval or questions the validity of something being cynical? Sadly, Nancy Grace is not the only one to conflate the meaning of the two words. Overall this phenomena has the stench of religion behind it. In a nation slathered in syrupy Christianity, how can believers not project their hostility on to non-believers, be they atheists or skeptics.

Cable television is drowning in shows that require one to believe and not to think: Ghost Hunters (Sci Fi Channel), Paranormal State (A&E Television), Psychic Kids (A&E), A Haunting (Discovery Channel), MonsterQuest (The History Channel), etc. The History Channel, in particular, is a flagrant offender with shows covering everything from the Loch Ness Monster and Nostradamus to the psychology of Batman and the mythology of Star Wars. For many years, at Easter time, the History Channel actually aired the mini-series Jesus of Nazareth. It also aired Planet of the Apes as a Saturday night movie. How is any of this history or science?

I couldn't help laughing at a recent MonsterQuest episode about Bigfoot. A member of an all female expedition actually said that Bigfoot prefers woman over men because of their softer more lyrical voices. I say Bigfoot prefers not to watch television.

Wait. What? Is that Stein's thing now? Comparing everything he dislikes to Nazis?

We are a new ministry dedicated to the fight against the theory of Evolution. We think it is important to defend ourselves against the falsehood of Evolution and the lies that are associated with it... Our mission is to reach out to the lost, mainly those who believe in Evolution. We hope to change their thinking and challenge their faith in the theory of Evolution. Our goal is to fully equip anyone who has the drive to debate this topic. We are in this fight together and want to offer our resources to help destroy the work of the devil.

Ben Stein calls for Karl Rove to join McCain camp

Stein, a very good friend who loves Rove, called him:

He is basically just a big nerd who has an incredible amount of data stuck in his head

But as far as I can remember - isn't Rove under some Judicial subpoena? There are many who say that Rove should be in jail because he will not appear before that committee and says that he has some sort of privilege that allows him not to testify.

So will McCain listen to Stein?

I really don't know - but when you have a Republican spouting:

"Mr. McCain is running the absolute most pathetic campaign I have ever seen in my whole life," Stein said in his unmistakable monotone delivery. "His campaign is just heartbreakingly pathetic. He is a very impressive guy. He is a brave guy, but he is running the most lackluster campaign I have ever seen in my entire life. I would have thought Bob Dole's campaign would have set a record for poor campaigns, but this one is even worse. I mean it is shocking."

you can honestly say that your campaign isn't coming over as good as those around you are telling you that it is.

Is the GOP setting McCain up as the fall guy getting ready for 2012?

Makes you think, no?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ben Stein says he knows how Sen. John McCain can win in November: Karl Rove.

That's right, that Karl Rove.

At a time when McCain is seeking to distance himself from President Bush, Stein argues McCain needs to enlist Bush's chief political guru in order to defeat Sen. Barack Obama.

Full story

"First," Stein said in a voice that bored the reporter to sleep, "McCain should change his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat. Second, he should change his name from 'McCain' to something less Republican sounding. Maybe something like 'McClinton'. Third, he should probably stop referring to countries that don't exist any more. Finally, it may help if he could make himself look a little younger. He looks like a bowl of moldy oatmeal right now and that won't go well with voters. Most people hate oatmeal and mold, so combining the two together just compounds the problem. Oh, and if none of those work, he may just want to adopt all of Obama's positions. Those seem to be pretty popular right now."

Read the complete article about "the problem with tax cuts as an economic premise."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/business/10every.html?scp=1&sq=Ben%20Stein%2008/10/08&st=cse