Which is one of the stories he likes to promote. If anything he was an adjunct professor (if that much) – no way Chicago would have hired him as a professor given his lack of experience.

Evolution is as proven as the laws of thermodynamics.

Uhh, ‘scuse me? You either don’t know biology, or you don’t know physics, (or both). Thermo is derivable from statistical mechanics. It’s a quantitative theory. Evolution is a consensus coupled with a non-quantitative theory, not a rigorous mathematical result.

Here. Watch this. You may learn something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsyS0oHLNFA

And of course as you implied, science has nothing to say about supernatural agency. It’s about observable, verifiable facts/processes/principles–though of course scientists can and should hypothesize about things we can’t prove yet (sometimes ever). So it’s no paradox that a majority of American scientists are religious (though the percentage goes down with high achiever in science). So it’s meaningless for a scientist speaking as a scientist to say “There’s no God” or “There is a God.” Because those sentence contains a scientifically undefinable word.

What offends me about the far right’s successful campaign to prevent the teaching of evolution in a majority of American high schools is that it’s basically a campaign of covert intimidation–qualitatively the same as people in Iraq getting notes in the night threatening them for working with the Americans or running a barbershop or, or (it’s a long list). Christianists aren’t called American Taliban for nothing.

Creationism could certainly be discussed in a comparative religion class–or in a propaganda class. Your choice. Or in a history of science class, for that matter, along with other religious accounts of phenomena now satisfactorily explained by science.

But from a religious viewpoint, consider this: the universe operates under a variety of observable and replicable laws/principles/processes. If God made the universe, these laws are God’s laws. So science is no more or less the discipline of discovering God’s laws. Of course science comprises a core of proven stuff–which we call theories–surrounded by unproven stuff–which we call hypotheses. Sometimes proven stuff is disproven, more most of the time the proven core just keeps expanding out into the surrounding field of hypotheses, proving some, disproving others. Which means that anyone denying the proven core of Science (including evolution) denies God. And anyone saying that some scripture they’re waving trumps God’s laws is simply putting himself above God. From a religious perspective that would be the sin of Pride.

b) Accusations of racism. As I said this is a form of bullying usually–an attempt to end a debate through a kind of verbal coup. I’ve been accused of racism frequently in forums discussing illegal immigration. And I’ve found that even when I do respond substantively–i.e., whether I’m a racist or not, how does that change the verifiable facts/reasoning I’m using?–the response is invariably schoolyard taunting–Racistracistracist!

I finally realized I’m dealing with people who don’t actually understand empirical reasoning. They’re using associative reasoning, which is what the human race used for its first ~80,000 years on Earth (and which at least 5 billion of us still use). So you’re probably right to tune out, but sometimes I’ll toy with such folk rhetorically.

re: Obama. I think the latest polls show that around 80% of Republicans actively dislike/disdain the guy, while 80%$ of Democrats adore him. BTW the 20% of Democrats who don’t adore him believe he’s a corporatist–i.e. a closet Republican–who’s failing to enact the leftist agenda they believed he’d enact. That’s pretty amusing when I see Hannity calling him a Bolshevik. If only, those disgruntled Democrats would say.

Among those unenchanted Obamaphobic Republicans are my wife of 27 years and most of the folks we go to church with, I should add. Every few days my wife will email me from work with some tidbit about Obama’s supposed failings. So It’s not like I’m not in touch with those of your sentiments.

Conversely, she demurs when I mention Bush as the worst president in our history–not worst in terms of abilities, of course…we have the likes of Warren G. Harding and others to claim that anti-prize. But the worst in terms of disparity between abilities and ambitions.

Actually, I keep thinking of Bush as I hear Iranians talking about Ahmadenijad–especially his total disinterest in any Iranians who didn’t vote for him, or what they think or want. He and Bush share a pure majoritarian philosophy, which Obama patently does not.

But few Obama supporters are seeking your sympathy, Cato. They’re just glad a grown-up is in the Oval Office, finally, instead of an aging frat boy with delusions of Mission Accomplished grandeur. The irony is that so many Republicans despise Obama when he has the votes to really overthrow all the GOP holds dear, and is instead constantly trying to compromise and build coalitions with them.

Yet Republicans like Powell, Gates, and Jones all see something in the guy. And don’t give me that RINO stuff. That’s as offensive as someone calling you a racist. Seriously, look at the Republicans who work with him. Other Republicans could learn a lot from them.

As for destroying the Republic–that would be the Republican reign that gave us the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

The novelist Patrick O’Brien (of the Aubrey/Maturin seafaring books) had his ship captain Aubrey say once “Men must be governed.” Adam Smith himself would agree that this includes human aggregations such as markets. Neither Smith nor I would argue that this justifies socialism. But the Republican era’s ungoverned markets led to people in power decoupling themselves from the consequences of their actions (look at the golden parachutes of CEOs who bankrupted their companies). That never works out, neither on the personal nor on the corporate level.

And to return to the topic of this thread, tenured academics are similarly decoupled, enabling them to teach their pet theories instead of what students actually need. These should be brought to account just as CEOs must be. Acknowledge this and we’ll have found common ground.

When I was a kid in the 70′s, my mother used to say that colleges were “hotbeds of Marxism”. I pooh-pooh’ed it, but boy was she right, even then. A friend of mine graduated with a double-major of English and “Gender Studies”. She’s going for her PhD in English Lit now. I remember talking to her about her coursework and she mentioned how coursework and discussions approached literature based on Marxist criticism. I asked her why Marxism was the default worldview – what does reading Emily Bronte have to do with Karl Marx?

It’s really scary out there. You really have to prepare your kids, but a lot of kids aren’t prepared and swallow this crap with mouths wide open. Sad.

You are presenting a straw man argument. The United States needs well educated citizens. This is beyond debate. But how do we determine the quality of the education? Griggs vs. Duke Power effectively outlawed employer testing. They are now forced to rely on mere credentials—which are often phonier than a three dollar bill.

It’s funny to me because often times the people with the loudest voices have the least amount of college and graduate experience.

The myth of the drunken, stoner college kid is not a representative majority. But hey – if reason and logic are working against your political party, I’m not surprised that you’d target the place where we develop critical thinking skills: college.

The last thing this country needs is a lot of ignorant republicans holding onto an idealized dream that never was.