I could not have said it better so I will let Mike explain the real situation.

Let me make it clear, governors in Arkansas cannot parole anybody. The parole process is separated from governor; the governor can commute a sentence to make it parole eligible. The actual parole is handled completely separate from the governor. Jim Guy Tucker had been convicted of Whitewater related felonies, he resigned. When I came into office in July, the file of Wayne DuMond was on my desk and was transferred to me having been sat there for several months prior to my coming of office.

That request for commutation to time served awaited me. I originally considered it, indicated even an intention I that might grant it. There was and incredible outcry over that, I ultimately requested to deny it. Primarily for the reason I believed there needed to be some supervision; I was not completely confident that it would be appropriate for him to get out without supervision. He had a unblemished prison record - an exemplary record in terms of getting along as an inmate. He had met all the qualifications for being paroled, including having a job lined up, a sponsor with a church I think in Houston, TX, originally.

I chose ultimately not to pardon him. I made a visit to the parole board early in my tenure as a governor at the request of chairman, because you gotta remember, every member of that parole board had been appointed by Jim Guy Tucker or Bill Clinton. Not one of them appointed by me. I'm a new Republican governor, they'd never seen one. I think they had real concern on how to interrelate or how to relate to me. And what kind of attitude I had in general to crime, attitude, parole, etc. So at their invitation, I went to the meeting; someone brought up this case.

For people to say that I was responsible in getting him out makes a few presumptions - number one, it presumes, I had an influence on Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker in 1992. The second presumption, it assumes I had the amazing persuasive power to go into a board of seven people, all of them appointed by Democratic governors before me and persuade them to do something they didn't wish to do.

It also assumes that, not only did I have that power, but that only two of them changed story about what happened and they didn't do so until 6 years later when we were in the middle of an election year. And after, and subsequent to the fact that I had not reappointed them to their $75,000 jobs on the parole board.

questions?

Shelby Barker
Georgia for Huckabee
3rd District Chair
678-371-5322
shelbybarker@gmail.com

Huckabee 08'

You'll note that no one has ever accused Huckabee of PARDONING Dumond. That would leave a paper trail. What a strawman argument. In any event, he couldn't PARDON Dumond because of all the heat from Dumond's previous rape victims.

The truth is, Huckabee visited the Parole Board and twisted the arms of four members. Four members (three "on the record") have confirmed this. THEIR accounts were in turn corroborated by Butch Reeves, a senior Huckabee aide who was subsequently promoted by Huckabee and who remains a staunch Huckabee supporter to this day.

Huckabee uses weasel words "'someone' brought up the case". Yep, and that someone was Mike Huckabee.

Here's Reeves' direct quotes on the issue:

"The clear impression that I came away with from the meeting was that he favored Dumond's release," Reeves said, referring to convicted rapist Wayne Dumond. "And I can understand why board members would believe that to be the case."

But, according to Reeves, Huckabee actually told the parole board members that the prison sentence meted out to Dumond for his rape conviction was "outlandish" and "way out of bounds for his crime." Huckabee believed there "was something nefarious" about the how the state's criminal justice system had treated Dumond, Reeves said.

One other interesting fact: Parole board meetings are generally taped and minutes made of the meeting, in accordance with Arkansas law. Huckabee dismissed the recording secretary (who runs the taping equipment) prior to meeting with the board. What a coincidence!

Shelby, your candidate definitely has a problem.

a Democrat at heart!

Sounds just like your kind of candidate . . . reminiscent of sexual scandal (Bill the Groper / Rapist) and Bill & Hill's last-minute pardons-for-presidential-library-funds scheme.

For the other side of the story, see FORMER HUCKABEE AIDE DENOUNCES HUFFPO DISTORTION.

Like Clinton, Huck comes across quite personable -- quite unlike the Hildabeast. It must strain her nerves so having to pretend that she has a "warmer side." I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.

At times she seems close to "cracking up."

Hear her Gigglefest – THE HILLARY CACKLE [and Jon Stewart’s impersonation (The Daily Show), as well as Bill, Hillary’s First Lady].

Hillary: "Lighten up. Be funny. Now I get a little fun-n-n-n-y, and I’m being psychoanalyzed." (I wonder why. )

Hillary’s "presidential" response to Chris Wallace’s question about health care -- Spontaneous?

She could do a laugh track, if she loses the presidency.

Bill Clinton on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, talking about Hillary – See THE LOOK.

Notice Hillary’s head bobble. Maybe she's taking OxyClinton for her "emotional incontinence"? (Inhaling nitrous oxide can induce fits of laughter; alcohol and other drugs, such as cannabis, also can induce episodes of strong, inane laughter.)

________________________

“Laughing Matters in Clinton Campaign” (9/28/07) and “The Clinton Conundrum: What’s Behind the Laugh?” (9/30/07) by Patrick Healy

After giving a speech about abortion “rights,” “she took questions from reporters, and found herself being grilled about whether she was moderating her own pro-choice position. And suddenly it happened: Mrs. Clinton let loose a hearty belly laugh that lasted a few seconds. Reporters glanced at one another as if we’d missed the joke.

“But nothing particularly funny had occurred; it was, instead, a deployment of the Clinton Cackle.

“This was my first close encounter with Senator Clinton, and with The Cackle. At that moment, the laugh seemed like the equivalent of an eye-roll — she felt she was being nit-picked [Was Dollar there?], so she shamed her inquisitors by chuckling at them (or their queries). [Always controlling and manipulating others -- that's the Hillary that we know best.]

“Friends of hers told a different story: She has this fantastic sense of humor, you see, but it’s too sarcastic to share with the general public because not everyone likes sarcasm. (An example from personal experience: Mrs. Clinton sometimes likes to tweak people for missing an obvious point by saying to them, ‘hello!’ [Followed by ‘Duh!’? After all, she is the Smartest Woman in the World.]

“So, instead of alienating Iowans who might not vote for edginess, Mrs. Clinton goes for the lowest-common-denominator display of her funny bone: She shows that she can laugh [but at inappropriate times], and that her laugh [unlike her soul] has a fullness and depth.”

. . . . . .

“Last Sunday, meanwhile, she appeared on all five of the major morning talk shows. I don’t know what she had for breakfast, but her laughter was heavily caffeinated at times.” [Maybe too much Starbucks?]

