I wouldn't mind the bird-flu issue if we could tone down the hyperbole about the 1918 pandemic recurring. That just isn't going to happen- 1918 was during the medical dark ages- antibiotics didn't come along for another two decades, and that's what killed a lot of the people who got the spanish flu.

I'm all for taking reasonable precautions, but can we please dump the doom-mongering and agenda-pushing and let the people with medical degrees come up with a plan to deal with this, instead of the people with J-school degrees?

Sheesh.

You know, I'm as atheistic as you please, with as rigorous an education in pure austere science as money can buy, but the thing that's got my hackles up lately more than almost anything else is all this sudden hyperventilation about Intelligent Design and how America is held in thrall by its treacherous siren song. As though Americans, and only Americans, are fundamentally incapable of reason or invention because of their intractable superstitiousness. Which explains all that moon-shot crap and computer hype and everything, I guess.

The latest bumper-sticker meme is how you can't even get a public school education in this country where your science books haven't had the evolution chapters torn out of them.

Does our journalistic caste feel content in assuming that their readership remembers no history or consciousness prior to the last news cycle or something? It's their low opinion of the competence of the average American that I find most repugnant about the media these days, and the fact that it's so out in the open, like they don't even think we're capable of enough rational thought to detect it.

They think America is a zoo and they're the zookeepers. That's evolution for ya.

Intelligent design, maybe. Anacephalic politicos, fer sure.

Yeah, that's it. If you believe that there is an overarching design behind everything, then you obviously reject everything and all scientific processes. Thanks for the spin free citation.
Now, let's hear from the drooling KKK crowd that rejects Affirmative Action, and thereby calls for the total withdrawl of all words used to describe racism and discrimination.

"Yeah, that's it. If you believe that there is an overarching design behind everything, then you obviously reject everything and all scientific processes."

If you accept Creationism/ID (same thing, different window dressing), you're getting Step#1 wrong. When you do that, everything from there is flawed.

More so, when you make a mistake, it's possible to self-correct; when you deliberately shove your head up your ass, corrections are impossible.

So what happens when whole major segments of a population has a severe case of cranial-recal inversion?

In the long run you get what you pray for. If you believe in the multiverse then everyone gets what they pray for. So Anne will live in a godless universe devastated by the best bird flu that evolution can create. And I won't. :-)

Not only is she wrong, her entire premise is flawed.

The argument here isn't even ABOUT evolution. For her to assume that because there's a battle going on as to the scientific description of the origins of life (hint: there is none yet) that there is an inherent anti-science bias in politics is beyond absurd. And where is she finding polls that "most don't believe in evolution"? If she means "most people don't believe the all of life evolved from an errant strand of mRNA that got hit by lightning", then she's ok. Otherwise, not so much. I suspect she's going for the "silly Christians still think the Sun orbits the flat Earth" meme.

What we have here is yet another attempt by the media to scare people into giving more money and power to a government that is incompetent to use either.

There aren't going to be a billion dead from a "bird flu" pandemic. Remember how we were all going to die from SARS? Oh, yeah - I guess we forgot to get sick.

The media have so devalued the word "epidemic" that 15 people in a state getting the sniffles is now an "epidemic" that needs federal response.

Great. More rhetoric about how religious people kill people.

I know there are some whackos out there (Jehovah's Witnesses and others) who refuse medical service, but PERSONALLY I know a lot of Christians and NONE of them believe that medicine first starts with "phony" belief in some form of implied voodoo mysticism.

Can we get over this constant anti-religious crap for just a moment - or rather, can the atheists get over themselves for just a moment - to realize that Christians don't picket and "bomb" and murder brilliant medical researchers who hold the keys to the medical salvation of mankind?

Can we get over this ridiculous demagoguery that Christians are anti-science? Every Christian I know believes in the advances of science. Only the satirical parodies on TV paint people like me as some kind of torch-wielding anti-science moron.

In the face of something potentially so huge, can we drop the silly demagogic CRAP and find the scientific answers we need?

For the love of GOD (let me repeat that - G O D) can we drop the idiocy and hysteria?

I'm a Christian, I believe (obviously) in ID, I also believe in the benefits of unfettered science, and I DON'T want to save your ass. So would you demagogues please pull your head out of it and just accept the fact that we live side-by-side?

In fact, since Vodkapundit himself took the article as fact, someone please point to me the link that depicts idiot Christians killing bird flu researchers and burning down their labs.

I'm waiting......

HELLO?

So what happens when whole major segments of a population has a severe case of cranial-recal inversion?

Natural selection kicks in- those who are better able to deal with their environment survive, those who aren't, don't. There isn't anything remotely new about that...

Now that I've outed myself as a pro-evolution type...

The problem with the article is that Ms. Applebaum is ruining her argument by implying that everyone who thinks god created the universe is the same as the hard-core medication-refusing Christian Scientist crowd who think prayer works just as well as modern medicine, and then she claims that such people are against medical research on genetics because it leads to conclusions that contradict the literal reading of the bible. That is complete garbage.

The only people making the argument that medical research should be stopped are the lunatic greens who think drugs shouldn't be tested on animals and that the best things humans can do for the planet is to become extinct.

Now, there are a lot of people who think pharmeceutical companies- who are known for making hugely profitable products- do not need subsidies for their research, and resent the huge price breaks that damn near everyone outside the US gets on their products. But that doesn't have a damn thing to do with the bible.

ID pretends that there is sufficient evidence to suggest to our kids that science cannot explain all biological phenomena. Once a kid believes that lie, he isn't going to have any fire in the belly to become a biologist. Biologists want to find the explanations, but this kid believes it can't be done.

