As a lesbian trapped in a man's body, I gotta say I loved this...
Posted by Peter David at February 19, 2007 09:11 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI love the fact that ever since his announcement that he is gay, he has been in the spotlight more and more. Why should only Shatner get all the attention 40 years later? ^_^
P.S.: for some strange reason, I would love to see him and Ian McEllan in a movie together :-)
Gee, I love seeing George Takei in the spotlight, too. He's been blessed with such a distinctive voice that grabs my attention everytime I hear it. I think it's right up there with people like George C. Scott, Alan Rickman, and especially James Earl Jones. The world needs more human beings who care about life like Takei.
Takei's performance on the Shatner roast was great and his Howard Stern appearances always leave me adoring him more and more as a human being.
I actually know someone who was born a man, became a woman, and then married a woman here in Massachusetts.
As disappointing as it was to hear Hardaway's comments, I don't think he should apologize if that's how he feels. I wonder if he simply did so to exert some damage control over his future endorsement and public speaking prospects.
Okay, I admittedly posted this off-topic passage in the blog entry below, but had I known that there'd be a gay-related blog entry here, I'd have waited.
As of midnight today, it's official:
Say what you want about my home state, Peter, but now we're a safe haven for gays who wish to marry (even if they're not calling it marriage).
I was at a convention a few years back where George Takei was speaking. A rather short woman who I went to school with talked for ten minutes about how she was sure that he was gay, how annoying that is, this that and the other thing. Now, as remarkably prescient as her statements were, I STILL don't care. Now, all these years later, George Takei is out, seems to be revelling in it, and the Sulu audio adventures are still one of the most played CD's in my car.
And she's still short.
Oh yeah, I really wish somebody else from the NBA--not David Stern, but one of the players--would go on the record denouncing Hardaway's rant against John Amaechi (whose book on life in the NBA as a gay man, "Man in the Middle", is released tomorrow) and all gay people.
It would help the NBA's image so much for a guy like Shaq, or LeBron, or Ray Allen, or Dirk Nowitzki, or SOMEBODY to say "This guy's a bigot and what he said was inexcusable. There's no good reason to hate gay people."
But instead of saying something like that, here is what LeBron James said when Amaechi came out of the closet:
"We spend so much time together, we're like family. You take showers together, you're on the bus, you talk about things. With teammates, you have to be trustworthy. If you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, you're not trustworthy. It's the locker room code; it's a trust factor."
I have been a huge fan of George Takei ever since Howard Stern decided to make him an honorary member of his team on Sirius. Granted, thats not very long...But this mans personality and sense of humor are incredible. Not only is he incredibly funny, but the man also takes a joke very very well. I loved this video...and something about his voice in general leaves me hysterical whenever i hear it :)
Mike
*shrug* It's a *good thing* that he can laugh about it in public and no longer risk getting stoned for it. But I can't say I found it especially funny. A tad predictable, I guess. But, kudos to him for standing up about it.
Heartnut - Distinctive voices? Agreed. Add William Windom to the list. Just saw him in a '62 TWILIGHT ZONE where a thick mustache and younger face had him unrecognizeable. But I just knew it had to be him from the voice.
You're a lesbian trapped in a mans body. I'm a drag queen trapped in a womens body. It's a tough world.
Go Zulu!
I saw the punchline coming from a mile away. Doesn't matter. It was till drop-dead funny. Why? Takei's delivery was spot-on perfect in all respects. When he was supposed to sound serious, he did. When he segued to the funny part, he adjusted his delivery seamlessly and perfectly.
That was awesome. Thanks for sharing, Peter.
And of course, the whole "shtick" will likely make Hardaway squirm in the extreme, which I feel is the real payoff, on top of the great delivery of Mr Takei. Turn the tables and spin 'em often. Nice.
Sometimes I find George a little over the top, but he really can be funny. I love how this bit shows him serious and reasonable before he delves into the lecherousness.
I remember some show had him in a fake movie trailer awhile back. In the fake trailer he was the villain of a movie called "Blowd up!" and he would talk about how soon the whole world would be blowd up. Then he'd laugh manically, and I'd bust a gut watching him.
The Starwolf wrote:
Heartnut - Distinctive voices? Agreed. Add William Windom to the list. Just saw him in a '62 TWILIGHT ZONE where a thick mustache and younger face had him unrecognizeable. But I just knew it had to be him from the voice.
S.C.: "Five Characters In Search Of An Exit" and especially enjoyed him as Commodore Decker in "The Doomsday Machine"
Kirk: Where's your crew?
Decker: On the third planet.
Kirk: There is no third planet.
Decker: Don't you think I know that?
Sorry for straying seriously off-topic, but ...
Steve - Did you see the fan-produced sequel to DOOMSDAY? IN HARM'S WAY. They managed to have Windom reprise his Decker role - albeit a much older Decker. OK, PAD's VENDETTA was much better as far as I'm concerned, but for a fan effort it was pretty darn good. Just seeing someone 'drive' a Constitution-class starship through an industrial-sized Guardian of Forever was pretty neat. 8-))
"As disappointing as it was to hear Hardaway's comments, I don't think he should apologize if that's how he feels."
Honestly, I agree. From what I understand, he was on a shock-jock-style radio talkshow, and they asked him how he felt about gays, particularly in locker room settings. If that's how he REALLY felt, should he have lied? If, for instance, this guy was raised to embrace the Bible, then his breeding tells him to abominate gays and also not to lie. So he was doing was he thought was right. Maybe we should hunt down his parents and ask him what they were planting in their kid's mind.
Should he have hedged it? "How do you feel about gays?" "No comment. I'd rather not talk about it." Well you just KNOW that if he'd gone that route, the media would have sensed blood and piled on looking for a quote.
It's not as if he beat up a gay guy, was arrested, and by way of defense he said he hated gays. He feels a certain way, he was asked about it, he answered honestly. Let's face it: The things he said were no different than the drafters of the military code of conduct, and that's a situation where those who hold that opinion really have an impact, unlike a basketball player.
Yes, the irony doesn't elude me that there's plenty of people who would answer the same way when asked about African-Americans, and I doubt Hardaway would be so sanguine about that attidue. I wonder if anyone's brought that to his attention.
At any rate, I certainly think his comments warrant a big, fat, shoulder-shrugging, "Okay, well...sorry you feel that way." After all, pro sports brought it on themselves: They make players sign off on morality clauses. So if they're going to force issues of morality on pro athletes, they then don't get to bitch if those same players advocate positions based upon Bible-taught morality.
PAD
Not much of a joke if I were just reading the script, but Takei makes everything better.
O my.....
For some reason, I never watch Voyager. So with Spike TV now showing it in sequence, I got my first chance to see Takei's Sulu episode for the first time a while back...reminding me once again that Paramount really missed the boat in not developing the Sulu character into at the least a more-often used recurring character.
I don't fault Hardaway for his words...I'm surprised we haven't had some big-name star say something like it before this. We've got states preventing same-sex marraige...open discrimination...so there must be a good number of people that hold views similar to Hardaways. And I think his apology was ok, too...mostly he apologized for saying he hated gay people. That's fine...hate is a strong word, and when used with "crime," land people in jail, so I can see why he'd want to back away from the H word.
And I think this is a perfect response. Because, deep down, I have to think that most anti-gay sentiment comes from the fear that gay people can "infect" their gayness on heterosexuals. That they secretly want us all.
And now, thanks to Takei, we know the truth. ;)
"From what I understand, he was on a shock-jock-style radio talkshow"
For the record, Dan Le Batard, who was asking Hardaway about gays on his radio show, is not exactly what I would term "shock jock".
He's a sports columnist for the Miami Herald and occasionally for ESPN The Magazine, does sports radio there in Miami, and is a regular guest host for ESPN's Pardon the Interruption.
But maybe I just need "shock jock" redefined for me. :)
"Should he have hedged it? "How do you feel about gays?" "No comment. I'd rather not talk about it." "
I don't know. I can see what you're saying about honesty. The real problem is that he feels that way, not that he said it.
But saying it is a problem too, even if it is a smaller problem. It's basically accepting the belief, when he should be working to be a better person. Saying what he said to a broadcast audience is basically telling them that it is OK if they feel that way, too.
If he felt that way but kept it to himself, he'd at least be admitting on some level that this is something that needs to change. Being proud of being ignorant makes it worse.
Craig-
That would be my bad since I was pulling the story from memory from hearing about it on the radio and a short article about his being pulled from the All star game. Thanks for the clarification.
Kath
And just to show how far the understanding of homosexuality has come in today's 'age of enlightenment':
"I have heard the argument that "Being gay is so tough and I'm so persecuted", why would I choose that lifestyle. Maybe they like that abuse and attention. Some weirdos are into that stuff."
- poster on another forum I read
"It's basically accepting the belief, when he should be working to be a better person. Saying what he said to a broadcast audience is basically telling them that it is OK if they feel that way, too."
To which they would say that who are you to say that it's wrong for them to feel that way? Their point of view would be that there's something wrong with you for *not* being abominated. And they'll claim that their position is backed up by the word of God. So you've got a tough road ahead of you.
PAD
"Someday, when you least expect it, we will have sex with you."
Awesome!
Hurry and talk about heroes! Mondays episode was really well done....the whole show feel as if I am reading some of my favorite comics. Its a blast!
So is it wrong for the NBA to ban him from all star games?
ON the one hand it is highly disturbing to ban someone for expressing their free speech, even when that speech is repugnant. And as PAD points out, what he says even has the official sanction of certain government agencies, so it seems hypocritical to be all shocked, shocked, when an athlete expresses it in raw language.
Then again, we've seen similar things done to people who expressed racist opinions--John Rocker, Jimmy the Greek, etc. I doubt a holocaust denier would be welcome at most events. One can legally join NAMBLA but don't expect not to lose any and all endorsement deals.
