Intelligent Design

RVB8 Admits To Being A “Useful Idiot”

Spread the love

Wikipedia:

In political jargon, a useful idiot is a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause.

In KF’s expose on agit-prop history and techniques, rvb8 attempts to draw an equivalence between what the progressive left is doing in taking to the streets in “protest”, and KF’s stated views and groups that advocate for those views. He asks:

You see, I fail to see why the Soviet agit-prop is wrong, and your own right. I know your ‘right’ is self evident, but not to me, and not to millions like me; what in your opinion is to be done with mine, and others dissent?

Let’s draw the distinction clear; agit-prop is the process of removing rational discourse and civil debate from the equation and conditioning a populace psychologically to react en masse in intimidating, destructive and violent ways in order to achieve an agenda the population is largely ignorant of.  Anyone who uses this technique is by definition attempting to avoid rational debate and intimidate or physically remove the opposition and avoid a fair debate and a fair election.  Even as an atheistic evolutionist, surely rvb8 understands that the above, as defined, is wrong.  If not, we simply don’t have grounds for a meaningful debate.

rvb8 then says:

For me, as an enlightened atheist, I say all power to you, your ID position is basically dead, so continue with your agit-prop, for all it’s worth; little!

To be taken seriously, rvb8 needs to show where ID advocates have used agit-prop techniques comparable (in principle if not scope) to what the progressives are using now when they (progressive politicians and public agitators) use polar opposite characterizations when they describe action X by Obama, and then virtually the same action X by Trump.  There is no rational reason to characterize the travel restriction under Obama as good and necessary and reasonable, and then then a slightly broader temp travel restriction on the same 7 countries under Trump as fascistic, xenophobic, islamophobic, racist and unconstitutional.   Obama endorsed the protests against the ban even though the list of countries and travel restrictions originated in his administration (and in other actions, total bans against Iraq and later, Cuba).   Reason dictates that if one supported it under Obama, one should support it under Trump if there has been no appreciable decline in world terrorism or in the political nature of those countries.

This is classic agit-prop exposed for all to see: it’s not about the actual executive order, it’s about an entirely different agenda – weaponizing millions of people into an intimidating, threatening mob by employing over-the-top, aggressive and dehumanizing terms to characterize Trump  regardless of what he does, even if it is the same thing Obama did and the same thing they supported a few years prior. Obama comes out and, incredibly, endorses protests against the very temporary immigration ban his administration created.  If the protesters were operating from informed, rational consideration, how could they justify calling this temporary ban against these countries a “muslim ban”, when 86% of all muslims worldwide are not even affected by it?

More on agit-prop: anyone that shows any support for Trump whatsoever becomes the target of progressive intimidation tactics.  Performers who were going to be involved at the inauguration were intimated into backing out.   Trump could not even show up at one of his rallies because of the threat of violence.  Clinton operatives incited violence at his rallies.  There were several plans by left-wing organizations to disrupt many Trump rallies and the Republican Convention itself.  Covert operatives were inserted into Trump events to interrupt and disrupt as he spoke. Are there any activities like this that are comparable from the ID camp or from Trump?

He continues:

Perhaps that public should become involved, educated on subjects that effect it.

Yes, they should. That is what KF and others attempt to do – educate people on the agit-prop techniques being used against it.  Unfortunately, Academia in the USA is largely an institution that primes the population for agit-prop manipulation, not to guard against it.  Note the use of “safe spaces” and the virtual obliteration of views that do not conform to the progressive agenda on campuses across the nation.  Milo Yiannopoulos, as a gay supporter of Trump, has been prevented from speaking at several college venues because of the threat of destructive violence by student groups that shut down the expression of anything other than progressive-approved ideas and politics.  Many of these colleges acquiesced to these student demands to cancel Milo events, which is a clear message to these groups: intimidation and violence works.

At present Trump has declared seven Muslim countries to be persona non-grata, in the US. Do you accept this policy? If you do, you are ill-informed. … None of these seven countries have produced jihadis that have in any way been effective in harming US interests, or citizens.

“Ill-informed” about what? Is rvb8 under the impression that we aren’t informed about these countries? The Trump E.O. is precautionary and pro-active, not reactive, and it simply broadens the precautionary travel restrictions already in place, put there by Obama on those exact same seven countries.  There’s a reason we haven’t imported terrorists from those countries; we have been restricting travel from those countries for years.  All Trump did was temporarily move from restrictions to a ban in order to get a better assessment of how to proceed with those countries while ensuring no terrorist gets through any potential cracks.  What is unreasonable about that? Absolutely nothing. It was an explicit part of the platform he campaigned on.

