> If you actually think that we're better off trying to equalize votes so that all viewpoints are of equal power
and you twist the words again... you're either devious or stupid. i'm tired of this.
read the thread again. i never said a damn thing about making all viewpoints *equal*. the point of geographic weighting is not bland and useless equality (how would decisions get made then?); the point is to make sure that minority perspectives have a meaningful voice. the point is to make Wyoming relevant, not to make it equal with California.
> You realize the whole point of democracy is to find out which viewpoints outweigh others?
no shit, sherlock. and if you'd take a second to really consider what i'm saying instead of just assuming i'm an idiot, you wouldn't drool such asinine rhetoric all over the keyboard.
> > So you're saying California intrinsically knows better than Wyoming?
> No, this was in reply to your comments on diversity, not "who knows better".
Sheesh. I guess I have to spell it out for you.
With "one person, one vote", California gets to make the decisions, and Wyoming becomes utterly irrelevant. If you support that system, then you must think that that would be best for the country. Therefore, you think California knows better than Wyoming. It's simple logic. Can't you even think through the consequences of your own position?
> Well, that's democracy -- smaller groups always get opressed to some degree by the majority.
that's exactly the problem with democracy and exactly the reason we are not (and should not be) a pure democracy.
> That's why the constitution is so important.
oh, you mean that thing that was written by the same guys who came up with the electoral college system? yeah, that gives your argument a lot of pull.
> I think that black votes should count more than white votes so they can't be opressed as easily.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I totally agree. The hard part is finding ways to implement such a system, and I haven't got a good answer for that right now.
> And women's votes too.
nonsense. last i checked women outnumbered men in this country.
> And gays.
not without some sort of genetic distinguishability. it's just too arbitrary (at least right now). so unlike with geography, it's just not feasible to implement a system for this.
> I don't think you or anyone has the right to say one groups votes (racial, sexual, geographic, etc) should have a higher value than anyone elses.
you're free to think that, but rights are granted by society and its molders. the molders of this political system disagreed with your view and intentionally included geographic weighting into the system. that's more than enough right for me to say that's the way it should be.
> This is true today for every minority group except for geographic minorities.
i believe that's largely because geographic minorities are one of the few that are easily accounted for, and are one of the most significant when it comes to governance (notice how all governments are first and foremost oriented and organized geographically). The founders knew one size wouldn't fit all, and they did what they reasonably could to accomodate that.
> Unless you agree with the previous sarcastic paragraph I don't see how your position is fair.
If you'd been paying attention to what I've been saying all along, you would have known I wish that paragraph were true (save the women part). I'm just not sure it's feasible. But just because I can't necessarily have all of those represented doesn't mean I should give up on those factors that can be accounted for.
> One person, one vote. That's all I'm saying. Why is this so complicated?
What you're saying is not at all complicated. I understand it perfectly and think you are wrong. In fact, the very problem is that it is entirely *too simple* to properly address the complex realities of governing a large and diverse nation. One size does not fit all!
> I have a feeling that California matches or surpasses Wyoming in any of the areas of diversity you mentioned.
So you're saying California intrinsically knows better than Wyoming? However diverse it may be in most social categories, California will never be Wyoming nor be assured of having its perspective or interests. Seriously, what is so hard to understand about this?
> How is giving each person one equal vote any more oppressive than democracy itself?
huh? it's not. pure democracy means giving each person one equal vote. your question doesn't compute.
if you would like to understand the "oppression of the rural by the urban", spend some time looking into Oregon politics. I went to college with some folks from small towns in eastern Oregon. I learned a lot about the problems they have in those towns thanks to the voting power of masses in the Willamette Valley who don't experience the consequences of those votes. I don't think Portland residents should have the power to, in essence, unilaterally make decisions for the rest of the state any more than Californians should make decisions for the rest of the country.
Over-centralization of power is inefficient and consistently results in the oppression of minority concerns. One size does not fit all.
You're a fool if you think racial diversity is the only (or even most significant) type of diversity.
There's geographic diversity, economic diversity, age diversity, cultural diversity, and so on and so forth.
I have concerns about being sure minorities in these social categories are heard as well. But those are another issue. How can one complain against the oppression of the poor or immigrant or elderly or whoever and support changing the political system to encourage oppression of the rural by the urban? I will not subscribe to such hypocrisy.