It's a slippery slope though. Given his apology I think they should let him compete if he is qualified to do so. Certainly anyone who felt that the Dixie Chicks were wrongly treated should have sympathy to this guy, however odious his views.
The Star Wolf wrote:
Steve - Did you see the fan-produced sequel to DOOMSDAY? IN HARM'S WAY. They managed to have Windom reprise his Decker role - albeit a much older Decker. OK, PAD's VENDETTA was much better as far as I'm concerned, but for a fan effort it was pretty darn good. Just seeing someone 'drive' a Constitution-class starship through an industrial-sized Guardian of Forever was pretty neat. 8-))
S.C.: Missed out on that one, but it sounds cool.
Also, Takei was cool on that episode of Voyager, and it's a shame that Paramount didn't do a show based on Sulu and his crew.
Bill, just FYI, Hardaway is a retired baller, who was working for the NBA as an analyst/presenter. He wasn't going to play or compete in any of the events.
As public representation of the league..not just a player, but an employee, I don't have any problem with the NBA deciding to terminate their relationship with him. Whether you're for or against his position, it's one that's bound to draw criticism. As a business, you generally don't want a public representative that's going to cost you customers.
Had he been a player, it would have been interesting what the league would have done. Certainly, they couldn't bar him for playing. Or rather, they could, but the negative response would probably be great enough that the league wouldn't. But exclude him from the ASG events? Maybe. His apology would probably have earned him a player pass, like Tyrus Thomas' comments on participating in the Dunk contest.
I don't feel that what the DXC went through was wrong...free speech doens't mean you're immune to the consequences of making use of that right. If you express an unpopular opinion, and your job relies upon some level of public acceptance, that opinion might cost you some business. I don't think they deserved to receive death threats, and those folks, should they ever be caught, will learn that free speech doesn't apply to everything you say. But if radio stations and concert venues want to cancel DCX songs because they said something more and more people agree with every day, that's their decision to make. We can agree or disagree with the motives behind that decision, but it's not a matter of right or wrong for society to correct.
Enjoy it while you can. This was the funniest thing ever produced on Jimmy Kimmel Live," with an appearance by Jack Black and Tenacious D a close second.
Problem is that the rest of Kimmel's shows aren't anywhere near this level. It's a talk show where most of the talking is done by Kimmel and his cheesy supporting cast, sounding like imitation Letterman. The ratings are low, the show is losing money for Disney, and I've heard that ABC News has shot some pilots for an hour-long edition of Nightline for the possible time that ABC pulls the plug on this turkey. News won't make them any more money, but it's cheaper to produce, has some nobility, and it'll get those imitative LA club bands that Kimmel inexplicably loves out of the network's hair.
I hate gay people.... I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it.Certainly anyone who felt that the Dixie Chicks were wrongly treated should have sympathy to this guy, however odious his views.
The NBA wants to distance itself from a former player who indulged in celebrating the isolation of a minority -- however crude the NBA's manner.
Radio stations organizing public demolitions of a preformer's album for saying "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas" in itself indulges in isolating her.
Comparing the two agendas only makes sense if you consider any public criticism of white patriarchy to be predatory. That's not a compassion shared among the oppressed, but the privileged.
Bobb, I hadn't realized that he was in a position other than a player. Well, then, of course they have the right to boot him off, and it's probably smart business to do so. An analyst/presenter is of value only in as much as they increase one's enjoyment of the game and having someone who is deliberately turning off viewers on account of his obnoxious opinions serves no purpose.
The ad for Blow'd Up - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td4VEGiIQmk
Darrik-thanks. That was funny.
It really is great to see him getting so much love now.
"I don't feel that what the DXC went through was wrong...free speech doens't mean you're immune to the consequences of making use of that right. If you express an unpopular opinion, and your job relies upon some level of public acceptance, that opinion might cost you some business. I don't think they deserved to receive death threats, and those folks, should they ever be caught, will learn that free speech doesn't apply to everything you say. But if radio stations and concert venues want to cancel DCX songs because they said something more and more people agree with every day, that's their decision to make. We can agree or disagree with the motives behind that decision, but it's not a matter of right or wrong for society to correct."
Wait a second. I think there's a difference between a consumer who decides to boycot artists (like the Dixie Chicks), and when a radio station or record store does it.
Secondly, it's true that in principal both the case of Haraway and the Dixie Chicks are cases of freedom of speech, but it seems to me that there should be a difference in the public preceptionand the public's attitude toward someone using freedom of speech in order to criticize a policy or a political figure and when someone uses it to voice hatred toward a group. We shouldn't get too relativistic.
Anyway, George Takei showed that a sense of humor used in the right way can be more effective than public outrage by some humorless advocacy group.
Secondly, it's true that in principal both the case of Haraway and the Dixie Chicks are cases of freedom of speech, but it seems to me that there should be a difference in the public preceptionand the public's attitude toward someone using freedom of speech in order to criticize a policy or a political figure and when someone uses it to voice hatred toward a group. We shouldn't get too relativistic.
Agreed but since prejudice against gays is tolerated and even to a degree encouraged in government--witness the bipartisan support for both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't Ask Don't tell policies--it becomes a bit hypocritical for society to come down hard on some athlete who simply speaks the same prejudice, without the fancy rhetoric and justifications.
I covered an NBC press conference with George Takei recently, re: his stint on "Heroes." But he really had a lot of fascinating things to say, from growing up in Japanese American interment camps to coming out a few years ago.
"Agreed but since prejudice against gays is tolerated and even to a degree encouraged in government--witness the bipartisan support for both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't Ask Don't tell policies--it becomes a bit hypocritical for society to come down hard on some athlete who simply speaks the same prejudice, without the fancy rhetoric and justifications."
Isn't there a difference between opposing gay marriage and saying you hate gays?
And should one case of pejudice justify another? If you're going to fight against prejudice you have to start somewhere. It is only hypocritical if the people doing the criticizing of the athlete support the other forms of discrimination.
...of course they have the right to boot him off, and it's probably smart business to do so. An analyst/presenter is of value only in as much as they increase one's enjoyment of the game and having someone who is deliberately turning off viewers on account of his obnoxious opinions serves no purpose.
...since prejudice against gays is tolerated and even to a degree encouraged in government--witness the bipartisan support for both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't Ask Don't tell policies--it becomes a bit hypocritical for society to come down hard on some athlete who simply speaks the same prejudice, without the fancy rhetoric and justifications.
First you say the NBA is justified in getting rid of a commentator because his opinion is offensive -- in your words "turning off viewers." Then you say they're being hypocritical because the commentator opinion was nurtured by society -- ie not "turning off viewers."
Are you capable of establishing a boundary -- whether Hardaway's comments are a "turn off" or not -- before attempting to speak with any pretense of knowledge?
Hmm, looks like Mike is back to commenting on my posts again. Or maybe just attacking people's kids--since I don't read him any more I'll have to wait for someone else to tell me. Let me know if he comes near a valid point (and if I'm wrong and nothing he says refers to me please forgive the display of ego!)
Micha--Isn't there a difference between opposing gay marriage and saying you hate gays?
There is. I would not advocate firing someone over not supporting gay marriage. I'm aware that I'm in the minority in supporting it and not everyone who does not support it is doing so for hateful reasons. I think most genuinely, if (in my opinion) needlessly think that gay marriage would be harmful to families. But it is still a prejudiced view and it is hurting people who have done nothing to deserve it. Ditto on the ban on gays in the military--I honestly can't see how this can be justified. When this policy is revoked--and it will be--people will wonder what the hell the whole fuss was about (remember the huge controversy over gay teachers? Well here in my little North Carolina backwater we have several openly gay teachers and 2 of them have been teacher of the year, respected by their peers and loved by their kids).
Ok, I'm preaching to the choir, I know. Hardaway said a hateful thing and is paying the price. When you are representing a company you had better be careful about announcing disdain for any segment of the paying customer. Honesty is fine, but don't be surprised to become the most honest guy on the unemployment line. But who has really done the most harm--Hardaway with his openly declared bigotry or the politicians who give lip service to the rights of gays even as they limit their career choices and the fundamental right to marry the person you love and live out the American Dream (albeit with a modification undreamed of by Ozzie and Harriet)?
We tend to focus on the overtly bad bigots while tolerating the everyday slights. It would be like getting all righteous against a Bull O'Conner while shrugging at the less clearly vicious injustices of the Jim Crow south.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that anything I've said is something you agree or disagree with, Micha--you just gave me the stimulus to break out the soapbox again. Back to our regular program...
Yes, the irony doesn't elude me that there's plenty of people who would answer the same way when asked about African-Americans, and I doubt Hardaway would be so sanguine about that attidue. I wonder if anyone's brought that to his attention.
In Hardaway's forced (and I'm sure totally disingenuous) apology shortly after this, he said "As an African-American, I know all too well the negative thoughts and feelings hatred and bigotry cause." Which, IMO, makes it all the more reprehensible that he would say this kind of thing, because as he says, he knows how much being a victim of bigotry hurts.
Here's something funny...I found another press release that quotes him as saying "There are more important things to worry about than my comments. We should be more concerned about President (George) Bush and all the people dying in Iraq." If he's sincere and not just trying to get back in people's good graces by trying to get the focus on somebody worse than him, then at least he's not clueless about everything but it sucks that we've got guys like this on our side of the Iraq issue. I wouldn't turn down any help they'd give as far as public statements and protests and donating money and whatever, but I wouldn't like working with them when they harbor such hatred towards innocent people.
After all, the whole reason some of us oppose Iraq is because innocent people are dying; the last thing we want to see is somebody who has done no wrong dying or suffering, whether they are being killed or wounded or tortured at the hands of the U.S. military under Bush's orders, or whether they are being hurt emotionally by Hardaway's comments and rejection by society. People should live and let live.