However, the citizens of Saudi-Arabia, the U.A.E, and Egypt and their associated jihadis have killed thousands of US citizens and remain off the Trump list; some have been as nasty as to suggest that this is because Trump has property investments in these basket case countries.

Trump is hardly the only one that has investments in those countries; as a country we have very deep economic, military and political relationships with those countries.  Politically and economically speaking, it’s not nearly so easy nor advisable to institute the same ban on those countries because of those complex, deep and necessary relationships.  Trump took what immediate action he could against the low-hanging fruit – countries where the ban wouldn’t harm the USA politically or economically.  Some of the other countries will require more deal-making and negotiation to devise an acceptable immigration policy that prevents terrorists (or potential terrorists) from entering the USA via those countries.

Kairos talks about agit/prop, and fails to point out the use by the Commander in Chief, of all his Executive power to agit/prop himself, and his absurd predjudices.

We’ve provided examples of the current progressive agit-prop in practice.  Until you detail the supposed agit-prop Trump is using, all this comes off as is an attempt at equivalence.  There’s a difference between what the executive orders actually say and do, and how the media characterizes those orders, as can be seen in how the media did not react negatively to Obama’s creation of the travel restrictions on those countries in the first place, or the ban on Iraqi and Cuban immigrants, but now negatively characterize, with extreme prejudice, the temporary expansion of Obama’s original restriction list.  The agit-prop here is clearly coming from the progressive media, media stars, and politicians (Obama included) in characterizing the orders as racist, xenophobic, unconstitutional, islamophobic, dangerous, insane, etc.  Rvb8 should make his case instead of just implying a vague equivalence.

Rvb8 exposes his own history of being a “useful idiot”:

I’m not a US citizen, but I do understand the right of protest. Many times as a student in the 80s I would see abunch of my fellows marching and protesting, and would join, only to later find out what the protest was about; I did this many times, and strangely, not once was the protest by the students I joined counter to my own sensibilities, both then and now.

This is exactly the mentality that KF warns against: being entirely uninformed about a an issue but allowing yourself to be triggered into participating in a protest or activism anyway.  So what if you happen to have agreed with those protests after the fact? You didn’t even know what they were about, but were perfectly willing to add your body count to whatever the issues was for some reason other than any understanding of the issue itself.

Rvb8 exposes his lack of understanding about the nature of the US political/governmental/electoral system with a series of ignorant statements:

Your last sentence beginning, ‘Supposedly..’, is extremely sad to read, and makes me question whether you understand what ‘Democracy’ even means.

Democratically elected officials are on the backfoot from day one, and if your democracy demands respect for these officials for a certain period of time, may I respectfully suggest your concept of democracy falls woefully short of the ideal; to hold elected officials accou[n]table for their policies and decisions.

Trump is at present plainly using the Constitu[t]ion of the US as something that can be molded, or ignored, depending upon how he feels at any given moment.

Until you give an example of how Trump is “molding” or “ignoring” the Constitution, this is nothing more than parroted rhetoric.  His ban on immigration from certain countries is entirely constitutional, as was Obama’s original travel restrictions imposed on those exact same countries.

Secondly, he was not elected (hired), to ‘protect’ the American people, he was elected to, ‘defend the Constitution of the US’, did you not learn this in elementary civics classes.

Your are conflating the reasons Trump was elected with the oaths he must swear upon being elected, and his responsibilities as President once elected.  Trump was elected based on the policy promises that he made to those that agreed to vote him.  He was elected to do the very things he has done, which he should only do within the framework of the Constitution and his legal responsibilities.

You see the idea of the framers was that by strictly defending the Constitution, and Bill of Rights the government would then be directly defending the people; difficult notion to grasp I know, but makes perfect sense to me, why do you find it so difficult to grasp?

Protecting the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic means taking action; his temporary ban pursues this very goal.

And judging by his weird reading of that document, he is at present ignoring it willfully. The protestors you loathe, are actually expressing a notion far nearer the intentions of the authors of that wonderful piece of clear thinking; Trump is at present plastering IT, with muck.

