Over a thousand pearls of wisdom from the slashdot combox

Upright Biped - I obviously can't comment on an article that I haven't read (and for which you don't bother to give a link), can I? It would help if you explained the point you were trying to make, and we can see if it is even at variance with what I wrote. Heinrich

Henrich at #5 From a recent New York TImes article:

“[H]e does good science, great science,” said Dr. Boothroyd, "The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university" "Dr. Geissman said, “I would have to keep as objective a hat on as possible and say, ‘O.K., you earned what you earned.’ ” But Dr. [Eugenie] Scott, a former professor of physical anthropology at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views “so at variance with what we consider standard science.”

- - - - - In an single article: a) He does great science b) The work is impeccible c) He earned it d) The response from the National Center for Science Education: Thats not good enough Upright BiPed

It strikes me that there was a time when outlawing discrimination was considered a good thing. Now, some predict (and I am sure even vow) lawsuits.

I think it's always considered permitable to discriminate on grounds on competence. This bill is far too broadly written. If an academic wanted to study Lie theory (fro example), then I would agree that it would be wrong to discriminate if they are a creationist. OTOH, if a YEC wanted to, say, reconstruct the Jurassic environment from fossils, I think it would be OK to say that they don't have the necessary abilities: accepting the existence of the Jurassic would seem to be a pre-requisite in that case. Heinrich

I find myself in quite an interesting position in these blogs, what with being a theist but not a Christian, and a liberal but also a Darwin critic and an ID proponent. As a liberal (progressive, really) I must object to the conflation of "liberal" and "Darwinist". I think that GilDogden's assessment of Darwinists efforts to use the power of government to stifle dissent from their point of view is for the most part accurate, but I also think that in all other areas, liberals are generally in favor of increasing freedom and opportunity in this country (America). And I wonder if given the opportunity, many of my conservative friends in these bolgs wouldn't use the power of government to stifle dissent from certain Christian based religious beliefs, such as for example, the belief that a fertilized human egg is a full fledged human being (a view with which I an many others in this country most emphatically disagree). Bruce David

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. ~ Charles Darwin bevets

Unfortunately, in the US we now have the equivalent of a dictatorship of a leftist, materialist judiciary. They wave a magic wand, and declare anything they don't like as "unconstitutional," even if their decisions have nothing to do with either logic or constitutional law. The worst part is that these halfwits (who universally know nothing about the science involved, like that pathetic character Judge Jones) are the worst hypocrites ever. They only support dissent from those with whom they agree, which means that they support no dissent. They preach tolerance as the highest virtue, but only tolerate those with whom they agree. The Darwinian lobby is extremely dangerous, not just because they believe a transparent scientific lie, but because they want to use the power of government and the judiciary to impose their nihilistic philosophy on the rest of us and our children. At least as horrifying, they want to poison the scientific enterprise concerning origins (while claiming that they want to preserve it), by making up silly stories that make no sense, and then claiming that these silly stories have proved their case, while at the same time telling people who challenge their silly stories that they are trying to destroy science by pointing out that those silly stories are nothing more that silly stories. The Darwinian establishment is toxic, power-hungry, and extremely dangerous. If they had their way, and had the power to do so, anyone who expressed even the slightest dissent from any aspect of their orthodoxy would be sent away to a reeducation camp and told how to think properly. GilDodgen

Liberals are only liberal if/ when you agree with them. Joseph