Not too familiar with our closest living relatives, chimps and bonobos, are you Axeman? Plus, why is sexual dimorphism in other species relevant to us, when our dimorphism is relatively mild, and our society has rendered it irrelevant to boot?

That's just silly. Regardless of what feminism could be to other species. What does its absence among humans (where it has its only presence) imply? That is it was behavior, common among humans until somebody made the argument that it "should not" be the case. The fact is that it was never an empirical argument, and it is understandable from many other social animals, both "silly male" pecking order and male dominance.

So regardless of exactly how it works in neighboring species–no one would argue that the chimp acts exactly like the gorilla or the orangutan–so it's likely that you would see a redistribution over species. I'm still living in a world where the average man is about 4" taller than the average female and manifestly stronger as well. The only way to come to grips with what the natural form of humans are is to look back to how we used to act, until somebody made the argument that we should act other than our innate social behavior, and whether or not they made an empirical argument.

Then the opposite would be true as well, which would mean that design cannot be detected scientifically. If science cannot determine if a mutation was random or intentional, then doesn't that mean that ID can't be science?

Ah, but this is the crux of the matter of 'living matter', isn't it? Is the random qualifier necessary? Does it tell us anything useful about biology or about evolution, or is it ideologically motivated?

…and how the heck can people who believe matter can be 'alive' not see that if it is, it's not the environment doing the causing or the acting?

They're drowning in self-imposed contradictions. I'm just waiting to see if they'll ever grab the life-ring.

Believing in the wisdom of a separation of church and state does not mean promotion of anti-religion by the state.

I agree that the state has no business promoting atheism, which isn't the same thing as teaching evolutionary science.

Then your speculations aren't particularly relevant either, are they?

No, they're not. I've never pretended to be an authority on biological science, and no-one should rely on my opinion about biology.

There is hardly any research into random mutations because science cannot predict or quantify randomness.

Then the opposite would be true as well, which would mean that design cannot be detected scientifically. If science cannot determine if a mutation was random or intentional, then doesn't that mean that ID can't be science?

…there's no point in pretending we don't know what mainstream IDism as promoted by the DI is all about, because its spelled out explicitly in the Wedge Document.

Ancient history. Yes, members of the DI do have serious concerns about the direct linkage of NDS to the materialist metaphysics, as it is used to indoctrinate other people's children in public schools with anti-theistic arguments designed specifically to challenge their religious views. That is not science's job, and it's not public education's job.

Their big mistake was in adopting their enemy's tactics and attempting to do the same thing for specifically religious reasons. And for this, they suffered well-deserved defeat in the courts. This says basically nothing about the relative scientific merits of either NDS or ID, it speaks to motivation. Now that the 'New Atheist' gloves are off and the anti-theistic, evangelistically atheist corruption of science is publicized daily, the next court ruling may not be to EA's liking.

Luckily, while both the EAs and the DI were busy dueling about their metaphysics, textbook publishers finally grew some brain cells and went after their products for biology with a fat blue pencil. If theistic arguments are not allowed in public school science classes, anti-theistic arguments are just as questionable. People are becoming more and more aware that the issue is in fact metaphysical and not scientific. That's a good thing.

And the DI's goal is to use anti-evolutionism as part of an effort to defeat progressives politically. And progressives have the right to speak, assemble, practice and petition as well.

The political tide has finally turned. That's a good thing too, and I expect that the GOP has suffered enough damage by its own excesses that it'll be at least a couple of decades before they've cleaned up their act well enough to try again. I also expect that the next administration will enforce laws that have been abused with impunity for the previous 8 years. Like laws against preachers telling congregants from the pulpit how they must vote.

But don't fool yourself into believing progressives are exclusively or even predominantly atheists. Believing in the wisdom of a separation of church and state does not mean promotion of anti-religion by the state.

Thats true, but last year progressives did a pretty good job of kicking some right-wing butt, particularly of the creationist variety.

I'd really like to believe it's because the cats finally stopped toking the bong long enough to get to the polls, but I suspect much more strongly that previous supporters stayed home in droves rather than reaffirm rampant corruption and insane foreign policies. 'The Base' was never more than 30% - the GOP lost the middle 40% by being arrogant crooks and liars.

I know thats not why you are an IDist Joy, but your motives for posting your speculations aren't particularly relevant, since you are just having some fun on internet message boards, like so many of us.

Then your speculations aren't particularly relevant either, are they?

I already pointed out that the existence of thousands of scientists publishing biological research based on evolutionary theory for the last several decades puts a lie to such a claim. You can sell that line of bull to the church choir, but noone else is buying it.

None of the contributors here denies that evolution happened. Most of the research you cite is related to evolutionary theory only in so far as it assumes the same thing. There is hardly any research into random mutations because science cannot predict or quantify randomness. All it can do is state the assumption that this gene appeared at random. Assumptions are not research.

And telling tales about how the leopard got his spots is just storytelling about the primary assumption that all biological phenomena came about by environmental imposition. Again, assumptions are not research.

It's when the assumptions are exempted from critical examination by force of law, in an environment where their metaphysical nature is promoted to conscripted children as some sort of Absolute Truth [TM] that the enterprise becomes highly questionable. Now that the NAM [New Atheist Movement] has acted to make metaphysics the sole point of contention, things have been thrust firmly into the political arena.