If, for instance, this guy was raised to embrace the Bible, then his breeding tells him to abominate gays and also not to lie. So he was doing was he thought was right. Maybe we should hunt down his parents and ask him what they were planting in their kid's mind.
That is certainly a possible reason for his feelings.
However, it's not the only one, as I know. When I was in high school the word "faggot" got thrown around a lot as an insult (probably still is, though not as much). That was a homophobic environment, and if I were to tell you that I was completely innocent and never had a bad thought about gay people at that point in my life I would be lying.
I didn't grow up in a family of religious zealots or anything. For me, and I presume for other people, the thing that made us think of being gay as disgusting and make crude jokes and so forth was that we thought the idea of anal sex was disgusting. And, as far as we knew back then, only gay people engaged in anal sex. Even today, the thought of somebody voluntarily sticking any part of their body into the hole through which fecal matter is passed--particularly if they do it with no condom--is not really something I like thinking about. Any more than I like thinking about somebody giving somebody else a "Dirty Sanchez." Guess that makes me fecalphobic.
I began to think about it differently when Freddy Mercury died, however, because suddenly a face had been attached to the faceless "faggots" that got ridiculed all the time, and it was the face of somebody I respected. I saw the clips from Freddy giving interviews and could not help but realize that there was more to this guy than just his sexual orientation.
That, combined with the revelation that many, if not most, gay people don't like the idea of making physical contact with human waste any more than I do (hence very thorough personal hygiene and use of condoms), was what made me do a 180 and become more accepting.
Anyway, my point is that nowhere in this story did the Bible or the Torah or the Koran play a part. Obviously, the hatred towards gay people exhibited by others *is* rooted in their religion, but this is not always the case. In my case, my parents had absolutely nothing to do with it one way or the other.
I think most genuinely, if (in my opinion) needlessly[,] think that gay marriage would be harmful to families....
But who has really done the most harm--Hardaway with his openly declared bigotry or the politicians who give lip service to the rights of gays even as they limit their career choices and the fundamental right to marry the person you love and live out the American Dream (albeit with a modification undreamed of by Ozzie and Harriet)?
We tend to focus on the overtly bad bigots while tolerating the everyday slights. It would be like getting all righteous against a Bull O'Conner while shrugging at the less clearly vicious injustices of the Jim Crow south.
You started by saying the motive to limit marriage to exclude gays isn't hostile.
But when someone who publicly says nice things about gays withholds his support to gay marriage -- he's practically declared war on homosexuality.
Why yes, That's Totally Normal Psychology.™
Hmm, looks like Mike is back to commenting on my posts again. Or maybe just attacking people's kids...
That's funny, I would have thought you were someone's kid. But if you deny it, who am I to disagree?
I've been treating this story a bit like most of the Anna Nicole coverage.
(Click)... Next channel.
It was worth a side note on the news, but the coverage and reactions have been silly. He's a moron and he said something to prove just how big a moron he really is. Big deal.
Last I looked, you can like or dislike anyone you want to so long as your personal dislike of them doesn't come in to play in a employer/employee relationship or lead to criminal actions. From what little I've bothered following of this, this situation is neither of those two things. He has the right to be, in my POV, a moron and to show that he is a moron if someone asks him to do so.
He has a right to be a moron. People have the right to point out that he is a moron. Other people have the right to point out that, by their POV, he is correct in his views. It's all only words. So long as it stays only words, so long as the words don't turn into encouragement towards violence and so long as his professional actions toward any gay men he may end up playing against on the courts are not being hampered by his personal views, it's really not that big of a deal.
Besides, it's not like he said Belgium.
Hilarious!!! Brilliant!!!
As for Hardaway ("Hard"-heh heh heh) apologizing, nah. He was stating hoe he feels. Even if how he feels is repugnant, close minded, and prejudiced, it's still how he feels.
Any hoo, atleast there's no doubt the guy's a jerk. Gotta feed baby.
Bill, there's no real disagreement between you and me. You are correct that institutional prejudice is worst than a few words by an loud mouth bigot. I personaly don't care much for those situations where some celebrity says something stupid and than goes through a whole public penance. However, the fact that we live today in a world (at least in the west) where homosexuality is slightly more tolerated, and prejudice slightly less tolerated, is because of a lot of small events in which intolerance was delegitimized. So basically we both agree that it is good that Hardaway got into some trouble for his words, but there are still many greater issues to deal with.
About Mike, you're not missing anything.
Jerry, there is view, which I do not completley accept, that says that hate speech, in and of itself, harms gays, blacks, arabs, jews, mexicans, women etc. because if hate speech is common and acceptable, it makes it difficult for them to function in society. I don't think I'm explaining this point of view very well, but I would imagine that it is very difficult for a homosexual attending a high school in which the word faggot is in common use, even if there are no cases of gay bashing and he or she is not actualy prevented from doing anything. The hostile environment probably affects his or her life in ways we are not aware of.
Rob, it is no secret that sexuality is a very significant aspect of human identity and of human interaction. My theory is that homosexuality, or in the past the presence of women in the workplace, are or were perceived by society as a disturbance of the stability of that identity and interaction. In other words, it touches on a deep psychological level.
An interesting poll just came out that stated (and let's keep in mind the usual caveats about the general uselessness of polls) that more people would vote for a gay president than they would an atheist one. Interesting if true. Mormons and old people didn't do so great either which is possibly bad news for Mitt Romney and John McCain.
A certain Israeli liberal political party I sometimes vote for really wanted to have minorities on its ticket (Arabs, Gays, women, and Russians mostly). So somebody figured out that the most likely candidate to get on the list would be a transexual Circassian (small community of Arabic muslims who were brought by the Turks to Palestine/Israel from the Circassian mountains [Russia] in the 19th century).
OK. This would have been funnier without all the explanations.
Jerry, totally agree with you on the ANS coverage...but I don't think Hardaway's comments are of the same ilk. They reflect a viewpoint held by many people living in this country, and I think that's a problem. Not that they live here, or hold those views, but rather that prejudice and discrimination based on sexual preference is something we're still dealing with. Disregarding it as moronic, I think, is dangerous. You ignore morons, because they don't know any better, and you can't really help them change. Hardaway isn't a moron, though. He holds a certain viewpoint that I think is detrimental to the ongoing development of our society.
Secondly, it's true that in principal both the case of Haraway and the Dixie Chicks are cases of freedom of speech, but it seems to me that there should be a difference in the public preceptionand the public's attitude toward someone using freedom of speech in order to criticize a policy or a political figure and when someone uses it to voice hatred toward a group. We shouldn't get too relativistic.Agreed but since prejudice against gays is tolerated and even to a degree encouraged in government--witness the bipartisan support for both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don't Ask Don't tell policies--it becomes a bit hypocritical for society to come down hard on some athlete who simply speaks the same prejudice, without the fancy rhetoric and justifications.
Bill, there's no real disagreement between you and me. You are correct that institutional prejudice is worst than a few words by an loud mouth bigot.... So basically we both agree that it is good that Hardaway got into some trouble for his words, but there are still many greater issues to deal with.
Bill simply made institutional reform a priority over challenging the public celebration of bigotry. His equating the retaliation against "I hate gay people.... I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it" with the retaliation against "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas" still stands.
Comparing the two agendas only makes sense if you consider any public criticism of white patriarchy to be predatory. It demonstrates the neediness underlying the pretense of invulnerability.
To Bill, reform doesn't begin with crude Boston Tea Parties, but with fully evolved Declaration of Independences -- and only for the reform he has no stake in. He holds others to abstinance from lying, rumor campaigns, and libel, but never himself. It's how he shelters the status quo he seeks credit for criticising.
That's how pretense shelters a predatory agenda.
So somebody figured out that the most likely candidate to get on the list would be a transexual Circassian
Why not a shrimp-headed welder with pods?
I shouldn't have posted that bit. It requires too many explanations.
A transsexual circassian is gay/woman/arab/russian simultanously. namely four marginalized groups in Israeli society.
This party is very liberal, so it wants to help these groups. But most of its voters and candidates do not belong to marginalized groups but in fact belong to the more fortunate group of Israeli society -- the equivalent of WASPs. It is also a small party with only 5-8 members actually entering our parliament. So they were at a bind between their desire to include members of these groups in their party, and the desire to have the people they like -- who are like them -- enter parliament. So somebody who embodies four of the marginalized groups at once would have been ideal way for them to satisfy both their liberal inclinations and have most of their buddies in parliament. basically you have a party of WASPy liberals trying to have a token minority.
It's one of the, you'd have to have been there jokes -- not really funny.
Bill, I think that shrimp is not kosher. I expect that would work against the welder...
It does sound pretty ridiculous, Micha.
Whoever this candidate of theirs is (if they have found a particular TS circassian, that is) I wish that person the best, but I doubt she (I'll refer to the candidate as "she" since this person identifies as female and plans to have surgery to become physically female) will have any chance of being elected.
It's just like if somebody in the U.S. ran for President who was black, and gay, and a woman, and wasn't born in the country. Even being ONE of those things hurts your chances, you know?
It's just like if somebody in the U.S. ran for President who was black, and gay, and a woman, and wasn't born in the country. Even being ONE of those things hurts your chances, you know?
Well, yeah, if she wasn't born here it pretty much reduces her chances to zero!
(Interesting plot idea--a candidate discovers, on the eve of the election, that they were actually born outside of the USA, thus disqualifying them. Or better yet, their opponent discovers it.)
Micha,
Yeah, I've heard that a lot as well but have never subscribed to it. I also tend to believe that there are two things that change the ability of words to harm over time.
The first is any person's own ability to brush stupid crap like that off. I've pointed out before that I grew up in an area where I was the minority for most of my time there. I was the only white guy on my bus in two school districts. Whites were the minority in most of my classes in Petersburg and in some in Prince George. At a time before I was old enough to drive, I was one of only a handful of white kids in my neighborhood.
