News -> Pooyie!

Pooyie 06.22.2011

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Written by The Independent Staff

C’EST BON
We’ll never know just how critical a role he played, but U.S. Sen. David Vitter certainly sufficiently pressured the SEC to make a determination on whether victims of Allen Stanford’s alleged Ponzi scheme are entitled to insurance coverage. The long-awaited recommendation came after a two-year battle that started with a Securities Investor Protection Corp. opinion that Stanford victims were not eligible to file claims. It also came a day after Vitter put a hold on two SEC member nominations. In its decision, the SEC said people who bought so-called CDs through the Stanford Group Co., Stanford’s U.S. brokerage arm, are entitled to the insurance; the SIPC says it’s studying the decision. Those who lost money can only recover up to $500,000 of their investment (unrecoverable is the interest most paid taxes on for years), which won’t make all local investors whole, but it’s a start to rebuilding their financial futures. Though its recommendation is a major victory for Stanford victims, the SEC’s Stanford problems are far from over, as local investors have sued the regulatory agency, alleging negligence and misconduct.

PAS BON
When Louisiana Family Forum backs a bill, be afraid — be very afraid. Joining a long list of bait-and-switch legislation, led by the granddaddy of them all — the Louisiana Science Education Act — is House Bill 580 by West Monroe Republican and avowed proponent of “academic freedom” for creationists Frank Hoffman. HB 580 neuters the state Board of Elementary & Secondary Education in its oversight role for vetting textbooks in public-school science classes, giving over authority for such purchases to local school boards and, consequently, opening the door for pseudo-scientific claptrap like Intelligent Design filtering into the curriculum. The Louisiana Coalition for Science and other groups have come out strongly against the bill, which sailed through the House with all of Lafayette Parish’s reps voting in favor. As The Ind headed to press Monday the bill was scheduled to be heard by the full Senate. By this reading it has likely passed and is headed to Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has a biology degree yet, as we unfortunately know, holds his political base in higher esteem than he does the basics of mainstream science.

COUILLON
Maybe the best argument for evolution and its quirks is U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who believes Intelligent Design — that’s creationism in a lab coat, kids — should be taught alongside evolution because, well, just because and Obama’s bad, America first, bomb Iran, hotdogs and apple pie. Bachman made an off-hand reference to Nobel laureates having doubts about evolution in 2006, a claim challenged by recent Louisiana high school graduate Zack Kopplin, leader of the doomed charge to repeal the LSEA in the legislative session and a top-notch student who, not coincidentally, will attend college outside Louisiana this fall. More than 40 Nobel laureates — all of them in the sciences — signed on to Kopplin’s mission to repeal the LSEA. The outspoken Tea Party fave was in New Orleans last week for the 2011 Republican Leadership Conference, and Gambit Editor Kevin Allman asked Bachman to enumerate her Nobel ringers on the anti-evolution side. Bachmann cited “reasonable doubt” in the evolution debate before rolling into a rambling answer involving “government bureaucracy,” states’ rights and block grants. What she didn’t do was answer Allman’s question.



Comments (16)add
...
written by ragin_cajun , June 22, 2011 - 03:28 pm
I literally could NOT care less about the ID/Evolution debate.....and I don't go around with a list of Nobel Prize winners in my head in case some rabid leftist challenges me on this whole stupid issue....BUT...Albert Einstein does cone to mind..."God does not play dice"...
...
written by Rabid Realist , June 22, 2011 - 09:18 pm
The real question is: can you name a single scientist or author of books promoting "Intelligent Design" that isn't a senior fellow of the hyper-conservative political lobbying organization The Discovery Institute? Meyer, Behe, Wells, Dembski, Denton... all the big names are officers of the same little organization behind a nondescript steel dorr in Seattle. Doesn't that trigger a warning for anybody? It's like in the 60s, when the only scientists claiming smoking was healthy worked for tobacco companies. Intelligent Design is a marketing campaign, and a good one too considering how many people think that Intelligent Design has something to do with science. Interesting that the Discovery Institute is funded by hyper-conservative Christian creationists who don't give a rodent's rear about science.

Don't take my word for it - google the names above as well as "Wedge Strategy", "Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr." for yourself.
...
written by ragin_cajun , June 23, 2011 - 11:13 am
" Bachman made an off-hand reference to Nobel laureates having doubts about evolution in 2006, a claim challenged by recent Louisiana high school graduate"

Actually, this line states "the real question". I think public discussion of issues like this would be greatly improved if we could have the discipline to discuss one thing at a time. It seems every comment here is either expanding or changing the entire debate.