“The weirdest moment was with Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program Face the Nation when Mr. Schieffer said to Mrs. Clinton, ‘You rolled out your new health care plan, something Republicans immediately said is going to lead to socialized medicine.’ She giggled, giggled some more, and then could not seem to stop giggling — ‘Sorry, Bob,’ she said — and finally unleashed the full Cackle.

The Schieffer moment seemed particularly calculated because Mrs. Clinton has most certainly not laughed in other settings when she has been accused of pursuing socialized medicine. She faced that accusation at a forum in Las Vegas this summer, for instance; she turned frosty and traded barbs with the audience member who made the assertion. It was clearly no laughing matter there.” [Cold and calculating, that’s Hillary.]

“Clinton advisers find the interest in her laugh a little laughable. They fall somewhere between bemused and irritated by questions that suggest Mrs. Clinton is less than genuine — such as whether her use of laughter during an interview is a way for her to undercut a serious question or to avoid answering it altogether.”

“The silly Hillary can disappear into the sober [vindictive's more appropriate] Hillary in a New York minute.”

[Silly: exhibiting a lack of wisdom or good sense; foolish; absurd; lacking seriousness or responsibleness; featherbrained; frivolous; loony; insane]

________________________

“And according to the latest poll, New Hampshire…voters, kind of prickly voters, are unexpectedly warming to Hillary Clinton. So this could be the first proof we have of global warming — Hillary thawing.” ~ Jay Leno

________________________

Huck's chances of beating Hill or Obama must really be worrying you since you're spending so much effort to turn voters against him.

"Sniffles, Huckabee must be . . .
a Democrat at heart! Laughing out loud"

No, Denise, he's a Republican. You can print enough comments about Hillary Clinton's laugh to lock this web site up, but it won't change that fact. And you most likely won't be able to bait and switch this blog on Huckabee into a blog on what we think about Hillary's laugh. Just hope and pray, Denise, that we don't decide to blog on what the President knew about Iran (our potential WWIII opponents)and when he knew it. If we do begin blogging about the leader of your party's "mis-statements" as he pushed for financial and potential military intervention against that country, you'll have to dig deep within your hate Clinton files to try to obfuscate. But for now, let's keep this thread about the very likeable, but "got some splainin to do" Huckabee.

Kevin "Hack" King

Notice that I said, "At heart." You know, as one of those compassionate "conservatives" (vs. genuine conservatives who could never be compassionate), he supports and would even increase social programs, such as SCHIP.

Huckabee: “I fully believe that Bush should have negotiated a compromise and not let it get to the point of a veto. Bush indicated he was willing to spend more than the $5 billion he originally proposed, but less than the $35 billion the Democrats pushed through, so there was clearly room to negotiate.” (600% increase WOW! That's expansion.)

Huckabee: “One of my proudest achievements as governor was signing legislation creating ARKids First – creating health insurance coverage for more than 70,000 Arkansas children who otherwise might have gone without. I am firmly committed to finding a way to provide health care and a better education for America’s children, who hold the key to our nation’s future.”

Also, Huckabee "supported a bill (which failed) that would have allowed children of illegal immigrants who were applying to become citizens access to merit based state scholarships."

"Only he and John McCain have endorsed the discredited cap-and-trade system to limit global-warming [more accurately, greenhouse gases, without which earth would uninhabitable] emissions that has proved a fiasco in Europe."

He's been called "charming like Bill Clinton," "a liberal-populist," "clearly a moderate," "a compulsive tax increaser and spender," "big-government advocate," etc.

I had to listen to Hillary's laugh to cheer up!

"Obfuscate"? Not me! You must have missed: "For the other side of the story, see FORMER HUCKABEE AIDE DENOUNCES HUFFPO DISTORTION."

BTW, why is it OK for you throw in Bush's "mis-statements" on this thread but not OK for me to celebrate a rare instance of media non-bias?

____________________________

Did you see my answers to you?

AF A-10 "Hack" -- Sorry

AF A-10 -- Hi, Hack, about veterans

not that I wouldn't enjoy that, but we inevitably end up back at the starting point. Read your threads. Thanks for the response. I respect your opinion as I most almost always usually do.

Good night,

Kevin "Hack" King

Hopefully, we'd not end up at the starting point because, as I remember it, it was a little less than amiable.

_______________________

The Wit and Wisdom of Alexander Pope

Teach me to feel another's woe,
To hide the fault I see,
That mercy I to others show,
That mercy show to me.

~ To err is human, to forgive, divine. ~

~ A man should never be ashamed to own he has been wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that he is wiser today than he was yesterday. ~

~ It is with narrow-souled people as with narrow-necked bottles: the less they have in them the more noise they make in pouring it out. ~

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from Home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come. (from the Essay on Man)

~ A God without dominion, providence, and final causes [the purpose for which a thing exists], is nothing else but fate and nature. ~

“Considered as a whole, [Pope’s] Essay on Man is an affirmative poem of faith: life seems chaotic and patternless to man when he is in the midst of it, but is, in fact, a coherent portion of a divinely ordered plan. In Pope's world God exists, and he is beneficent: His universe is an ordered place. The limited intellect of man can perceive only a tiny portion of this order and can experience only partial truths and, hence, must rely on hope, which leads to faith. Man must be cognizant of his rather insignificant position in the grand scheme of things: those things which he covets most – riches, power, fame – prove to be worthless in the greater context of which he is only dimly aware. In his place, it is man's duty to strive to be good, even if he is doomed, because of his inherent frailty, to fail in his attempt.”

Largely self-educated, Alexander Pope (1688-1744) is the third most frequently quoted writer in the English language, after Shakespeare and Tennyson. Pope made a career out of mocking other poets with his stinging literary satires, and his sharp-edged jabs earned him the nickname of “The Wicked Wasp.”

_______________________

Hope springs eternal -- Dealing with Disappointment

_______________________

*** “The Kid Who Wouldn't Quit” ***

Daniel Lazzatti Didn't Let Homelessness Or a Learning Disability Keep Him from a High School Diploma

"Local 6 [Orlando] reported that since Lazzatti's story originally aired, people have come forward to offer him money, cars, bikes and even shelter. However, the teen said he does not want the help.

"'If people really use this inspirational story in their every day lives to make them work better, then I would feel a lot better,’ Lazzatti said."

