God said it, I believe it, that settles it!

[@_@ Artman]

Friends of God -- Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KwpkzaVjzw)

Er, words escape me.

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/FreeSnap001.jpg

But I did need to actually verify one thing that a this young guy mentioned. He wanted to grow up and "become a biochemist at the Institute for Creation Science in Arizona".

My fears were real. There is an Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/).

People. Do some research on your own (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html) with the present facts and reach the logical solution. Don't expect a cobbled-together two thousand year old book to give you the truth.

"Approximately 54 million Americans over the age of 18 do not believe in evolution."

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/FreeSnap002.jpg

[MarcUK]

Jesus walked up to a porn star and said - "I hear you're into well hung guys"

Jesus to a budding porn star "It feels really great to be nailed in three holes at the same time"

[SDW2001]

Jesus walked up to a porn star and said - "I hear you're into well hung guys"

Jesus to a budding porn star "It feels really great to be nailed in three holes at the same time"

You're going to hell. :)

[MarcUK]

You're going to hell. :)

whats the difference between a 'creationist' and acne?

Acne waits until you're 13 to come on your face

[MarcUK]

.....

[Jubelum]

Wow. Religious jokes are so... uh... "tolerant."
And Christians get called hypocrites. :rolleyes:

[MarcUK]

Wow. Religious jokes are so... uh... "tolerant."
And Christians get called hypocrites. :rolleyes:

How was copper wire invented?

Two Jews found the same penny.

[MarcUK]

What do you do if you see a christian running around in a circle screaming?

Stop laughing and nail his other foot to the floor.

[franksargent]

But on a more serious note;

http://richarddawkins.net/images/publicAcceptanceEvolution.jpg

From Public Acceptance of Evolution (http://richarddawkins.net/article,706,Public-Acceptance-of-Evolution,Science-Magazine-Jon-D-Miller-Eugenie-C-Scott-Shinji-Okamoto) from Science 11 August 2006, Vol 313.

The politicization of science in the name of religion and political partisanship is not new to the United States, but transformation of traditional geographically and economically based political parties into religiously oriented ideological coalitions marks the beginning of a new era for science policy. The broad public acceptance of the benefits of science and technology in the second half of the 20th century allowed science to develop a nonpartisan identification that largely protected it from overt partisanship. That era appears to have closed.

Also a good read is Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996) from Science 18 May 2007, Vol. 316. (sorry no free link to that one (that I can find anyway))

These developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and it will be especially strong if there is a nonscientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are thought of as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States, with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. These concepts clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals, and (in the United States) these beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities. Hence, these fields are among the domains where Americans’ resistance to science is the strongest.

:\

[MarcUK]

If a Christian couple from Kansas get a divorce in California, are they still brother and sister?

This is the Christian Jokes thread right???

[Marvin]

This is the Christian Jokes thread right???

Yep, keep 'em coming. :lol:

[Jubelum]

If a Christian couple from Kansas get a divorce in California, are they still brother and sister?

This is the Christian Jokes thread right???

So Marc... are there any sacred cows you're keeping on your farm that we all might share in? :err:

[hardeeharhar]

Don't let marc fool you. He is a devout messianic monotheistic barbarian of the first order.

[SpamSandwich]

A little something to gnaw on...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030102073.html

[segovius]

A little something to gnaw on...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030102073.html

"More than 10 percent think that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc"

:err: :wow:

[MarcUK]

^

why wasn't Jesus born in caerphilly?

God couldn't find three wise men, or a virgin there!

[ronaldo]

A little boy was sitting on the steps of a Catholic church. Killing ants.
Every time he would kill an ant he would say, "Goddamn useless ants."
A priest heard this and says to the little boy, "God did not mke anything useless. If you can name three things that god made that is useless, you can sit here all day killing ants.
The boy thinks about it and says,
"Tits on a Nun."
"Balls on a priest".
"And these Goddamn useless ants.

[segovius]

An atheist had heard that the local Mulla was very wise and this started to gnaw away at him. He felt that the local populace should recognize that it was he and not the Mulla who was full of wisdom.

Accordingly he challenged the Mulla to a debate on all matters theological, scientific and God knows what else; winner takes all, the next day at the Mulla's house at noon.

When the appointed hour came, the atheist proceeded all a-tremble to the Mulla's home. Knocking on the door he puffed himself up for the coming debate but there was no answer.....the Mulla had quite forgotten the 'great debate' and instead gone out to the local cafe to smoke the hubble-bubble.

Incensed, the atheist scribbled 'Stupid Oaf' on the Mulla's door and went home in a huff.

About an hour later, the Mulla was frantically knocking on the atheist's door...."I'm so sorry" he panted, "I had completely forgotten and it wasn't till I saw that you had written your name on my door that I remembered and hurried here quick as I could....."

[iPoster]

After a few days, the Lord called to Adam and said, "It is time for you and Eve to begin the process of populating the earth so I want you to kiss her."

Adam answered, "Yes Lord, but what is a kiss?" So the Lord gave a brief description to Adam who took Eve by the hand and took her to a nearby bush.

A few minutes later, Adam emerged and said, "Thank you Lord, that was enjoyable."

And the Lord replied, "Yes Adam, I thought you might enjoy that and now I'd like you to caress Eve."

And Adam said, " 'What is a 'caress'? So the Lord again gave Adam a brief description and Adam went behind the bush with Eve.

Quite a few minutes later, Adam returned, smiling, and said, "'Lord, that was even better than the kiss."

And the Lord said, "'You've done well Adam. And now I want you to make love to Eve."

And Adam asked, "What is 'make love' Lord?"' So the Lord again gave Adam directions and Adam went again to Eve behind the bush, but this time he reappeared in two seconds.

And Adam said, "Lord, what is a 'headache'?"

This is pure GOLD! (NSFW language) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05-hpdULWb8)

Stupid Oafs? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU)

[dmz]

Back on the evolution thing, from a scientific perspective, evolution sans any sort of intelligent agents, is an idiotic proposition, and is believed for purely dogmatic reasons. The entire edifice of Darwinism is collapsing with each passing discovery. More complexity, jess junk DNA, homologies that don't fit 'the plan,' the tree of life that is now actually the Bush of life...

...that one was for MarcUK....

...irreducibly complex systems, etc. The Darwinist party is over: "Oh look, that irreducibly complex system is similar to this irreducibly complex system, so they must have evolved, just don't ask questions, and believe!" 'But wait, they're irreducibly complex, how could you actually build that, and do it by chance?' Oh, shut up you filthy stupidhead Christian, you want to kill the gays! End of 'dicussion.'

Guillermo Gonzalez, just a little more than a week ago, was denied tenure purely for his ID stance -- not his science -- not his somewhat prestigious career. He has been blacklisted. You have to realize that Darwinists are at the stage where a belief system looses cohesion and a desperate rush for damage control ensues. Its proponents have little more to resort to but blacklisting, selected PR glances at/hitpieces on fundies, and gauche diatribes by Richard Dawkins. The squirming has begun in earnest.


...But we make their truth our falsehood, thinking that hath made us free,
Hoarding it in mouldy parchments, while our tender spirits flee
The rude grasp of that great Impulse which drove them across the sea.

[franksargent]

Back on the evolution thing, from a scientific perspective, evolution sans any sort of intelligent agents, is an idiotic proposition, and is believed for purely dogmatic reasons. The entire edifice of Darwinism is collapsing with each passing discovery. More complexity, jess junk DNA, homologies that don't fit 'the plan,' the tree of life that is now actually the Bush of life...

...that one was for MarcUK....

...irreducibly complex systems, etc. The Darwinist party is over. "Oh look, that irreducibly complex system is similar to this irreducibly complex system, so they must have evolved, just don't ask questions, and believe!"

Guillermo Gonzalez, just a little more than a week ago, was denied tenure purely for his ID stance -- not his science -- not his somewhat prestigious career. He has been blacklisted. You have to realize that Darwinists are at the stage where a belief system looses cohesion and a desperate rush for damage control ensues.

Its proponents have little more to resort to but blacklisting, and gauche diatribes by Richard Dawkins.

ROTFLMAO! :lol:

That was the best JOKE so far in this thread! :)

Keep them coming dmz! :p

[segovius]

Back on the evolution thing, from a scientific perspective, evolution sans any sort of intelligent agents, is an idiotic proposition, and is believed for purely dogmatic reasons. The entire edifice of Darwinism is collapsing with each passing discovery. More complexity, jess junk DNA, homologies that don't fit 'the plan,' the tree of life that is now actually the Bush of life...

...that one was for MarcUK....

...irreducibly complex systems, etc. The Darwinist party is over. "Oh look, that irreducibly complex system is similar to this irreducibly complex system, so they must have evolved, just don't ask questions, and believe!"

Guillermo Gonzalez, just a little more than a week ago, was denied tenure purely for his ID stance -- not his science -- not his somewhat prestigious career. He has been blacklisted. You have to realize that Darwinists are at the stage where a belief system looses cohesion and a desperate rush for damage control ensues.