> arbitrary (adjective): based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.
determined by individual preference or convenience, eh? isn't that the type of voting system you want?
and seriously, do you really think the founders of this country were being arbitrary when they decided to include a degree of geographic representation in the electoral process? geographic boundaries may arguably be arbitrarily determined, but they are there and significant nonetheless. likewise, geographic patterns of population distribution and cultural influences resulting therefrom may be arguably "arbitrary", but they are there and significant nonetheless. it would be foolish when setting up a government for an unevenly distributed population in a nation with diverse geography to pretend these things did not exist or have no bearing upon political issues. There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about being aware of these realities and factoring them into the process. It is very intentional and logical.
> I don't see any reason that justifies messing with one person, one vote. > Anything else would be claiming to know which views are important and/or underrepresented.
Wrong again. Factoring in geographic representation does not judge which particular views are important. It merely begins with the assumption that allowing for a diversity of perspectives to get a fair hearing is beneficial. It then observes that geographical differences consistently correspond to differing perspectives. It then decides to factor geography into the political process in order encourage a diversity of perspectives.
> And it implies that any underrepresented view deserves extra promotion.
yes, it does. and here we must apparently agree to disagree.
There is nothing arbitrary about geographic representation in the electoral process. And that has nothing to do with affirmative action (which i'm not convinced is bad anyway), the two concepts may have some similarity, but they are quite unrelated.
You can't see how geography has anything to do with diversity? You've got to be kidding. Any pollster, sociologist, or gerrymandering politician can tell you that geography makes a huge difference in political views.
And yes, i do think that giving minority perspectives "higher power votes" (though i dispute the term) encourages diversity. It's hard to see how it couldn't. I am not saying the minority should rule over the majority here. I'm saying that we need to ensure them a substantial voice. The value of diversity in politics is breadth of perspective. Geography is critical to that.
And for the record, i'm a young, white, middle class, male living in suburban Portland, OR.
> You are right about reform at the local level, that is where it has to start.
agreed, this is where the most immediate success can happen and it will be necessary to build and maintain momentum. still, let's not neglect the higher levels; vote third party in presidential and congressional levels as well. stop giving power to the status quo.
> But I disagree that election reform is what we need. (though it could help) > Education of the public, and election of non-republicrats to local and state office is where most of the effort needs to be.
and election of non-republicrats (good word:) to local offices will be one of the most effective means of educating the public.
If you want to appeal to nature (evolution) to support your position, you should not be so quick to dismiss the crucial importance of diversity in ecological systems. The inherent dangers, weaknesses, and flaws of monocultures in all sorts of systems have been well documented. I don't believe it is any different in a politics.
My response may have been "melodramatic", but I stand by it. The white, urban majority (of which i am part) in this country may think they don't need the rest or know better than them, but that is foolish arrogance. We need diversity.
When I say vote third party, I don't mean just at the presidential level. Do that, of course, but also do it at the city, county, and state levels. If we don't, the third party movement will require far, far more momentum, money, and time to get off the ground.
> > Voting for the lesser of two evils is short-sighted. The first step to a long term solution is to vote third party now.
> I have to disagree here. The situation may suck, but allowing the greater evil to be elected will only make the situation suck worse.
That's a short-term view. Both the democrats and republicans have had significant time in power over the last few decades and neither has lifted a finger to help the situation. Long-term, your approach will be useless. We need to start taking power (our votes and our money) from both major parties and giving it to other ones. Once there is at least three parties that can legitimately compete, the barrier will be exponentially lower for those fourth and fifth and so on parties to participate.
I'm not saying we can expect great change soon by voting third party. I'm saying that it may very well be our only hope for change in the long term.
Amen. It would be a huge mistake to give up geographic representation. That would amount to a huge loss in political diversity. The system is already oversimplified as it is. One size does NOT fit all.
While it is true that instant runoff voting would increase the number of legitimate options for voters, adding that to the process in a way that eliminates geographic representation would be swapping one problem for another.
I've been thinking the same thing. Trying to address the complex realities of modern politics with a two-party political system is like a trying to operate my computer with a lightswitch. It sucks. And it gets even worse as the two options grow ever more alike.