What a determined guy! Daniel should go far in life.

Bill Clinton was charming- ha- I can't stop laughing- only to interns-ask them or some other mental person.

You are partly correct in fact Mike makes mention of this when he says,

"I chose ultimately not to pardon him. I made a visit to the parole board early in my tenure as a governor at the request of chairman, because you gotta remember, every member of that parole board had been appointed by Jim Guy Tucker or Bill Clinton. Not one of them appointed by me. I'm a new Republican governor, they'd never seen one. I think they had real concern on how to interrelate or how to relate to me. And what kind of attitude I had in general to crime, attitude, parole, etc. So at their invitation, I went to the meeting; someone brought up this case.

For people to say that I was responsible in getting him out makes a few presumptions - number one, it presumes, I had an influence on Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker in 1992. The second presumption, it assumes I had the amazing persuasive power to go into a board of seven people, all of them appointed by Democratic governors before me and persuade them to do something they didn't wish to do.

It also assumes that, not only did I have that power, but that only two of them changed story about what happened and they didn't do so until 6 years later when we were in the middle of an election year. And after, and subsequent to the fact that I had not reappointed them to their $75,000 jobs on the parole board.

questions?

Shelby Barker
Georgia for Huckabee
3rd District Chair
678-371-5322
shelbybarker@gmail.com

Huckabee 08'

Huckabee 08'

There is no explanation. He intervened and the guy was paroled. Dukakis never met or intervened for Willie Horton and look how he was raked over the coals. And even blaming Clinton is not going to help.

Huckabee is rising fast against opponents with hundreds of millions of dollars and, in Giuliani's case, no scruples that can be discerned. Brace for the attack ads but realize it is just a peripheral problem. Voters in Iowa know what's going on. Don't be discouraged.

Tell Gov. Huckabee to just get a story and stay with it until the news cycle dies and people get tired of it. It cannot be explained, only weathered.

It's been interesting diving into the details of this mess.

Evidently Huckabee announced his plans to grant clemency to Dumond to the press, to get the right wingers off his back (primarily Steve Dunleavy of the NY Post).

Twenty female state representatives immediately stormed Huckabee's office and threatened a political firestorm if he did so.

Here's another interesting bit of the story:
A number of women who had been raped by Dumond sent letters to both Governor Huckabee AND the parole board. Huckabee's staff asked the parole board to send in their copy of the letter, where it immediately became exempt from Arkansas open-records laws (as "private correspondance of the Governor").

Huckabee's campaign staff then announced that gee, NO SUCH LETTERS EVER EXISTED. This blatant lie so disgusted a former member of Huckabee's staff so much that he/she leaked copies of the originals to the press. Huckabee's staff then put out a lame correction stating that their lie was intended solely to spare the raped women from being identified in public. Like the kids today say, "As if!".

Granted, this is a very small episode in Huckabee's tenure as Governor. It does give insight into his lack of character, though.

And who knows? A pro-rape Republican might actually appeal to a certain demographic segment here in Fayette county.

You're right Jeff. Every one screws up every now and then. Doesn't make it right though. Compared to some of the others Huckabee looks squeaky clean. If this is the worst thing his opponents can dredge up then ole Huck is in pretty good shape.

Question: Who did Clinton rape, and when is the rape case going forward?

Comment: do you know which current candidate for the presidency (other than the one female) actually does have several pictures in pink and red dresses complete with full makeup? How ironic, eh?

Kevin "Hack" King

You old "stick shaker". How have you been? Some people don't like Clinton and "her" husband. I think "not again" was referring to the "Flowers" incident. We know that nothing became of this. BTW, didn't he face perjury charges and the subsequent fine and loss of his license to practice law over the Lewinsky Scandal?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Sorry you guys have had idiots in your yards. I've chased down a few cars in my day. Always teens, and always gratifying to see the "sincere" apologies. Yep, ole Billy Bob Clinton did tell a lie or two to hide his affair. I imagine most men who have had affairs have attempted to hide them by lying (Rudy included). I'm just glad Bill isn't running for President. After watching him on Meet the Press, I think Rudy will ultimately wonder what he was thinking in entering this race. It was amazing hearing him trying to justify police escort of his mistress while he was Mayor of NYC.... AND MARRIED. Amazing answers. Have a great week. I'm going to go do some AF ice flying in Oklahoma this week. Our base is actually closed tomorrow for ice. BRRRRRRR

Kevin "Hack" King

I've seen CF34's that the ground crew didn't quite get all the ice and frozen crud out of the inlets. It has a way of "dulling" the fan blades.

On candidates; honestly I haven't committed to anyone yet. Too much "stuff" flying around pardon the pun. This included Rudy.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Ha, Ha, Ha,- what a hoot you are- I have not made up my mind who I am voting for- but it is not a liberal - Yes, I will let you know who it is when I deceide. I love this- thanks for your boldness about Clinton. I can't wait to show my husband-

No doubt does Mike Huckabee believe in Creation, but you are misinformed. In a recent interview Mike stated, "I believe that the creation has a creator. I believe there is a God. And I believe God put this whole creative process in motion. How he did it and the time frame in which he did it, I honestly don't know. Nor do I think it's relevant to being president of the United States," this would imply that education curiculum should be left to the state not judged by the president.

Huckabee 08'

Well, if it is not relevant, then let sworn atheists be elected? Let Hindus, Muslims, maybe even a Jew, be elected. Buddhists could put the fat guy in the Lincoln Memorial!

Misinformed? I think not.

If you read a few more paragraphs down from that AP dispatch where you got your quote from, you'll see the following:

"Huckabee, at a dinner in Des Moines, told reporters that the theory of intelligent design, whose proponents believe an intelligent cause is the best way to explain some complex and orderly features of the universe, should be taught in schools as one of many viewpoints. "I don't think schools ought to indoctrinate kids to believe one thing or another," he said."

That certainly seems like an endorsement of that discredited "intelligent design" (creationism) theory to me!

What's next? The Flying Spaghetti Monster taught as science?

Huckabee lacks the intellectual bearing to lead our country.

Perhaps you can explain to me what is wrong with a design inference? I'm waiting eagerly.

There is a world of difference between the "Creationism" that made the news a couple of decades ago, and the more generic appeal to design that has been urged of late in light of our best science.