Einstein is a giant in the pantheon of Nobel Prize winners. He obviously thought, and publicly stated, that there was some order to the universe that could not be explained entirely by biological evolution.

Is that not what the high schooler and the editor asked the politician? I have an answer.


...
written by Rabid Realist , June 23, 2011 - 09:40 pm
OK, if you want to engage - Einstein was talking quantum mechanics, not about evolution. That was your connection, not his.

"Intelligent Design" as promoted as an alternative to biological evolution, with its concepts of "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" has nothing to do with quantum physics. By definition, ID says a supernatural designer intervened in the natural mechanisms of chemistry and biology to explicitly make DNA, to make certain features like the bacterial flagellum.

Now, let's see what Einstein thought of a god that tinkers with nature: "The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events — provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion." He believed so strongly in causation in nature that he rejected the concept of human free will.

Too bad we can't ask ol' Albert whether he accepts that all live on Earth, including humans, evolved through natural means. Because if we could ask him, I'd bet you a LOT of money on his answer.
...
written by ragin_cajun , June 24, 2011 - 12:12 pm
Einstein was also wrong about quantum mechanics. How about George Wald?


...
written by ragin_cajun , June 24, 2011 - 04:35 pm
Also Arthur Compton....
...
written by reader , June 25, 2011 - 01:46 pm
"Intelligent Design" is the creation of pagan Aristotle.
...
written by Resident , June 27, 2011 - 05:29 pm
Hehe, late to the comments here but Rabid Realist certainly sewed that one up.
...
written by Dudley E. LaBauve, III , June 27, 2011 - 06:59 pm
If the majority of the public wants/does not want 'intelligent design' to be taught alongside 'evolution,' then, so be it. Maybe each state, or each school district can just vote on it every few years. I assure you, the textbook publishers will have the book you need. The rest is up to the parents to explain their position to their kids.
...
written by ragin_cajun , June 28, 2011 - 01:56 pm
Also, Charles Townes. I like his take on the whole debate a lot.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml

...
written by Resident , June 28, 2011 - 02:20 pm
Dudley, if the majority of the public wants to teach bloodletting as an alternative to cancer treatment, would that be OK? Or teach that a black hole is a concentration of the devil's power, instead of a super-compact mass? Or how about shifting continents being a result of a 40 day flood, instead of plate tectonics?

Point is, we have fields of knowledge that are built over decades and centuries by experts who dedicate themselves to that particular field of knowledge. The principles that are taught in the classroom should be formed by experts in the field. Subjecting major foundations of science to "a public vote" would be asinine.
...
written by ragin_cajun , June 28, 2011 - 06:03 pm
"Subjecting major foundations of science to "a public vote" would be asinine. "

Yep. Unlimmited democracy leads to tyrrany and chaos. Framers of the Constitution were terrified of that.
...
written by Dudley E. LaBauve, III , June 30, 2011 - 08:41 pm
Hey 'Resident,' you're exaggerating, and 'Rajun Cajun,' I don't think allowing the board of a school district or the Representatives of a state to vote on whether or not to teach or not teach intelligent design alongside evolution will lead to tyranny and chaos. By 'public vote' I mean via the current system of representation. Maybe I should have clarified. Besides, the issue was whether or not to include the Theory of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution, not a vote on deciding which one would be taught. Chill!
...
written by Resident , July 02, 2011 - 01:42 am
Dudley, putting capital letters on "theory of intelligent design" does not make it any more legitimate. It's not a theory. ID has been shown to be unscientific; its premise of "irreducible complexity" has no scientific basis. Therefore it cannot and should not be taught in the science classroom. Proponents are trying to circumvent this fact by going through the legislature and appealing to fervent Christians with pretzel logic.
...
written by Tom_Li , July 05, 2011 - 05:14 am
@ragin_cajun
When I read down there in the interview, I found Prof. Townes said "People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view."
...
written by db , July 11, 2011 - 02:25 pm
First, Einstein's quote was not about evolution or intelligent design. It was about quantum mechanics. Not that it is at all relevant, but it turned out that he was wrong on that count, as he eventually admitted.

Second, the only nobel laureates you should cite to on this issue are biologists & biochemists. Physicists don't know much about anything except physics.

Third, I love it when people who know nothing about science act like they do, so please continue with your postings!
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
Advertisement

Read the Flipping Paper!

Click Here for the Entire Print Version of
IND Monthly
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it