Example? I think you are probably just parroting reactionary diatribe and probably have little or no understanding of the actual executive order or what it is based on. In other words, you are just jumping on a bandwagon, as you have already admitted to doing several times, without any clear understanding of the issue.  I have seen many interviews with these “protesters”; if they can be persuaded to actually speak instead of chanting, screaming, spitting, etc., they more often than not cannot provide any articulate expression beyond something like “stopping the fascist” or “we’re protesting intolerance and racism”. They most often speak by parroting trigger terms, not by expressing any knowledge of the E.O. or why it is unconstitutional or racist.

Seven countries, besides the fact that all of these countries are emotional defalt countries, (Libya, and Iran, stand out), can anyone else, in the ID community see a connecting factor amongst this group of countries?

Yes. They are the exact same seven countries that were put on the Obama administration restricted travel list for the exact same reasons Obama put them on the list the first time.  86% of the world’s Muslim population is entirely unaffected by this ban.

I’ll give you a hint it rhymes with Shmuslim. Is this a religious test of citizenship? Is this constitutional? Should US citizens be worried about Trump’s cavalier approach to the use of the Constitution?

If it was, why would Trump exempt 86% of the world’s Muslim population from the ban?

And worse, he, Trump, is using really effective agit/prop.

Without an example, this is rhetoric and false equivalence.

What we see here is an entirely hypocritical, over-the-top demonization of Trump about his executive order on immigration (a temporary ban on all immigration from 7 countries) by politicians who explicitly agreed with and helped impose travel restrictions on those same countries for the exact same reasons Trump has expressed.  This demonization through use of trigger terminologies (racist, islamophobic, dangerous, unconstitutional, xenophobic, fascist, etc.) and support and encouragement for protests against the Trump and the E.O. cannot rationally be grounded in the nature of the E.O. itself since it is a relatively minor and temporary expansion of the travel restrictions already in place on the exact same 7 countries.

These political leaders and activists must then be simply using this over-the-top, entirely erroneous characterization of the E.O. as a means to gain some political advantage.  In other words, they are cynically misleading parts of the population by characterizing the E.O. as something it factually is not (a religious ban) into demonstrating against it and parroting irrational diatribe against it and Trump and ginning up an increased hysteria against Trump.  People like rvb8 are being used as “useful idiots” to parrot talking points and protest because they are uninformed and misled.

 

 

 

 

28 Replies to “RVB8 Admits To Being A “Useful Idiot”

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, in addition, the pattern of events points to setting a very dangerous precedent of disrespecting the voters and the law, leading to undermining the peaceful transfer of power through an election. This is of course being rationalised by being made out to be defence against a rising fascist tyrant and/or madman comparable to Hitler. Only, little or no warrant is actually provided for such claims, leading to the issue that we must raise the question of one of the most destructive forms of big lie tactics: turnabout projective accusation. As in, reflect this back to the accusers and ask, does this fit? In too many cases, it does. RVB8 et al also need to realise that I am writing in part in memory of an Aunt, murdered through destructive accusations and hysteria that incited violence and called for vigilantism. The very same inciter then came back on radio to blandly deny that this is what she had done. This is not a game, it is street and media theatre yes, but it all too soon leads to horrific real world consequences: blood and tears. Notice, praising punching out “nazis” and how we have already had mob rushing and beatings culminating in started mayhem [someone dived over the victim to protect him from further harm]. We have reportedly had sucker punches with fists loaded with steel wrenches. KF

  2. 2
    News says:

    If only “Useful Idiot” were a rare distinction.

  3. 3
    john_a_designer says:

    What should be of special concern to us is the way the mainstream media in the U.S. has been complicit in fueling the current agit-prop hysteria. Aren’t they supposed to be unbiased and objective? Aren’t they supposed to serve the greater public good?

    The reporting on Trumps EO virtually proves that the MSM have abandoned all pretense of unbiased and objective reporting of the news. Indeed there is a glaring difference between the way they are covering the Trump administration versus the way they covered the Obama administration.

    For example, there have been several times in the last eight years where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) against actions taken by the Obama administration. Here are a few examples:

    In 2012’s Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, DOJ displayed an open hostility to religious freedom by claiming that the federal government had the right, as the Supreme Court termed it, to “interfere” in a church’s employment decisions on the hiring and firing of its ministers and religious teachers.