Oh, well, we can just keep using Chinese post-docs. They'll go home and design a cure for the bird flu and sell it to us. Or not.

Anne's comments seem pretty silly to me. You can believe in ID, reject evolution as an explanation of the origin of all species and still accept the concept of evolutionary process.

The ID crowd have done a pretty good job of convincing people that if they believe in a God who created the universe, then they must advocate ID. There is a world of difference between those who believe in a creator on a philosophical level and those who believe that scientific evidence demands His existence. There's a reason they call it "faith", people.

The history of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution which brought so many good things to so many people is the story of religion and science finding a way to coexist, not the story of science condemning any and every religious idea out of hand. The last three hundred years in the West have demonstrated that scientific progress is possible when religion is not exterminated, as long as it does not dominate.

I have to disagree with Ms. Applebaum on one point--that reading is a better use of the president's time than mountain biking. Given his lack of historical perspective and tendency to act without integrating information into a realistic or meaningful framework, I'd much rather he be riding his bike and staying out of trouble.

I question Stephen's motivation on some of these "Required Reading" posts. There have been some close to the deep end comments that he has linked to. Does he agree completely or does he want to pull the discussion in that direction?

I think many of you are reacting strangely to Anne's premise. Do all you ID believers not think that a bird flu pandemic would be God's will, part of the overall "design", like meteor impacts, volcanic activity, global warming and cooling, and every other naturally occurring event? She mentions recombination, mutation, etc. as scientific phenomena, which some of you appear to accept as valid for influenza strains, but not other (or all) forms of life? Man. I wish you guys would have taken Religion as part of your sociology education, and not confuse faith with the scientific process.

P.S. Huggy, does your comment mean you will die from bird flu?

I was supposed to travel to India, but my plans were cancelled.

As a result I have a nice prescription for Tamiflu that I am going to auction on E-bay to the highest bidder.

I wouldn't mind the bird-flu issue if we could tone down the hyperbole about the 1918 pandemic recurring. That just isn't going to happen- 1918 was during the medical dark ages- antibiotics didn't come along for another two decades, and that's what killed a lot of the people who got the spanish flu.

rosignol, are you one of those people who runs to the doctor and demands a prescription for antibiotics when they have a cold?

Spanish Flu was/is a virus. Antibiotics do not work on viruses. Want to know what does work on viruses? Nothing. We have yet to cure a virus. We can treat the symptoms of a virus. We can vaccinate against a virus. We can attack the dna/rna of a virus with retroviral drugs, but we have yet to cure a virus. All we can do when it comes to viruses is to prevent someone from catching one, like smallpox, by using vaccines. That's the only thing that works. With this bird flu, from what I've read is that there is only one pharmaceutical company in Switzerland who has been producing a vaccine that works on this particular strain. There isn't enough of it to go around. Hence, that's why everyone's in a lather. This strain of flu is lethal and could kill millions of people, but we can only prevent deaths if we have enough vaccine, which we don't. Once you catch it, it's simply a matter for your immune system.

Rob - the bird flu is not God's will. The meteors... oh HELL. EVERYTHING bad that happens is not God's will.

Some Christians live their lives stoically as in "if it is the will of God, then so be it." Don't turn this sanguine worldview neutrality into some malignant sadism on the part of believers. I'm not going to indoctrinate you on why these things are not God's will - I will simply tell you they are not.

All I'm seeing in defense of this STUPID article is more rhetoric that has absolutely zero basis in mental health and reality.

I could easily say that atheists want everyone to die and therefore they kill scientists and we'll never advance as long as there are atheists.

Does that moronic STUPIDITY ring a bell? It's what's being said about the likes of ME.

The only virulent hatred I see here is coming from the atheists. These attitudes only poison our society - they do not, in any way, help it. This article serves no constructive purpose except to socially bait a particular class of people. It is sick and does nothing to advance or propose solutions to a virus.

I'm STILL waiting for that link - at least just one - that shows the pictures of rabid, mentally retarded christians burning a bird-flu lab - or ANY other lab.

Only MUSLIMS do that kind of thing.

Before any politically correct assmonkey goes off on me for the muslim comment try reading this first:

http://iona.ghandchi.com/Inklings.htm

The Qu'ran views science as dangerous to the faith. That's why all those wonderful muslim inventions and discoveries went to Europe for development and Islam has stunted ever since.

I think she's way off base. Accepting that there is a consciousness involved in the creation and evolving of the universe does NOT mean that you can't accept science and scientific theories, including evolution. Could it be that the Divine is using evolution as His tool in creation? It is possible to believe in both the hammer and the carpenter, you know.

Kathy - Secondary infection is what kills people who get the flu. That's what the antibiotics are for, not for the virus itself.

Phil-Exactly!

I wrote an article about just that grain of thought:

http://www.williamthrash.com/creation.htm

The divine using evolution. It would explain the entropy problem.

"ID pretends that there is sufficient evidence to suggest to our kids that science cannot explain all biological phenomena. Once a kid believes that lie, he isn't going to have any fire in the belly to become a biologist."

Jim, not to put too fine a point on it, that's BS.

The smartest person I knew in my class at Caltech, who contributed more in his undergrad and graduate career to the field of planetary science and astronomy than only a few below the stratum of Hawking have done, was/is a Christian and creationist.

Don't tell me HE didn't have "fire in the belly".

He's the guy whose example made me a whole lot less smug about my atheism—there's nothing inherently "scientific" about it. By definition, in fact.

