PhDP

First of all, it's not "only" random, it's random + natural selection. Also, ID got no scientific support. Science is done by publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals, IDists are unable to do that. Can I say for certain that anything leading to the development of our species was ever truly random ? No, but your question is fallacious, I can't say for certain that you're not a vampire. Is it worth a mention in a science class. Nonsense, why would it be taught in a SCIENCE class, if it's not a scientific alternative to evolution ? And as I said earlier, we have plenty of proofs about random mutations, genomes are filled with evidences for the "trials and errors", and predictions are made using this. The problem is that nobody seem to care about reading a good book on evolution (like Futuyma's book), they just read a couple of things on a website and they feel like they know enough to criticise a legitimate and complex science like evolutionary biology.

From what I've read about him, he's quite radical about taxes and the constitution. I'm pretty sure he's not the right politician in this age of compromises and mixed economies. Pragmatism is the new motto.

It's right under your eyes, "they must have been designed by a supreme, intelligent force." They reject the notion that evolution can explain the evolution of life on earth without a designer. Of course, they won't say "God" because they want their stuff to be taught in school. That's creationism in disguised, it's not science and it doesn't fit our data.

I remember the good ol' days, when The Economist preferred Bush to Gore on the ground that Bush was capable of bipartisanship (now they call him the "partisan-in-chief"). It would certainly be interesting to see how the American system would work if all the presidential candidates were NOT nominated by a major party.

ParanoiA, You just need to understand the distinction between a direct intervention (interfering in the process) and an indirect intervention (having created the universe so evolution would be possible). Also, I never said any kind of direct intervention was impossible. However, we do see the effect of random mutations and predictions are based on this fact, so the view that God is required to understand evolution is just nonsense (that's the point made by IDists and creationists). Also, I'm not saying it's possible to rule out God's intervention (I don't know where you get that), but creationists are saying that, without a direct intervention of God, evolution (more specifically the evolution of complex structures) is impossible. Creationists want their view to be taught in school because they see it as a competing theory, for them, without God, the theory of evolution can't work. I'm only defending the view of science, if you find that as bad as creationism it's your right. It's not really untestable, it just doesn't fit data. If genomes were perfectly organized, if there was no traces of the "trial and error" process, then ID would be much more viable. But it's not the case. What's very frustrating with IDists is the way they're trying to promote ID. Being open to new ideas, even crazy ones, is perhaps the greatest strength of science. IDists were unable to convince the scientific community that their idea was valid, even worst, they're incapable of producing even a single good article (and it should be noted that a great deal of bad ideas are published). As it failed on the scientific level, they've made ID a political movement. They have been quite successful and most Americans want at least some form of creationism to be taught in biology.

By divine spark I meant "direct intervention", I think it was pretty clear I said "incomplete without a divine spark". For creationists/IDist, if it wasn't for God, evolution could not be possible, many theists don't hold such radical views. I just said the exact opposite. K.R. Miller believes in god and he's not an IDist/creationist. Many theists believe god created the universe to set evolution in motion, but God is not directly interfering, he's just the inventor. I've no problem with that, as long as they don't claim evolution is impossible without the direct intervention of God in the process.

"Zoological Physics" (Ahlborn) is a very good book about the limits imposed by the laws of physics.

Evolution was used to justify a lot of things, but I highly doubt any of the things you mentioned were CAUSED by evolutionary biology. Even eugenics was only a pseudoscientific justification to racism. There's a very important distinction between "motivation" and "justification", Nazis were very interested by anything confirming their faith in the superiority of their "race", and they've created a whole science to flatter their egos, but in the end Nazism was caused by a particular social and historical context, not by religion or science. And Soviets, well, they believed in Lysenkoism, which looks a lot more like Intelligent Design (some even say ID is neo-Lysenkoism).

I wouldn't. Politics should be primarily based on issues, but the personality of the leaders also counts for something. I don't want my government to have any theocentric tendencies, people can believe in whatever they want, I don't care, but if they start saying they'll do this and that because of the bible, I'm starting to feel uneasy and it's the case for many US politicians. I have no clue about the religious beliefs of most of the prime ministers we had here, and I'm happy about it. However I think I should have been more nuanced, obviously I would like politicians to accept evolution, but what's really important is what they're going to do with their belief. The GOP debate is a good example, McCain said he believed in evolution but he also endorsed teaching ID. On the other hand, Huckabee raised his hand when the moderator asked "Who doesn't believe in evolution", but he also said it has nothing to do with being president and that he had no intention of making any chance to the way evolution is taught in school. I respect that, it's much more reasonable than McCain's stance. You lost me here. I never said evolution implied God doesn't exist, I'm not interested in a debate over the validity of evolution or the validity of religious beliefs, I'm interested in the development of the creationist movement in the US, and, more specifically, when will their crusade to make some form of creationism part of the curriculum end? It's why this topic is in the "Politics" subforum. This is not the issue; many creationists want Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes, the "Teach the Controversy" movement won't be happy until ID gets a mention in science classes. Many high profile politicians support their view, that's the problem. Again it depends what is meant by "guided", but most of the time it refers to a direct intervention. They think that, without God, evolution is impossible. That's simply not the case; it's just another, more refined form of creationism. I totally disagree that science says evolution is unguided due to lack of evidence, au contraire, just look at molecular genetics, not only can we see the ravage of random evolution, but many predictive models are explicitly based on this fact. Does it mean God has nothing to do with evolution? Of course not, god could've created the universe to make such process possible. But many Americans believe evolution is incomplete without a divine spark, that's not the case. I hope, as Pangloss remarked, that it's only because Americans don't take this issue very seriously.