I had quite a few black friends, but there were lots of black kids in Petersburg that were as racist towards whites as any 50's Southerner stereotype you can think of would be towards blacks. I had lots of nasty things said to me based on nothing more the color of my skin. I also had a few acts of violence thrown my way based on my being white. Violence I met with violence until I got a reputation as someone you didn't mess with. But words? Couldn't care less. The people saying those things didn't know me, weren't my friends and meant absolutely less then nothing to me. Their words had no power in my mind. Their words couldn't hurt me.
It's something I point out to other officers from time to time when they take offense to something said by some loudmouth. Lots of people like to say lots of fun things to/at police just because we're there and they're morons. So what? Why should I give a moron's words any value by allowing them to have any meaning to me?
The second factor is time and public acceptance of an idea. 100 years ago, a white man standing on a street corner in Georgia and calling for his fellow "gentlemen" to get some rope and head out to lynch some blacks might have been a major threat to the local black population. Today the moron would end up arrested, probably given a mental evaluation and, if he were a public figure, shunned and booted from whatever position he held. 50 years ago, blacks and Asians were portrayed in films in a manner that would not be accepted by the general public today. An entertainer then could be able to do a routine with hate filled rants and racial slurs that would get him banned from most places today and, if he were, say, a well known TV star, get him in temporarily career threatening jeopardy.
Dingbat made a stupid statement that, while maybe 70 or 80 years ago would have flown with the general public, won't fly today. How truly powerless were his words? He may have only found support with the fringe minority that thinks like he does. The majority of Americans reacted by expressing their distaste for his comments. He got in lots of trouble and had his employer spank him over it. The majority of the population that expressed their views on the subject did so to call him to the mat over his statements.
His words have no power. The greatest risk here is going so overboard in punishing him that he can in some way start playing up a victim status in the face of extreme overreaction.
Bobb,
"They reflect a viewpoint held by many people living in this country, and I think that's a problem..."
But it is a problem that is diminishing with each generation. It is a problem that more and more people see as a problem and act to correct or remove. But it is a belief that many hold and it would be wrong to tell them that they may not express it.
Mind you, I'm not saying others should not stand up and counter the statements or make an argument against expressed stupidity. It's like with Kanye West declaring that Bush hates black people and that "they" were down there killing "us" for just trying to get food. I argued with several people here and lots of people outside the net-world that he was a moron and what he said was both full of it and just one part of an ultimately extremely self destructive POV to hold for various reasons. At no time did I say he shouldn't be allowed to say such things (outside of questioning his choice of when and where) and I don't think he should be financially punished for being an idiot. He has a right to be a fool and to prove it to the world as often as he wishes.
"Disregarding it as moronic, I think, is dangerous. You ignore morons, because they don't know any better, and you can't really help them change. Hardaway isn't a moron, though. He holds a certain viewpoint that I think is detrimental to the ongoing development of our society."
Calling it moronic isn't dangerous so long as people don't ignore anything that might grow from something like that. Write off words as nothing more then words. If he converts his beliefs into actions or has supporters that try to create physical or financial harm to gays, then you act and act decisively. You make an example of such fools because actions such as that are detrimental to the ongoing development of our society. But the odd group of fools, and groups that are growing smaller with time, opening their mouths and inserting their feet won't mess with the development of our society. We've had people like this for as long as we've had society and likely always will. They're not a problem so long as the majority continues to grow and continues to deem such behavior to be the boorish examples of moronic mouthbreathers that it is.
100 years ago, a white man standing on a street corner in Georgia and calling for his fellow "gentlemen" to get some rope and head out to lynch some blacks might have been a major threat to the local black population. Today the moron would end up arrested, probably given a mental evaluation and, if he were a public figure, shunned and booted from whatever position he held.
Directly taking steps to preserve your privilege isn't inherently moronic or insane. Doing so publicly merely sacrifices that privilege's most reliable shelter -- denying it even exists.
100 years ago, the privilege of white patriarchy in the US did not depend on such a denial. Now those who would preverse it must resort to painting any criticism of white patriarchy as predatory -- by comparing "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas" to "I hate gay people.... I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it."
Bill Mulligan:
Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that the president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Unless I misunderstand the meaning, that doesn't preclude he or she being born outside the U.S.- so long as his/her parents are U.S. citizens. That would automatically make him/her a U.S. citizen.
In other words, if for example, your parents- both U.S. citizens- were living in Germany when you were born, you'd be a U.S. citizen and eligible to run for president.
Though why anyone would _want_ to is beyond me. As Milo Bloom said in a 1988 (or late 1987) storyline about the search for a presidential candidate, "we need a complete fool." He turned to Steve Dallas, who, not being a _complete_ fool, immediately shouted, "forget it!"
Again, someone born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizens is also a U.S. citizen. Neither Governor Granholm nor Governor Schwarzenegger could be president (barring a constitutional amendment) because they were born outside the U.S. (in Canada and Austria, respectively) to parents who weren't U.S. citizens.
Now I've a question on a related note, one I'll throw out to the room: If "Bob's" mother has, say, dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship; his father has dual U.S. and German citizenship and Bob is born in Spain, how many citizenships can he claim? All of the above, or just some?
Rick
Mormons and old people didn't do so great either which is possibly bad news for Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Someone should do a poll about the likelihood of voting for a candidate with a reputation for serious anger management problems. That would probably sink John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
Howard Dean, too, but then he's not running.
Rick--thanks for the correction. I feel like a dope; I'd always thought being born outside of the country disqualified a person. (Which would be a pretty silly reason to disqualify anyone).
Den--you're right that both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have shown flashes of temper before. Whether or not it hurts them might depend on how it is perceived and/or reported. I remember McCain being critisized for telling Connie Chung to go away after a primary loss, like that was a big display of ill temper. Of course, a lot will depend on how they contrast with the Democratic candidate. Would any display of anger look even worse when compared to Hillary's relatively unemotional personality? It would depend on the viewer, I guess and whether or not the story the media decides to play on it "candidate Loose Cannon" or "Candidate Soulless Robot". Niether of which is fair to the actual people involved but there we go.
It's an unfortunate fact, but these days, candidates should realize that their every move and word can be recorded and analyzed by not only the media, but also the bloggers as they post it on U-tube. Howard Dean shouted to be heard over a cheering crowd and the next day, everyone thinks he's a psycho. Teresa Heinz-Kerry tells a reporter with a long history of doing hatchet pieces on her and her family to "shove it" and everyone acts like she literally ripped his throat out. What's the first thing most people think of when they hear Dan Quayle? Potatoe.
Both McCain and Giuliani have reputations for being short-tempered and vindictive. Whether that's deserved or not, I don't know, but I doubt there's anything either could do to change that perception at this point.
"To which they would say that who are you to say that it's wrong for them to feel that way? Their point of view would be that there's something wrong with you for *not* being abominated. And they'll claim that their position is backed up by the word of God. So you've got a tough road ahead of you."
Oh, I'm not saying that I want to argue with them. I'm just saying that being open about his hatred actually *is* worse than avoiding the subject. One implies a deeper problem than the other.
For example, President Kennedy smoked cigars. However, he tried extremely hard not to be seen smoking cigars, to the point that he'd shove them in his pocket when the press showed up. The Secret Service joked about needing to line his pockets with asbestos because of all the holes he'd burned in them.
Kennedy did that because he didn't want the children of the nation to see him smoking and take after his example. Now, I don't think I can convert every smoker to have that attitude, but I do hold Kennedy in higher regard on that subject than all the people who've honestly tried to convince me that smoking doesn't cause cancer.
Well, yeah, if she wasn't born here it pretty much reduces her chances to zero!
I thought there was some kind of legislation in the works that'd make it possible for Schwarzenegger to run eventually, but I forget where I heard that.
Posted by: Jason M. Bryant at February 22, 2007 12:24 PM
I'm just saying that being open about his hatred actually *is* worse than avoiding the subject.
I have to disagree. If you really believe something, you should have the guts to say so. Moreover, the only way we can change irrational attitudes like bigotry towards gays is if those attitudes are out in the open where we can all have a good look at them. Covert bigotry is harder to fight because it's harder to spot.
Posted by: Rob Brown at February 22, 2007 12:35 PM
I thought there was some kind of legislation in the works that'd make it possible for Schwarzenegger to run eventually, but I forget where I heard that.
That would require more than just "legislation." It would entail an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
There was talk of an amendment to get rid of the native born citizen requirement a few years ago when Ahnold had just recently gotten elected the governator. It kind of died down when his education reform initiatives got mired. Now that he's won reelection easily, maybe they're start talking him up for 2012.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I'd hate to go through the amendment process just for the ambitions of one man. On the other hand, the native born clause is really outdated and undemocratic. To be truly fair, it should be amended to just requiring the president to be a citizen in good standing.
I heard a suggestion the other day that we should amend the constitution to limit us to one president from Texas per century. Now that's an amendment I could whole-heartedly support.
"Kennedy did that because he didn't want the children of the nation to see him smoking and take after his example."
That may be it, but I tend to suspect it may have had something to do with his having a fondness for Cuban cigars, and he didn't want to have people seeing him puffing away on Havana Golds for obvious political reasons.
PAD
I had heard once that the day before JFK signed the Cuban embargo, he stocked up his humidore.
Jerry, perhaps a better demonstation of the point of viw that hate speech is bad in and of itself is this: a black cop serving in a police force in which racist language is common might find it difficult to perform his job, and will be unlikely to be promoted, even if there will not be clear signs of discrimination.
However, I tend more to agree with your point of view. The fact is that the fact that hate speech is less accepted today is not because of laws restricting freedom of speech, but because freedom of speech was used in order to change the way people think and behave.