I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. At this point, I don't even care who the main third party option is. I know they won't win this election; I just want to crack open the door for some meaningful diversity in American politics.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is short-sighted. The first step to a long term solution is to vote third party now.
And don't even think about abstaining. Not voting is functionally a vote for either of the two parties, not a vote for neither, as some suppose.
yeah, you've got me there. i can't deny i've been annoyed by the wait sometimes. but i do very often appreciate it when the weather's less than pleasant. and that's pretty often.
also, there's the whole more jobs thing.
Tell me about it. Last year i lived on the campus of a small college whose net techs thought the same thing. I had to beg in person to get ports opened for things like outbound ssh, anonymous cvs, and so on. drove me nuts. now i live off-campus.
"You can't go criticizing a theory without fully understanding what you're saying and expect not to be called on it."
uh... i *was* called on it. repeatedly. even by you. it was the repetition that irked me.
"....Miller-Urey or peppered moths. If you're hearing that those examples are useless, you're not hearing the whole story"
i've heard this defense before. i'm not convinced. they just need to use better examples or at least acknowledge those are just "possibilities" and "teaching illustrations." of course, things like Haeckel's (sp?) drawings have got to go entirely. i saw those in high school.
"touchy-feely 'intelligent design' camp among others, but they all appeal to things outside the realm of science"
touchy-feely? uh. ok. anyway, here we start to come to the heart of the issue...
"Science is necessarily materialistic. This is, of course, at the expense of supernatural possibilities. However, science simply falls apart when you attempt to use it to test theories that are not materialistic. Intelligent design "theory" fails on this point."
and here we hit it smack on the nose. many modern scientists seem to believe that the assumption of materialism is necessary to science. without it, they say, the results are meaningless or can be interpreted to mean anything. materialism provides them with a uniformity and consistency from which to operate.
what fascinates me is that it used to be faith in an unchanging God who established and maintains order in the universe that provide assurance of uniformity and consistency for many scientists. to them, science was not necessarily materialistic, but rather, it was merely *focused* upon the material world.
given such a foundation, i (and intelligent design proponents) see no problem with deriving conclusions *from* the material world that pointed to something beyond it.
and how i wish i had more time for this diversion, to go into stuff like information theory, the nature of intelligence, agency and determinism, explanations for rationality and awareness in a material universe, and so much more. sigh. fun stuff to wrestle with. (and a bit more up my ally:)
basically, my point is that i don't believe philosophical materialism is the only valid foundation for useful and meaningful science.
i'm also thoroughly unconvinced that we are unable to logically and/or scientifically identify signs of intelligent behavior/design with confidence.
however, judging by the content and length of your responses so far, i don't anticipate that we can reach consensus on that in a time frame available to me. so that will have to wait for another day.
woah. you've got a lot of free time on your hands! wanna share some with me?:)
but i'll harp on a few points...
first, widespread bias != vast conspiracy. one is inevitable and the other is improbable. when you equate anti-evolutionist claims of bias in the scientific community with conspiracy, you misrepresent them. it's a illogical, inflammatory tactic, and one i've heard plenty of on both sides.
still, you've piqued my interest about the journal publishing subject even further with the statement that anti-evolutionists don't submit work on that topic. fascinating, if true!
my "harder to swallow" comment was not an accusation of trickery, but a claim of non-intuitiveness that came from me not using my brain well (as i've already admitted, so give it up already.)
as for dogmatic teaching of evolution in high schools, i speak largely of the fact that the debate (popular, not elite, though it may be) was stifled, and arrogantly so. further, in later years, i discovered that a number of examples and illustrations ("icons" as Jonathan Wells says) used to teach me were misleading or outright false. where was your peer review on those? i don't care how right you might be, when a teacher and textbooks teach like that, human (or at least my) instinct is to be skeptical of the subject. it's basic psychology.
other points: i never said anything about "equal time." the dominant theories definitely deserve the most attention.
don't fool yourself. most evolutionists have there own ideologies and agendas. just like me and you. you're pretending to be unbiased again.
radioactive decay rates and constancy of the speed of light do not negate philo-theological questions on the nature and origin of the universe. see mature-creation or "apparent age" theories for intriguing ideas (which i'll admit, i tend to favor) on that. remember, philosophy and friends (ontology, epistomology, theology, etc.) necessarily underly and trump science.