Having seen the effects of SARS personally, and how hard it was to transmit I'm not impressed with it or bird flu. My brother was shuttling back and forth between hong kong and the southern chinese provinces when he caught it, and not knowing what it was coughed his way across siberia and europe, left him feeling really shitty for 3 weeks and coughing for a month and a half, but not much past that (other than bringing me one of the milder secondary bugs he picked up while sick, that responded just fine to antibiotics). This whole argument reminds me of the huricanes happen because of kyoto not being passed thing, not a lot of science, just chicken little shouting. And for those who are squeaking about evolution and boogs, you really need to study up on pathogen evolution in the presence of a clean water supply, basically they get far less nasty, if not exactly cuddly.

Amazing at how many of you miss the point because, it seems, she dare critizie ID as non-science, ironically proving her point quite elegantly.

To place intelligent design at the same level as evolutionary sciency, you must ignore and/or pervert the scientific process. To pretend that teaching that scientific methodology is invalid or, as one contributor here puts it on their web site "a matter of faith", will have no long term effect on actual scientific research is folly.

William: "I'm STILL waiting for that link - at least just one - that shows the pictures of rabid, mentally retarded christians burning a bird-flu lab - or ANY other lab."

I've reread Anne's article and could not find such a suggestion, although some of your more violent anti-abortionists had Christian affliation, did they not? I guess those were clinics, not labs.

I do agree that it's helpful to think about the natural world with a critical and curious mind, rather than just say "that's beyond our knowledge or ability to understand". I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I'm not anti-religion, although some tend to be worse that others. I just think applying religious faith or doctrine to questions about our origins, or how organisms adapt to their environment (like the bird flu has done), doesn't make any sense. At all.

It would be nice to buy you a beer and find out what exactly is, and is not, God's will, since you seem to know. I typically hit a brick wall with strong believers when topics like this come up- we eventually reach "We can't hope to possibly understand...", which ain't exactly the basis of scientific discovery.

The problem with Anne's article is very basic. "evolution" is not a process or a system or a means of developing anything specific. It is merely a description of a series of random events. Evolution is not the survival of the fitest it is the survival of those that survive. You can't use evolution to create something because by definition you don't know where it will end up. Similarily you can't use evolution to predict an outcome because it is by definition random.

I.E. if you have two cows standing next to a cliff, one healthy and one sick, and a rock falls on the healthy one... guess which set of genes gets passed on. And no, applying 'large numbers' to the model does not eliminate this outcome.

Personally if I am going to trust my health to a medication I would prefer one based on a well thought out and repeatable design that isn't going to randomly change on me.

That said, I think that the idea of a pandemic is way overblown. As was mentioned most people last time didn't die of the flu they died of secondary causes like TB.

Paul, where does Anne suggest that evolution is a process intended to produce a desired outcome? I think you are playing semantics with evolution's definition vs. natural selection, although most people use "evolution" as a catchall term when they mean natural selection.

Your sick cow isn't going to thrive, generation after generation, while the healthy ones constantly succumb to rock-bashing. If they do, it could be argued that the 'healthy' cow is too f-ing stupid to get out from under the rock, thus the selector in this case wasn't healthiness/weakness but rather knowledge of your environment. And as for your medication "randomly changing", I can't help you there. I have enough problems finding pharmacists in my network.

Rob - The assumption in her article comes from here:

"But it is actually impossible to talk logically about bird flu, or any other rapidly evolving and constantly changing virus, without using the language of evolution..."

The implication there is that Christians are purposely stifling scientific debate and research.

We constantly hear about how whacko christians murder and bomb and slaughter abortion providers - can't remember the last idiot christian that did it, but it happens ALL the time, right - so the pregnant pause here, the unspoken smear is that christian activism is somehow (like the abortion whackos?) stopping legitimate scientific research.

Mr Vodka piped in about how right she was. The whole point of her article was that we aren't prepared because of.... christians.

It's a load of BS and I'm still waiting for links to where evidence is shown that mobs of idiot christians have bombed a researcher working on the flu (or any other medicine). And if not that, then give me just one measely link where christians "damaged" the progress on finding some answer for the flu.

Your comment on the bombing of abortion clinics is right, and that's what I had intended to imply. The whackos on my side bomb abortion clinics that deal in death. They don't bomb research clinics that deal in life. The GREEN party does that crap.

The demagogic intent of the message has no basis in reality and serves zero purpose in solving anything, except to inflame christians like me. To what end I don't know. But probably to inflame other agnostics and atheists to "pass laws" against people like me under the guise of "protecting" science.

Science does not need to be protected from me. Science needs to be protected from muslims and greens. Doesn't it make more sense to target the real enemy of science?

Rob,

Anne states in the third line that it is impossible to talk logically about bird flu without using the language of evolution.

If she meant natural selection than she should have said so. However my point stands. When you postulate that the healthy cows may be too stupid you are doing what every good evolutionist does. You are looking for a reason to justify the survival of the survivors. Your assumption is that the best and brightest will always win out but then you define them as those that have already won. Essentially picking lottery numbers the day after the drawing. Interesting but not useful for next weeks lottery.

There is however no empiracle evidence for this. The honest business man does not always get the sale. the survivor of a drunk driving accident is usually the drunk. The people in the World Trade center were arguably successful. JFK is dead and castro seems likely to live past 100.

More on point "the language of evolution" is far more suited to the historian than to a scientist.

The scientific method is about repeatable, verifiable/falsifiable observations. Frankly that makes a lot more sense if you are dealing with a set of variables that all follow the same rules as set out by a single designer, rather than a collection of fortuitous accidents.

Brian, he had fire in the belly. But I don't admit he's a creationist. He says he is. But I don't believe what people say they believe when I see they act differently. Any astronomical problem that crosses his desk, he acts as if it can be solved by his science. He refuses to whip out the, "Well, this one's too hard, so I'll need to say that only God's will can explain this phenomenon."