    The Supreme Court was clearly astounded at the arguments being made by the Justice Department and unanimously rejected it.

    In Sackett v. EPA, the administration tried to prevent a family from defending itself in court and contesting a punitive order from EPA bureaucrats imposing a fine of $75,000 a day for trying to develop a lot in a residential neighborhood which the EPA considered a wetland. The administration lost.

    In US v. Jones, just like in the Riley/Wurie cases, the administration claimed that law enforcement could attach a GPS device to your car without a warrant or even any suspicion of criminal activity.

    The Court unanimously rejected this position and, in a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the administration was trying to invade “privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection…”

    Typically, the Justice Department does very well before the Supreme Court. Holder has made that a losing record…

    Holder and Obama have argued that we as Americans don’t have the right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to due process or the freedom of religion.

    http://nypost.com/2014/07/05/e.....eme-court/

    Does anyone remember the mainstream media reporting on any of this? I don’t– indeed, I didn’t know about a lot of this until recently.

    Please notice the Obama was trying to use his executive power to take away some basic constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. Why wasn’t the MSM outraged and blanketing us with wall-to-wall coverage like they are now doing with Trump? In a free and open society we are not be told about an infringement on our basic constitutional rights?

    So why the double standard? Why the smear campaign against President Trump for enacting constitutional and legal policies based on existing law meant to protect us against the threat of terrorism? These policies are meant to protect the rights of U.S. citizens, not abridge them.

    Maybe, rvb8 could try explaining this to us all.

  4. 4

    If anything, Obama has been the one acting like a fascist dictator for the past 8 years, bypassing congress and using executive order after executive order to implement policies that are clearly contrary to current law; wiretapping reporters they disagree with; using the IRS to hold up processing of tax status applications for conservative groups; using the IRS to bully conservatives; ordering police forces and border patrol to ignore and even break current law; forcing Obamacare into law against the will of the people on a partisan vote; refusing to provide documents as ordered by congress and the courts.

    But, the media largely gave Obama a pass because his ultimate goals were their ultimate goals. They don’t mind fascism as long as it’s their fascism.

  5. 5
    J-Mac says:

    I have to admit I enjoyed challenging Nick Mitzke for a while…Unfortunately, his is apparently busy… and the schedule makes him impossible to answer the basics of the origin of life…

  6. 6
    john_a_designer says:

    Here are a few more facts to keep in mind:

    At National Review, lawyers Andrew McCarthy and Dan McLaughlin wrote about how the orders were legal and not all that much of a departure from Obama’s immigration policy regarding refugees, visas, and national security—though McLaughlin added that he was troubled that the Trump administration was diluting America’s tradition of taking in refugees and granting asylum to those who have been persecuted for a variety of sociopolitical reasons.

    At the same time, he noted that the Obama administration also discriminated against Christian Syrian refugees, ended the wet foot, dry foot policy with Cubans fleeing their communist hell hole, and stopped processing Iraqi visas for six months in 2011. Oh, and some of those visa applicants served as interpreters for the U.S. military and provided intelligence to our forces. But a Democrat was in the White House, and as McLaughlin cited, Cubans are more conservative-leaning voters, therefore not a priority for liberals, nor are persecuted Christians in the Middle East. It’s not worthy of liberal outrage, but now with Republicans back in power—everything is triggering.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/m.....l-n2278378

    Just a few question. Where was the outrage and hysteria on the part of the MSM when Obama:

    >discriminated against Christian Syrian refugees? (Thus allowing genocide of Christian’s to continue unchecked)

    >ended the wet foot, dry foot policy for Cuban refugees? (Ending, without reason, a longstanding U.S. policy)

    >stopped processing Iraqi visas for six months in 2011? (Which is basically equivalent to than Trump’s temporary ban)

    More examples of a double standard? It appears that way to me.

  7. 7

    The ID movement is vibrant, strong and growing. It is not even close to being “dead” as rvb8 alleges. So many recent books and articles prove that point, but I have neither the time nor the desire to cite them here.

    “A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.” Paul Simon (The Boxer)

  8. 8

    rv,

    Donald Trump is careless, opportunistic, and insulting. Just like you. The two of you seem to share as much as you differ.