Its proponents have little more to resort to but blacklisting, and gauche diatribes by Richard Dawkins.

Yes, Dawkins is a nasty piece of work.....and a loon to boot.

At least Hitchens has a sense of humour. Give me Stephen Jay Gould anyday.

But yes, there is a Witch-hunt going on - and yes, there is an organized anti-religious Crusade in full swing. I call it the 'New Inquisition'.

Having said that though, much ID is utter claptrap and most creationists are far more lunatic than Dawkins is....though possibly equally as dangerous.

They are both two sides of the same coin.....have I mentioned that?

[segovius]

Actually a great book on the outright dishonesty of many of those who see it as their duty to oppose anyomne who does not embrace Darwinian Evolution is Forbidden Archaeology (http://www.mcremo.com/).

The book is a compendium of examples that science has dismissed and refuses to consider which all point to flaws in evolutionary theory.

It is not in any way intended to support ID and in fact argues against it as the main thesis is that humans have been around far longer than is presently accepted and that human civilization may date back millions of years.

Naturally, none of the book's claims have been deemed worthy of 'scientific consideration' and the authors have been abused, maligned and ignored in the time-honoured manner.

[dmz]

ROTFLMAO! :lol:

That was the best JOKE so far in this thread! :)

Not for professor Gonzalez, it isn't.

[dmz]

Actually a great book on the outright dishonesty of many of those who see it as their duty to oppose anyomne who does not embrace Darwinian Evolution is Forbidden Archaeology (http://www.mcremo.com/).

The book is a compendium of examples that science has dismissed and refuses to consider which all point to flaws in evolutionary theory.

It is not in any way intended to support ID and in fact argues against it as the main thesis is that humans have been around far longer than is presently accepted and that human civilization may date back millions of years.

Naturally, none of the book's claims have been deemed worthy of 'scientific consideration' and the authors have been abused, maligned and ignored in the time-honoured manner.
I definitely hear you.

They have rights who dare maintain them; we are traitors to our sires,
Smothering in their holy ashes Freedom's new-lit altar-fires;
Shall we make their creed our jailer? Shall we, in our haste to slay,
From the tombs of the old prophets steal the funeral lamps away
To light up the martyr-fagots round the prophets of to-day?

[MarcUK]

An atheist had heard that the local Mulla was very wise and this started to gnaw away at him. He felt that the local populace should recognize that it was he and not the Mulla who was full of wisdom.

Accordingly he challenged the Mulla to a debate on all matters theological, scientific and God knows what else; winner takes all, the next day at the Mulla's house at noon.

When the appointed hour came, the atheist proceeded all a-tremble to the Mulla's home. Knocking on the door he puffed himself up for the coming debate but there was no answer.....the Mulla had quite forgotten the 'great debate' and instead gone out to the local cafe to smoke the hubble-bubble.

Incensed, the atheist scribbled 'Stupid Oaf' on the Mulla's door and went home in a huff.

About an hour later, the Mulla was frantically knocking on the atheist's door...."I'm so sorry" he panted, "I had completely forgotten and it wasn't till I saw that you had written your name on my door that I remembered and hurried here quick as I could....."

:lol:

I think the athiest knows the mullah is full of wisdom, and the mullah has an issue with sharing. ;)

[franksargent]

"If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is, "God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is, "Probably because of something you did.""

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Back on the evolution thing, from a scientific perspective, evolution sans any sort of intelligent agents, is an idiotic proposition, and is believed for purely dogmatic reasons. The entire edifice of Darwinism is collapsing with each passing discovery. [/I]

This is total, utter, absolute fucking bullcrap.

It's impossible to write a considered response to this. It's as true as saying 'Housebricks are made from the crushed bones of the elves'.

[Jubelum]

'Housebricks are made from the crushed bones of the elves'.

Mine are. Faeries, too. But it takes a lot more of them.

[MarcUK]

the tree of life that is now actually the Bush of life...

...that one was for MarcUK....


[/I]

Armed, prepared and dangerous (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Remington-BKT3000-Bikini-Trimmer/dp/B000758DHU/ref=pd_sim_dbs_dscm_1/202-0192928-6707821)


by the way, did anyone hear the one about the Christian sex doll?

[dmz]

This is total, utter, absolute fucking bullcrap.
I would imagine Dr. Gonzales said the very same thing.

New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth;
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must Pilgrims be,
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea,
Nor attempt the Future's portal with the Past's blood-rusted key.

[Jubelum]

This just in... Explosion in a printing shoppe destroys Darwinist. Film at 11...

[hardeeharhar]

Back on the evolution thing, from a scientific perspective, evolution sans any sort of intelligent agents, is an idiotic proposition, and is believed for purely dogmatic reasons. The entire edifice of Darwinism is collapsing with each passing discovery. More complexity, jess junk DNA, homologies that don't fit 'the plan,' the tree of life that is now actually the Bush of life...

I really want you to define complexity, junk DNA, and homologies.

This ought to be fun.

[dmz]

Oh look, dmz is making grunting sounds again.
Then a picture would be better? :p

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2001-2007NormalizedCitations_AllISUAstronomers.jpg

http://www.evolutionnews.org/LifetimeNormalizedCitations_AllISUAstronomers.jpg

No soup for you.

[MarcUK]

I really want you to define complexity, junk DNA, and homologies.

This ought to be fun.

we dont want that....well we can hope....but this topic is much better if you just take the piss out of eachother.

[hardeeharhar]

um...

dmz... perhaps you don't understand the tenure process. education institutions don't just consider the 'normalized' citation count when granting tenure. it has a lot more to do with funding, external reviews, quality of teaching etc. In other words, your jackoff du jour probably isn't well respected for one reason or another...

[hardeeharhar]

you're right shawn...

[dmz]

um...

dmz... perhaps you don't understand the tenure process. education institutions don't just consider the 'normalized' citation count when granting tenure. it has a lot more to do with funding, external reviews, quality of teaching etc. In other words, your jackoff du jour probably isn't well respected for one reason or another...
No, the funding canard, for one, has been tossed out already. You might want to familiarize yourself with the case before commenting.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

No, the funding canard, for one, has been tossed out already. You might want to familiarize yourself with the case before commenting.
Oh yes?

When was that?

You mean we can count out the last two centuries of research into the natural sciences now because of something to do with funding?

That must be a relief, no?

[franksargent]

No, the funding canard, for one, has been tossed out already. You might want to familiarize yourself with the case before commenting.

Great, so the PROOF of ID is this "case?"

At least now we have something to work from besides the Idiot's Design or Ignorant Design! :p

Another practice that isn't science is embracing ignorance. Yet it's fundamental to the philosophy of intelligent design: I don't know what this is. I don't know how it works. It's too complicated for me to figure out. It's too complicated for any human being to figure out. So it must be the product of a higher intelligence.

The Perimeter of Ignorance by Neil deGrasse Tyson (http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Ah, my mistake. You're arguing that this guy Gonzalez has been cited a lot and it has nothing / everything to do with funding and this is good / bad and therefore proves the ID is real and the last two centuries of interdigitating research in geology, anatomy, genetics, paleoanthropology and cosmology are all wrong.

I'll cancel my subscription to 'Nature' first thing in the morning. I pity all those poor scientists. Everything they've taken for granted for so long has been disproved by this Gonzalez guy.

:(

Poor science.

[@_@ Artman]

"My ID research is strictly based on observations; it does not depend on any religious assumptions, Christian or otherwise. Neither do we discuss religious aspects in our Privileged Planet book." - Guillermo Gonzalez

Good for him. I think it is wrong that his theories should not be presented. He shouldn't be shunned by others. I am all for arguing theories against another. Why haven't these Christians embraced this man? Oh, I forget...that "everything that the Bible says (the Word of God) is true" thing? Could also be why he avoided using Christian "evidence" in his book too?

[dmz]

Ah, my mistake. You're arguing that this guy Gonzalez has been cited a lot and it has nothing / everything to do with funding and this is good / bad and therefore proves the ID is real and the last two centuries of interdigitating research in geology, anatomy, genetics, paleoanthropology and cosmology are all wrong.

I'll cancel my subscription to 'Nature' first thing in the morning. I pity all those poor scientists. Everything they've taken for granted for so long has been disproved by this Gonzalez guy.

:(

Poor science.
No, per the university:

"Evaluation of research ability is based primarily upon published papers in refereed journals..."

For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals.

Gonzalez has 68, co-authored one of his department's textbooks, and has 'made an important discovery in the field of extrasolar planets,' among other notable accomplishments. Don't cancel that subscription to Nature, they've already run a story on this. People are already on record as supporting this blacklisting of his ID position.

From the Nature article:

"I would have voted to deny him tenure," says Robert Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland in College Park. "He has established that he does not understand the scientific process."

[franksargent]

No, per the university:

"Evaluation of research ability is based primarily upon published papers in refereed journals..."

For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals.