Perhaps your friend is merely a "creationist." Perhaps he believes that, in some mysteriously inexplicable sense understandable only by faith, God created the world, although the chain of causes may each be given scientific explanation. But he's not a creationist. Michael Behe is a creationist, and his example teaches kids to give up.

::But it is actually impossible to talk logically about bird flu, or any other rapidly evolving and constantly changing virus, without using the language of evolution -- specific words such as "mutant," "recombination," "genome" and "selection." Without that language, a sensible popular or political discussion, let alone a scientific discussion, is impossible:::

Michael Behe and his ilk are opposed to the use of words like 'mutant, recombination, genome, and selection?' Who knew?
They deny that a virus ever changes?
More to the point- prove it. Show us, please, a quote from the I.D. folks that would support this implication.

I.D. is about describing the origins of life, not the current processes of change and alteration a pre-existing virus might take. And I would note that however much a virus changes, we're still talking about an alteration on the micro level, not macro. The virus is still a virus- which is kind of what the I.D. folk expect to happen.

This is fun. You guys are obviously on a different team, but I appreciate your persistence and devotion to the cause, as it were.

I disagree with Paul's projections and would submit that my training as a scientist taught me to look at the evidence I'm given, rather than foster ideas that are not visible, provable, or based in any observable fact, but rather based in traditional values or stories that were passed on by early humans (who tended towards superstition- ask Magellan, Von Leeuwenhoek, etc.).

I did not say that the "best and brightest always win out" but simply examined your scenario and provided a plausible explanation that is supported by natural selection. This is, on a very basic level, science. Providing a possible explanation for why the cows died or lived is much more helpful than throwing up your hands and saying "Why, oh why, have you flattened some cows and not others, oh unseen omnipotent ruler of the universe?" But religion has no need to be helpful or progressive; rather it seeks to preserve a status quo that's been in place for several thousand years. Again, ID ain't science.

As for why Castro lived longer than JFK, I suppose that's a great example of God's Will. Or irony, depending on whose side you're on.

Anne is an idiot and intellectually dishonest. Nothing about the history or current process of medical science or virology has ever had any dependence on the limited vocabulary or percepts of this "crazy", "fringe" I.D. crowd. It's just another lame, distasteful attempt to conflate christians, Intelligent Designers, creationists, whatever- and brand them all dangerous luddites.
What are you thinking, Stephen - to present this as worthy of attention or discussion?
Oh, and with regards to credibility, I am a Ph.D. biochemist - in R & D for 15 years.

whoa, I admit I'm tired, but is Applebaum saying ID is the reason we don't have a vaccination for the bird flu? Or was bird flu just a nice hook for her to talk about ID?

People who promote ID don't get it. When you study evolution or cosmology you learn to realize that the world and the universe consists of billions and billions of stars, so many we can't possibly contemplate the size..and has been here for billions of years, that life on Earth has been evolving for millions of years. What is it they tell us, if the history of the world was represented by a year then humanity is just the last second or two? I mean all this has got to convince everyone that we are really, really insignificant in the scheme of things. We are puny, impotent, clueless, fleeting. In short, we suck! Any kid watching Nova can figure that out! We suck! Life is pointless. We suck! And who are these Bible-thumping zealots to tell us there is some meaning to it all? They suck!

All I'm seeing here from the anti-religious side is an opportunity to claim they're backwards and dumb, with no basis in fact.

Pretty immature.

I wonder how many posts of mine can be counted where I call atheists dumb? I can count them on one hand and still have five fucking fingers left over.

Ignore history. Ignore America. Ignore fact. Call christians names and blame them for things other people do. If that assuages your mental psychosis, I guess that's your thing. As far as I'm concerned, this article and their responses are so assinine as to not be worth the typing time.

I think the more relevant article would be "spiteful, neurotic scientists who are also atheists waste precious time from research bashing Christians while millions die."

What a sad, irrelevant waste.

Headmistress, Behe teaches kids that you can give up when the science gets hard. He threw up his hands and opted for the divine explanation. Better biologists had to step in and point out his errors. They showed that appeals to natural selection could explain what he said they could not explain.

Oh, ID biochemists can appeal to natural selection, alright. But only until the going gets tough, as it will in the case of stopping viruses.

Nice sidestep, Jim, but I note you did not offer any answers to the question (s) I asked. Still no evidence that I.D. has anything to do with bird flu and the lack of a vaccine for it, still not evidence that the I.D. crowd has made any discussion or scientific research impossible, and absolutely zero evidence that Anne's assertions about the use or refusal to use words like genome are true.
How odd.
This isn't really about the claims of I.D. vs the claims of atheist evolutionists, you know. This is about misrepresenting- falsifying- what the I.D. folk actually do say. You don't have to agree with them to know that Anne's statements about them were intellectually dishonest and patently unfair.
She says, and you say she's right, that because of I.D. "We're stuck thinking that a virus is a hex that can be lifted with a single lucky charm, not something that will change over time. "
Prove it. What I.D. proponent makes such a claim? What I.D. proponent says that viruses do not change over time?
So far I'm seeing the equivilant of fortune telling and astrology from the anti I.D. set here, not facts.

I would like to speak out that I am pro-God and pro-science, and I believe that most religious people are the same -- some religious zealots notwithstanding. The tone of this conversation bothers me as it seems so much an us-vs.-them mentality. History shows that science and religion are not antithetical and indeed accomplish much when they work together. The famed Puritan minister Cotton Mather comes to mind as an early proponent of smallpox vaccinations. Einstein, Kepler, Newton, and Boyle were all religious and claimed that science helped them feel closer to God. This harmonious convergence between science and religion is really what is at stake in these debates. Do atheists really want to bar believers from the lab? I think most Christians feel that science is a way to know more about God and about the universe, and it would be a shame and a loss for everyone if we were ostracized from the scientific community.