by far the most complained about "dogmatic assumption" of evolutionists is--in my experience--philosophical materialism.
you continually portray anti-evolutionists as those uneducated in the subject (among other over-broad or unsubstantiated characterizations) that's going back to the stereotypes. i may not be well-educated therein, but i have friends who are and still see plenty of room for debate. your chances of convincing me otherwise in this forum are not good. though you are free to try, be aware that debating credentials and qualifications (authority) is often fruitless. if possible, stick to debating issues and ideas, not people.
you mark Behe as an anti-evolutionist. i believe this is only partly true. in my understanding, he is anti-abiogenesis, and holds to old-earth, aided-evolution.
ok, i really need to get to work. if you've got some more good feedback for me, i'd love to hear it, but i'm not sure i can spend more time responding.
if nothing else, thanks for turning me on to the issue of journal publications.:)
"I don't want to probe too deeply into what appears to be a sensitive area for you"
sensitive? no. excitable? yes.:)
"...you're clearly not as knowledgable about the topic as you're leading us to believe."
hmm. i think it'd be more accurate to say i'm clearly not as knowledgeable about the implications of such a discovery as i'd like to believe.
your point about books and internet versus biology journals is very interesting. definitely something that could be worth thinking about and looking into. though i must wonder just why it is anti-evolutionists (and related) types can't often (ever?) get published in those journals. no one is unbiased. objective editors are likely as much a myth as objective journalists.
as for the debates, i'm inclined to agree, though there is certainly something to be said for the ability to communicate well.
and yes, you've guessed quite well, i've not taken college-level biology. i was a comp sci major. indeed, i'd be a fool to claim i was "studied" in the natural sciences. if you haven't noticed from the tenor and topic of my responses, i'm not interested in debating the scientific details. i'm sure to be in over my head on those. my interests even in high school always lend themselves far more to philosophy and its cohorts. indeed, it is my lifelong interests therein that have driven my skepticism of evolution. well, that and the dogmatic way it was taught to me in high school. anytime i sense opposition voices being oppressed i get antsy. if nothing else, i think the evolutionists who fight to keep alternative teachings out of schools do a disservice to their cause. if they have truth, why be afraid to have it questioned?
anyway, thanks for the solid, thoughtful response. definitely an improvement on the "evolution is a fact, you're an idiot if you question it" usual fare.:)
so you've heard those names, that's nice. can you tell me what they do for a living? have you read anything by them (either their books or papers)? do you typically write off people that challenge your beliefs as cranks when you know next to nothing about them?
oh, and congrats on the 150 years of successful research. you must be tired after all that. and even if i misunderstood and other people did all of that, your study and grasp of all that material is also worthy of congratulations!
seriously, don't throw authority arguments at me. i grew up with a bossy older sister. i don't take to authorities easily. stand on their shoulders if you like, but don't expect me to think you're any taller for it.
i don't accept anyone's dogma. never have. never will. i may agree with various people on various things, but not without weighing them out for myself. does that mean i'm never wrong? hell no. like anyone, i make mistakes all the time. but at least they're my mistakes.
if you'd use that thing on your shoulders more carefully, you might realize that being open minded has essentially nothing to do with what a person accepts as true or false. it is being willing to question what is put before you and seriously consider alternative possibilities.
oh, and i also don't take labels willingly. "ooh are you one of 'them'? *they* are such @#$! you have no credibility if you agree with anything *they* say..." sheesh, get a clue! that's the kinda shit that causes wars, hate crimes, and genocide.
sigh. don't you just love it when you've got something totally witty and obnoxious to say but end up blowing the delivery and looking like a complete idiot?
Slashdot Mirror
> If you actually think that we're better off trying to equalize votes so that all viewpoints are of equal power
and you twist the words again... you're either devious or stupid. i'm tired of this.
read the thread again. i never said a damn thing about making all viewpoints *equal*. the point of geographic weighting is not bland and useless equality (how would decisions get made then?); the point is to make sure that minority perspectives have a meaningful voice. the point is to make Wyoming relevant, not to make it equal with California.