"I have to disagree. If you really believe something, you should have the guts to say so. Moreover, the only way we can change irrational attitudes like bigotry towards gays is if those attitudes are out in the open where we can all have a good look at them. Covert bigotry is harder to fight because it's harder to spot."
I wonder. Do you think that the fact that racist language and behavior are less acceptable today was the result of an internal change leading to an external one, or an external change leading to an internal change? Was it first unacceptable to say racist things, and as a result racism become not only less acceptable on the outside, but eventually was removed (to a degree) from peole's minds? Or did the rejection of racist language have to begin with an internal change?
----------------------
"It does sound pretty ridiculous, Micha.
Whoever this candidate of theirs is (if they have found a particular TS circassian, that is) I wish that person the best, but I doubt she (I'll refer to the candidate as "she" since this person identifies as female and plans to have surgery to become physically female) will have any chance of being elected.
It's just like if somebody in the U.S. ran for President who was black, and gay, and a woman, and wasn't born in the country. Even being ONE of those things hurts your chances, you know?"
I shouldn't have posted that story, it requires too many explanations. The Israeli electoral system is different from the American.
To translate to American terms: suppose Ralph Nader was looking for a running mate for the next presidential elections. Obviously Nader has no chance of being president and his running mate's identity probably only matters to the tiny group of ultra-liberal people who support Nader, and even then only those who bother being active in his party. But being the ultra-liberals that they are, they would want to have a running mate that will belong to an under-represented group like women, gays, blacks, hispanics and so forth, despite many of them being white heterosexuals (Nader will not consider giving up his candidacy of course so that such a person would be the presidential candidate). But which group should they satisfy? Which group is more important? And what about all of the possible staunch liberal candidates, the veterans of many struggles, who have the misfortune of being white? This is the kind of funny problems ultra-liberals such as myself, who vote for small liberal parties, have to face.
During our elections the liberal party I vote for used to joke that the ideal candidate would be a transexual-circassian, since it would satisfy four groups inside this rather small party: gays, russians, feminists, and arabs, each one of which had there own candidate they wanted to support. (there was no actual transexual candidate) Most of the voters however, although very liberal, were none of the above. They were mostly non immigrant heterosexual jews. The candidates they really liked were like them too. But they also wanted to feel that they were doing something for minorities.
And now to an even more boring explanation of the Israeli electoral system, proceed at your own peril:
The Nader analogy I wrote above doesn't completelt fit. Israel doesn't have a presidential system. We vote for political parties. A party gets seats in our 120 member parliament based on the number of votes it gets. I think about 50,000 votes is one seat ans so on. Each party has a list of people who fill the seats one by the party. In a small party like the one I vote for, the 10th person on the list has a very slim chance of getting in. No. 1 is the leader of the party. Part of the internal political process of the different parties involves constructing that lists, often by internal primaries. I think this aspect of our system is better than yours because votes don't go to waste. Even if you hold a minority position you still have some candidates in parliament.
Since John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone I hope this has all been worked out!
I'm pretty sure that, like a military base in a foreign country or an embassy, the Panama Cannel zone was considered by treaty to be US territory at that time, so McCain should have nothing to worry about.
Besides, he's never going to win anyway. :)
"That may be it, but I tend to suspect it may have had something to do with his having a fondness for Cuban cigars, and he didn't want to have people seeing him puffing away on Havana Golds for obvious political reasons."
Eh, it's probably both.
I'm just saying that being open about his hatred actually *is* worse than avoiding the subject.I have to disagree. If you really believe something, you should have the guts to say so. Moreover, the only way we can change irrational attitudes like bigotry towards gays is if those attitudes are out in the open where we can all have a good look at them. Covert bigotry is harder to fight because it's harder to spot.
***
If you mean "oppressive," "predatory," or "wrong," you can say "oppressive," "predatory," or "wrong" -- don't seek shelter behind terms you've demonstrated you don't understand.
Intelligent design isn't irrational, it simply disregards evolution -- it's a conflict of incompatible rational paradigms. Even atheist Kurt Vonnegut admits evolution makes as much sense as a tornado whipping into a hangar and slapping a 747 together -- and considering how often evolution is misinterpreted, by capitalists, by communists, by supremacists, siding with intelligent design over the observation-heavy theory of evolution is clearly more rational.
***
Do you think that the fact that racist language and behavior are less acceptable today was the result of an internal change leading to an external one, or an external change leading to an internal change? Was it first unacceptable to say racist things, and as a result racism become not only less acceptable on the outside, but eventually was removed (to a degree) from peole's minds? Or did the rejection of racist language have to begin with an internal change?
Poor people will talk about money. Rich people will tell you talking about money is impolite.
As the privileged shelter their privileges by making discussion of their privileges taboo, predators will shelter their predatory agendas with denial.
When racism was not considered predatory, publicly defending white patriarchy wasn't a problem. Now white patriarchy has to be sheltered by comparing "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas" to "I hate gay people.... I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it" -- where any criticism of white patriarchy gets painted as predatory.
Even atheist Kurt Vonnegut admits evolution makes as much sense as a tornado whipping into a hangar and slapping a 747 together
Okay, suddenly the bits you referred to from Galapagos a while back make a lot more sense: Vonnegut fails to understand evolution at the most basic level. Good to know. (And intelligent design requires the highly irrational step of saying "life, or at least some aspects of it, require an intelligent designer to explain them--but the intelligent designer doesn't require an explanation." Throwing up one's hands and saying "Well, I guess we don't need to explain this part" isn't rational--it's deliberate avoidance of rationality, even if it tries to cloak itself in rational terms.)
BTW....everybody here has heard of Conservapedia right?
Even atheist Kurt Vonnegut admits evolution makes as much sense as a tornado whipping into a hangar and slapping a 747 together
Whoadawha??? I'm guessing this is from Mike. Well, yikes.
(pause while I read his post--don't want to be accused of taking something out of context).
Well, that was the usual thing, though the fact that some people never change their tune has nothing to do with evolution. I don't know if Mike will claim that the Vonnegut reflects his own view or is just something he threw in their to appear intellectual. It is, regardless, pure nonsense. Vonnegut is an intelligent man but saying "evolution makes as much sense as a tornado whipping into a hangar and slapping a 747 together" would, if true, indicates that a basic knowledge of biology is not one of his great strengths.
All of this, of course, assumes that Mike actually has his facts straight--a dangerous assumption, given the source. For example, I am having trouble finding evidence that Mr. Vonnegut has said this and given the science knowledge he has shown in the past it seems rather out of character. The statement sounds a good deal like something British astronomer Fred Hoyle said: the random generation of a simple cell was as likely as "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
Note that this is an argument against the chemical origin of life and has nothing--zip, nada--to do with evolution of life forms on earth. Believing, as some do, that life began on earth from an extraterrestrial "infection", if you will, is interesting but completely meaningless to a discussion on evolution. A common mistake, no big deal (unless one is arrogant enough to include statements like "don't seek shelter behind terms you've demonstrated you don't understand." Then you look like an ass.)
Perhaps Vonnegut was quoting Mr Hoyle in his novel Timequake (one creationist online indicated that something like the quote appears in the book) but that is not the same thing as it being his opinion. Work of fiction and all.
But regardless of whether or not Vonnegut believes this, it is a seriously flawed argument. for many reasons, not the least of which is that nobody claims that complex molecules spontaneously pop into existence by sheer chance. Were that the case every snowflake would be a thermodynamic improbability.
Evolution, like all theories of the natural sciences, seeks an explanation that does not require an the involvement of intelligent forces. It seeks to explain biological phenomena by a mechanistic (is this the proper term?) explanation, just as physics explains the motion of planets and the behavior of atoms, or geology the formation of mountains and continents.
This methodology of seeking mechanistic explanations to natural phenomena is considered preferable for 3 reasons:
1) It reduces the need to speculate about external forces of which there is no empiric evidence available, such as an intelligent designer.
2) It's main tool is observation of the phenomena themselves.
3) The explanation offered by natural sciences seem satisfactory.
Evolution is opposed by people for three reasons:
1) It seems counterintuitive. In everyday human experience, complex things, like planes or clocks, are the result of human minds designing them. It is difficult for people to accept that complex biological organisms, especially humans, are the result of an inanimate process. Some even claim that they can scientifically proove that it is impossible that such complex organisms were formed in the way evolution describes.
2) Human tradition tended to attribute intelligent will to the forces of nature -- gods, spirits etc. Maybe it is an aspect of human nature to animate things? This tradition culminated in the belief in a God who is intelligent and controls or at least intiated natural phenomena. Furthermore, tradition is a strong social and psychological force, and reliion has a long tradition.
3) A mechanistic explanation of human existence, especially one that compars humans with other animals runs contrary to the way humans preceive humanity, especially in the context of human morality. (Mike for example speaks against evolution because of its connection to certain ideologies that tried to extend the evolutionary explanation to the realm of human sociology and history).
--------
Mike is correct that both evolution (and other mechanistic explanations) and intelligent design are equally rational explanations, assuming you adopt a rational attitude for your subject matter. Science does not have to automatically reject the possibility of intelligent agents to be rational. Natural sciences do so because explanations that do not assume intelligent agents are better. Social sciences and humanities on the other hand deal with phenomena connected with intellligent agents (mostly) -- humans. However, even if science were to discard the requirement that the explanation of natural phenomena will not use intelligent agents in its explanations, it would still require that the subject matter of the study will be addressed rationaly. That would mean the intelligent designer wil not be treated with the reverence that religious people attribute to god, but instead he will be studied in the same dispassionate way way that a rock, a planet, a virus, a social institution, or human psychology are studied.
[I should qualify what Isaid earlier in two cases: ecology studies human influence on the environment, and quantum physics speaks about the way an intelligent observer affects behavior of particles.]
It has long amazed me that people--religious ones particularly--are so resistant to the idea of evolution.