I'm hoping that you have a sufficient understanding of the actual issues to discuss them here with me. I don't have great hope that this is the case, but who knows?

I think that design is the best explanation at several junctures. And I am more than prepared to defend that claim.

So how 'bout it, Bas?

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Engage in yet another round of Evolution vs. "Intelligent Design"?

I think not.

To engage in that sort of debate would tacitly imply that "intelligent design" (or it's upcoming 'new and improved' version "Design Inference") is somehow worthy of discussion.

The debate has been settled. "Intelligent Design" lost.

Whether you choose to admit it or not, Science and the courts have spoken: your pet cause is junk science. Heck, even Cobb County abandoned "intelligent design".

Better people than you and I have hashed out the details, but in the end, one thing stands absolutely clear: The theory of intelligent design does not stand up to the scrutiny of the Scientific Method. As such, "intelligent design" cannot legitimately be called a scientific theory.

I noticed you've taken to claiming that there is a "world of difference" between the latest version of "intelligent design" and Creationism.

The vast majority of scientists, virtually every significant scientific organization, and the courts disagree with you.

Tell me, learned one, what special insight do you have that permits you to make such a highly suspect sweeping generalization in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Muddle's reply I think that design is the best explanation at several junctures. And I am more than prepared to defend that claim.

So how 'bout it, Bas?

Do I smell fear? Actually, I'm still trying to sort out a candidate, but hearing this continue would help.

Surely, "if the debate is over" it would be easy for snuf to quickly reply?

The differences are significant.

ID is open to issues regarding the age of the universe, Big Bang theory, anthropic coincidences, etc., even where these may run contrary to a literal reading of Genesis.

The old-line "Creationists" used the Bible as a textbook, and shoehorned science into it.

ALL that ID theory maintains is that there are structures that give appearance of design, and in at least some of those instances, design is more probable than any naturalistic explanation.

Of course, as you might have seen on the recent NOVA program, "Judgment Day," the tactic of ID opponents is to forge a connection between the two, and to maintain that ID theorists are similarly trying to force religious teachings and a particular social agenda.

ID theory itself is absolutely open to the question of who or what the designer is. It is supposed to be damning evidence that ID theorists tend to be theists. But if one does think that there is cosmic evidence of design, then, at a personal or philosphical level it is very natural to make that further inference.

But ID theory is clear that such an inference is not scientific. The science only takes one as far as design itself. These are the differences between the two.

Frankly, I am far more impressed by the evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe than I am of the sorts of biological evidences that Behe and others point to.

THE main objection to the very idea of ID as a theory stems from a view in the philosophy of science. It is a view about the very nature of science, known as "Methodological Naturalism," which maintains that, by definition, all scientific explanations are naturalistic. This seems to rule ID theory out of court as a non-starter.

But Methodological Naturalism has some pretty implausible implications. It is committed to the position that NO MATTER WHAT apparent evidence there was for design, a mechanistic, naturalistic explanation would always be preferable. Dembski raises a thought experiment here. Suppose that microbiologists one day discovered that, etched upon some one of the elements within every living cell were the very legible words, "Made By Yahweh." Would a non-purposive, mechanistic and naturalistic explanation then be preferable? It is wildly implausible to suppose so.

"Oh, but there isn't any such evidence for design," you say in reply.

But this reply commits you in principle to the possibility that the evidence could be sufficient for a design inference. And this commitment nullifies Methodological Naturalism and qualifies ID as a contender. The question is simply, "Well, is the evidence good enough?"

Design inferences are already regarded as scientific within other fields. Consider, to take one example, the SETI project, where we have our ears tuned to deep space to listen for signs of intelligent life. Remember the movie CONTACT, based on Sagan's book of that title? One day they receive a signal with an orderly mathematical pattern. One of the scientists says, "That's not just noise. That's a message." That is a design inference and it is scientific. Now, if that is the case, then there must be a principled way of discerning design from random patterns. This is some of the stuff that Dembski and others are working on.

I can see no good reason to rule out ID in principle as it often is.

One other consideration in all of this is that the probability of Darwin's theory getting it right is 1 on naturalism. If one does not assume naturalism in advance, then things look different. If Darwinism fails, there just is no other mechanism of explanation available to the naturalist. And this goes a long way towards explaining the dogged insistence that Darwinism is not discredited by the theory's inability to explain this or that structure. It has to work. This also goes a long way towards explaining the severity of the attacks on those who have dared to challenge the Darwinian orthodoxy.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

"The old-line 'Creationists' used the Bible as a textbook, and shoehorned science into it."

Will you please explain what you mean by this?

Couldn't one also say that hard-line evolutionists use "scientific" naturalism as a philosophic basis (their premise, a presupposed truth, although naturalism cannot be scientifically proven) and "shoehorned science into it"?

Wow! People have been busy on this topic as I slept.

With that statement I have in mind people like Henry Morris and Duane Gish. Morris wrote The Genesis Flood positing "flood geology"--the idea that geological features were not necessarily the result of long, slow processes taking eons, but, rather, by cataclysm--notably, the one that had Noah and family sharing quarters with zebras.

Morris and others thus challenged the assumption of uniformitarianism as well as standard dating methods that pointed to an ancient earth.

All of this was to fit natural history into the pages of biblical history. There was the assumption that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days perhaps 10,000 years ago.

Apparently, the language is evolving such that "creationist" is now being used to refer to the sort of view that Morris and others espoused. Too bad. Like "gay" it is a good word. I mean, I am both gay and a creationist in the original senses of those words, but am not likely now to identify myself as a "gay creationist." All that "creationist" meant before the debate raged was belief that the natural order is a creation. I most certainly do believe that.

If you've not seen the NOVA program Judgment Day, which aired a few weeks ago, it is well worth watching at this link.
The people who tried to push Intelligent Design in the Dover schools were actually "Creationists" in the sense above. (They might have been "gay," for all I know, as well.) But when they learned of ID, they thought it a good "compromise."

ID theorists like Behe, on the other hand, simply maintain that design provides a more likely explanation than any naturalistic and mechanistic explanation for certain phenomena. It is indifferent to the age of the earth and to the pages of the Bible or any other religious text.