Uh, in the sphere of intelligent design, I think most of its adherents apply it mainly to humans.
I think you'd have to look far and wide to find people who deny that evolution takes place with microbes.

In any event, I'm of the opinion that this 'epidemic' will be as deadly as the coming pandemic of last year's "plauge of the century of the week'.

Call me an idiot, but I believe in God . While I am no scientist, my religious belief has never stifled my curiosity, and I am even growing a microbiologist!
My take on the religion/science debate is this: I see God in the gaps, and also believe we may find the "explanations" in my lifetime-or not. Science just seems to say-"Oh, don't worry about the holes--we'll get to them later, they are really not that important...if we don't know the answer, there is no answer"
--what I am hearing is, "It only exists if we say it exists"...yeah, right.

Science just seems to say-"Oh, don't worry about the holes--we'll get to them later, they are really not that important...if we don't know the answer, there is no answer"

Uh, it does?

I'd say it's more like sciense says "Hmmm, holes - let's assume we can eventually understand what is happening there, because if we assume something cannot be understood, there's no reason to look further."

Reading many of these comments, it's like I've been thrown back to Creationist Summer Camp for Slow Children.

If you want to know why these discussions devolve into us vs. them, it's because "us" is sick of "them" spouting off nonsense like evolution violates SLOT (I guess God tinkers with every human so they form from a single cell, and crafts every snowflake with loving care).

Discussing the topic of evolution with people like that is like telling my two-year old daughter that my wife has a baby in her belly. She'll insist it's a kitty cat despite anything we tell her.

Quit looking for the damned kitty cat and get a clue.

Yep, drop back in and see the Christian-bashing has only gotten worse.

Andy: your intelligence stuns me. You're such a MAN. "Creationist Summer Camp for Slow Children" oooo I'm gonna go cry.

Your mommie must be so proud that you can buffly throw around such witty and intelligent put-downs that send all the retarded Christians running.

Got any more mature names you can think of calling me? I mean, come on, is that the best you can do?

Yep, drop back in and see the Christian-bashing has only gotten worse.

William, if you're speaking to me, please turn off your persecution complex. It just makes you look silly and doesn't make you special.

Andy: your intelligence stuns me. You're such a MAN. "Creationist Summer Camp for Slow Children" oooo I'm gonna go cry.

Don't cry, just run along to the library and learn something about evolution so you don't say incorrect things like "evolution violates SLOT."

I realize that asking you to actually know what you're talking about before joining a discussion is a bit much, but I think you're capable.

Your mommie must be so proud that you can buffly throw around such witty and intelligent put-downs that send all the retarded Christians running.

Again, oh persecuted one, calm down. I said nothing about Christians (e.g. Dr. Kenneth Miller is a Christian, very bright, and an advocate of evolution).

Dying on a cross for all humanity is an impressive feat. Getting whiny because some guy in a comment box thinks you're ignorant? Not so much, and it isn't going to get you into Heaven.

The famed Puritan minister Cotton Mather comes to mind as an early proponent of smallpox vaccinations. Einstein, Kepler, Newton, and Boyle were all religious and claimed that science helped them feel closer to God.

Mm. Now that I think about it, wasn't Mendel, the guy who started working out the genetics/heredity thing, a monk?

Yup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Ohh..... I didn't know that you could be a creationist and not be a Christian.... ohhhh

How STUPID of me.

Oh, and you got me with an "ignorant" jab with the cliche SLOT bait.

You know, I'm tired of being satirical even in these posts. Your attempts were feeble, I mean come on, persecuted and whiney? I've heard a lot better name-calling. Yours is pretty amateur.

If that's the best you can do, maybe you should take some professional lessons. There's schools for all kinds of things, you know.

Oh, and you got me with an "ignorant" jab with the cliche SLOT bait.

"Ignorant" is not ad hom. It is a factual observation. Again, William, get over this persecution complex of yours - it's embarrassing.

It's not my fault that you don't understand SLOT.

Of course, from reading your website, you were also amazed to find seashells buried above sea level, so geology might be another topic for you to explore more as well.

I'm not sure why you keep focusing on thinking you've been oh-so-persecuted. Telling you that you are wrong, ignorant, and apparently willfully so is a public service.

Again, there are many, many Christians who understand basic science; you just happen to be one of the ones who does not.

Jim: "ID pretends that there is sufficient evidence to suggest to our kids that science cannot explain all biological phenomena. Once a kid believes that lie, he isn't going to have any fire in the belly to become a biologist. Biologists want to find the explanations, but this kid believes it can't be done."

I'm calling BS on this one, sorry Jim.

Few actual *scientists* believe that science will produce all the answers... perhaps potentially, but more like asking God for the answers after you die and go to heaven... it's this amorphous thing out there somewhere, a not likely to be reached goal. In the mean time scientists are content (or even compulsive) to find out as much as they can about the world. The inquiry and challenge is equally available to those who believe that natural explanations are sufficient and those who believe that God made it all.

Applebaum makes the same mistake, assuming that people who believe that God created the world (one way or another) aren't interested in exploring and understanding that creation. In fact, it's quite the opposite. To explore creation is to constantly marvel at what God has done.

She makes another mistake... something that the hard core anti-science sorts do, and that is that she confuses "evolution" with "origins." Shame on her. They aren't the same thing at all. The evolution of a virus, and all the terminology that goes with it, is an observable process that almost no one denies.

