[X] My Assistant

[Eric Smith]

EDIT: I spell checked this post just for you, Grovy. ♥

Thank you. =3

@ Tiamat
Ok, I was wrong about the Chihuahua thing. But can you show my an example of a new species being created (by evolution)?


PS: I have this loving little book called: The Politically Incorrect Guide^tm to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
You should read it. =3
(not an insult/attempt to piss off)

[Cassowary]

I just grabbed the first thing I saw.

Look, it's late and just wanted to catch u[p. If it's bad tell me. i'll get something better.

but yeah... Evoluton tree

[Sarge]

Oh goody. Now I don't take offense to you informing me of this book at all, but I am somewhat offended by the bogus propaganda the book promotes (and its 3 1/2 star rating on Amazon). Let's take a look at the product description, shall we?

*Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief;

For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology.

More here.

In fact, you don't even need to visit that link to see through this obvious lie, as this charlatan shoots down his own argument. Just click here and scroll down to "Top Ten Highlights of The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design." Observe the following:

2. Intelligent design is not religion, but science. Intelligent design maintains that we can infer from evidence in nature that some features of the universe and living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes. It is not biblical creationism, but empirical science.

A few rambling paragraphs of BS later...

8. Darwinism is anti-Christian. Like Marxism, Darwinism is a materialistic philosophy that is routinely used to attack religion[/color]. Indeed, some Darwinist professors at publicly supported universities have stated that Christianity should be confined to cultural zoos and that the pope is "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress."

WOAH! I thought this wasn't about religion! Also, I'd like to know what "Darwinist" he's quoting here.

*Scientists at major universities believe in intelligent design;

Nearly everyone educated in science agrees that there is neither controversy nor debate over the fundamental premise of evolutionary theory: Species evolve over time through the mechanism of natural selection (differential survival and reproduction) acting on variability produced by genetic diversity and mutation. Evolutionary theory is the unifying theme of all of modern biology, witness statements from many groups, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association of University Professors, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Physical Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, and the National Science Teachers Association.

More here.

Politically incorrect? That's an understatement. Most of his "politically incorrect" statements are outright lies, nothing but typical creationist propaganda. I actually have a "theory" that he's only using the word "Darwinism" here to avoid slander, as he tends to use it only in places where evolution should be addressed.

This is also interesting. It's the transcript of Jonathan Wells' testimony during the Kansas evolution hearings. He actually gets called out for using the term "Darwinism" as opposed to evolution, and he never does completely answer the question as to why he's referring to it as "Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism" when they're speaking about evolution nor does he ever give a convincing defition for neo-Darwinism as distinct from biological evolution. In fact, about all he does is avoid the questions.

After fact-checking the points made in the product summary, and reviewing Jonathan Wells' testimony, I don't think this book is for me. I might browse it in the book store, but I certainly wouldn't waste my money on this crock of lies. If this guy believes that evolution teaches immorality, why is he lying? Isn't lying immoral? Furthermore, isn't it ironic that he's lying in order to promote the idea that an imaginary group of people called "Darwinists" are the liars; that evolution, a theory with overwhelming support from scientists all over the globe, is a lie?

Further refutation of this silly, silly book to be found here.

Thanks for the ammunition, though.

This post has been edited by Sarge: Jun 7 2009, 02:40 AM

[Cassowary]

... wow.

Silly silly book indeed.

but if something like that last book in the Twilight series can get published, I suppose anything can *shot*