  9. 9
    rvb8 says:

    UB,

    the title of this post is, ‘RVB8 Admits To Being A ‘Useful Idiot”

    I, and other ID sceptics desperate for some science on this site are often insulted. To return the favour, as I did in the days of Dembski produces sharp retribution. I don’t insult, I do however show pointed disrespect, you interpret that how you will.

    Please don’t compare me to Donald Trump. It’s not his overt rascism that I don’t want to be associated with, although that is sickening in itself, it’s really his willfull ignorance.

    WJM, has attacked a post I made suggesting that some contributors had a poor grasp of the meaning of their own founding documents, I stand by that insinuation.

    WJM, it does not matter if Obama put those seven on his ‘ban’ list, then he was wrong too.

    The countries which are Muslim, and have killed many US citizens, are, Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, ban them, oh wait, Trump and his new Secretary of State have some business connections there; Exon, anyone?

    You see, the real ‘useful idiots’ are those who do not look at the proferred information sceptically, I do! Those seven countries have Muslim fundamentalists, just as the US has a resurgent Klan; whom should I fear most? Actually, living where I do I fear neither, but tell me WJM, which of these two extremist groups is more worrying to you?

  10. 10

    rv, you are not an “ID skeptic”. You’d have to produce a thought to be a skeptic, and you don’t. The remainder of your post is just peeing on the seat. You and Trump are the same thing.

  11. 11
    rvb8 says:

    Heh:)

    Thanks for the insult UB.

    Keep the insults coming, even if you lack the subtlety to see the irony, perhaps others do have nuance.

  12. 12

    Insulting you is as easy as taking a bite out of an apple, rv. Like Trump, you are an orchard.

    I, and other ID sceptics desperate for some science on this site

    In order to synthesize a protein you have to have the means to specify the amino acids that the protein is made of, and then assemble them in their proper order. But no object specifies any other object in the material universe, so to accomplish what has to be accomplished, you’ll first have to have a representation (DNA codon) for each amino acid you need to specify, as well as a set of non-integrable constraints (aaRS) to interpret each of those representations.

    That is referred to as “irreducible complexity”, and it is the very first requirement in biology. Please, do try to say something relevant.

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: 20 terrorist cases among the refugee population: http://www.breitbart.com/big-g.....hot-spots/ KF

  14. 14
    Silver Asiatic says:

    rvb8

    Those seven countries have Muslim fundamentalists, just as the US has a resurgent Klan; whom should I fear most?

    Islamic terrorists vs the KKK? You can’t be serious.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Violent protesters wearing masks and setting bonfires? Is the left turning into an embarrassing modern day version of the now defunct KKK?

    Violent protesters block Berkeley talk by Breitbart editor
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/berkeley-braces-protests-milo-yiannopoulos-talk-222135603.html

    Berkeley riot ‘self-defeating for the social justice left’
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017.....-left.html

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, I speak as a direct witness who has been here for what, a decade now: you and your ilk, for years, have been confronted time and again with scientific evidence, analysis and supportive argument rooted in phil of sci [esp logic and epistemology]. Most recently, several weeks ago, we went back over the underlying statistical thermodynamics considerations, and up to Sunday, I personally put up two key lecture videos as a means of inviting reasonable, responsible discussion: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....cosmology/ and http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/ . Just look at the comments threads to see what happened; you and ilk failed the test yet again. Consistently, you and your ilk have evaded or obfuscated, e.g. the telling significance of trillions of known-origin cases of FSCO/I and have consistently, habitually gone on to the destructive toxic trifecta of fallacies. Namely, red herring distractors, led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominem attacks and set alight rhetorically to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. Now too, to lie is to speak with disregard to truth in hope that what is said or suggested will be perceived as true. I say by right of fair comment and reply to accusation, that above you have lied in order to slander us. You owe an apology and retraction but, predictably, you will not act the gentleman. This reflects the agenda of polarisation and poisoning that you have indulged yet again. Shame on you sir! I suggest you take some time out to reflect and do better. KF

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    Follow-up, some of my recent science-focussed OP’s here at UD, including a hosted one by Dr ES:

    Crick on DNA as text: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....a-as-text/

    Points to ponder in that context: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....h-19-1953/

    Thermodynamics links: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Dr ES: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Hoyle on fine tuning, u/d Walker-Davies: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-as-the-c/

    Collins on fine tuning: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ne-tuning/

    Others do things on science, News keeps us up on new developments and there are sites such as ENV that cover from a different angle.