A few do... for them evolution = origins, and those people exist on both ends of the spectrum... philosophically identical in their inflexibility.

Jim: "Brian, he had fire in the belly. But I don't admit he's a creationist. He says he is. But I don't believe what people say they believe when I see they act differently. Any astronomical problem that crosses his desk, he acts as if it can be solved by his science. He refuses to whip out the, "Well, this one's too hard, so I'll need to say that only God's will can explain this phenomenon."

Your error, here, is in judging a group of people by your own concept of what they believe and how they behave rather than judging by what they believe and how they behave.

I don't know where you got this idea that someone who believes that God (one way or another) created the world *can't* approach science as if science can answer the questions that cross their desk. Science studies the natural world and ought to be expected to answer questions about the natural world.

Did you meet someone once with this bizarre notion you have?

Well, I think I'm agnostic which means I am not able to fully comprehend God at this time but a child of God implies that we will become adult at some time in the future.

I think evolution would be just the thing an intelligent creator would employ to facilitate advancement.

How can any one deny the evidence all around them of the evolution of humans? The evolution of the car for example...

Headmistress, Behe's example shows that you can give up when the phenomenon looks mysterious. Of course, an ID'er in the virus lab certainly can look for the natural explantions. But when the virus begins to look more and more mysterious, the ID'er can whip out the supernatural explanation. ID licenses this move. All Anne did was lay the hyperbole on thick.

Julie, there is a difference between and ID "scientist" and a scientist who believes that in some transcendent way that has no bearing on science God created the world. I made the distinction explicit in my reply to Brian. You run the two together in your remark. Making the distinction is important if you're going to be able to develop an counterargument to my argument. If you don't have an argument, then just saying that what I've said is "BS" or "bizarre" does little more than put you in a bad light.

Julie and Headmistress offer no counterargument to the point at issue, but only naysaying and mere rhetoric ("BS", "fortune-telling", "bizarre"). So, the point stands.

This got ugly pretty quickly. I would never have dreamed that Applebaum's column would prompt such indignance, but that's religion for you. I'm off to Flying Spaghetti Monster camp, where the debate is reasoned.

Jim, the point doesn't stand because you haven't supported it. What you've done is explain your definition of what ID means and then used that definition as proof of how people who believe in intelligent design will behave and when they demonstrably *don't* behave that way, you use that definition to prove that they don't qualify as believing in ID.

This circular sort of logical process is flawed. Let's review.

You (and Applebaum, apparently) claim that ID is a threat to scientific inquiry because people who believe in ID *won't look for scientific answers.* You make this claim on logic.

Someone else gives an example that disproves what you've said... a brilliant classmate who is a creationist and a fabulous scientist.

Your answer... they don't really believe in intelligent design.

?

What do you think creationism is? Were you claiming that this person lied about what they believed? On what evidence? None that I can see other than that this person behaved in a way that *your* definition of ID did not predict.

What makes more sense? To stick by your failed predictive model, or to change your predictive model so that is works better?

Andy thinks I don't understand SLOT because I am Christian. He thinks the two are mutually incompatible. He thinks he can judge me on two references I make in passing on my website. He thinks he can draw from brief mention that I know nothing, without knowing how long, deep, or frequently I've been involved with SLOT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics for those of you confused). He apparently has ESP abilities to know what I know without me ever saying much about it to declare that I'm ignorant, wrong, uneducated, etc.

coughthat'scalledbigotedcough

He claims not to be calling names when he labels me ignorant because it's not opinion, it's "factual," but of course provides absolutely nothing to support what is so obviously an ad hominem attack.

coughthat'scaleedprejudiceandbigotrycough

Then the "wise and smart" Andy claims I have a persecution complex because I take execption to people calling a whole class of citizens names for fabricated reasons...

There's a few conditions here I see. Hypocrisy, psychosis, and neurosis.

The names and ad hominem attacks are being thrown freely by the other side, and MY side gets the blame for it?

Add narcissism to that list.

Andy apparently refuses to care that I believe in evolution - he simply can't reconcile that with the fact that I'm a Christian with a belief in ID. Only evolutionists that are atheists are the master race. Christians, by his references, are all obviously subhumans.

coughthat'scallednarrow-mindedcough

Andy was too easy.

Andy thinks I don't understand SLOT because I am Christian. He thinks the two are mutually incompatible.

No, I think you don't understand SLOT because you don't understand SLOT. Plenty of Christians do understand it. You're apparently not one of them.

He thinks he can judge me on two references I make in passing on my website.

Somehow I doubt beliefs that come from your faith are "references" made "in passing." Oh ye of little faith.

He thinks he can draw from brief mention that I know nothing, without knowing how long, deep, or frequently I've been involved with SLOT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics for those of you confused).

I wouldn't care if you were a lunar explorer who claimed the moon was made of cheese. Your experience doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

Then the "wise and smart" Andy claims I have a persecution complex because I take execption to people calling a whole class of citizens names for fabricated reasons...

No, I claim you have a persecution complex because when I address YOUR ignorance, you seem to think you represent the whole of Christianity. Not only do you have a persecution complex, but you're apparently a megalomaniac to boot.

The rest of your little tirade hinges on those two conditions, and renders it meaningless.

Have a nice day.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can back up anything he says rather than just continue parroting the ignorant label?