Behe himself has expressed his belief in common descent, which puts a lot of daylight between him and the so-called creationists. He also has appealed to the "anthropic coincidences"--the startling discovery by astronomers that the settings for the universe--the constants and laws in place at the inception of the universe in those nanoseconds after the Big Bang--were all turned very improbably in a way that has permitted things like Behe and Basmati. (The numbers vary from theorist to theorist, but what they all have in common is that they are staggeringly high. Penrose, for example, calculates the likelihood of there being low entropy at 1 in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd power.) But the main point here is that Behe's acceptance of the fine-tuning presupposes his acceptance of Big Bang theory, which, in turn, presupposes his belief that the universe is some 15 to 20 billion years old.

By the way, philosopher Robin Collins has done quite a bit of work in employing the fact of fine-tuning into a refurbished, and, I think very compelling, design argument. (I had trouble with this link when I tried. Google the name if interested.)

Basmati's insistence that Behe is a "creationist" is just more of his typical bluster. A part of the anti-ID strategy is to collapse ID theory into Morris-style creationism and thus to say, paraphrasing Roger Daltry, "meet the new creationism: same as the old creationism."

It is noteworthy to see that there remains a deeply-entrenched "creationism" (old-style) with ties to places like Bob Jones University, and these people reject ID theory as flirting with the devil.

One last thought (I really must get some work done today!):

As Dawkins himself has acknowledged, for the naturalist, Darwinism is the only game in town. There is no non-Darwinian naturalism to speak of. A prior commitment to metaphysical naturalism makes the probability that Darwin's theory is true very high--like a perfect 1.
This sets the naturalist up for taking the position, "We don't know what the explanation is, but we know that it is naturalistic and mechanistic." The naturalist will have the patience of Job when it comes to heeding the advice, "Science is still in its infancy. Just because we cannot explain it today does not mean that we will not be able to explain it tomorrow." Thus, no matter how impoverished the evidence for the naturalistic explanation theory is, and no matter how good the apparent evidence for design is, she will always view a design inference as "premature extrapolation" (heh! I jest made that up!).
_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Muddle,

Extremely interesting debate on ID v. Evolution. But its being lost in this Mike Huckabee blog.

I read a bit about Robin Collins. Found this statement on wikipedia.org
Collins, however, thinks that intelligent design is best thought of as a metascientific hypothesis rather than a scientific hypothesis.

Which is in my mind, double talk for not having any real scientific reasoning to back up his theories.

For me, Evolution is seemingly very apparent. I have little difficulty with our creation coming from the big bang, some 14.5 billion years ago. Or that our earth is 3.5 to 4.5 billion years old.

I do think teaching ID in school as an alternative theory is akin to the Giant Spaghetti Monster though. I happen to personally believe that behind all of this evolution was an intelligence that I think of as God. I have no scientific basis for that, but I'm comfortable in filling in that one "unknown" from the big bang, with a very big God.

Paul once preached to the Greeks in Ephesus about their belief in an "unknown god". This was their final catch all, in case they were overlooking a deity who might get mad for being ignored. I happen to believe, albeit not out of scientific research but out of personal experiences, that we do have a God Gene in us, as Time reported a few years back. That we have this inner desire, akin to that of procreation, in which we yearn for knowledge of our creator.

My God Gene tells me that I can absolutely trust science and even theories of evolution, until proven unreliable, without feeling as if my God has been made to be "insignificant". I know my God is pretty okay with his/her/its own self esteem, such as not to be hurt by our search for a scientific theory that ties all things in this universe together.

So, to get back to my earlier comment, get a room. These kinds of discussions are fascinating and enjoyable, but not in a Mike Huckabee Blog. Then again, these discussions often have a life of their own.

But...but...Basmati started it!

I read a bit about Robin Collins. Found this statement on wikipedia.org
Collins, however, thinks that intelligent design is best thought of as a metascientific hypothesis rather than a scientific hypothesis.

Which is in my mind, double talk for not having any real scientific reasoning to back up his theories.

Not at all.

This is just to point out the difference between a philosophical argument and a scientific theory. Collins' fine-tuning argument (which you really need to read in one or more of its versions) is best seen as a piece of natural theology. So it is really above and beyond the ID vs. evolution debate. (Well, for one thing, you can grant the Darwinian everything he wants and it does not speak at all to the facts of fine-tuning, which were in place long before there were galaxies.)

At the risk of coming a step closer to unmasking, I'll add that Collins and I are both invited contributors to a forthcoming (massive) volume on Blackwell publishing. It will be a part of Blackwell's Companion series (Companion to Ethics, Companion to Metaphysics, Companion to Epistemology, etc., etc.). This will be titled the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Each 30k word chapter is billed as the "state-of-the-art" version of the argument developed therein. Collins is writing on the fine-tuning argument. I am writing on the "moral argument." There is also a chapter by Victor Reppert on the "argument from reason" (a beefed-up version of an argument originally presented by C.S. Lewis). WIlliam Lane Craig, one of the volume's editors, has a chapter on the "Kalam cosmological argument." J.P. Moreland, the other editor, is writing on the "argument from consciousness." And so on. The volume is sure to make a big splash when it appears. (And so I'd better close this window and get back to writing! Deadline: 12/31!!!)

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

As an addendum: Any time you spot me on here you can safely assume that I am experiencing a bad case of writer's block. (Rattling something off here is a kind of relief over the excutiatingly difficult stuff facing me in the other window!) Since I've been on too much lately you can readily draw the unfortunate inference.

Any real friends on here should shoo me away. Friends don't let friends waste their writing time
messing around on the internet.

Or, as I once saw in an email: "Good writing is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent not being distracted by the internet" (a nice ironic twist on the familiar and well-worn saying about good writing).

Duty calls.
_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

delete

Muddle I disagree that, as you say: "THE main objection to the very idea of ID as a theory stems from a view in the philosophy of science."

Right or wrong, ID is not a scientific theory because it has no predictive value. The ability to make predictions from a theory and test them is the very definition of a scientific theory so ID fails this basic test.

Right or wrong, ID is not a scientific theory because it has no predictive value. The ability to make predictions from a theory and test them is the very definition of a scientific theory so ID fails this basic test.

Jeff - I think you just destroyed your own position. Could you list a few demonstrable, predictive, or testable examples of Darwinian macro-evolution?