Gonzalez has 68, co-authored a textbook, and made has made an important discovery in the field of extrasolar planets, among other notable accomplishments. Don't cancel that subscription to Nature, they've already run a story on this. People are already on record as supporting this blacklisting of his ID position.

In April of 2007 Iowa State University denied Gonzalez tenure. The Discovery Institute launched a campaign portraying Gonzalez as a victim of discrimination by "Darwinist ideologues" for his support of intelligent design, comparing Gonzalez's denial of tenure to the claims of discrimination by Richard Sternberg, another institute affiliate, over the Sternberg peer review controversy. The institute's public relations campaign also makes the same claims of discrimination as the campaign it conducted on behalf of institute Fellow Francis J. Beckwith when he was initially denied tenure at Baylor University. "I believe that I fully met the requirements for tenure at ISU," said Gonzalez, to which intelligent design critic PZ Myers said "Complaining that one met all the requirements is like proposing marriage, getting turned down, and then protesting that one has a good job, a nice apartment, and excellent personal hygiene. That may be true, but it's irrelevant.". Gonzalez is currently appealing the decision. The University has issued a FAQ concerning the situation saying that "The consensus of the tenured department faculty, the department chair, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the executive vice president and provost was that tenure should not be granted. Based on recommendations against granting tenure and promotion at every prior level of review, and his own review of the record, President Gregory Geoffroy notified Gonzalez in April that he would not be granted tenure and promotion to associate professor." The denial of tenure for Gonzalez resulted in it becoming one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns with the Institute encouraging its followers to call and email the ISU president, Gregory Geoffroy, to pressure him in to reversing the decision.

The The Chronicle of Higher Education said of Gonzalez and the Discovery Institute's claims of discrimination "At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination ... But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez's case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise." The Chronicle observed that Gonzalez had no major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant research during that time and had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.

Guillermo Gonzalez Tenure Controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_%28astronomer%29#Tenure_Controv ersy)

[BRussell]

No, per the university:

"Evaluation of research ability is based primarily upon published papers in refereed journals..."

For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals.

Gonzalez has 68, co-authored one of his department's textbooks, and has 'made an important discovery in the field of extrasolar planets,' among other notable accomplishments. Don't cancel that subscription to Nature, they've already run a story on this. People are already on record as supporting this blacklisting of his ID position.FYI, textbooks usually count against you for tenure - it means you're not doing the research you're supposed to be doing. In any case, tenure and promotion decisions are frequently being litigated these days, so if they don't have good justification for denying him tenure, which they are required to provide, then I'm sure he'll get tenure in the end.

[dmz]

Guillermo Gonzalez Tenure Controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_%28astronomer%29#Tenure_Controv ersy)
Funding is not a primary concern, the papers are. There are other, less important factors involved. What is probably at issue can be gleaned from a statement from 'Eli Rosenberg, chairman of the ISU Department of Physics and Astronomy. Rosenberg said the decision on whether to award tenure is based, in part, on the quality of the faculty member's work and the "impact in the community, how you are being received in the community."' What remains to be seen is if smaller issues will hornswoggle what ISU says is their overriding concern.

But like BRussell correctly pointed out, if they don't have an excuse they can sell the public, he'll probably get his tenure. Far be it from a University to make anyone jump through hoops.

[franksargent]

Funding is not a primary concern, the papers are. There are other, less important factors involved. What is probably at issue can be gleaned from a statement from 'Eli Rosenberg, chairman of the ISU Department of Physics and Astronomy. Rosenberg said the decision on whether to award tenure is based, in part, on the quality of the faculty member's work and the "impact in the community, how you are being received in the community."' What remains to be seen is if smaller issues will hornswoggle what ISU says is their overriding concern.

But like BRussell correctly pointed out, if they don't have an excuse they can sell the public, he'll probably get his tenure. Far be it from a University to make anyone jump through hoops.

Under normal circumstances, Mr. Gonzalez's publication record would be stellar and would warrant his earning tenure at most universities, according to Mr. Hirsch. But Mr. Gonzalez completed the best scholarship, as judged by his peers, while doing postdoctoral work at the University of Texas at Austin and at the University of Washington, where he received his Ph.D. His record has trailed off since then.

"It looks like it slowed down considerably," said Mr. Hirsch, stressing that he has not studied Mr. Gonzalez's work in detail and is not an expert on his tenure case. "It's not clear that he started new things, or anything on his own, in the period he was an assistant professor at Iowa State."

That pattern may have hurt his case. "Tenure review only deals with his work since he came to Iowa State," said John McCarroll, a spokesman for the university.

The Gonzalez Persecution Case Weakens (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/05/post_2.php)

:\

[dmz]

The Gonzalez Persecution Case Weakens (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/05/post_2.php)

:\
Hmmm... there are still 21 articles since he came to ISU.

Edited: ....bzzzt.....error...strike that

[midwinter]

FYI, textbooks usually count against you for tenure - it means you're not doing the research you're supposed to be doing. In any case, tenure and promotion decisions are frequently being litigated these days, so if they don't have good justification for denying him tenure, which they are required to provide, then I'm sure he'll get tenure in the end.

Absolutely. A prof where I did my grad work was denied tenure after a smear campaign by one of her colleagues. She sued that person, individually, and won $135,000.

I'm a little torn on the Gonzales thing. As someone above noted, tenure isn't like a marriage proposal. But it is like a marriage. That is, to tenure someone means that you're going to be working with them for the next 30 years or so. There was a case recently in Chicago were a guy who'd done everything he was supposed to—a book on a good press, plenty of articles—was denied tenure. And that's what Universities can do. I mean, if I do great work and teach pretty well, but I'm an utter asshole and no one wants to be around me, should I get tenure?

On the other side of this is the simple fact that Gonzales can believe whatever he wants to believe so long as he isn't misusing his classroom for other purposes. I mean, hell, the irony is that tenure would have protected him from being fired for being an ID adherent.

BRussell? Where do you come down on this? You have tenure, right?

[BRussell]

In most places like Iowa State, no grants = no tenure, at least in the sciences. Even in my field of psychology, you couldn't get tenure if you didn't have a grant from NIH or NSF or another major granting agency. I suspect that, especially in a field like astronomy, if you don't have any grant funding you probably can't do any research, because it costs money to get or use the necessary equipment.

[midwinter]

Hmmm... there are still 21 articles since he came to ISU. The department's various people, interviewed in World, and the Des Moines paper, possibly in Nature too, are not bringing this up. The language is much more nebulous "how he's perceived" was the phrase, nothing about his lack of work. The university spokesperson is being evasive on this issue as well, which, I suppose, may just be his job.

DMZ: you really want to dig in on this? Find the ISU tenure and promotion documents and see what his department/college/university requires. It'll probably be pretty vague.

[SpamSandwich]

^

why wasn't Jesus born in caerphilly?

God couldn't find three wise men, or a virgin there!

That joke works with almost any city... :lol:

[BRussell]

Absolutely. A prof where I did my grad work was denied tenure after a smear campaign by one of her colleagues. She sued that person, individually, and won $135,000.

I'm a little torn on the Gonzales thing. As someone above noted, tenure isn't like a marriage proposal. But it is like a marriage. That is, to tenure someone means that you're going to be working with them for the next 30 years or so. There was a case recently in Chicago were a guy who'd done everything he was supposed to—a book on a good press, plenty of articles—was denied tenure. And that's what Universities can do. I mean, if I do great work and teach pretty well, but I'm an utter asshole and no one wants to be around me, should I get tenure?

On the other side of this is the simple fact that Gonzales can believe whatever he wants to believe so long as he isn't misusing his classroom for other purposes. I mean, hell, the irony is that tenure would have protected him from being fired for being an ID adherent.

BRussell? Where do you come down on this? You have tenure, right? I got tenure a few years ago, and now I'm the youngest full professor (I think) at my university. :smokey: I really don't like the whole concept of tenure though, both because I've seen people's lives utterly ripped apart because they didn't get tenure, and I've seen people who should've had their asses kicked but didn't because they had tenure. It also just encourages universities to buy PhDs for <$2000/course without benefits and no commitment.

[franksargent]

Hmmm... there are still 21 articles since he came to ISU.

Edited: ....bzzzt.....error...strike that

Of the 21 peer-reviewed publications he wrote since coming to ISU, at least 13 were continuations of projects he started while a post-doc at UofW. So that makes it about 90% post-doc related work.

That they were published while he was at ISU does not mean they weren't part of his earlier postdoc project. There is often a lag time in publishing papers, especially as part of a large project. The analysis here focused on those papers that received citations from other scientists and concluded that "Mr. Gonzalez completed the best scholarship, as judged by his peers, while doing postdoctoral work at the University of Texas at Austin and at the University of Washington, where he received his Ph.D. His record has trailed off since then." I referenced this twice, and the first reference you cite should have contained the same qualifier the second one did - "all of the quality research."

By the way, to give you some idea of the dropoff, a friend did a comprehensive search for all published articles by Gonzalez and found that, while he published 7 and 10 articles respectively in 2002 and 2003, that fell to 2, 2 and 3 from 2004-2006. It seems that after he published The Privileged Planet, which was a popular book not a scholarly one, his actual research slowed down to a crawl. Almost all of his publication record came from 2001-2003.

