CNN's Lou Dobbs offered his own "facts" on evolution

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505130008

During a debate on "the origin of life," CNN host Lou Dobbs stated on his own authority: "The fact is that evolution, Darwinism, is not a fully explained or completely rigorous and defined science that has testable results within it." The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which advises the federal government on "scientific and technical matters," disagrees with Dobbs' "facts" about evolution.

The NAS considers evolution "the central unifying concept of biology" and "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have." The academy's 1999 book Science and Creationism (National Academies Press, 1999) further states:

Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by scientists turn out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or experiments. Yet many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence.

The theory of evolution is one of these well-established explanations. An enormous amount of scientific investigation since the mid-19th century has converted early ideas about evolution proposed by Darwin and others into a strong and well-supported theory. Today, evolution is an extremely active field of research, with an abundance of new discoveries that are continually increasing our understanding of how evolution occurs.

NAS is comprised of 2,000 members and 350 foreign associates, including more than 190 Nobel Prize winners.

What are they hoping to achieve by getting evolution out of the schools?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

What are they hoping to achieve by getting evolution out of the schools?

Muslim states.

See people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who use religion for their own money making etc. They want to destroy the government and everything.

At least that's the motivation of many of the folks in the trenches. But in the tinfoil lobe of my brain, I've been speculating about whether this isn't just another tactic to weaken our public schools to the point where they can be done away with.

they don't care as long as it starts divisiveness.

Lou is not ideological, but he is egotistical. I imagine he thought his opinion is as good as any old scientist about it.

He is wrong. Science doesn't work that way; it's not "opinion" that's how it differs from religion. Science devises ways to be sure, not merely hopeful.

if everything is faith-based they don't have to pay for it through the government etc. If the faith-based programs pay for it more money for their pockets. It's really all about money. In their pocket. They don't care either way about what happens with this. They'll go along with it as long as they can make money. Here in my town there are a few Christian schools that kids can easily go to. At my church basically every kid goes to a local Christian school and they have Biblical classes there along with all the others and stuff. These people are all really selfish in my opinion. All they care about is their ideals and beliefs. With Christianity there are many branches. We can't even follow the Bible and be a whole true church so if they do have religion back in schools who's going to teach it? Catholics? Baptists? Methodists? I mean: c'mon. These people need to fase reality. What about the only athiest in class? What is he supposed to do for school? Or what about the only Jew or Muslim? They claim ID isn't for religious purposes and to debate ideas. Uh what? ID is the belief a Creator did everything. How can you prove it to an athiest?

science and critical thinking ... because its policies wouldn't stand up if they were exposed to logical scientific criticism.

than the concept of "god" can ever be.
It appears that most humans have a mental process that requires some sort of god entity and when that concept is threatened, the individual, himself, feels threatened.
If evolution is allowed to become transcendent, as a science, over creationism, the concept of "god" as the source of everything is threatened and, by extension, the believer's own survival is threatened.
Because of this, apparently, necessary requirement for a god creature, I have no real objection to religion being taught in schools, as demanded by each local area, providing that it is taught as a strictly optional, "religious studies" program, not as science, which it definitively is not.

I believe in God and go to church every week. I believe that God created the universe and created the world. And I don't see evolution as conflicting with those beliefs. I don't know how God created the universe; the exact mechanisms involved - but it wouldn't surprise me to find out it was largely through natural processes.

then it's not a big issue. Thank you for pointing that out! It is those who see a huge conflict who actually see the possibility of their "god made in the image of themselves," with all their petty vindictiveness intact, as coming up the loser in their self-created battle between science and their own "religion."

The 'fundamentalist' perspective rests upon an extraordinarily egocentric view of all of existence. In their view, mankind (for which they are the anointed spokespersons) is the sole beneficiary of all of Creation. Indeed, God "made man in His image" -- and that's TODAY'S version of "man," not some past ape-like "man" or some future evolved "man" but today's slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging, spittle-festooned, maggot-infested "man." It's the narcissistic, self-centered perspective of an infant, "inventing" the Universe anew with each discovery of feces in his diaper and booger in his nose.

There is absolutely no room whatsoever in the 'fundamentalist' perspective to regard today's humanity as God's "work in progress." In their view, THEY ARE THE FINAL, PERFECT PRODUCT: God's raison d'etre. Man does not exist to serve God; God exists solely to Create Man - the Inheritor (tax-free, of course) of all Creation.

don't evolve either. What a numbskull.

because they have a desk in front of a camera??? What does the scientist Lou Dobbs wants us to believe in? Alchemy and creationism? I am not going to do that, will not allow it and will make sure my son learns science even if it takes homeschooling ( aghast!!!)

like me to read to them from it, and explain the pictures. I want them to understand what science is really all about, before some creationist gets to them. (Remember, we live in Kansas, so that's not just paranoia talking.)

is something you have to do at home, to inoculate them against the loonies ... that's not a good thing. (These are things I'd talk about with them, anyway, but I see it as more urgent now.)

What an ass. :eyes:

At first he could not bring himself to believe in evolution, but in time he found it to be undeniable.

I wish he'd addressed that more. It might have helped future generations.

my favorite cartoonists Rex Babin.

:rofl:

They all say that. I've talked with people about this who all say that. It's like a talking point or something. :eyes: And they claim that scientist's don't stand by it either and a lot of them are religious (and that means what?).

as news and not try to sway his mindless audience to his beliefs.

This is the main reason why I pay no attention this crafty shill for junior.

he used to say on Crossfire that evolution was "just" a theory. Someone needs to tell him that gravity is just a theory as well.

Lou Dobbs is an ass-clown.

That really burned me up.

with a mind of it's own.

and it's amusing when he tries to read off the teleprompter as if he had never seen the words before. pauses and stumbles and weird emphasis.

who wouldnt know science if it bit him on the ass.