Not all, of course. The Pope has no problem with it. One can simply state that evolution is the means by which God (or whatever supernatural force one believes in) has used evolution to get us to this point. Since virtually all educated religious people have no trouble accepting that God uses natural means to me the earth spin and the seasons change it seems to me the height of hubris to think that only Man could not be achieved through nature. The stars and the planets, oh sure, but not mighty man!
I would answer the objections in order:
1) It seems counterintuitive. In everyday human experience, complex things, like planes or clocks, are the result of human minds designing them. It is difficult for people to accept that complex biological organisms, especially humans, are the result of an inanimate process. Some even claim that they can scientifically proove that it is impossible that such complex organisms were formed in the way evolution describes.
Life is chemistry and chemistry is fully capable of getting order out of randomness, at least in the short term. Again, I would use the example of the snowflake--it is not a miracle that water forms such perfect crystal forms. The odds of such a thing forming randomly from atoms is probably 1 bazillion to 1. It happens because it is not random.
2) Human tradition tended to attribute intelligent will to the forces of nature -- gods, spirits etc. Maybe it is an aspect of human nature to animate things? This tradition culminated in the belief in a God who is intelligent and controls or at least intiated natural phenomena. Furthermore, tradition is a strong social and psychological force, and reliion has a long tradition.
And I would respect that. Science can't disprove God. A smart person of a religious nature should welcome science in its search to find the means by which God does His handiwork. Indeed, one could argue that those who try to supress such knowledge are working contrary to God's will.
3) A mechanistic explanation of human existence, especially one that compars humans with other animals runs contrary to the way humans preceive humanity, especially in the context of human morality. (Mike for example speaks against evolution because of its connection to certain ideologies that tried to extend the evolutionary explanation to the realm of human sociology and history).
Animal, plant, protist, fungus, bacteria--these are the options, folks. I'll take animal and be happy about it.
As for those who try to either use or deny evolution to advance some political agenda, well, that's probably true for every scientific truth. It's no reason to deny the science.
I would not argue against intelligent design on the basis of it being irrational; only that it is not scientific and, as such, not proper for the teaching of science.
Intelligent design works for some because it's easy. No research, no questions. Any time you hit a dead end, insert the "Intelligent Designer". Or, to keep it simple, a "Being with God like Powers.
Most of the folks I've met who take I.D seriously are the same bunch who call global warming or climate change a myth. Evidence be damned, we'll go with B.W.G.P.
IMHO, these people fear the idea that maybe there's no one in charge, and we'll have to clean up the mess ourselves.
I don't know if Mike will claim that the Vonnegut reflects his own view or is just something he threw in their to appear intellectual.
Yes, Vonnegut cited a scientist, referred to him as if they were acquainted, and did not challenge his expertise. The name Hoyle sounds familiar, I don't doubt it's him, and your citation of Hoyle suits me fine:
[The] probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.
Though Vonnegut cited Hoyle somewhere else, Hocus Pocus mentions in passing microscopic organism traveling on meteors and astreroids and such. Germs that were discovered to have survived on a lense exposed to the lunar surface have also been cited as an example of how space-traveling germs could survive.
Note that this is an argument against the chemical origin of life and has nothing--zip, nada--to do with evolution of life forms on earth.
Evolutionary theory proposes that all life has a common ancestry.
Considering a proven theory of the origin of life could make or break evolutionary/intelligent design theory -- the topic I was addressing -- saying the origin of life has absolutely nothing -- zip, nada -- to do with evolution is counter-intuitive to the point of mental retardation.
When you talk here about students, I hope you're speaking as a driving instructor, and not some kind of science teacher.
But regardless of whether or not Vonnegut believes this, it is a seriously flawed argument. for many reasons, not the least of which is that nobody claims that complex molecules spontaneously pop into existence by sheer chance. Were that the case every snowflake would be a thermodynamic improbability.
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin[™] made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Unless you are referring to the literal appearance of matter from nothingness -- why Hoyle's observation would depend on the literal appearance of matter from nothingness you'll have to explain -- the above quote by Charles Darwin™ from 136 years ago qualifies as a claim as valid as any other that life blossomed by mere chance.
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn't thermodynamically improbable.
...and considering how often evolution is misinterpreted, by capitalists, by communists, by supremacists, siding with intelligent design over the observation-heavy theory of evolution is clearly more rational.(Mike for example speaks against evolution because of its connection to certain ideologies that tried to extend the evolutionary explanation to the realm of human sociology and history).
Observing the rationality of you siding with intelligent design over a theory you don't understand isn't speaking against evolution.
Posted by: Micha at February 22, 2007 02:40 PM
Do you think that the fact that racist language and behavior are less acceptable today was the result of an internal change leading to an external one, or an external change leading to an internal change?
Interesting question. In the U.S., the civil rights movement of the 1960s forced our nation to see the ugly results of racism. Television had a lot to do with it: people could see peaceful black demonstrators being shot with police water cannons and attacked by police dogs. Our collective conscience was awakened, and as a result racist language gradually became less and less socially acceptable as people began to realize just where racism leads.
Granted, we haven't gotten to the "promised land" Martin Luther King Jr. spoke about, but we're closer now than we were 40 or 50 years ago.
Anyway, my initial remark admittedly was a shot from the hip. It is a good thing that bigoted langauge today results in society's disapprobation. A few decades ago, Michael Richards could have gotten away with his recent racist tirade. Not so today. That's a good thing.
It's a double-edged sword, though. In today's environment of "political correctness," I don't think anyone could get away with doing a T.V. show like "All in the Family." That's unfortunate. I was just a youngster when that show was in first run, and I believe it had a lot to do with helping me form my social conscience. Archie Bunker's escapades were cautionary tales that screamed, "Don't be like this." We can't change bigoted attitudes unless we first identify them and discuss them, just as doctors cannot treat a cancer that is undiagnosed.
Considering a proven theory of the origin of life could make or break evolutionary/intelligent design theory -- the topic I was addressing -- saying the origin of life has absolutely nothing -- zip, nada -- to do with evolution is counter-intuitive to the point of mental retardation.
The origin of life is a completely different issue from evolution. This is not rocket science. Imagining that the first life on earth came from space viruses or cosmic bacteria does not, in any way shape or form, change evolutionary theory. The name of the book was On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life.
I also fail to see how bacteria arriving on earth from space has much to do with Intelligent Design. Are these supposed to be Intelligent Bacteria, Mike? Did they arrive in a bacteria spaceship of their own design? You're like those goofs who head off to Africa to look for surviving relic dinosaurs, thinking that this will disprove evolution when evolution has nothing--zip, nada, zero--to do with theories of the disappearance of the dinosaurs.
When you talk here about students, I hope you're speaking as a driving instructor, and not some kind of science teacher.
Yet they somehow are able to figure out the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. And these are 9th graders.
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin[™] made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Yes. Um, your point?
Oh! You think that is inconsistent with the idea that nobody believe that life just randomly came together from chemicals, like Hoyle’s imagined 747. See, Mike, here's the thing--there is a discipline called chemistry that explains why, under certain circumstances, simple chemical compounds become more complex chemical compounds. It isn't random and a matter of pure chance. Darwin was correct that his primordial pool could very reasonably be imagined to be capable of forming complex compounds from simpler ones. Whether or not that is really how life on Earth came about is something we may never know. But what is not proposed by any scientist I know of is the idea that somewhere in a pool of goo all the various parts randomly and spontaneously came together to form an amoeba. The first self replicating molecules were not alive, by the modern definition of it anyway.
But again, none of this is part of evolutionary theory. As wikipedia states The origin of life from self-catalytic chemical reactions is not a part of biological evolution, but rather of pre-evolutionary abiogenesis. They tend to get lumped in together by the careless.
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn't thermodynamically improbable.
What the old saw about no two snowflakes ever matching has to do with any of this is beyond me. (at any rate it is probably virtually impossible for them to be exactly identical--exact same number of atoms? Doubtful.) And as to why snowflakes are not thermodynamically improbable...go talk to the folks in Oswego, now still shoveling 142 inches of improbability off their roofs. Snowflakes are formed from crystals. Crystalline water forms the structures it does because of very specific ways the water molecules interact with each other.
Why do snowflakes not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Because the Earth is not a closed system. Energy flows in. Not. Rocket. Science.
This from the guy who tells others "don't seek shelter behind terms you've demonstrated you don't understand." But that's Our Mike. The perfect storm of arrogance and ignorance, always convinced that the best defense is offensiveness. Don't ever change.
Mike for example speaks against evolution because of its connection to certain ideologies that tried to extend the evolutionary explanation to the realm of human sociology and history
Which is a common argument made by people who don't have any competing data to counter a scientific theory that they don't like. I find it being made all the time for everything from global warming to evolution and the big bang. The argument goes that scientists are advancing certain theories not because that's what the data supports, but because they're communists/nazis/atheists who want to undermine our society or force us to accept a certain political ideology. For people like that, facts aren't facts, they're just tools to be manipulated for one agenda or another. If your theories don't support their agenda, it's not because you found facts they didn't know about. It's because you have a different agenda. To them, everyone has an agenda. Except themselves of course, they just want to expose the "truth" against your facts.
Manny has it right, ID appeals to people because it's an easy to gloss over complex ideas that they don't understand. But just because Professor Behe can't imagine a mechanism that would produce a flagellum through natural selection doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
ID, though, is boring. If you don't understand something, just put up a sign that says, "here God intervened" and stop asking questions. Perhaps, though, that is their agenda. Questions, after all, could lead to more questions, which might lead to independent thought.
Can't that.
"2) Human tradition tended to attribute intelligent will to the forces of nature -- gods, spirits etc. Maybe it is an aspect of human nature to animate things? This tradition culminated in the belief in a God who is intelligent and controls or at least intiated natural phenomena. Furthermore, tradition is a strong social and psychological force, and religion has a long tradition.