    This is just to set the record straight in the teeth of drumbeat repetition of a false narrative accusatory talking point.

    As I recall, RVB8 has conspicuously been unwilling or unable to address the science, or the linked epistemology and logic.

    I trust RVB8 and others of like ilk who too often insistently resort to deceitful, accusatory, denigratory talking points and narratives understand — for cause — that some of us understand insistent false accusations to be willful insults to honour.

    I trust the force of this is understood.

    KF

  18. 18
    john_a_designer says:

    Last night someone tweeted out:

    “The media told me if we elected Trump that violent fascist mobs would threaten free speech– and they were right!”

    …with this picture.

    http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm.....eley.1.jpg

    The work of the KKK? No actually, it’s the work of a group of agitators to the left of them– VERY far to the left of them.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/...../97378104/

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    Agit prop in action, complete with big lie blame the target/victim accusations.

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    We have to start asking whether “peaceful protests” that almost predictably cover for riots are part of a good cop bad cop, guerrilla fishes in the ocean of seemingly innocent peasants game. If somehow the violent are not singled out and identified for proper law enforcement, that is a bad sign.

  21. 21
    john_a_designer says:

    On an earlier thread I wrote:

    Trolls and the drive-by interlocutors who show up here never provide anything that is required for a substantive debate because apparently they don’t understand the need to start with factually grounded or even plausibly true premises…

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-624667

    I have yet to see anything from rvb8 that resembles a logically valid argument. Has anyone else?

  22. 22
    Querius says:

    Stage one: Engage in argument. Try to frame the argument so you will win. Appeal to intellect, conscience, and emotion.

    Stage two: Control the narrative. Simply repeat the talking points, libel, slander, make up statistics, lie, and intimidate your opponents. Use megaphones.

    Stage three: Discriminate against and sabotage your opponents. Get them fired. Plaster them with lawsuits. If your opponents retaliate, tearfully claim that you’re a victim of their hatred, and that they trying to deny you your human rights.

    Stage four: Use violence against any remaining opponents to intimidate them. Say you were exercising your free speech rights but were provoked beyond what anyone should have to endure.

    Stage Five: Take control. Ruthlessly oppress, litigate, incarcerate, and assassinate any remaining opponents.

    Stage Six: You did it! You get a huge thank you from your heroic leaders who are finally in charge and have all the power they need to finally get wonderful things done. Then you are arrested and liquidated. Your last thoughts are how unfair life has been.

    Did I miss anything?

    -Q

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, nope, save for the subtler tactics. KF

  24. 24
    rvb8 says:

    Isn’t it the conservative schoolboards in the US that are constantly trying to pass, ‘teach the controversy’, science curriculums, and, ‘fair and balanced’ approaches to Biology in schools: Why only Biology again?

    Scientists themselves loathe ‘fair and balanced’, as science cares nothing for fairness, and less than nothing for balance; It believes facts, experimentation, and rigorous vetting by their peers is what drives science.

    ID must put itself forward and accept this structure, which is flawed, of course. Submitting work to Evolutionnews, the Infometrics Lab (sorry if that’s wrong), or Biologos is, as Kairos so often argues, ‘self referential’.

  25. 25
    Silver Asiatic says:

    rvb8

    Isn’t it the conservative schoolboards in the US that are constantly trying to pass, ‘teach the controversy’, science curriculums, and, ‘fair and balanced’ approaches to Biology in schools: Why only Biology again?

    Because biology has been hijacked by an ideology that is blind to the reality of things as they are.

    But yes, you’re right that ID has to engage with and enter the structure of science as it is. But let’s not forget that this will require a culture-change which ID is working to promote. Science is just a human-activity and thus prone to the kind of biases and prejudices as anything else, and for now, those biases work against ID.

    I don’t like to whine and complain about it, but we can’t ignore what status-quo science is today. ID is hated by some for irrational reasons.

  26. 26

    rvb8 said:

    WJM, has attacked a post I made suggesting that some contributors had a poor grasp of the meaning of their own founding documents, I stand by that insinuation.

    Useful idiots usually do stand by their uninformed views.

    WJM, it does not matter if Obama put those seven on his ‘ban’ list, then he was wrong too.

    You have yet to support this accusation by any reference whatsoever to the constitution or law.