Some more reality checks from previous link.

:\

[dmz]

DMZ: you really want to dig in on this? Find the ISU tenure and promotion documents and see what his department/college/university requires. It'll probably be pretty vague.
I may -- I had emailed my two-cents to the university, and the autoreply had a link to the handbook. I imagine that once you get past the technical requirements, it boils down to a popularity contest with epic levels of politics, and possibly money, complicating matters.

We probably aren't going to see the real spin from either ISU or DI kick in, until it comes back from review.

[hardeeharhar]

it is clear that he was denied tenure for multiple reasons:

1) His publication record while at ISU was less than stellar
2) His training record while at ISU was less than stellar
3) His funding record while at ISU was less than stellar
4) He was not well liked by his co-faculty, and believe it or not this matters as it can swing the above lack of character either way
5) His 'research' while at ISU was less than stellar

All of these things make it clear that the denial of tenure was the right decision. Academic scientists are expected to fund themselves, train phds, publish their research, get along with their peers, etc he matched none of these rigorous credentials.

[dmz]

Some more reality checks from previous link.

:\
Yes, but The Privileged Planet caused a serious backlash, at the University, and elsewhere. It would be interesting to see how many doors that closed, and what effect that had in his working environment.

Again, like BRussell said, all will be revealed when this comes back from review.

[AsLan^]

But yes, there is a Witch-hunt going on - and yes, there is an organized anti-religious Crusade in full swing. I call it the 'New Inquisition'.

Really!? Where do I sign up?

:D

[dmz]

it is clear that he was denied tenure for multiple reasons:

1) His publication record while at ISU was less than stellar
2) His training record while at ISU was less than stellar
3) His funding record while at ISU was less than stellar
4) He was not well liked by his co-faculty, and believe it or not this matters as it can swing the above lack of character either way
5) His 'research' while at ISU was less than stellar

All of these things make it clear that the denial of tenure was the right decision. Academic scientists are expected to fund themselves, train phds, publish their research, get along with their peers, etc he matched none of these rigorous credentials.
Once again, funding is not a listed concern. As far as popular, he was nominated for an 'early achiever award' (before The Privileged Planet was published.) He is, since coming to ISU, cited more often than anyone else in his department. He has had a notable influence on his field. Don't tell me you can throw those things by the boards.

I will say this, if it's the money, despite not being a reason the University will admit to, I'll backtrack and buy this. Mud is thicker than blood.

[franksargent]

Yes, but The Privileged Planet caused a serious backlash, at the University, and elsewhere. It would be interesting to see how many doors that closed, and what effect that had in his working environment.

Again, like BRussell said, all will be revealed when this comes back from review.

IMHO ...

Dr. Gonzalez strayed from the path of doing original first person astrophysical science. The book, the scientific publications drop-off, and this DI link;

Guillermo Gonzalez, Senior Fellow - CSC (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Guillermo%20Gonzalez&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all&includeBlogPosts=true)

where the CSC stands for Center for Science and Culture is a subtle hint as to the true nature of DI, ID, et. al.

And please remember this is just IMHO, nothing more, nothing less, one person's sideline opinion.

The following two links suggest where most of the spin is being generated from (hint, hint >> DI);

Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez And Academic Persecution (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2939)

Evolution News & Views (http://www.evolutionnews.org/)

Nice subterfuge in the site name BTW. :rolleyes:

As to ISU's forthcoming decision, I doubt that they will be too open in their review process, so I'm sure that DI will continue to spin their political views regardless of the outcome.

:\

[midwinter]

I got tenure a few years ago, and now I'm the youngest full professor (I think) at my university. :smokey:

Slacker! :p I'm the youngest tenure-track faculty in my department! Does that count for anything? And if I can just keep them from hiring tenure line #36 (I kid you not...thirty five lines in our dept), I can remain the baby and use that to consolidate my power!

I really don't like the whole concept of tenure though, both because I've seen people's lives utterly ripped apart because they didn't get tenure, and I've seen people who should've had their asses kicked but didn't because they had tenure. It also just encourages universities to buy PhDs for <$2000/course without benefits and no commitment.

I'm hearing this argument more and more often. There's a private college in SLC that doesn't have tenure; instead, they have rolling reviews.

[BRussell]

Once again, funding is not a listed concern. As far as popular, he was nominated for an 'early achiever award' (before The Privileged Planet was published.) He is, since coming to ISU, cited more often than anyone else in his department. He has had a notable influence on his field. Don't tell me you can throw those things by the boards.

I will say this, if it's the money, despite not being a reason the University will admit to, I'll backtrack and buy this. Mud is thicker than blood. I can't believe external funding isn't listed somewhere in the tenure criteria. It's probably not online, but under research in their department criteria I'd bet anything that grants are listed right along with publications. And there's really nothing cynical or greedy about it - sciences like astronomy need the funding to even do the research.

[dmz]

I can't believe external funding isn't listed somewhere in the tenure criteria. It's probably not online, but under research in their department criteria I'd bet anything that grants are listed right along with publications. And there's really nothing cynical or greedy about it - sciences like astronomy need the funding to even do the research.
I don't think so, but it's a reality all the same. He probably shot himself in the head with the Privileged Planet, and if he didn't, he should have known that rocking the boat that badly would seriously st[r]ain is (earlier?) golden boy reputation. Speculating now.

But, once again, I have callously and recklessly abused the law of unintended consequences; you lovely lefties have to shown me the opposing view on this. It will be easier now to read the DI press releases and see where the ball is going, where the emphasis is being placed.

[BRussell]

Honestly, it sounds to me like he had a promising career in grad school, and then once he got this position he got side-tracked with other stuff, including this ID stuff, and didn't do what he was supposed to have been doing.

[@_@ Artman]

But, once again, I have callously and recklessly abused the law of unintended consequences; you lovely lefties have to shown me the opposing view on this. It will be easier now to read the DI press releases and see where the ball is going, where the emphasis is being placed.

So, you support what the video presents. That's all I want to know.

[midwinter]

I don't think so, but it's a reality all the same. He probably shot himself in the head with the Privileged Planet, and if he didn't, he should have known that rocking the boat that badly would seriously st[r]ain is (earlier?) golden boy reputation. Speculating now.

That's not necessarily the case. Faculty can publish all kinds of things that are unpopular in the academic community and not jeopardize tenure; BRussell's probably right. The guy probably showed promise 6 years ago and got sidetracked by other things (like writing articles for DI) and didn't do what he was supposed to.

I assume he had some kind of interim review, as well, maybe at the third year? Is there any information about that? Or do we know, for instance, when he was hired by ISU and when he began working with DI? It would be telling if he did his academic work just fine until his third year review and then got sidetracked 3 years ago.

[dmz]

So, you support what the video presents. That's all I want to know.

Oh, of course, darling. That's actually me in the video.

[dmz]

That's not necessarily the case. Faculty can publish all kinds of things that are unpopular in the academic community and not jeopardize tenure; BRussell's probably right. The guy probably showed promise 6 years ago and got sidetracked by other things (like writing articles for DI) and didn't do what he was supposed to.

I assume he had some kind of interim review, as well, maybe at the third year? Is there any information about that? Or do we know, for instance, when he was hired by ISU and when he began working with DI? It would be telling if he did his academic work just fine until his third year review and then got sidetracked 3 years ago.
Yes, but his ID book cheesed off plenty of people: in the World article he mentions "an extreme amount of hostility towards me" at the University, with the publishing of his book -- three years ago -- but now we're all speculating.

I think the deadline for a decision is June 8.

[shetline]

The entire edifice of Darwinism is collapsing with each passing discovery.
I remember my born-again sister telling me how evolution was "on the ropes" back in 2000. Funny, I haven't noticed much collapsing of evolution happening over these past seven years.

Nor have I seen much ID research going on, either. I don't mean the usual lame sniping at evolution and popular books -- I mean real research programs, research into testable consequences of ID -- stuff that would help prove ID, not merely disprove evolution.

Even ID's one area of ascendancy for a while -- politics -- doesn't seem to be going so well right now. First the embarrassing loss of the Dover case. Now, the majority of Republican Presidential candidates, including all of the current front runners, accepting evolution.

So, how long until the collapse of "Darwinism" is so apparent that even someone like me, obviously deeply in denial about the terrible, terrible flaws in evolution being uncovered day after day, can deny it no longer? How long until well-established colleges (not fourth-rate Christian colleges) can no longer stem the tide of Darwinian defeat, and begin to bestow the first doctorates in biology for work in ID?

Or will this so-called "collapse" go unrecognized decade after decade after decade by anyone except for the scientifically illiterate and a few scattered scientists, most of them not biologists, because of the evil, entrenched Darwinist Mafia's stranglehold on the world of academia? How long will this anti-ID, anti-God conspiracy excuse... I mean, uh, legitimately explain... the fact that the millions of dollars at the disposal of the Discovery institute are spent almost exclusively on PR campaigns and legal battles, rather than on ground-breaking ID research?