Appeals to scientific authority don't work as well in that arena as they do in public education. Because now you're dealing with adults who can vote, and counter-propaganda you can't silence by force of law.

Definitions of this war change so fast! We're on a Jihad for Oil? Or is it a Holy Campaign for Haliburton (and suddenly NOT cheap oil)? Or is it a Holy Vengeance against Threats Made Against the President's Daddy?

I never bought the notion that this war was about oil. Pragmatically, Saddam would have gladly sold us all the oil we could buy, and it would have been a lot less expensive than invading and occupying Iraq. I think Dubya's religious beliefs are sincere, that he really thinks he has been ordained by God to save civilization. Plus, these people have the mindset that they can dictate what reality is (as a Bush administration official said "create our own facts"). That is also classic IDism; because a biological structure looks designed to them, they can infer it was designed.

And what does "feminism" mean in a member of the order of Primates known for sexual dimorphism and prevalent dominance of males over females in primate societies? Let's be fully materialistic about this, shall we? Let's not half-ass, it shall we?

Not too familiar with our closest living relatives, chimps and bonobos, are you Axeman? Plus, why is sexual dimorphism in other species relevant to us, when our dimorphism is relatively mild, and our society has rendered it irrelevant to boot?

Why are we having this discussion?

If I had boldly said "There is plenty of evidence that the United States is already a socialist country" would it prompt the same sort of reaction?

I would rather talk about "concepts [that] have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides." Because it continues to be my "…hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation." (From TT's About Us)

I have made is clear that I think most of the leaders of the ID Movement are actively attempting to motivate the religious masses in reclaiming possession of the one and only Truth. I hope my reasons for disapproval are equally clear. However, arguing about a supposedly unrelated subject rectifies nothing.

Therefore, I have earnestly been working towards an ID proposal that I can personally embrace and defend. It, or something like it, could be the common ground that would make our religious differences moot.

I recognize many TTers do not share in the motivation of the ID leaders, and as long as they continue to think for themselves and resist joining the populous "movement", I will encourage such activities. In addition to this, I offer myself as a useful tool in helping differentiate between wishful thinking and logically rigorous ideas. I do this with the clear intent of…

Provoking Independent Thought

Wait. Definitions of this war change so fast! We're on a Jihad for Oil? Or is it a Holy Campaign for Haliburton (and suddenly NOT cheap oil)? Or is it a Holy Vengeance against Threats Made Against the President's Daddy?

How often will the definition of the war change? And where can I find a timetable to keep me abreast of whatever the prevailing definition is now? Did the Congress vote for a "War for Jesus" and I missed it?

And what does "feminism" mean in a member of the order of Primates known for sexual dimorphism and prevalent dominance of males over females in primate societies? Let's be fully materialistic about this, shall we? Let's not half-ass, it shall we?

You ask, "If America actually became a theocracy, how would we tell the difference?"

Well, let's see. For starters, abortion would be illegal, divorce would be very difficult to obtain, pornography would be largely underground, movies would have no sex in them, school kids would say prayers in the classroom and, oh, never mind, that just gets us to the 1950s.

Anyway, don't forget that every July 4th is Theocracy Free Day. Perhaps this year I'll try to see if other blogs are interested in celebrating this year.

It was YOU who said that support for ID is equivalent to rejection of Constitutional rights and illegal wars of aggression. You can't be talking about me, because that's not my position.

I'm not sure why I have to keep saying that I know everyone interested in IDism doesn't buy into the complete worldview of the DI, the GOP and its allies. But there's no point in pretending we don't know what mainstream IDism as promoted by the DI is all about, because its spelled out explicitly in the Wedge Document.

You say "IDism" (whatever that is) and the DI must be "defeated politically," then claim you're not trying to use politics to abrogate anybody's Constitutional rights. Last I checked, citizens in this country can believe whatever they wish about metaphysical things, and about biology if they care to believe anything at all. And speak, assemble, practice and petition.

Of course they can. And the DI's goal is to use anti-evolutionism as part of an effort to defeat progressives politically. And progressives have the right to speak, assemble, practice and petition as well.

In my experience progressives talk big, but often get distracted on election day. The religious right, on the other hand, is good at motivating "the base" to actually do their civic duty. This is the difference between herding sheep and herding cats.

Thats true, but last year progressives did a pretty good job of kicking some right-wing butt, particularly of the creationist variety.

If some ID supporters are Republicans, that doesn't say anything about ID except that some Republicans like it. So do some Democrats, some Independents, and some Libertarians. So what?

Have you read the wedge document? Its not a matter that some IDists happen to be Republicans; its a matter that the most prominent organization promoting IDism does so for the express purpose of supporting an extreme right-wing agenda. I know thats not why you are an IDist Joy, but your motives for posting your speculations aren't particularly relevant, since you are just having some fun on internet message boards, like so many of us.

If your complaint is valid, then ID supporters could claim NDS is a Socialist hard-left political propaganda ploy, and it would be every bit as valid as yours. Why would you wish to go there?

I already pointed out that the existence of thousands of scientists publishing biological research based on evolutionary theory for the last several decades puts a lie to such a claim. You can sell that line of bull to the church choir, but noone else is buying it.