    The countries which are Muslim, and have killed many US citizens, are, Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, ban them, oh wait, Trump and his new Secretary of State have some business connections there; Exon, anyone?

    rvb8, your argument and logic are pathetic. If Trump doesn’t ban those other countries because of his “business connections”, then why didn’t Obama put them on his original list? Did Obama not put them on the list years ago because Trump and Tillerson had business connections?

    As I pointed out in the O.P, the reason those other countries were originally excluded from the list and continue to be excluded is because of deep economic, resource and military ties that we – currently – cannot afford to estrange ourselves from.

    You see, the real ‘useful idiots’ are those who do not look at the proferred information sceptically, I do! Those seven countries have Muslim fundamentalists, just as the US has a resurgent Klan; whom should I fear most? Actually, living where I do I fear neither, but tell me WJM, which of these two extremist groups is more worrying to you?

    From a recent New York Post article:

    The Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish protection group that monitors Klan activity, describes Barker’s Loyal White Knights as the most active Klan group today, but estimates it has no more than 200 members total. The ADL puts total Klan membership nationwide at around 3,000.

    The Alabama-based SPLC says there’s no evidence the Klan is returning to the strength of its heyday. It estimates the Klan has about 190 chapters nationally with no more than 6,000 members total, which would be a mere shadow of its estimated 2 million to 5 million members in the 1920s.

    “The idea of unifying the Klan like it was in the ’20s is a persistent dream of the Klan, but it’s not happening,” Potok said.

    So, at most, I have 6000 KKK members to “worry” about, even though modern KKK members are not committing acts of violence, but rather hold peaceful rallies at rare intervals.

    From objective facts and analysis outlined here

    If the 60% response levels derived from polling data is an accurate reflection of the current state of Islam, then sex and age criteria further reduce Islamic terrorist candidates down to a maximum of one in every seven Muslims – 25% of 60%. That means that no more than 15% of the total Islamic population of 1.2 to 1.5 billion people has the potential to be a terrorist should the opportunity arise. That equates to a minimum of 180 million potential jihadists and a maximum of 225 million.

    But when it comes to actual jihadists, to those who have or will commit an act of terrorism in Allah’s name, my research suggests that they represent no more than one in one hundred of the 180 million young fundamentalist Muslim men prepared mentally, morally, and spiritually to be terrorists. That means that there are 1.8 million actual Islamic jihadists on the planet today – a number which could jump one hundred fold almost instantaneously should the opportunity arise.

    Now, is the KKK funded by terrorist states? Does anything they do on US soil compare to what Islamic terrorists have done in the past 20 years?

    Only an uninformed idiot (or someone deliberately trying to mislead people) would bring up a pathetic “organization” like the KKK as if it posed anywhere near the risk of Islamic jihadism.

    However, neither of those are my top worry when it comes to terrorism; right now, far more worrisome is the domestic terrorism of the fascist left as they openly attack free speech and openly attempt to undermine and remove a democratically-elected administration through violence and threat of violence.

  27. 27
    groovamos says:

    rvb: Isn’t it the conservative schoolboards in the US that are constantly trying to pass, ‘teach the controversy’, science curriculums,

    No actually. It is the state legislatures that would sincerely like to protect teachers from being fired by the likes of you. You know, the kinds of teachers who might like to inform students something like: You know there are quite a few degreed individuals some with Ph.D’s in the life sciences who cannot resist coming onto websites daily to defend Charles Darwin, websites like UncommonDescent and blogs like Darwin’s God. Some of these people watch the blogs on an hourly basis, and you will sometimes see them toss invective and insults at their ideological opponents, as if it were a discussion on philosophy and religion. They can’t help themselves

    See RVB, students might get that there is some real action going down. But that would be for them to see the controversy that you yourself are helping to perpetuate. But for them to see the controversy would be to get the teacher fired in many instances.

    rvb: and, ‘fair and balanced’ approaches to Biology in schools: Why only Biology again?

    No you are confusing it with the incessantly referenced Fox News trope blaming them for making people stupid. And it is not just biology. These laws draw attention to the unfortunate situation of heavy religious, philosphical, and political polemics infecting science in our time. You got a problem with legislators acutely aware of the situation?

  28. 28
    Mung says:

    UPB:

    Donald Trump is careless, opportunistic, and insulting. Just like you. The two of you seem to share as much as you differ.

    But at least Donald Trump has morals. 🙂

Leave a Reply