[Jubelum]

Really!? Where do I sign up?

:D

I'm sure you enjoy the irony...

[AsLan^]

I'm sure you enjoy the irony...

I hate to ruin a snappy comeback but I'm afraid I don't.

The fundies are on the march and unless we outbreed them, direct action will have to be taken at some point.

[dmz]

I remember my born-again sister telling me how evolution was "on the ropes" back in 2000. Funny, I haven't noticed much collapsing of evolution happening over these past seven years.

Nor have I seen much ID research going on, either. I don't mean the usual lame sniping at evolution and popular books -- I mean real research programs, research into testable consequences of ID -- stuff that would help prove ID, not merely disprove evolution.

Even ID's one area of ascendancy for a while -- politics -- doesn't seem to be going so well right now. First the embarrassing loss of the Dover case. Now, the majority of Republican Presidential candidates, including all of the current front runners, accepting evolution.

So, how long until the collapse of "Darwinism" is so apparent that even someone like me, obviously deeply in denial about the terrible, terrible flaws in evolution being uncovered day after day, can deny it no longer? How long until well-established colleges (not fourth-rate Christian colleges) can no longer stem the time of Darwinist defeat, and begin to bestow the first doctorates in biology for work in ID?

Or will this so-called "collapse" go unrecognized decade after decade after decade by anyone except for the scientifically illiterate and a few scattered scientists, most of them not biologists, because of the evil, entrenched Darwinist Mafia's stranglehold on the world of academia? How long will this anti-ID, anti-God conspiracy excuse... I mean, uh, legitimately explain... the fact that the millions of dollars at the disposal of the Discovery institute are spent almost exclusively on PR campaigns and legal battles, rather than on ground-breaking ID research?
I think that you guys in the secular slide of things will continue to look for screw-ups, specifically things like junk DNA, and you'll waste a lot of man years in the process. In the end, I think that you will eventually have to effectively treat nature as though it has been fine tuned from one end to the other, that there are no proverbial vestigial organs, or Junk DNA to be found. That the layers of complexity will become pervasive, (but let's face it we're nearly there.)

Basically, a continued astonishment of how well things are put together -- and a lot of time wasted by assuming it wasn't there in the first place.

As for believing? It's never going to happen. As for the 'mafia,' those who don't agree will go and start their forth-rate universities. In a generation or two, Christians, Muslims, etc., wont have to be insulted or run the predatory secular gauntlet to get their educations. The 'mafia' thing is the best thing to happen to higher education for centuries.

It's like the Christians fighting TV sex/violence -- why? -- the best thing in the world would have been to have television programming be the mindless hyper-purified raunch that it is today, 20 years ago. The sooner enough fundies turn on the tube and drop their eye-teeth, is the sooner it accurately self-identifies itself. The same goes with academia (speaking reaaaaaaly broadly now) I'd make Ward Chruchill the dean of the college he worked at -- I'd let Churchill, Micheal Moore, and Larry Flynt run the FCC.

You can only control us if you can force us into your institutions. I think the time is coming when the religious will simply unlpug, build their own cultural infrastructure, and stop wasting their time trying to imagine that the catcalls are either entertainment, or education, or anything at all constructive.

[dmz]

Yes, please, go away and further marginalize yourselves.
Yes, the same way the Christians marginalized themselves with respect to Rome.

[Jubelum]

I hate to ruin a snappy comeback but I'm afraid I don't.

The fundies are on the march and unless we outbreed them, direct action will have to be taken at some point.

Oh, go start a militia or something.

I just think that an anti-Christian crusader named Aslan (from Narnia) is a bit, well, "funny."

[@_@ Artman]

Oh, of course, darling. That's actually me in the video.

Ok...enjoy the "museum" (http://www.creationmuseum.org/)...

http://www.maudnewton.com/images/20060801_creation_museum.jpg

...:lol:

[MarcUK]

this thread got all serious!

still the punchline was...

"if you trade it in for the Islamist one, it will blow itself up."

[AsLan^]

Oh, go start a militia or something.

I just think that an anti-Christian crusader named Aslan (from Narnia) is a bit, well, "funny."

You know, I've been called on that before, but it was before i knew of C.S. Lewis' other writings. Meh, I still like the nick and the stories.

Rather than a militia, I was thinking something along the lines of making it socially acceptable to publicly humiliate Christians for their beliefs. Something that other people would see and cause them to question their faith. Obviously, those who have already decided on a life of ignorance will be beyond help but I think we can really do something for people who are on the fence, kids, agnostics, Sunday Christians, etc.

[@_@ Artman]

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/05/28/tomo/story.jpg

[shetline]

...you will eventually have to effectively treat nature as though it has been fine tuned from one end to the other, that there are no proverbial vestigial organs, or Junk DNA to be found. That the layers of complexity will become pervasive, (but let's face it we're nearly there.)
Gee, the version of evolution I understand doesn't expect, or need to expect, biology to be "fine-tuned", just good enough to get by and survive. The evolutionary theory I'm aware of in fact expects things like junk DNA and vestigial organs -- while it's also being smart enough to know that some of what looks like junk and looks vestigial now might merely have useful functionality we haven't discovered yet.

As for believing? It's never going to happen. As for the 'mafia,' those who don't agree will go and start their forth-rate universities.

I wonder if the biologists these universities turn out will be as impressive as the as all those University of Jesus lawyers the Bushies packed the Department of Justice with. Maybe now that Laura Goodling is out of a job at the DoJ, she can go back to Messiah and pick up a PhD in Christian Biology for her next stunning career.

You can only control us if you can force us into your institutions. I think the time is coming when the religious will simply unlpug, build their own cultural infrastructure, and stop wasting their time trying to imagine that the catcalls are either entertainment, or education, or anything at all constructive.

Poor ickle downtrodden Christians, can't make it in the real world, so they've got to build their own protective bubble world instead.

Yes, the same way the Christians marginalized themselves with respect to Rome.

Odd, I don't recall how early Christians had to go off and build themselves a parallel protective bubble world before being able to supplant Roman paganism, which was pretty weak at the time anyway. Nor do I recall a great flourishing of the sciences that came with the ascendancy of Christianity. In fact, I recall something of the opposite effect.

[franksargent]

I wonder if the biologists these universities turn out will be as impressive as the as all those University of Jesus lawyers the Bushies packed the Department of Justice with. Maybe now that Laura Goodling is out of a job at the DoJ, she can go back to Messiah and pick up a PhD in Christian Biology for her next stunning career.

Intelligent Design, Science Education, and Public Reason (http://poynter.indiana.edu/Science & Public Reason.pdf)

Were cases like Kitzmiller oddities on the political and legal landscape, science educators and parents concerned about the quality of their children’s public school science education would have comparatively little to worry about. Were it so, one could view such events as the workings of local groups of well-placed, but misguided, individuals trying to push their views into the educational policy arena. Sadly, however, this is not how things are in the contemporary United States. On the contrary, Kitzmiller is an example of a far more general phenomenon, namely, a systematic attempt by certain powerful segments of the population to interfere with science, scientific practice, and science education for political reasons. As Chris Mooney writes, science is politicized when there is “any attempt to inappropriately undermine, alter, or otherwise interfere with the scientific process, or scientific conclusions, for political or ideological reasons.” Before offering some concluding recommendations, we want to note briefly how science is being politicized on a number of fronts today.

The current Bush administration has been accused of serious political meddling in science. So pervasive is this thought to be that in 2004 the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) produced two reports detailing the administration’s interference with science. The UCS documents a host of strategies used by government agencies to interfere with or distort science in order to bring it in line with the administration’s policy agendas. These strategies include: suppressing or censoring scientific research; distorting or misrepresenting scientific evidence; controlling the scientific process in government agencies; subjecting potential scientific appointees to political litmus tests; appointing non-scientists in senior science advisory positions; appointing under-qualified scientists to important government positions; exerting pressure on government scientists about what they are allowed to say to the media; showing favoritism within government agencies to research funded by industry that has pro-administration conclusions; etc. And these tactics have been felt at a number of government agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others.

The broadly anti-science outlook of the Bush administration has not gone unnoticed. Two bills have been introduced into the Senate that attempt to bring the White House’s approach to science in line with that of the scientific community, and there has been a recent call to launch a Congressional investigation into the administration’s interference with science. While these bills and the Congressional investigation may not get very far, the spirit which animates these efforts is laudable. They represent attempts to drive a wedge between scientific norms and practice and government in order to ensure that the autonomy of science is protected.