And I would respect that. Science can't disprove God. A smart person of a religious nature should welcome science in its search to find the means by which God does His handiwork. Indeed, one could argue that those who try to supress such knowledge are working contrary to God's will."
Ultimately, the probem for religion is not the theories that scientific knowledge offers, or any challenge that it does or does not offer to the idea of God. It is a problem of the authority of knowledge. The authority of religions comes from tradition -- knowledge passed down. and only religion has the authority to interpret tradition. The moment a person suggest another, competing source of knowledge, reason, observation, that person is challenging the authority of tradition and of those who interpret it. It doesn't matter if it is an ancient Athenian philosopher, 9th century Muslim philosopher, a 12th century professor in Paris, or a 19th century biologist. The fact that such a person claims knowledge without depending on tradition is bad enough. It is even worse if the knowledge he or she offers does not include god as a part of the explanation as modern science does.
"Animal, plant, protist, fungus, bacteria--these are the options, folks. I'll take animal and be happy about it."
Next you'll be saying that the earth is not the center of the universe, and then that our traditions are simply social institutions no different from other inferior cultures. People wil start questioning authority. You're corrupting our youth Bill. Socrates was executed for this.
Oh, since Mike copyrighted Daewin every time you mention him in class you have to pay royalties.
Mike wrote:
"...and considering how often evolution is misinterpreted, by capitalists, by communists, by supremacists, siding with intelligent design over the observation-heavy theory of evolution is clearly more rational.
(Mike for example speaks against evolution because of its connection to certain ideologies that tried to extend the evolutionary explanation to the realm of human sociology and history).
Observing the rationality of you siding with intelligent design over a theory you don't understand isn't speaking against evolution."
To prefer a theory like intelligent design over a theory like evolution which is counterintuitive and hard to understand is understandable, it's human nature, it is not even completly irrational.
Prefering the not really scientific theory of intelligent design over the scientific theory of evolution because of political movements that misused that theory is irrational.
"Intelligent design works for some because it's easy. No research, no questions. "
I don't think so. Science also finds itself at times stuck with no answers. And theology is not easy -- speculating about divine beings is not easy. Intelligent design is more satisfying on some level for human psychology.
---------------------
"Do you think that the fact that racist language and behavior are less acceptable today was the result of an internal change leading to an external one, or an external change leading to an internal change?
Interesting question. In the U.S., the civil rights movement of the 1960s forced our nation to see the ugly results of racism. Television had a lot to do with it: people could see peaceful black demonstrators being shot with police water cannons and attacked by police dogs. Our collective conscience was awakened, and as a result racist language gradually became less and less socially acceptable as people began to realize just where racism leads.
Granted, we haven't gotten to the "promised land" Martin Luther King Jr. spoke about, but we're closer now than we were 40 or 50 years ago."
I think the two processes happened simultanously. Some people went through internal change because black's were humanized. Others changed there behavior because of social pressure by the first kind of people. some people went through both processes.
"Anyway, my initial remark admittedly was a shot from the hip. It is a good thing that bigoted langauge today results in society's disapprobation. A few decades ago, Michael Richards could have gotten away with his recent racist tirade. Not so today. That's a good thing."
Agreed.
"It's a double-edged sword, though. In today's environment of "political correctness," I don't think anyone could get away with doing a T.V. show like "All in the Family." That's unfortunate. I was just a youngster when that show was in first run, and I believe it had a lot to do with helping me form my social conscience. Archie Bunker's escapades were cautionary tales that screamed, "Don't be like this." We can't change bigoted attitudes unless we first identify them and discuss them, just as doctors cannot treat a cancer that is undiagnosed."
Today we have comedians and comedy shows like Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Sarah Silverman, Southpark, the Daily Show, Bill Mahr, that examine political correctness and what's hidden beneath it. They are very edgy. Different comedy for a different time.
Micha, I don't understand what you mean by this: "Mike is correct that both evolution (and other mechanistic explanations) and intelligent design are equally rational explanations, assuming you adopt a rational attitude for your subject matter."
For one, this sounds circular...everything would be rational if you assume it's rational? Well, of course. You can look at any number of religious/cultural explanations of the world around us, and if you adopt the stance that the beliefs of that culture/religion are rational, then their observations are of course rational. Ancient Greek and Roman cultures, for example, held the rational belief that Gods actually existed, and interacted in a physical, tangible, visible way with the world around them. Hell, how many people were running around in ancient Greece claiming to be sons or daughters of Zeus?
ID is only rational if the idea of the Designer...God in most cases...is rational. But it's not a rational idea. I'm a fairly spiritual guy, I totally believe in God, but I know it's not a rational belief, because it's based on nothing more than my feelings and what I've been told. If anything, it's based more on the things I don't know than anything.
Evolution, on the other hand, is totally based on observations and conclusions based upon what we see of the world around us. It's a rational theory because it's based on facts. With evolution, you trace the evolutionary development through genetic and fossil records, and you draw the conclusion that species are evolving into other species over time. There are very real and tangible facts to observe, study, and compare. With ID, you say God designed all life. That's it. There's nothing to see, nothing to study, nothing to compare. A rational person would not accept ID, without some irrational motivation. Religion is irrational, because it almost universally deals with the unproven, the unknown, and the unknowable. You take religion on faith, which often contradicts or even replaces rationality.
What is troubling is that evolution continues to this day as a sound scientific principle--what else are strains of diseases which mutate to resist various medications if not evolution? Are Godhuggers (if enviornmentalists are treehuggers, then those who substitute God's work for nature's should be Godhuggers) going to claim that God is so into micromanaging that he's actually deciding which diseases should live and die?
PAD
Considering a proven theory of the origin of life could make or break evolutionary/intelligent design theory -- the topic I was addressing -- saying the origin of life has absolutely nothing -- zip, nada -- to do with evolution is counter-intuitive to the point of mental retardation.Imagining that the first life on earth came from space viruses or cosmic bacteria does not, in any way shape or form, change evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory includes timelines, does it not?
What evolutionary timeline does not include a demarcation between the time when there is no evidence of life and the time when there is?
Just because fossilized remains give record to the changes of life, but not its origin, it's a very crude rationalization, Lothar, to say establishing the origin of life contributes nothing to establishing the credibility of evolution.
It's Not Rocket Science.™
When you talk here about students, I hope you're speaking as a driving instructor, and not some kind of science teacher.Yet they somehow are able to figure out the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. And these are 9th graders.
You can't even make the intuitive leap Hoyle based his statistical conclusion on evolutionary paradigms without explicitly being told so.
And it isn't like you don't have a history of disregarding plainly worded English if Hoyle's notes cite fossilized records.
Dude, your salary so belongs to me.
But regardless of whether or not Vonnegut believes this, it is a seriously flawed argument. for many reasons, not the least of which is that nobody claims that complex molecules spontaneously pop into existence by sheer chance. Were that the case every snowflake would be a thermodynamic improbability.Unless you are referring to the literal appearance of matter from nothingness -- why Hoyle's observation would depend on the literal appearance of matter from nothingness you'll have to explain -- the above quote by Charles Darwin™ from 136 years ago qualifies as a claim as valid as any other that life blossomed by mere chance.
Oh! You think that is inconsistent with the idea that nobody believe that life just randomly came together from chemicals, like Hoyle’s imagined 747.
In as much as I disagree Charles Darwin™ is Nobody™ -- yeah.
So belongs to me.
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn't thermodynamically improbable.What the old saw about no two snowflakes ever matching has to do with any of this is beyond me. (at any rate it is probably virtually impossible for them to be exactly identical--exact same number of atoms? Doubtful.) And as to why snowflakes are not thermodynamically improbable...go talk to the folks in Oswego, now still shoveling 142 inches of improbability off their roofs.
In as much as the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique -- yeah.
So Belongs To Me.™
...this sounds circular...everything would be rational if you assume it's rational?
Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions -- thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions -- sensing or intuiting) as irrational.
As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational.
I've had ID supporters try to explain to me why evolution on a micro scale...slight changes in color, or developing bigger teeth, or a flu virus developing a resistance to the flu vaccine du jour...doesn't support the idea of so-called macro evolution, which was defined to me as one species changing into another.
After which I showed through maths how a 1% change in size every 100 years takes T-Rex from a 30' long monster down to the size of a large chicken in something like 25,000 years.
In this case, ID/faith is totally overriding rationality, in the sense that ID is being used to replace evolution. ID and evolution can coexist, just so long as one understands that they aren't talking about the same thing. ID, unless you take it to mean that God not only designs all life, but he also is changing all life around us, merely looks at the origin of life. Evolution doesn't look at the origin of life at all, although eventually perfect knowledge of the evolutionary tree would, logically, reveal the origin of life.
PAD, Bobb has it right; the creationists have more or less given up on arguing against microevolution. They just try to claim that it's macroevolution that's impossible. When you try to explain to them that macroevolution is just lots and lots of microevolution added up they act like Mike and put their hands over their ears and throw out big words they saw in a book once like "paradigm". Usually mispronouncing it as "para-diggum", which is just all sorts of cute.
Mike. Mike, Mike, Mike. You get so cute when you know you got your facts wrong. All the TM's in the world, all the schoolyard "I SO own you!" taunts, all the quotes from your betters (which is to say, all your quotes)--you can't change the fact, plainly seen by all, that you got your facts wrong. Again.
In as much as the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique -- yeah.
Oh now they are "virtually" unique? Well...again, so what? They are all made of water. All water is simply 2 hydrogens and an oxygen. They crystallize in certain ways. This gives them their basic shape. However since the exact same number of atoms will vary from flake to flake and the exact conditions under which every flake--even two that are side by side when formed cannot ever be exactly the same it should be no surprise--to the informed—that they are not exactly the same. It isn’t magic. It isn’t a miracle—except to the easily impressed. You must be the only person on earth who actually has his mind blown by the phenomena of paint drying.