> You realize the whole point of democracy is to find out which viewpoints outweigh others?
no shit, sherlock. and if you'd take a second to really consider what i'm saying instead of just assuming i'm an idiot, you wouldn't drool such asinine rhetoric all over the keyboard.
> > So you're saying California intrinsically knows better than Wyoming?
> No, this was in reply to your comments on diversity, not "who knows better".
Sheesh. I guess I have to spell it out for you.
With "one person, one vote", California gets to make the decisions, and Wyoming becomes utterly irrelevant. If you support that system, then you must think that that would be best for the country. Therefore, you think California knows better than Wyoming. It's simple logic. Can't you even think through the consequences of your own position?
> Well, that's democracy -- smaller groups always get opressed to some degree by the majority.
that's exactly the problem with democracy and exactly the reason we are not (and should not be) a pure democracy.
> That's why the constitution is so important.
oh, you mean that thing that was written by the same guys who came up with the electoral college system? yeah, that gives your argument a lot of pull.
> I think that black votes should count more than white votes so they can't be opressed as easily.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I totally agree. The hard part is finding ways to implement such a system, and I haven't got a good answer for that right now.
> And women's votes too.
nonsense. last i checked women outnumbered men in this country.
> And gays.
not without some sort of genetic distinguishability. it's just too arbitrary (at least right now). so unlike with geography, it's just not feasible to implement a system for this.
> I don't think you or anyone has the right to say one groups votes (racial, sexual, geographic, etc) should have a higher value than anyone elses.
you're free to think that, but rights are granted by society and its molders. the molders of this political system disagreed with your view and intentionally included geographic weighting into the system. that's more than enough right for me to say that's the way it should be.
> This is true today for every minority group except for geographic minorities.
i believe that's largely because geographic minorities are one of the few that are easily accounted for, and are one of the most significant when it comes to governance (notice how all governments are first and foremost oriented and organized geographically). The founders knew one size wouldn't fit all, and they did what they reasonably could to accomodate that.
> Unless you agree with the previous sarcastic paragraph I don't see how your position is fair.
If you'd been paying attention to what I've been saying all along, you would have known I wish that paragraph were true (save the women part). I'm just not sure it's feasible. But just because I can't necessarily have all of those represented doesn't mean I should give up on those factors that can be accounted for.
> One person, one vote. That's all I'm saying. Why is this so complicated?
What you're saying is not at all complicated. I understand it perfectly and think you are wrong. In fact, the very problem is that it is entirely *too simple* to properly address the complex realities of governing a large and diverse nation. One size does not fit all!
> I have a feeling that California matches or surpasses Wyoming in any of the areas of diversity you mentioned.
So you're saying California intrinsically knows better than Wyoming? However diverse it may be in most social categories, California will never be Wyoming nor be assured of having its perspective or interests. Seriously, what is so hard to understand about this?
> How is giving each person one equal vote any more oppressive than democracy itself?
huh? it's not. pure democracy means giving each person one equal vote. your question doesn't compute.
if you would like to understand the "oppression of the rural by the urban", spend some time looking into Oregon politics. I went to college with some folks from small towns in eastern Oregon. I learned a lot about the problems they have in those towns thanks to the voting power of masses in the Willamette Valley who don't experience the consequences of those votes. I don't think Portland residents should have the power to, in essence, unilaterally make decisions for the rest of the state any more than Californians should make decisions for the rest of the country.
Over-centralization of power is inefficient and consistently results in the oppression of minority concerns. One size does not fit all.
You're a fool if you think racial diversity is the only (or even most significant) type of diversity.
There's geographic diversity, economic diversity, age diversity, cultural diversity, and so on and so forth.
I have concerns about being sure minorities in these social categories are heard as well. But those are another issue. How can one complain against the oppression of the poor or immigrant or elderly or whoever and support changing the political system to encourage oppression of the rural by the urban? I will not subscribe to such hypocrisy.
> arbitrary (adjective): based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.
determined by individual preference or convenience, eh? isn't that the type of voting system you want?
and seriously, do you really think the founders of this country were being arbitrary when they decided to include a degree of geographic representation in the electoral process? geographic boundaries may arguably be arbitrarily determined, but they are there and significant nonetheless. likewise, geographic patterns of population distribution and cultural influences resulting therefrom may be arguably "arbitrary", but they are there and significant nonetheless. it would be foolish when setting up a government for an unevenly distributed population in a nation with diverse geography to pretend these things did not exist or have no bearing upon political issues. There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about being aware of these realities and factoring them into the process. It is very intentional and logical.