These developments provide the broader cultural and political backdrop against which antievolutionary efforts and arguments have been developing in recent years. Our summary view is that such attempts to discredit evolutionary theory and to introduce intelligent design theory into science curricula raise issues that are not only educational, but also theological, ethical, and political. We hope to have indicated why intelligent design theory lacks any defensible scientific rationale. Intelligent design theorists have not made a convincing case that evolutionary theory is a theory in crisis, one that has failed to stand the test of time. Nor have they gathered empirical evidence in direct support of their theorizing. We also hope to have shown what theological, ethical, and civic issues are at stake in efforts to provide intelligent design theory a place in science education. For religious believers, intelligent design theory suggests an account of God as filling “gaps” of knowledge that may later be filled by scientific discoveries, thereby diminishing God’s connection with what believers consider God’s handiwork. For educators, allowing extra-scientific or faith-based ideas to parade as scientific claims entails a disregard for the moral terms that ought to shape inquiry and the exchange of ideas between free and equal persons. And for policy makers, providing a place for intelligent design theory in science education jeopardizes the wall between church and state and ignores the fundamental difference between science as a method and more comprehensive, metaphysical worldviews. Moreover, it also jeopardizes the already inadequate science education system in the United States.90

[dmz]

Gee, the version of evolution I understand doesn't expect, or need to expect, biology to be "fine-tuned", just good enough to get by and survive. The evolutionary theory I'm aware of in fact expects things like junk DNA and vestigial organs -- while it's also being smart enough to know that some of what looks like junk and looks vestigial now might merely have useful functionality we haven't discovered yet.
Yes, but how many vestigial organs are there today? What if there is no Junk DNA at all? Why not just go find what the designer left us to discover, and skip the middle part? The belief in a predictable universe drove science in the Christian West for this very reason. segovius can tell you about the other guys.

I wonder if the biologists these universities turn out will be as impressive as the as all those University of Jesus lawyers the Bushies packed the Department of Justice with. Maybe now that Laura Goodling is out of a job at the DoJ, she can go back to Messiah and pick up a PhD in Christian Biology for her next stunning career.
Do they have a Jesus Bar Exam for the fundies, and another one for the 'real' attorneys? (I don't think Bill Marr prepared you to answer that.)

Poor ickle downtrodden Christians, can't make it in the real world, so they've got to build their own protective bubble world instead.
I don't remember the world coming to an end when the home/private schoolers pulled 10-15% of the school-age kids from the system.


Odd, I don't recall how early Christians had to go off and build themselves a parallel protective bubble world before being able to supplant Roman paganism, which was pretty weak at the time anyway.
The Christians had their own social system in many respects, charities, courts etc. (the pagans knew they could get justice from the Christian 'judges' and would use them.) And it wasn't a protective bubble, they simply went about their business, while the existing systems rotted away.

Nor do I recall a great flourishing of the sciences that came with the ascendancy of Christianity. In fact, I recall something of the opposite effect.
Yes, I thank the Protestants for making all that possible, too.

[Jubelum]

You know, I've been called on that before, but it was before i knew of C.S. Lewis' other writings. Meh, I still like the nick and the stories.

Rather than a militia, I was thinking something along the lines of making it socially acceptable to publicly humiliate Christians for their beliefs. Something that other people would see and cause them to question their faith. Obviously, those who have already decided on a life of ignorance will be beyond help but I think we can really do something for people who are on the fence, kids, agnostics, Sunday Christians, etc.

Excellent. Then we can publicly humiliate:

Illegal Aliens, so that others would not want to break the law to get here.
Gays, so that those who are questioning would stop it.
LIberals, so that we could all see what happens when you try to take money from others for your own purposes.
Jews, for the same reason as Christians.
You, so that others can see what happens when you make stupid, intolerant posts while demanding toleration for other groups.

Sounds great.

[Jubelum]

You can only control us if you can force us into your institutions. I think the time is coming when the religious will simply unlpug, build their own cultural infrastructure, and stop wasting their time...

Its been happening since the early 1980s. Most Christians are already starting their own institutions separate from those that are hostile to their faith. Take homeschooling, for example.

[Jubelum]

Poor ickle downtrodden Christians, can't make it in the real world, so they've got to build their own protective bubble world instead.


Asshole. You'd consider the same (just like the gay movement, or any other movement for that matter has done) if your particular faith or characteristic was under perpetual assault, by, uh, people like, uh.. YOU.

A "counterattack" is not the answer right? Toleration and bridge building and all that, right?
Are you part of the ongoing war or part of the solution?

[franksargent]

Do they have a Jesus Bar Exam for the fundies, and another one for the 'real' attorneys?

No, but it sure helps if your a member of the Federalist Society (http://www.fed-soc.org/) (check mark beside your name on GWB, et. al. list of appointees) or if you received your law degree from Regent University, (founded by Pat Robertson) like Monica Goodling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling). There are 150 graduates of the Regent law school in the White House.

Yes, I thank the Scientists for making all that possible, too.

TFTFY! :D

[dmz]

No, but it sure helps if your a member of the Federalist Society (http://www.fed-soc.org/) (check mark beside your name on GWB, et. al. list of appointees) or if you received your law degree from Regent University, (founded by Pat Robertson) like Monica Goodling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling). There are 150 graduates of the Regent law school in the White House.
Yes, but that's back to politics, not whether they can pass the Bar Exam. You still bury them 12 feet, rather than the usual six, because deep, down, they're not that bad.

[franksargent]

Yes, but that's back to politics, not whether they can pass the Bar Exam. You still bury them 12 feet, rather than the usual six, because deep, down, they're not that bad.

We're in PO are we not? This whole thread is basically about the politics of disinformation as practiced by the usual suspects.

Regent Law was ranked in Tier 4 by U.S. News, the lowest ranking and essentially a tie for 136th place out of 170 schools surveyed.

The Princeton Review ranked Regent Law the second most conservative law school, "based on student assessment of the political bent of the student body at large."

According to statewide and national statistics, Regent's four-year average Virginia bar pass rate is 51.5%, which is 21.5% below the statewide average of 73%, and the lowest in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

A Regent web page claimed that 150 graduates have served in the George W. Bush administration. This statement was removed shortly after this claim was reported on in the national media, but as of April 20, 2007, is again listed on the page. The language was changed from stating that the graduates were "serving" in the Bush administration, to state that they "have served" in the Bush administration, an apparent response to the resignation of Monica Goodling. Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage, noting that previously it was rare for Regent graduates to join the government, has suggested that the appointment of Office of Personnel Management director Kay Coles James, formerly dean of Regent's government school, caused this sharp increase in Regent alumni employed in the government.

Regent University Law school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_University#Law_school)

Please see the previous link I posted;

Intelligent Design, Science Education, and Public Reason (http://poynter.indiana.edu/Science & Public Reason.pdf)

[dmz]

Please see the previous link I posted;

Intelligent Design, Science Education, and Public Reason (http://poynter.indiana.edu/Science & Public Reason.pdf)
Nooooooooo!, franksargent, I can't. I did look at the TOC (which has pagination errors, btw), 'the pedigree of intelligent ID' hells bells, the movement is neonatal at this point. 'Teach the controversy' is naïve, at best.

Short three-round burts of consise points, the endless linking could go one forever. Unless it's an Op-ed in the WSj, that is.

[shetline]

Yes, but how many vestigial organs are there today?
23

What if there is no Junk DNA at all?

What if the moon is made out of green cheese? What then, smart guy?

Why not just go find what the designer left us to discover, and skip the middle part?

Because assuming a designer first is kind of begging the question? Because assuming a designer has no explanatory value whatsoever, other than adding an extraneous entity (as in those things you shouldn't needlessly multiply) which becomes nothing more than a black box -- a God of the Gaps -- to which one assigns all processes one doesn't understand, and which by definition isn't subject to further experimental examination of any sort? Because of all the things in biology which look like colossally stupid "design", if one assumes an intelligence being at work behind the "design"?

The belief in a predictable universe drove science in the Christian West for this very reason. segovius can tell you about the other guys.

Belief in a shortcut to India drove Columbus and other explorers to find the New World. It seems the motivation for the search doesn't always match the things that are found. Would you like to recommend that future space explorers doggedly keep looking for the Northwest Passage because that search was so fruitful before in unexpected ways?

I don't remember the world coming to an end when the home/private schoolers pulled 10-15% of the school-age kids from the system.

And this is related to what I said exactly how? My ribbing you for a retreat into the protective bubble didn't carry any suggestion at all that such a retreat would lead to any sort of general disaster.

And it wasn't a protective bubble, they simply went about their business, while the existing systems rotted away.
But what you suggest does sound like a protective bubble...

In a generation or two, Christians, Muslims, etc., wont have to be insulted or run the predatory secular gauntlet to get their educations... You can only control us if you can force us into your institutions. I think the time is coming when the religious will simply unlpug, build their own cultural infrastructure, and stop wasting their time trying to imagine that the catcalls are either entertainment, or education, or anything at all constructive.

...and other than in your wishful imagination perhaps, there's no parallel between the current fairly robust scientific community and the then already-failing Roman empire.

Yes, I thank the Protestants for making all that possible, too.

Which all started with questioning religious dogma, and which lead inevitably to questioning religion itself.

[franksargent]

Nooooooooo!, franksargent, I can't. I did look at the TOC (which has pagination errors, btw), 'the pedigree of intelligent ID' hells bells, the movement is neonatal at this point. 'Teach the controversy' is naïve, at best.