I wonder if "wise" Andy can point out where I oppose scientific research? - Which I don't.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can indicate my activism against his sacrosanct evolution theory that solves all bird flus? - Which I don't.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can link the article and picture showing me burning down the bird-flu labs in the name of religion? - Which he'll never find because I don't.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can point out on my site where I promote the removal of evolution-teaching because I'm a subhuman religious believer? - Which he won't find because I don't promote such.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can justify his ASSUMPTIONS of what I think about the 2nd Law so that he can continue calling me ignorant? - Which I doubt because I've given him nothing to base his ASSUMPTION on.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can justify his ASSUMPTIONS that my beliefs and faith support what HE thinks my beliefs are when I have said almost NOTHING about them? - Which I doubt, because people don't like to admit their prejudices.

I wonder if "wise" Andy has anything other than blind prejudice to apply to this discussion where I obviously support the same thing he does (scientific solution to the bird flu)? - Which I doubt since he has done nothing but ASSUME things about me and label me ignorant.

When the casual reader compares Andy's site to mine, I would like to gently point out the drift of each. Nowhere in mine do you see attacks against people who don't believe like me in regards to religion (I spend a lot of time attacking Islamofascism). But in Andy's, his burning focus is to attack and name-call people who are religious.

The reader can decide on his own.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can back up anything he says rather than just continue parroting the ignorant label?

Um, it's your own site that says you think evolution violates SLOT and that you were surprised to find seashells on a mountain...

The counterpoints:

Evolution does not violate SLOT

Seashells not evidence for global flood

In summary, and at risk of sounding like a broken (but correct) record, you are wrong.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can point out where I oppose scientific research? - Which I don't.

Never said you did. Strawman.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can indicate my activism against his sacrosanct evolution theory that solves all bird flus? - Which I don't.

Never said you did. Strawman.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can link the article and picture showing me burning down the bird-flu labs in the name of religion? - Which he'll never find because I don't.

Never said you did. Strawman.

I wonder if "wise" Andy can point out on my site where I promote the removal of evolution-teaching because I'm a subhuman religious believer? - Which he won't find because I don't promote such.

Never said you did. Strawman.

When the casual reader compares Andy's site to mine, I would like to gently point out the drift of each.

Irrelevant to the argument at hand. The character of my site and yours has zero bearing on the workings and findings of science, the validity of evolutionary theory, the fact that evolution does not violate SLOT, and the easily explainable reason that shells are on mountains without invoking global flood nonsense.

You're new to this whole "debate" thing, huh? Either that or just not very good at it.

But in Andy's, his burning focus is to attack and name-call people who are religious.

Oh? Let's look at my last several posts...

1. Iran is naughty.
2. The World Series is boring.
3. Martha Stewart is a yawnfest
4. You are ignorant
5. Plot yourself on this blog map
6. Anti-aging research
7. The Turkish alphabet
8. The definition of myth
9. Some guy made fun of blogs
10. A grammar lesson
11. Behe contradicts himself
12. Alabama football
13. Pork projects are bad
14. Scientology

Burning focus indeed!

Once again, your persecution complex shows itself. I was once a Christian, so I know what that's like, but what's it like to be batshit bonkers?

Amusing that you can't list your entry "WHEN CREATIONISTS ATTACK" with all the name-calling in it.

I'd like you to please point out one attack in here that a creationist made?

You keep bringing up, over and over, assumptions about what I think and anecdotes I've used on my site. I refuse to engage in them here since this thread relates to how ID people stifle scientific research.

You're trying to turn this into an attack thread so you can demonstrate what you think is your new superiority because you are no longer a christian. I could care less all to hell if you were once a christian, a jew, a pedophile, an agnostic, an atheist or any other class, religion or race. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE. And I won't help you change this into an "Andy-knows-all" forum.

"List" #4 made me laugh, but I have to wonder, considering your other posts, whether it was tongue in cheek or serious. Whereas you immediately assume, I am never so sure. But then, maybe that is because you are so wise.

Amusing that you can't list your entry "WHEN CREATIONISTS ATTACK" with all the name-calling in it.

But I did - that's #4.

I'd like you to please point out one attack in here that a creationist made?

Never said they did. Straw man.

I refuse to engage in them here since this thread relates to how ID people stifle scientific research.

Never said they did - and, in general, they don't, until it comes to talk of origins and evolution.

You're trying to turn this into an attack thread...

Er, no. I responded to someone who misframed the role of science and explained, in response to a different comment, why I thought this becomes "us" vs. "them."

True, my reasoning was because "them" is rather clueless, but I didn't pose the question.

I apologize for not realizing that only William Thrash is allowed to reply to comments rather than the pure and unspoilt content of the initial post.

eeerrrrrrggggg (eyes bug out a little)

"When Creationists Attack" is your headline that refers directly to this post and thread. Yet you say that you don't claim creationists are attacking in it.

I've been fair and patient. Please explain why you named your thread such if not a single creationist made any attacks?

Why not, When Ignorant Ann Attacks? for her implication that ID people stifle research and will cause us to be helpless against the bird flu?

Can anyone believe how stupid this has gotten? Is it pointless, or not? Relevant to have this kind of "discussion" or not? Was this Mr Vodka's intention? To what end? I see little here that contributes in any way to a solution regarding our preparedness for the bird flu.

Back to Andy - if you want to invite me over to your site as a foil for intelligent discussion, then make a thread and I'll bring my patience over for whatever you want to talk about. I just don't want to derail what appears to be an already derailed topic on Vodka's site.

I've been fair and patient. Please explain why you named your thread such if not a single creationist made any attacks?

I used "attack" in the sense of making an appearance and defending their indefensible notions. If far-lefty kooks came and did the same, I'd say "when kooky liberals attack."

Why not, When Ignorant Ann Attacks? for her implication that ID people stifle research and will cause us to be helpless against the bird flu?