Please note that I chose my wording carefully. As someone who knows a number of creationists with PhD(s) in micro-biology geology, etc., they all believe in micro-evolution (change within a species). That's just natural selection which has been used in husbandry and agriculture for years.

For your claim of Darwinian macro-evolution to be proved, you've got to show new information introduced into the genome by random chance (i.e. no human control or input).

I'd be interested to know your examples.
PP

This is the way to blog!

That is why I prefaced it with "right or wrong." I was not trying to argue the other side. To my knowledge there is no verified example of a trans-species fossil even though Darwin predicted that most fossils would have to be trans-species. Sorry I was not clearer.

Interestingly to me, however, I think that we may be on the verge of settling the question scientifically once and for all by decoding DNA sequences and tracking the differences between species at the genetic level. It seems that a definitive answer may be within the reach of our life times.

That's my theory, and from it I predict that whatever the answer, it will be surprising and fascinating.

Since Cal is paying for this space, I will post what actually happens when a photon strikes the eye to cause vision:

When light strikes the retina a photon is absorbed by an organic molecule called 11-cis-retinal, causing it to rearrange within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in shape of retinal forces a corresponding change in shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which it is tightly bound. As a consequence of the protein's metamorphosis, the behavior of the protein changes in a very specific way. The altered protein can now interact with another protein called transducin. Before associating with rhodopsin, transducin is tightly bound to a small organic molecule called GDP, but when it binds to rhodopsin the GDP dissociates itself from transducin and a molecule called GTP, which is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP, binds to transducin.

The exchange of GTP for GDP in the transducinrhodopsin complex alters its behavior. GTP-transducinrhodopsin binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When bound by rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cleave a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the action of the phosphodiesterase lowers the concentration of cGMP. Activating the phosphodiesterase can be likened to pulling the plug in a bathtub, lowering the level of water.

A second membrane protein which binds cGMP, called an ion channel, can be thought of as a special gateway regulating the number of sodium ions in the cell. The ion channel normally allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump proteins keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the concentration of cGMP is reduced from its normal value through cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, many channels close, resulting in a reduced cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions. This causes an imbalance of charges across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain: the result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

If the biochemistry of vision were limited to the reactions listed above, the cell would quickly deplete its supply of 11-cis-retinal and cGMP while also becoming depleted of sodium ions. Thus a system is required to limit the signal that is generated and restore the cell to its original state; there are several mechanisms which do this. Normally, in the dark, the ion channel, in addition to sodium ions, also allows calcium ions to enter the cell; calcium is pumped back out by a different protein in order to maintain a constant intracellular calcium concentration. However, when cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel and decreasing the sodium ion concentration, calcium ion concentration is also decreased. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, is greatly slowed down at lower calcium concentration. Additionally, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase, which places a phosphate group on its substrate. The modified rhodopsin is then bound by a protein dubbed arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from further activating transducin. Thus the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon.

Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin molecule and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by opsin to regenerate rhodopsin for another visual cycle. To accomplish this trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to transretinol, a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then isomerizes the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, and the cycle is complete.

Darwin never conceived of this type of complexity. There is going to have to be another level of sophistication to the theory on the order of the breakthroughs of an Einstein and a Max Planck before it (evolution) can be explained.

Interesting debate. Coincidentally, I was moved to have my own DNA tested and yesterday the results came back and this morning, I'm already being emailed by relatives that have common markers with me. I've been reading all morning of my English roots. A great deal of German too.

This DNA testing is still intriguing though, and although the Human Genome project has been extremely helpful, now I've recently watched a show on NOVA wherein they have determined that chemical markers are more dispositive of our physical beings than our own DNA. They showed identical twins with diametrically opposed characteristics. They theorized that some chemical processes turn on and off certain genes even in identical twins.

Which explains why your father has minimal facial hair, but Fidel has a tremendous amount. I knew they had been separated at birth. ;>)

I went to Fox and they showed "The Church Of Oprah", I am sorry but you said you did not understand what I was talking about when you were talking about Robinson- well this is it, if she can put out who she wants the world to vote for why can't he?????????

I don't think any of them should, I could care less- don't you agree, they should not do this, but because they are in the media some think they should tell us.

What I am saying is if you knock him for saying who to vote for you with have to knock Okra, Ellen, the list could go on forever! (Yes, I did say Okra, it's a joke.)

I will vote for who I choose, they don't choose for me- I change the channel.

MERRY CHRISTMAS
PEACE ON EARTH AND GOOD WILL TOWARD MEN

Why am I not surprised that you have a great deal of German ancestry? Can I guess they came over the pond between 60 and 70 years ago?

Jeff,

I've read where these anonymous bloggers have coffee together from time to time, and although I'm a coffee drinker, for discussions about matters such as we have enjoyed over the last many years, I prefer Scotch, or at least a good German Beer.

Which I will purchase, if you ever decide you'd like to sit down and have a great knock down drag out debate. I'd invite git real, but his mom locked him in the basement, and lost the keys, and Muddle would be invited too, but I'm worried he might not want to divulge his alter ego. So wann sollten wir uns treffen?

So, if you'd like to have the first round on me, then I'm there. Tonight, however, I will be sitting in my hot tub looking out over what used to be a lake, drinking a gamay boujeleous (sic). With Audio Visions pouring out of my XM radio, while I look into the universe and contemplate why we are what we are.

And although I have some German blood in me, its mostly northern european blood. We apparently hitched a ride to England circa 1600, then to America circa 1720. So my Aryian lineage broke off a long, long time ago. Denken Sie nicht?

and I still don't have an answer. Also these questions: What's beyond the stars we see? What's beyond that? If we could travel the speed of thought, where would a straight line into space take us in a year? a decade? two decades? Are there other milky ways out there with people asking if we exist? Man, now my head hurts again. Time to pop open another Chilean red.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

You have about as much chance of conning Jeff C into a public coffee shop as I do---and that is extremely unlikely!
He will soon move to be Glavine's neighbor anyway and we won't hear from him no moh! Don't blame him.

Don’t forget to look up.

This weekend is supposed to be one of the best times to see the Geminid meteor shower.

Think of it as God's version of a light show.

One year, just by sheer dumb luck, my wife and I happened to be camping in the Badlands of SD at the height of the Perseid showers. I had forgotten all about it. We were sitting out in our folding chairs (in my favorite campground: the free one out in the middle of nowhere) when we started seeing meteors. "Whoa!"