Unfortunately, that one will never come to term, even if there were an infinite number of ID "monkeys" sitting in front of an infinite number of test tubes.

About all ID will ever amount to are arguments from ignorance or arguments from personal incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) as we have seen to date.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproved premise is true instead.

[dmz]

23
I don't think so, I think we're down into the single digits. I'll check.

Edit: As far as wholly useless, the number is essentially none. I guess there is a contention over whether the holdovers can have any use at all.


What if the moon is made out of green cheese? What then, smart guy?
Please let it be Gruyère. Seriously, what I'm saying is looking more and more likely.


Because assuming a designer first is kind of begging the question? Because assuming a designer has no explanatory value whatsoever, other than adding an extraneous entity (as in those things you shouldn't needlessly multiply) which becomes nothing more than a black box -- a God of the Gaps -- to which one assigns all processes one doesn't understand, and which by definition isn't subject to further experimental examination of any sort? Because of all the things in biology which look like colossally stupid "design", if one assumes an intelligence being at work behind the "design"?
But that's the thing, it's never happened that way in the West -- your Eastern religions are prone to do that -- but the Calvinistic Where's the baby's room?! dominion overdrive motif, is the exact opposite.

Belief in a shortcut to India drove Columbus and other explorers to find the New World. It seems the motivation for the search doesn't always match the things that are found. Would you like to recommend that future space explorers doggedly keep looking for the Northwest Passage because that search was so fruitful before in unexpected ways?
Actually the Greeks had the diameter of the Earth nailed by ~350 B.C. Columbus was using a screwed up measurement based on star inclinations (everyone was then). He would have never, ever, made that trip if he'd known the real distance to China.

But the point is kinda/sorta okay, in a Kuhn sort of way, unless your worldview casts a sickly, dysfunctional view of Nature, when it's actually a much different thing. You'd end up wasting a lot of time on the different parts of the Elephant.


...and other than in your wishful imagination perhaps, there's no parallel between the current fairly robust scientific community and the then already-failing Roman empire.
No, that was directed at the social aspects. Science doesn't need anyone's defense.


Which all started with questioning religious dogma, and which lead inevitably to questioning religion itself.
Not before they had massive blossoming of scientific discovery.

[dmz]

Unfortunately, that one will never come to term, even if there were an infinite number of ID "monkeys" sitting in front of an infinite number of test tubes.

About all ID will ever amount to are arguments from ignorance or arguments from personal incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) as we have seen to date.
ID is in a tricky situation. They want the beef, but wont recognize the brand. There's a lot of slight-of-hand about 'what is science,' but in the end, I don't really know if they can hold what they're doing together philosophically. It may be enough to identify materialism as one ideology among many.

[shetline]

Asshole. You'd consider the same (just like the gay movement, or any other movement for that matter has done) if your particular faith or characteristic was under perpetual assault, by, uh, people like, uh.. YOU.

http://www.shetline.com/img/oppressedchristians.jpg

Are you part of the ongoing war or part of the solution?
I'm part of the precipitate. :)

[shetline]

I don't think so, I think we're down into the single digits. I'll check.

Edit: As far as wholly useless, the number is essentially none. I guess there is a contention over whether the holdovers can have any use at all.

First of all you make it sound like the existence of vestigial organs and junk DNA are the threat that evolutionary theory can't deal with, now you're making it sound like it's the lack of such things evolution can't cope with.

Seriously, what I'm saying is looking more and more likely.

Seriously looking that way to whom? Those fine fellows at the Discovery Institute? Whatever it is you're saying.

But that's the thing, it's never happened that way in the West -- your Eastern religions are prone to do that -- but the Calvinistic Where's the baby's room?! dominion overdrive motif, is the exact opposite.

1 Q: Why not just go find what the designer left us to discover, and skip the middle part?
2 A: List of problems with assuming a designer in the first place.
3 But that's the thing, it's never happened that way in the West...
^

Error: Non sequitur detected in line 3.

Care to provide an antecedent for the "it" which has "never happened that way"? You asked a question. I gave you my objections to the premise of that question. My objections stand whether your religion is east, west, or on a heading 20 degrees west of north at a speed of 50 knots.

Not before they had massive blossoming of scientific discovery.

It was the questioning of religious dogma, the awaking of rational thought, and the idea that systematic examination of the natural world could lead us to greater understanding of that world which was the secret of success. To the extent that for quite some time many scientists were inclined to speak of the order they discovered as "God's order", and perhaps even a few scientists like to do so today, it's nothing but window dressing on the actual work done and the approach which is taken, or perhaps an emotional component that for some drives the effort.

[hardeeharhar]

dmz doesn't know what he is talking about with regard to anything scientific, so don't bother attempting to pin him down on facts or else he will start his tongue-in-cheek nudge-nudge monty python inspired materialism bit...

[Jubelum]

I'm part of the precipitate. :)

You do realize that number of professing Christians has nothing to do with the assault on Christians, right?

[addabox]

I think we're already there. I nominate "the Calvinistic Where's the baby's room?! dominion overdrive motif."

If you read that a lot of times in a row if makes your face melt.

[midwinter]

I think we're already there. I nominate "the Calvinistic Where's the baby's room?! dominion overdrive motif."

If you read that a lot of times in a row if makes your face melt.

Oh come on, Adda.

Right now, I want to start a band called "Dominion Overdrive Motif."

[midwinter]

You do realize that number of professing Christians has nothing to do with the assault on Christians, right?

You're right, but it does help contextualize the complaint a bit. "Our hegemony isn't hegemonic ENOUGH!!!"

[hardeeharhar]

You're right, but it does help contextualize the complaint a bit. "Our hegemony isn't hegemonic ENOUGH!!!"
Is it even really an assault on Christians?

Is it?

Are secularists (other than whipping man of the century Dawkins) actively pursuing the Christian Dogma? Are they attacking it's lack of any semblance of a quality intellectual frame work? And are they doing this anywhere near the level that the Christian majority is attacking anything that isn't Christian (tm)?

It is a classic ruse -- claim your actions are justified by accusing your opponent of engaging in tactics you are actively employing as if they are offenses of the worst order. It isn't surprising that the militant Christian 'intellectual' *scoff* movement is so hypocritical, after all look at the entire history of the religion itself. It reads like a manual for moral, intellectual and personal duplicity.

[midwinter]

Is it even really an assault on Christians?

Is it?

Are secularists (other than whipping man of the century Dawkins) actively pursuing the Christian Dogma? Are they attacking it's lack of any semblance of a quality intellectual frame work? And are they doing this anywhere near the level that the Christian majority is attacking anything that isn't Christian (tm)?

It is a classic ruse -- claim your actions are justified by accusing your opponent of engaging in tactics you are actively employing as if they are offenses of the worst order. It isn't surprising that the militant Christian 'intellectual' *scoff* movement is so hypocritical, after all look at the entire history of the religion itself. It reads like a manual for moral, intellectual and personal duplicity.

Well, the rhetoric of oppression works. Just look at the Republicans.

But you are absolutely correct. My point, however, was that you can't be the biggest religion on the planet and claim that you're being oppressed.

[hardeeharhar]

right...

so did anyone watch the phillies game tonight?

I was there. it sucked. why do people go to these events?

[franksargent]

You do realize that number of professing Christians has nothing to do with the assault on Christians, right?

It's the fundamentalists Christians, the Bible literalists that seem most threatened. Beyond those types, other Christians are convinced God created the universe, setting things in motion at the vary least.

Science is an attempt to understand all that is around us through the principle of causality. The thing about science is that it is never satisfied, is always tested, revised, updated as new knowledge is obtained. Science doesn't start with the premise of the existence of a creator in order to attempt well constructed models/theories from observations.

The spiritual versus the material.

Science is also being attacked vigorously here in the US, which is odd since it isn't a formal belief system, it's a tool or method of understanding our existence in a quantifiable way.

We all fear our mortality, we want there to be something more than just our earthly existence.

I do feel that like the Amish, the most fundamentalist groups will form their own communities throughout the US, to protect their way of life.

[AsLan^]

Excellent. Then we can publicly humiliate:

Illegal Aliens, so that others would not want to break the law to get here.
Gays, so that those who are questioning would stop it.
LIberals, so that we could all see what happens when you try to take money from others for your own purposes.


Already quite acceptable and being done by the MSM.


Jews, for the same reason as Christians.


And the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.


You, so that others can see what happens when you make stupid, intolerant posts while demanding toleration for other groups.

I don't recall advocating tolerance. In fact I have stated quite the opposite in the past. To some extent (mainly on the internets) I am an intolerant person, I just happen to have a "liberal" bias.

[addabox]

Oh come on, Adda.

Right now, I want to start a band called "Dominion Overdrive Motif."

Their first release: Anemone Hegemony, a concept album chronicling humanities enslavement by an evil race of stinging, tentacled sea-dwellers.