While I think she was hyperbolic, I do think there's a cognitive disconnect between those who embrace creationism or ID yet have little problem reaping the benefits of our understanding of evolution.

This would not apply to those who claim to believe in theistic evolution, even though I think it amounts to a rather pointless form of deism.

You, of course, are always welcome at my site. Love to have you.

You know, I must have missed that massive demonstration when the Christers were taking to the hustings in D.C. to protest the existence of a rapidly changing avian flu viral threat.

I suppose it probably came between the massive right wing extremist uprising and riotous march to unseat Harriet Miers from the Court, and the massive right wing extremist uprising and riotous march that sought to put Harriet Miers on the Court.

Well, it did get uglier and I didn't feel like wasting my time engaging with Andy and his schoolyard insults. This thread, and certainly the Appelbaum piece, have highlighted the self-righteousness of the two most diametrically opposed sides of the muli-faceted science/religion debate. God (any God or gods) and Science are not neccessarily mutually exclusive, but it is human nature to rise up in defense of one's most personal and tightly held beliefs- be they religious or scientific. While "science" is not a religion by definition, the out-of-hand rejection of ideas which do not conform to scientific rigor suggests a belief system.
As is usual in the arena of public policy, competing beliefs (of any kind) battle for representation and/or control. The abortion and stem-cell debates are examples where scientific interpretation doesn't even agree, nor does theology. In such cases, whatever policy compromise is achieved, one side definitely "loses" on its strongest point of contention.

Sneering at each other does not yield understanding or compromise. Should there be compromise in our nation's search for scientific truth-can there be? As I stated before, I'm no scientist--but I can read. The "holes" I referred to before are the "gaps" in the fossil records, the differing (importantly so) interpretations of what we do "know", mistakes, forgeries, and the constant parade of new discoveries and information. How is my faith in an unseen God different than another's faith that currently non-existent evidence exists? Why is my skepticism illegitimate, yet another's so worthy? I am an artist and a very creative person- while I see that current theories may well be on the right track, my imagination also takes me in other directions when it comes to interpretation and possibilities.

Now, I speak only for myself, but I suspect I may echo some when I suggest the assorted scientific theories of the Origins of Life be presented to the public with unabashed admissions of their weaknesses- rather than the dogmatic zeal that presently accompanies them. In my lifetime, we may have the answers that plug the holes- and prove the current theories correct-or not. Creation stories are certainly not science, but no human alive was present during the creation of life and ascent of man. What are the unassailable facts?

SO, we mortal beings are going to continue in our blind faith that we will find cures for all things because Darwin believes we have evolved.

Now how many billions and how many decades have been spent in the blind faith quest to cure AIDS? Soon, very soon there will be a cure, just give scientists another hundred billion and three more decades and we will find THE CURE. Soon, it's coming very soon, have faith. Have Blind Faith.

And yeah, let's all jump on the blind faith embryonic stem cell research debate that aborted human beings will soon be able to raise the affected from their chairs and walk! Soon, it is coming very soon. Just wait. Have Blind Faith that very soon we mortals will be God.

I believe Vaclav Havel referred today's scientific community as 'schizophrenic' in blind faith belief that man alone when measured against his own self can provide all the answers to everything and cure all human suffering.

All I know is that the longer I live around arrogant mortal humans beings the closer I move towards God.

Now how many billions and how many decades have been spent in the blind faith quest to cure AIDS? Soon, very soon there will be a cure, just give scientists another hundred billion and three more decades and we will find THE CURE. Soon, it's coming very soon, have faith. Have Blind Faith.

You're right, we should just pray about it instead. Sure, millions more will die, but maybe they'll at least get to Heaven.

To promote the religious side of this, I would have to point to the Reformation - the application of Aristotelian philosophy (originally atheistic) to Christianity that brought us out of the Dark Ages.

Aristotle argued that TRUTH was knowable by the individual (in contrast to Plato who argued that only God could know the truth) and that TRUTH could never change (immutable).

With the marriage of the two previously opposed antagonists, knowledge and technology exploded. Why? Jesus taught the worth of the individual and the freedom given to transcend (in secular terms). When joined with Aristotelian thought, we advanced science as a love of knowledge and in the name of God.

I always take exception that science and God are mutually exclusive. Perhaps in the time of Plato, yes. But implying that science cannot advance with Christians in it is like saying that social cohesion cannot advance with atheists in it.

If I could learn things about the Old Testament from the original Hebrew and studied research that negates the traditional teachings of western Christianity, yet still find that by doing so I have affirmed God by an even more accurate historical record, then I have done so for the glory of God and I believe that attitude is the same used by scientists who are Christian.

Nothing stops a Christian from being curious, and the study and definitive research of and on evolution is no less one of those research nuggets to study, crack, and consider. Or any other scientific area of study.

Only fools disregard the truth in favor of their own personal beliefs - and that includes fanatics who would ignore evidence if it didn't fit their belief system.

I would like to add that the apparent idea that Christians are adverse to anything scientific comes from the image presented by the televangelist circuit.

These shysters of Christianity, for the most part, deliver what they think are glorious sounding indictments against science as if science has been trying to disprove God all along - so Mr Televangelist feels he has to be the standardbearer for God.

As if God needs help from some blow-dried-hair-sprayed grinning fool.

Unfortunately, Mr Televangelist, being bred for TV-whoring, only knows how to sound good without having the knowledge and wisdom to keep his mouth shut in an area he doesn't need to venture.

Most Televangelists, anyway.

Thats becuase they have had this evolution crap shoved down their throats for so long and the junk science in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and DISCOVOR without the least sign to support this monkey nonsense