You might or might not know that this is one of the great places for experiencing the night sky. For years, I have been in the habit of foregoing the tent and just spreading the sleeping bag under the stars (and in the dried buffalo poop). Lying on my back at 2 a.m. and seeing what the Milky Way is truly about is one of those experiences that makes life worth living. (I love drifting off to sleep only to awaken to coyote pups yipping nearby, then looking up and remembering where I am with a 'Oh yeah!")

Oh, man. I can't wait till summer. A trip out west beckons (Neil Young's "Harvest Moon" playing all the way out, setting the mood.)

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

1. A love of most all music.
2. Camping out in the open at the Badlands.
3. A reader of Dawkins, (just got “The God Delusion” for my ‘B’ day, today).

By chance did you teach Biomedical Ethics at UMN in the late 70’s?

Happy belated Birthday!

Great combination. Happy belated birthday BAD!!!!!

UMN? Is that the University of Minnesota? No. Actually, I was still a student in the late 70s.

But in '91 I was hired just down the road at St. Olaf College in Northfield. (Yes, it's a real place; not invented for the Golden Girls).

I'm just over a month away from 51.

Happy 49th.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

How old are you??

I've somehow made it to 49 although there are parts that will always be a little blurry.

I remember 49. Happy B-day.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Mrs. bad has had me working outside all day.

Yeah, and I'm 103!

we know, your SSN is 3.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

I thought you were older than that $ ole buddy! Here's to many more years to you. As Hack would say.... Cheers!

You're only as old as you feel in your heart, in my case the wife says I'll never grow up so that keeps me young.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Hutch... He's 49. I'm only 47. In my book anyone a day older that me is just plain old. Me? I'm still young.

Happy Birtday Bad!

Your old- older than me. HA. Not as old as my husband which a lady told him he look 35 the other day. Happy Birthday Bad. What I want to know is how old is Hack?

Hack is 41

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Y'all sure are making me feel old! My oldest child is 41.

Hi Hutch

Ain't that the truth! I had no idea we had so many young folks on this site. Someone said anyone who is a day older than me is old. . .guess I would qualify as ancient!

BTW, Happy Late Birthday Bad.

Yeah, and I'm 34 instead of 103!

Like someone said, "you're as old as you feel." Well, I sure have felt old the past few weeks!

Anyway, we must think positive, and believe we are wiser than they are!

I hope you are doing OK, and getting better every minute. I was really beginning to fret about you. "Old as you feel" funny, I've found that my heart and mind might feel like I'm gonna do something, but then the ole joints/body laugh and say oh no you ain't! LOL!

Shoot, I couldn't have been around as long as I have without some wisdom slipping in there.

You take care. I know if you aren't feeling well the computer is the last place you want to be. However, you need to activate your email thingy on this site. I would gladly help out, all you would have to put is Tug, phone #.

Hope you're doing OK

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Doing better, thanks! How are you? How's Hack doing?

Y'all have a great day!

That's you!

I heard that $ is 103 or more. He certainly defies getting wiser as you get older. He only gets more grumpy, especially if we talk about recipes!

Hope you're feeling a lot better. Did you see Hutch's "Unofficial poll" blog? I see that you did. Sometimes I wonder if Basmati is really $.

This person Muddle may well be, however!

Oh well. At least that's more than I have in my pocket right now.

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

I do feel better today, thanks!
I've been reading comments by someone else that sounds like dollar, but sometimes seems a bit scary.

Thanks, I asked because once he said he said he was surprised at my age, he figured it up by how long I said I had been married and when I got married. I was afraid to ask why he was surprised- could hurt my feelings.

I must come to these coffee get togethers, I know you know the answer, how old is Hack? If I would come then I could see if eveyone says they are-

both just young lads. I'm so old there were only 48 states when I was born.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Hutch was in the Navy when men were made of steel and ships were made of wood.

You see..... I know your service dates.

I don't know if you've ever heard the country singer John Berry sing O Holy Night, but it's got to be the best version I've ever heard.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

And that is my favorite Christmas song.

Ray Charles, "That Spirit of Christmas"

Christmas is the time of year
For being with the one's we love
Sharing so much joy and cheer
What a wonderful feelin
Watching the one's we love
Having so much fun

I was sittin by the fire side
Taking a walk through the snow
Listening to a children's choir
Singing songs about Jesus
The blessed way that he came to us
Why can't it remain
All through the year
Each day the same
Heyeah, that's what I wanna hear
Heh heh
It's truly amazin
That spirit of Christmas

All the kin folk gather round
The lovely Christmas tree
Hearts are glowing full of joy
Sense the gifts that we're giving
And the love that we're living
Why can't it remain
Ohhh all through the year
Each day the same
Heyeah, that's what I wanna hear
I'll tell ya
It's truly amazin
That spirit of Christmas

Let me hear ya
Why can't it remain
All through the year
Each day the same
That's what I wanna hear
Listen to me
It's truly amazin
That spirit of Christmas
Ohhh It's truly amazin
That spirit of Christmas
Ain't it so
It's truly amazin
Yeah, that spirit of Christmas
Oh Christmas
Oh Christmas

Can bring man sweat to your eyes if you're not carefull, well worth the download price. Fantastic voice.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

hutch is not that old!!!
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

That would explain the rust on my clothes.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Squeak when you walk.

Good for you. I'm looking forward to fifty, I'll be able to retire then. Have a good night.

You forgot to cite your source and credit the author for your post about human eyesight. So, I'll post it for you so that everyone can read the entire article.

(Some frequently complain that I "cut-and-paste," but at least I acknowledge my "lack of original thought processes." )

"Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference" by Michael J. Behe, Ph.D., Professor Biochemistry, Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University and author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. (Behe points out the "irreducible complexity" at the cellular level.)

________________________

In Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe argues that evidence of evolution's limits has been right under our noses -- but it is so small that we have only recently been able to see it.

The field of biochemistry, begun when Watson and Crick discovered the double-helical shape of DNA, has unlocked the secrets of the cell. There, biochemists have unexpectedly discovered a world of Lilliputian complexity.

As Behe engagingly demonstrates, using the examples of vision, bloodclotting, cellular transport, and more, the biochemical world comprises an arsenal of chemical machines, made up of finely calibrated, interdependent parts.