You can go on believing that the existence of snowflakes somehow supports your magical view of the universe. It's not like anything you could do at this point would make you appear more clownish than your past transgressions.
And keep on insisting that evolution and abiogenesis are one and the same. And make sure you insist that anyone who disagrees with you is the stupid one. Just make sure you wear a hat with jingles on it. You're the resident forum clown, you may as well dress the part.
Oh, since Mike copyrighted Darwin every time you mention him in class you have to pay royalties.
Darwin, Darwin, Darwin. There, Mike, now you can go supersize those fries.
Jerry--read your post up there, talking about where you grew up and what would happen if Boss Hogg there called for a lynching. and it hit me. IS society actually changing, or have the media types just gotten too politcally correct? Now, as far as Hardaway goes, I couldn't care less WHAT he thinks about anything. I usually watch basketball with the sound off. I know an awful lot of people who still think just like the old days.
Micha--up above, when you were talking about WASP, I'm gonna assume you weren't talking about the band. Although that image DID give me a chuckle.
"Mormons and old people didn't do so great either which is possibly bad news for Mitt Romney and John McCain."
Wonder if that's because they'd worry about too many First Ladies? Gods, could you imagine that? "Okay, I married him first, I'm First, you're second..." Jem'Hadar by marriage.
"I heard a suggestion the other day that we should amend the constitution to limit us to one president from Texas per century. Now that's an amendment I could whole-heartedly support."
Den, change century to millenium, and you've got my support.
Now, if I could borrow Bill's soapbox, here's my 1.236 cents on the evolution versus intelligent design celebrity deathmatch. First, evolution is a THEORY. While widely accepted, it isn't a scientific LAW. Being a theory, it can be added to in ways that a law cannot. If you suddenly find an entire colony in South America of Michigan J. Frogs in top hats, you could theorize as to how this took place, besides a Warner animator with too little sleep. As I understand it, Intelligent Design merely states that there was some, say, intelligence behind all this. In itself, not a bad theory. (Go on, YOU explain how life evolved on this planet, developed homo sapiens who invented Cherry Coke and the Cajun cheesesteak. Go on. I'll wait.) The problem with Intellegent Design is that it implies there is an end to research. Beyond this point, there be dragons and no answers, so just stop looking. At least, that's how most people who use the arguement end up speaking. "We can't know, we'll never know, so what fits?" There is ALWAYS more to know. Questions don't just get answered. They lead to more questions. It's like a five year old who just won't for the LOVE OF GOD stop asking "Why?" (Sometime remind me to tell you about the time I explained to Brian why the sky is blue and the look my wife had on her face.) Evolution and intelligent design aren't the End All Be All of the arguements. They CAN'T be. But too many people treat them like they are.
Bill, here's your soapbox back.
And to go WAY up the thread, Steve Chung, have you checked out the Sulu audio adventures? Should be able to get them from Amazon or eBay if you haven't. Second one's my favorite.
"Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions -- thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions -- sensing or intuiting) as irrational."
I'm not well-versed on Jung at all.
"As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational."
Ok, fine...are you suggesting that the Greek Pantheon, as viewed by an ancient Greek, is a modelling function?
Or, maybe a better response by me is to say that a belief doesn't try to model the world at all...it's trying to intuit it. When a culture or religion believes that thunder and lightning are the result of the Gods wrestling in Heavan, that's not a modeling observation, it's an intuition or guess about what's happening. When that culture then observes that lightning is the static electricity discharge from a cloud formation, and thunder is the result of the passage of that lightning through the atmosphere, that becomes a modelling function.
Which, unless I'm totally off base here, is exactly what I just said.
Which still leaves me confused as to why you think, at least according to Micha, that evolution and ID are both rational theries. In what way is ID not an intuitive function, and instead a modelling function?
And for the record, you can't call me Counselor until I renew my inactive registration. Don't want you to get me in trouble with the Bar. For the moment, I'm just a guy with a law degree. I'll let you know when you can call me Counselor again.
"Micha, I don't understand what you mean by this: "Mike is correct that both evolution (and other mechanistic explanations) and intelligent design are equally rational explanations, assuming you adopt a rational attitude for your subject matter.""
I'm sorry. I didn't explain myself well. I'll try again.
Suppose that an alien biologist came to earth and abducted a dog in his ship and began studying him. Now, being a rational l=alien, he might assume that dogs are the result of natural selection. However, dogs are not the result of natural selection but artificial selection by humans -- intelligent design if you will. An alien scientists who proposed such a theory would have been both rational and correct (in this case. However, if an alien came the scientist and said that dogs are the result of inteligent design because that's what our ancestors say, or the sacred texts, or faith, and if he would say that because of that dogs are divine, and that therefore there creators should be worshipped in temple (modern orthodox), that would be irrational.
The ancient greeks were responsible for the rational revoltion which meant that gods, their involvement in the world, the world, history, medicine, and traditional social norms, were questioned rationaly using reason. Even if some of the ancient philosophers reasoned that gods exist, or even that traditional piety is important, the fact that they thought about it in a rational critical way was already a challenge to the traditional way of thinking.
"ID is only rational if the idea of the Designer...God in most cases...is rational. But it's not a rational idea. I'm a fairly spiritual guy, I totally believe in God, but I know it's not a rational belief, because it's based on nothing more than my feelings and what I've been told. If anything, it's based more on the things I don't know than anything."
"Religion is irrational, because it almost universally deals with the unproven, the unknown, and the unknowable. You take religion on faith, which often contradicts or even replaces rationality"
The distinction between rationality and faith that is common today is the result of the challenge posed to religion by rational thinking. If you look at the bible, you will see that religion was neither unproven, unknown, or unknowable. God proves himself repeatedly with very tangible miracles. He is experienced by mystics. It is said that when Moses went to Mt. Sinai he 'knew' god. Although, from early on the knowledge is privilaged, and incomplete. But then again, so is science.
Imagine this: you want to know about the past -- how life began. You ask 'people who have more access to the past, your parents. They tell you what their parents told them, and so on. How can you doubt such direct evidence of tradition (and revelation) and prefer instead the speculations of some guy who claims that he has a methodolgy to know about the past that does not involve tradition? Instead this person examines the evidence he has before him, and he does so critically. He examines the stories of your ancestors with dubiousness. That's pretty revolutionary.
At this stage tradition needs to defend itself from rationality by saying that the methodology of rationality is wrong -- you're supposed to have faith, experience religion in a different way than thinking about it. One early Christian said: "I believe because it is absurd." He lived in a society in which greco-roman philosophy was a competeing authority.
However, this compromise is good for both sides. It allows philosophy and science to speculate without having to deal with religion, and religion does not have to argue with philosophers and scientists. But this truce works only if both sides accept the limitations. ID is an attempt by religion to get into science, supposedly claiming to have rational scientific arguments for intelligent design.
Wonder if that's because they'd worry about too many First Ladies? Gods, could you imagine that? "Okay, I married him first, I'm First, you're second..." Jem'Hadar by marriage.
The funny thing is that of the top 2 Republican frontrunners it's the Mormon who has only had one wife.
First, evolution is a THEORY. While widely accepted, it isn't a scientific LAW. Being a theory, it can be added to in ways that a law cannot.
Sean, I respect your opinion but the scientific meaning of "theory" and "law' are not the same as how laymen use them. A theory is as good as it gets. A Law is generally something that can be expressed mathematically-- double the temperature of a gas and you double the volume, something like that. Evolution by natural Selection can't become a law, it will always be a theory, like Germ Theory. It will no doubt be modified--our understanding of genetics has solved many of the problems that Darwin struggled with.
Intelligent Design is more of a hypothesis and not a terribly good one since a hypothesis needs to be able to be tested. that doesn't disqualify it from being true but it does limit it's usefulness to science.
Man I would love to continue this but the Nevermore Horror film festival is this weekend and I have to go man the table we'll be selling our movie at (and hopefully doing a makeup demo) so I don't know if I'll have access to a computer. everyone have a great weekend, hopefully the forecast doesn't call for any thermodynamic miracles. Oh and Mike, if there's an eclipse it's just the position of the moon and the sun in relation to the Earth. No need to sacrifice virgins to the Corn God or anything.
Sean, the problem with ID is not so much that it implies an end to the process so much as it's a way of kicking aside anything we don't currently understand and then declaring that it doesn't matter if ever do. It's like that episode of the Simpsons where Lucy Lawless dismissed any continuity errors in Xena by saying "a wizard did it". Don't understand how a bacterium developed a flagellum? Just put up a sign that says, "God did it" and move on. Nothing to see here.
While spiritual beliefs may help people make sense of the "why" of the world, it doesn't do anything to us understand the "how" and in science, you need the "how" if you're ever to use it to help fight diseases or other problems. The real problem ID is that it doesn't really explain anything. Now, ID proponents often dance around and say that the intelligent designer doesn't necessarily have to mean God (although everyone knows that's what they really mean). It could be aliens, they'll say.
Well, then, what created the aliens? Who designed the designer? Moving the goal posts back doesn't mean you've prevented your opponent from scoring a touchdown.
"What is troubling is that evolution continues to this day as a sound scientific principle--what else are strains of diseases which mutate to resist various medications if not evolution? Are Godhuggers (if enviornmentalists are treehuggers, then those who substitute God's work for nature's should be Godhuggers) going to claim that God is so into micromanaging that he's actually deciding which diseases should live and die?
PAD "
Yes. Religion has no use for a god who creates the world and then lets inanimate natural laws do all the work while he loafs around, plays golf or embarasses himself in the tabloids. No, god has to earn his keep by micromanaging everything, punishing the wicked, healing the sick, talking to priests. Religion is a business, and everybody has to carry his own weight,