> I don't see any reason that justifies messing with one person, one vote.
> Anything else would be claiming to know which views are important and/or underrepresented.
Wrong again. Factoring in geographic representation does not judge which particular views are important. It merely begins with the assumption that allowing for a diversity of perspectives to get a fair hearing is beneficial. It then observes that geographical differences consistently correspond to differing perspectives. It then decides to factor geography into the political process in order encourage a diversity of perspectives.
> And it implies that any underrepresented view deserves extra promotion.
yes, it does. and here we must apparently agree to disagree.
> Are you claiming there is more diversity in rural areas than urban areas?
That's not even close to what i said. If you wanna be a good spinmeister, you'll have to be a lot more subtle at twisting people's words.
> Do you think that two candidates who are nearly identical on all the issues is somehow diverse?
who the hell are you trying to argue with? you're responses are so far off the point of the parent post, that they're nonsensical.
> Oh, wait. You're just a troll.
and then you finish it off with a nice ad hominem argument. well, when in rome...
> a lot of people don't believe anything is real if it is not in the mainstream media.
Well put and, sadly, quite true.
Huh?
There is nothing arbitrary about geographic representation in the electoral process. And that has nothing to do with affirmative action (which i'm not convinced is bad anyway), the two concepts may have some similarity, but they are quite unrelated.
You can't see how geography has anything to do with diversity? You've got to be kidding. Any pollster, sociologist, or gerrymandering politician can tell you that geography makes a huge difference in political views.
And yes, i do think that giving minority perspectives "higher power votes" (though i dispute the term) encourages diversity. It's hard to see how it couldn't. I am not saying the minority should rule over the majority here. I'm saying that we need to ensure them a substantial voice. The value of diversity in politics is breadth of perspective. Geography is critical to that.
And for the record, i'm a young, white, middle class, male living in suburban Portland, OR.
> You are right about reform at the local level, that is where it has to start.
:) to local offices will be one of the most effective means of educating the public.
agreed, this is where the most immediate success can happen and it will be necessary to build and maintain momentum. still, let's not neglect the higher levels; vote third party in presidential and congressional levels as well. stop giving power to the status quo.
> But I disagree that election reform is what we need. (though it could help)
> Education of the public, and election of non-republicrats to local and state office is where most of the effort needs to be.
and election of non-republicrats (good word
If you want to appeal to nature (evolution) to support your position, you should not be so quick to dismiss the crucial importance of diversity in ecological systems. The inherent dangers, weaknesses, and flaws of monocultures in all sorts of systems have been well documented. I don't believe it is any different in a politics.
My response may have been "melodramatic", but I stand by it. The white, urban majority (of which i am part) in this country may think they don't need the rest or know better than them, but that is foolish arrogance. We need diversity.
Absolutely. And thanks for pointing this out!
When I say vote third party, I don't mean just at the presidential level. Do that, of course, but also do it at the city, county, and state levels. If we don't, the third party movement will require far, far more momentum, money, and time to get off the ground.
> > Voting for the lesser of two evils is short-sighted. The first step to a long term solution is to vote third party now.
> I have to disagree here. The situation may suck, but allowing the greater evil to be elected will only make the situation suck worse.
That's a short-term view. Both the democrats and republicans have had significant time in power over the last few decades and neither has lifted a finger to help the situation. Long-term, your approach will be useless. We need to start taking power (our votes and our money) from both major parties and giving it to other ones. Once there is at least three parties that can legitimately compete, the barrier will be exponentially lower for those fourth and fifth and so on parties to participate.
I'm not saying we can expect great change soon by voting third party. I'm saying that it may very well be our only hope for change in the long term.
Agreed.
How noble and selfless of you. "I'm part of the majority, so I should be pandered to."
A fat lot of good selfish and arrogant attitudes like that have done for humanity over the years.
Amen. It would be a huge mistake to give up geographic representation. That would amount to a huge loss in political diversity. The system is already oversimplified as it is. One size does NOT fit all.