For Darwinian evolution to be true, there must have been a series of mutations, each of which produced its own working machine, that led to the complexity we can now see. The more complex and interdependent each machine's parts are shown to be, the harder it is to envision Darwin's gradualistic paths.

Behe surveys the professional science literature and shows that it is completely silent on the subject, stymied by the elegance of the foundation of life. Could it be that there is some greater force at work?

Michael Behe is not a creationist. He believes in the scientific method, and he does not look to religious dogma for answers to these questions. But he argues persuasively that biochemical machines must have been "designed" -- either by God, or by some other higher intelligence. [Aliens ] For decades science has been frustrated, trying to reconcile the astonishing discoveries of modern biochemistry to a nineteenth-century theory that cannot accommodate them.

________________________

You can read more his articles HERE and HERE.

________________________

"Darwin never conceived of this type of complexity." Ahh, but God did.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

(And on the 6th day) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Behe was the source and, although I don’t think anyone here thought I was the source, I should have cited it. I do think he is a creationist and there are problems with his “irreducible complexity” theory also but I am not arguing for strict Darwinian evolution.

Still, neither Creationism nor its step-child Intelligent Design can ever qualify as a scientific theory for at least two reasons, they do not allow predictions and they cannot be disproved. Therefore they are not and cannot be considered as scientific theories. For the ID crowd to claim it is not a form of Creationism is deliberately false.

Darwinian evolution qualifies as a scientific theory precisely because it can be tested and disproved. If it is, another scientific theory will take its place.

If you will read your source closely, you will see that God made the sun and the moon on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19), three days after he had created Light and Day and Night (Genesis 1:3-5). This does not qualify as a scientific theory either.

(And on the 6th day) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Correct! Genesis 1:27

Then, after the seventh day (Genesis 2:1-2), God put man in the Garden of Eden then decided he should not be alone (Genesis 2:18) so he took Adam’s rib and made woman again (Genesis 2,21-22).

Stuff like this is why science is different from religion.

Denise Conner: "Michael Behe is not a Creationist"
Professor Richard Dawkins, Oxford University: "Michael Behe is a Creationist"

Michael Behe teaches biochemistry at Lehigh University.
His views are so extreme that his own university feels compelled to put a prominent disclaimer on their own website:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. "

Dawkins, though brilliant, has come to be a Village Atheist, and, with the perpetually-binged Christopher Hitchens, is one of the shrill voices of the so-called "new atheism."

Have you read Dawkins' The God Delusion? It is unique in that Dawkins seems to have searched far and wide--to places like internet forums--to find theistic arguments that no responsible theist ever defended, all with a view to knocking them down ("See? Nothing there! What did I tell you?) He also goes out of his way to insult people like Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne. Throughout, he refers to Swinburne as a "theologian" (he is not), and the sarcasm flows with the ink. (For what it's worth, I trembled in my boots when I read a paper at a conference where Swinburne sat in. He is an analytic philosopher known widely for rigorous argumentation--far more formidable than the flippant, and dabbling Dawkins makes out.)

Cooler atheistic heads should be consulted. I recommend beginning with the work of my former prof, Elliott Sober, whose specialty as a philosopher of science is with the implications of evolution. He employs rigor where Dawkins resorts to rhetoric (and where Hitchens relies upon ever-new and creative forms of insult delivered with that British accent, which is proof of his superior intellect and before which we all must bow). I have the distinct impression that our friend Bas is more the Hitchens type than the Sober type. (Indeed, Hitchens is not exactly the sober type, is he?).

Here is an entertaining review of Dawkins' recent book, written by Alvin Plantinga. Books and Culture.

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Whom to believe?

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionist and atheist author of The God Delusion and the Selfish Gene, who said that Darwin made it possible for him to be “an intellectually fulfilled atheist” – “You can feel, really, now I understand [thanks to Darwin] how living things have acquired the illusion of design; I understand why they look as though they’ve been designed [because ‘they are very, very complicated'].” [Maybe because they really were DESIGNED!?!? ]

Dawkins says that mankind did not know why we are here [life purpose] for millions of years until the “truth,” i.e., Charles Darwin, finally “dawned” on man.

The PBS interviewer correctly perceives the real truth, “That sounds to me like a religious statement. That is a -- that is near messianic language . . . . That tonality says, I found my God.” Yes, “Dawkins’ writings champion [worship?] one man -- Charles Darwin.”

"Denise Conner: 'Michael Behe is not a Creationist'" --
Those are not my words but are from a book review (see the link in my previous post). I also linked to your quote.

See "Interview with Michael Behe on The Edge of Evolution" for his views on creationism.

"Intelligent Design: Is It Intelligent; Is It Christian?"

But so what if Behe were a "creationist"? Does that lead you to invoke your demons?

How has macro-evolution been "tested experimentally"? Which leads me to the conclusion that it "should not be regarded as scientific." The theory of origins requires faith whether you believe that God created it all as He said or whether this beautiful world just happened by blind chance (statistically impossible).

The book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek), is supposed to be quite thought-provoking.

Go to the CENTER FOR SCIENCE & CULTURE for some interesting reading.

OH NOE! AN ATHEIST!
Classic Conner rebuttal.

Conner champions (worships?) Michael Behe. She tries to decieve people here by cutting and pasting text that claims Behe is not a creationist, and when shown evidence to the contrary, she smugly states that she never said such a thing.

Her Creation-fu is Weak.

"Classic Conner rebuttal." -- Just how would you know that if you've been a member for only 7 weeks?

At least you got the CLASSIC part right! (Classic: serving as a standard of excellence; of recognized value; formal, refined, and restrained in style; having lasting significance or worth)

"Conner champions (worships?) Michael Behe." -- That would be breaking the first commandment, wouldn't it?

"She tries to decieve [sic] people here." -- Typical Basmati and that's not at all classy! Since you still need to work on your reading comprehension skills, here's FREE HELP (taxpayer-funded) for you.

Mike Huckabee has had the most executive experience of any other candidate republican or democrat with 10 yrs. as governor. those ten years did not shut down the science curriculum. He has said in many many cases schools should 1) be left up to the states, and 2) should allow for more choice for parents, thus his great support of the charter school and the home school program.

Huckabee 08'