It depends, many will answer they believe in evolution BUT with the hand of god, which is not really better. It also means they are likely on the side of IDists in this debate. No more than 20% of the American public believe in evolution without anything supernatural, and that number is closer to 10% in most polls. That's why I say "most American" believe in creationism. Anyway I never wanted to start a debate about polls , I want to know how you think this debate will end. It's not the kind of issue where a compromise is possible, either scientists will have to accept that pseudoscience is taught in schools, or the powerful creationist machine will slowly die. And Molotov, even if the president can't force schools to teach creationism, can you trust his judgment when it comes to science if he prefers his bible to reason ?

Creationists have a noticeable impact in the political arena, especially in the GOP. But while the creationist movement is vigorous and show no sign of fatigue, it's hard to imagine how they could win. Sure, most Americans are on their side, fortunately, science is not a democracy and their "Teach the Controversy" strategy is doomed to fail, no serious courtroom would allow pseudoscience to be taught in science classes. Equally obvious is the fact that creationists will not be able to infiltrate science. Of course, this issue is important enough to make headlines, less important than abortions and gays, but more than many economic issues. In less than 2 weeks I saw it 3 times; IDist Gonzalez was denied tenure (the opposite would have been surprising), an IDist will probably be elected president of the National Association of State Boards of Education, and everybody knows about the republican debate. When (and “how”) will this nonsense end ?

Still it was shown, pretty clearly IMO, that even short exposure to second-hand smoke makes the CFVR [coronary flow velocity reserve] of nonsmokers indistinguishable from smokers, even if the average CFVR of nonsmokers is significantly higher (better) than smokers before second-hand smoke exposure. The case against long exposure to second-hand smoke looks very serious, but it's not enough to prove 20-30 minutes/day of exposure will increase mortality. However, even if the argument is wrong I think very little will be made to protect smokers. The fact is, the cost of this habit for society is high, oppressing smokers is easy to justify from an economic point of view and smokers are not seen as victims. How many high profile politician want to be associated with the smokers, I ever heard Obama was afraid to be seen as weak if he continued smoking. Here I totally disagree with you, it's too easy to use the opinion of ONE scientist to claim a "toss-up", with that kind of reasoning everything is a toss-up in science. About the burden of the proof, I think this case requires nuance. Scientifically speaking you're right. But this is not only about science, it's about the health of a population. Sometime a reversal of the burden of the proof is justified, for example in some countries, when a company design new chemicals they have to prove the innocuity of their product before it can be marketed. The burden rests on them because of the potential hazards associated with designing new chemicals. We can't legislate against smokers and say "hey, you have to prove your smoke is harmless", but the opposite view seem to be as unreasonable considering we already know so much about the danger of second-hand smoke.

Perhaps you should read this; http://www.mlmwatch.org/04C/Stemtech/stemtech.html

Sure I did, and you just have to read my first comment on this topic to understand my objection; it's only the opinion of a ONE scientist. It might be his opinion that the claim (short exposure) is "ridiculous", but obviously in the scientific community some people think otherwise, and their studies is serious enough to be published in JAMA, a highly respected journal. Many studies published in serious journals are based on faulty logic, bad methodology and sometime even worst. Perhaps Dr Siegel is right, perhaps Glantz's claim IS ridiculous. However, articles published in equally serious journals should be use to debunk this. For Stossel to present something as a "myth" based only on the opinion of ONE scientist is downright manipulative. Although in the end it'll probably damage the reputation of science more than his ratings. BTW I found the article I read some years ago in JAMA. Otsuka et al. 2001. Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation in healthy young adults. JAMA 286, 436-441. Again you're not taking a neutral stance, you're claiming some studies are lies. I can't believe you're making such extravagant claim without even trying to justify it.

I said at least twice I wasn't taking a side. But I know some studies "prove" short exposure is dangerous, I'm simply curious to see if there's a credible counterargument.

oops, you posted while I was writing. That's what I'm interested in, do you have a source ? Why is it absurd ? I'm neutral on this, I don't try to prove any association. I simply assumed that, if you claimed it wasn't harmful, you probably had a good reason for making this claim.