First single: "I Have a Single Opening To My Stomach Which Serves As Both Mouth and Anus, Deal With It Bipedal Fucks."

[dmz]

First of all you make it sound like the existence of vestigial organs and junk DNA are the threat that evolutionary theory can't deal with, now you're making it sound like it's the lack of such things evolution can't cope with.
No, no, no, my little grasshopper of argumentative goodness, both those things were/are blind alleys that were self-inflicted dogmatic wounds.

Seriously looking that way to whom? Those fine fellows at the Discovery Institute? Whatever it is you're saying.
Well, I don't know, I figured if someone quotes Nature maybe they weren't making it up. Check out "It’s the junk that makes us human" in the Nov. 2006 issue.


Care to provide an antecedent for the "it" which has "never happened that way"? You asked a question. I gave you my objections to the premise of that question. My objections stand whether your religion is east, west, or on a heading 20 degrees west of north at a speed of 50 knots.
Oh, stop it, the West has never experienced the 'Oh God did it, so who cares?' problem. A big part of that reason is the dominion mandate.


It was the questioning of religious dogma, the awaking of rational thought, and the idea that systematic examination of the natural world could lead us to greater understanding of that world which was the secret of success. To the extent that for quite some time many scientists were inclined to speak of the order they discovered as "God's order", and perhaps even a few scientists like to do so today, it's nothing but window dressing on the actual work done and the approach which is taken, or perhaps an emotional component that for some drives the effort.
No, I think it was a moral push, or impetus then, where today, yes, it's more of a 'let's control nature, and by extension, ourselves/our destiny.

[dmz]

I think we're already there. I nominate "the Calvinistic Where's the baby's room?! dominion overdrive motif."

If you read that a lot of times in a row if makes your face melt.
And you missed the Sam Kinison refernce?! Why Delilah?! Why!?




I am outa here till the weekend. Ciao!

[tonton]

You do realize that number of professing Christians has nothing to do with the assault on Christians, right?

Huh? That's in direct contradiction to your earlier bullshit that the reason there are so few hate crimes against Christians is because so many people are Christian.

Did you learn logic from the Bible, too?

Oh... actualyl I think that argument was made by DMZ... sorry...

So DMZ and Jubelum are arguing the exact opposite thing to prove the same point. Hmm...

Kinda goes to show that people make up all kinds of bullshit to support an argument.

[segovius]

Imo, the opposition should not be to religion - especially not to any specific religion - but to limiting and damaging inflexible beliefs particularly if these beliefs can be proved to be false and the result of bias and prejudice.

As Dawkins himself rightly points (albeit interminably and sans humour) religion contains many dogmas that would fall into this category.

Unfortunately so does Dawkins himself.

But to place religion en masse in this category and give science a free pass is exactly what the intolerant Christians do. And the only justification both offer when confronted with this is that they are 'speaking the truth'.

Well, maybe they are. Maybe not. Doesn't matter - we are talking about intolerance. Take this quote from Dawkins (http://telicthoughts.com/she-had-one-of-the-most-stupid-faces-ive-ever-seen/) for example:

He definitely has a temper, though. When he starts talking about Nadia Eweida, the Christian recently denied permission to openly wear a cross by her employer British Airways, his cheeks are positively puce.

"I saw a picture of this woman," Dawkins says. "She had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen. She actually said, 'Christians should be allowed to work for British Airways."'

He continues, face reddening: "Well, of course, Christians are sodding well allowed to work for British Airways. It's got nothing to do with it. She is clearly too stupid to see the difference between somebody who wears a cross and somebody who is a Christian."


That seems to me a stupid and specious argument. I would not call Dawkins stupid though - but his opinions are illogical and do not gel with his '#1 intellectual status'.

I am against fundies and creationists as much as Dawkins is and while I believe some in that camp may be 'evil' (for want of a better term) I would not see the individual as stupid. Brainwashed perhaps. An unquestioning sheep very likely. But they are not stupid in as much as they have the possibility to wake up.

It seems Dawkins does not believe this - not surprising really as it is a quasi-religious model and a form of 'redemption'.

Dawkins and his ilk however believe in 'stupid people' and 'clever people' which is in essence an immutable power structure (with them at the top). Radical Wahabis believe this also viz the position of women and men, fundies of all descriptions believe it re 'saved' and 'infidels'.

The basis is the same......

Flexible beliefs which nlead to scientidic and philosophical enlightenement can exist in any framework. There is nothing in religion that limits this; when Europe was in the Dark Ages chafing under the yoke of the Church, Muslims enjoyed hot and cold running water in their houses and had street lighting and schools for everyone. Of course this resulted in incredible scientific discoveries that are the basis of much western thought.

Most anti-religionists deny this by the method of ignoring it and continuing to claim that religion as a whole is anti-science. That is in essence a lie. So is the refusal to consider other phenomena or artefacts which do not fit the current scientific paradigms.

At least religion teaches one should NOT lie whether its adherents choose to abide by that or not....

[@_@ Artman]

Planet-hunters find bonanza of new solar systems (http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN2826900020070528)

Planet-seekers who have spotted 28 new planets orbiting other stars in the past year say Earth's solar system is far from unique and there could be billions of habitable planets.

The most recent planet discoveries bring the number of known exoplanets -- planets outside our solar system -- to 236, the researchers told a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Honolulu on Monday.

"We are beginning to see that our home is not a rarity in the universe," said Geoffrey Marcy, a professor of astronomy at the University of California Berkeley, who led the team.

"We are easily able to detect giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn around other stars. Most orbit far from the star like our own Jupiter and Saturn orbit from the sun," Marcy said in a telephone interview.

"It's a common structure among planetary systems."

[Jubelum]

Huh? That's in direct contradiction to your earlier bullshit that the reason there are so few hate crimes against Christians is because so many people are Christian.

Did you learn logic from the Bible, too?

Oh... actualyl I think that argument was made by DMZ... sorry...

So DMZ and Jubelum are arguing the exact opposite thing to prove the same point. Hmm...

Kinda goes to show that people make up all kinds of bullshit to support an argument.

What "argument" do you think I am making, before you take issue with it? Or are you just attacking out of reflex? I'm not talking about hate crimes. I'm talking about anti-Christian sentiment having nothing to do with the popularity of the faith.

And thanks for getting your facts "straight" with me vs. DMZ. Just keep firing blindly at those who might disagree with you. I makes your argument that much more compelling. ;)

[shetline]

No, no, no, my little grasshopper...
Once the word "grasshopper" appears, it's all downhill from there.

[Jubelum]

Once the word "grasshopper" appears, it's all downhill from there.

These threads never solve anything. Just allow a forum for a whole bunch of people to get their faceless angst expressed in a safe environment. And it polarizes further almost everyone. Not much reconciliation and "progress" being made. Ever.

[Outsider]

Planet-hunters find bonanza of new solar systems (http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN2826900020070528)

Are those planets 6000 years old too? Hmm, the speed of light MUST be wrong, all the scientific evidence be damed! God said it, I believe it, that settles it!

[tonton]

What "argument" do you think I am making, before you take issue with it? Or are you just attacking out of reflex? I'm not talking about hate crimes. I'm talking about anti-Christian sentiment having nothing to do with the popularity of the faith.

And thanks for getting your facts "straight" with me vs. DMZ. Just keep firing blindly at those who might disagree with you. I makes your argument that much more compelling. ;)

Ok then. You say there is a disproportionate amount of "anti-Christian sentiment". I thought hate crimes against Christians might be evidence of anti-Christian sentiment.

So what do you consider evidence of anti-Christian sentiment?

I'll give you a hint. I've never said a single thing on these or any other boards that is anti-Christian.

[tonton]

These threads never solve anything. Just allow a forum for a whole bunch of people to get their faceless angst expressed in a safe environment. And it polarizes further almost everyone. Not much reconciliation and "progress" being made. Ever.

Funny how you don't participate in any other kind of discussion though. It's almost as if you've come here on a mission or something.

[Jubelum]

Funny how you don't participate in any other kind of discussion though. It's almost as if you've come here on a mission or something.

:???: You need to look around more before posting.

[@_@ Artman]

These threads never solve anything. Just allow a forum for a whole bunch of people to get their faceless angst expressed in a safe environment. And it polarizes further almost everyone. Not much reconciliation and "progress" being made. Ever.

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/internet_slap_2.gif

[southside grabowski]

Image removed at request of SB legal.

When will the evolution agenda give it up! There is really no evidence for it.

[Jubelum]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/internet_slap_2.gif

Pretty Much. Interesting switcheroo on the arm, though.

[thuh Freak]

I'd let ... Larry Flynt run the FCC.

I feel much the same way about republicans and national office. Just look at how well President Bush did for the party. He overwhelmed every branch of office, completely ruined things, so now liberals can come in and try their hand at fucking everything up.

/just wish i didn't have to wait 2 years for a new president.

[@_@ Artman]

When will the evolution agenda give it up! There is really no evidence for it.

http://www.stoogeworld.com/_Biographies/Curlyport.jpg

COITAINLY!