While it is true that instant runoff voting would increase the number of legitimate options for voters, adding that to the process in a way that eliminates geographic representation would be swapping one problem for another.
I've been thinking the same thing. Trying to address the complex realities of modern politics with a two-party political system is like a trying to operate my computer with a lightswitch. It sucks. And it gets even worse as the two options grow ever more alike.
I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. At this point, I don't even care who the main third party option is. I know they won't win this election; I just want to crack open the door for some meaningful diversity in American politics.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is short-sighted. The first step to a long term solution is to vote third party now.
And don't even think about abstaining. Not voting is functionally a vote for either of the two parties, not a vote for neither, as some suppose.
yeah, you've got me there. i can't deny i've been annoyed by the wait sometimes. but i do very often appreciate it when the weather's less than pleasant. and that's pretty often. also, there's the whole more jobs thing.
And for the first time, it sucks to live in oregon where you can't pump your own gas. :(
Tell me about it. Last year i lived on the campus of a small college whose net techs thought the same thing. I had to beg in person to get ports opened for things like outbound ssh, anonymous cvs, and so on. drove me nuts. now i live off-campus.
"You can't go criticizing a theory without fully understanding what you're saying and expect not to be called on it."
:)
uh... i *was* called on it. repeatedly. even by you. it was the repetition that irked me.
"....Miller-Urey or peppered moths. If you're hearing that those examples are useless, you're not hearing the whole story"
i've heard this defense before. i'm not convinced. they just need to use better examples or at least acknowledge those are just "possibilities" and "teaching illustrations." of course, things like Haeckel's (sp?) drawings have got to go entirely. i saw those in high school.
"touchy-feely 'intelligent design' camp among others, but they all appeal to things outside the realm of science"
touchy-feely? uh. ok. anyway, here we start to come to the heart of the issue...
"Science is necessarily materialistic. This is, of course, at the expense of supernatural possibilities. However, science simply falls apart when you attempt to use it to test theories that are not materialistic. Intelligent design "theory" fails on this point."
and here we hit it smack on the nose. many modern scientists seem to believe that the assumption of materialism is necessary to science. without it, they say, the results are meaningless or can be interpreted to mean anything. materialism provides them with a uniformity and consistency from which to operate.
what fascinates me is that it used to be faith in an unchanging God who established and maintains order in the universe that provide assurance of uniformity and consistency for many scientists. to them, science was not necessarily materialistic, but rather, it was merely *focused* upon the material world.
given such a foundation, i (and intelligent design proponents) see no problem with deriving conclusions *from* the material world that pointed to something beyond it.
and how i wish i had more time for this diversion, to go into stuff like information theory, the nature of intelligence, agency and determinism, explanations for rationality and awareness in a material universe, and so much more. sigh. fun stuff to wrestle with. (and a bit more up my ally
basically, my point is that i don't believe philosophical materialism is the only valid foundation for useful and meaningful science.
i'm also thoroughly unconvinced that we are unable to logically and/or scientifically identify signs of intelligent behavior/design with confidence.
however, judging by the content and length of your responses so far, i don't anticipate that we can reach consensus on that in a time frame available to me. so that will have to wait for another day.
adieu.
woah. you've got a lot of free time on your hands! wanna share some with me? :)
:)
but i'll harp on a few points...
first, widespread bias != vast conspiracy. one is inevitable and the other is improbable. when you equate anti-evolutionist claims of bias in the scientific community with conspiracy, you misrepresent them. it's a illogical, inflammatory tactic, and one i've heard plenty of on both sides.
still, you've piqued my interest about the journal publishing subject even further with the statement that anti-evolutionists don't submit work on that topic. fascinating, if true!
my "harder to swallow" comment was not an accusation of trickery, but a claim of non-intuitiveness that came from me not using my brain well (as i've already admitted, so give it up already.)
as for dogmatic teaching of evolution in high schools, i speak largely of the fact that the debate (popular, not elite, though it may be) was stifled, and arrogantly so. further, in later years, i discovered that a number of examples and illustrations ("icons" as Jonathan Wells says) used to teach me were misleading or outright false. where was your peer review on those? i don't care how right you might be, when a teacher and textbooks teach like that, human (or at least my) instinct is to be skeptical of the subject. it's basic psychology.