I know a study isn't true because it's published in a scientific journal. What I find surprising is that so many people think this is absurd, short exposure can't possibly cause harm, but it's certainly not as obvious from a scientific point of view.

I would like to have an answer from D H (or anyone else), some people here have said it was ridiculous to believe short term expose to second-hand smoke could be dangerous. As I said before, I don't know much about this, but some studies showing the exact opposite have been published in serious journals. I would be interested in reading something serious (i.e.: peer-reviewed) about why this is so absurd.

While it may look unimportant, I think one of the worst fallacy in all this is to talk about "races", while it's obvious "black" and "white" are not races (that is, even if we could divide our species into races). It strengthens the view that the amount of melanin in the skin is biologically significant.

Primo, there's nothing offensive about what he said. And secondo, religion is a belief, skin color is not, and it has nothing to do with trends. What I find very trendy is the tendency to dilute real bigotry and intolerance with this kind of hysteria. There's a distinction between beliefs and DNA, you don't choose your DNA, and those who try to blur this distinction are often doing it to defend sexists, racists and homophobics.

Racism ? Where ? "Mormon" is a race now ? There's nothing insulting in what he said, and even if it was, there's an obvious distinction between insulting people's beliefs and insulting people because of their set of genes. Fox News is really pushing hard to create controversies ex nihilo, like that Madrasa fabrication.

In fact, the French word for teacher is "Professeur", and the feminine is "Professeure". Same thing goes with president, "Présidente" is the feminine, and it's used in Quebec. For some reason, many French women dislike using the feminine as they feel it doesn't carry the same weight. Yes I do. But this election is about frustration against the French system (plus a little xenophobia), I followed the campaign and I really don't feel anti-Americanism was a major issue. Most candidates were trying to distance themselves from old French politics. I don't think Royal was playing the anti-American card, she was playing the anti-Bush card. This is the new trick of the left, while European conservatives are exploiting the post-9/11 paranoia about immigrants, the left is trying to make some gains by comparing anything to the Bush administration, it was done in Sweden, Italy, Germany, Canada... and now France. Bush is not even popular in the United-States. After what happened with the Iraq war, I think we could have expected Royal to use the anti-Bush sentiment much more than she actually did. Royal wanted to meet Clinton some time ago, but Clinton cancelled after Royal blundered in the middle-east, right after she praised China's "swift" justice system

Then don't trust scientists and so-called experts, read publications in peer-reviewed journals. The fact is, science doesn’t rely on the opinion and views of a bunch of PhDs, it's fuelled by publications and I think we really give too much credits to some people just because they have a diploma. You're right, it's easy for a scientist to sell his credibility, he can give his benediction to anything and the fact that he can add "Ph.D." after his name lends some credibility, but publishing is much harder. I must admit I don't know much about this debate, but I do remember reading an abstract saying the exact opposite, do you have any credible source ? I think it was an article in JAMA.

IDists claim that complicated structures can't be explained with evolution, they also dismiss a large chunk of evidence from molecular biology. It's ironic, McCain hasn't raised his hand, Huckabee did, still, on this issue I'm on Huckabee's side. Obviously, I would prefer a candidate that would chose science over pseudoscience. But I don't really care what the candidates believe, what matters is what they’re going to do with this belief. Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution, but he has no problem with evolution being taught in public schools, and he doesn’t support the teaching of creationism in science classes. Yea, but judges are appointed by the president.

Sarkozy will win… This has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. In France, being a woman is still a huge handicap for politicians. They still don't how they should call her if she were to win the election. Personally, I wouldn’t vote this round, two bad candidates. The status quo in France is unacceptable; it’s perhaps one of the best examples of where bad “socialist” economic policies can lead. The government is big, control too much, it’s hard to hire because it’s hard to fire, starting a company is complicated, and the public system is renowned for being clumsy (except for their healthcare system, one of the best in the world). They’re also not on the good side of the “brain” drain anymore. With Royal, it’s more of the same, she would continue inadequate socialist policies, she wants to raise the minimal wage, implement new programs, et cetera… But Sarkozy is no better, I support some of his economic policies, but most of his show is not about economics, it’s about being tough on crimes, it’s about children that should stand up when their teacher enter the class (seriously), it’s about national identity. He’s a populist, he says what a frustrated generation wants to hear, and I think this kind of politicians can’t be trusted. In France, IMO, they need a pragmatic politician, someone that would cut the endless tentacles that are currently choking the French economy, and someone that would also end the paternalistic French approach to politics inherited from De Gaulle. As a side note, there was at least one very refreshing thing in this campaign. The journalists kept their nose out of the personal life of the candidates.