other points:
i never said anything about "equal time." the dominant theories definitely deserve the most attention.
don't fool yourself. most evolutionists have there own ideologies and agendas. just like me and you. you're pretending to be unbiased again.
radioactive decay rates and constancy of the speed of light do not negate philo-theological questions on the nature and origin of the universe. see mature-creation or "apparent age" theories for intriguing ideas (which i'll admit, i tend to favor) on that. remember, philosophy and friends (ontology, epistomology, theology, etc.) necessarily underly and trump science.
by far the most complained about "dogmatic assumption" of evolutionists is--in my experience--philosophical materialism.
you continually portray anti-evolutionists as those uneducated in the subject (among other over-broad or unsubstantiated characterizations) that's going back to the stereotypes. i may not be well-educated therein, but i have friends who are and still see plenty of room for debate. your chances of convincing me otherwise in this forum are not good. though you are free to try, be aware that debating credentials and qualifications (authority) is often fruitless. if possible, stick to debating issues and ideas, not people.
you mark Behe as an anti-evolutionist. i believe this is only partly true. in my understanding, he is anti-abiogenesis, and holds to old-earth, aided-evolution.
ok, i really need to get to work. if you've got some more good feedback for me, i'd love to hear it, but i'm not sure i can spend more time responding.
if nothing else, thanks for turning me on to the issue of journal publications.
"I don't want to probe too deeply into what appears to be a sensitive area for you"
:)
:)
sensitive? no. excitable? yes.
"...you're clearly not as knowledgable about the topic as you're leading us to believe."
hmm. i think it'd be more accurate to say i'm clearly not as knowledgeable about the implications of such a discovery as i'd like to believe.
your point about books and internet versus biology journals is very interesting. definitely something that could be worth thinking about and looking into. though i must wonder just why it is anti-evolutionists (and related) types can't often (ever?) get published in those journals. no one is unbiased. objective editors are likely as much a myth as objective journalists.
as for the debates, i'm inclined to agree, though there is certainly something to be said for the ability to communicate well.
and yes, you've guessed quite well, i've not taken college-level biology. i was a comp sci major. indeed, i'd be a fool to claim i was "studied" in the natural sciences. if you haven't noticed from the tenor and topic of my responses, i'm not interested in debating the scientific details. i'm sure to be in over my head on those. my interests even in high school always lend themselves far more to philosophy and its cohorts. indeed, it is my lifelong interests therein that have driven my skepticism of evolution. well, that and the dogmatic way it was taught to me in high school. anytime i sense opposition voices being oppressed i get antsy. if nothing else, i think the evolutionists who fight to keep alternative teachings out of schools do a disservice to their cause. if they have truth, why be afraid to have it questioned?
anyway, thanks for the solid, thoughtful response. definitely an improvement on the "evolution is a fact, you're an idiot if you question it" usual fare.
so you've heard those names, that's nice. can you tell me what they do for a living? have you read anything by them (either their books or papers)? do you typically write off people that challenge your beliefs as cranks when you know next to nothing about them?
oh, and congrats on the 150 years of successful research. you must be tired after all that. and even if i misunderstood and other people did all of that, your study and grasp of all that material is also worthy of congratulations!
seriously, don't throw authority arguments at me. i grew up with a bossy older sister. i don't take to authorities easily. stand on their shoulders if you like, but don't expect me to think you're any taller for it.
i don't accept anyone's dogma. never have. never will. i may agree with various people on various things, but not without weighing them out for myself. does that mean i'm never wrong? hell no. like anyone, i make mistakes all the time. but at least they're my mistakes.
if you'd use that thing on your shoulders more carefully, you might realize that being open minded has essentially nothing to do with what a person accepts as true or false. it is being willing to question what is put before you and seriously consider alternative possibilities.
oh, and i also don't take labels willingly. "ooh are you one of 'them'? *they* are such @#$! you have no credibility if you agree with anything *they* say..." sheesh, get a clue! that's the kinda shit that causes wars, hate crimes, and genocide.
sigh. don't you just love it when you've got something totally witty and obnoxious to say but end up blowing the delivery and looking like a complete idiot?
i sure do!