This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← 1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas

1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas - Comments

LaurenceH86's Avatar Comment 1 by LaurenceH86

I think Edward Sisson is just in it for the money. Typical Lawyer lol

Wed, 28 May 2008 10:53:00 UTC | #176313

TheSwede's Avatar Comment 2 by TheSwede

I can't open the file with firefox.

Anyone got any ideas?

Wed, 28 May 2008 10:54:00 UTC | #176314

RickM's Avatar Comment 3 by RickM

IDers; disgusting, lying bastards.



Swede,

No prob with Firefox here. Just dragged the .rm file to RealPlayer.

Wed, 28 May 2008 11:16:00 UTC | #176319

Pattern Seeker's Avatar Comment 4 by Pattern Seeker

Amazing. Just watched the vid and Barry Lynn destroyed that pseudolawyer Sissy. I can't believe a "reverend" defends our cause here in America so eloquently. Though he may be religious, this man is definitely on our side. Once again, I think this speaks to us non-believers as to how do we find common ground with people like Rev. Lynn to defeat the delusional IDiots.

Wed, 28 May 2008 11:54:00 UTC | #176337

truthcounts's Avatar Comment 5 by truthcounts

I think Rev Lynn does as good a job as any atheist in defense of Evolution. I was impressed. The scientific ignorance of the average American is so embarrassing as seen in the callers questions, it enables the Discovery Institute a voice where there should be none.

I wish they would stop using the term Darwinism. This should be corrected at every pass. It is the theory of evolution... Not "Darwinism".

Wed, 28 May 2008 12:22:00 UTC | #176344

taichi86's Avatar Comment 6 by taichi86

One caller said "Evolutionism". He knows very much about the subject I suppose :-D

Wed, 28 May 2008 12:24:00 UTC | #176345

leviticus's Avatar Comment 7 by leviticus

I hate how this thing logs you out if you take to long to post your comment f***** annoying, and something that should be addressed elsewhere is suppose.

I watch the video and came to the conclusion that nothing new was really discussed. I agree with LaurenceH86 that Edward Sission is either in if for the money or maybe he just wants to undermine the foundations of biology for his only religious reasons and is merely disingenuous about his motives. Again the video is an hour long discussion with the usually group of caller argument about gaps in the fossil record and no real evidence for evolution garbage.

Sission makes the same old pathetic claim that intelligent design does not necessarily postulate the existence of a god. Even if he doesn't not personally hold these beliefs it should be noted that the men who came up with the Intelligent Design movement did infact intend to place not only god but their god into the role of the intelligent designer. This was proven in the Dover trial by Barbara Forest evidence and is discussed in great detail in the her book with Paul R. Gross Creationisms Trojan Horse (a book I'd only recommend for those very interested in Intelligent Designs dirty history, it was very good to me, but some find it too long and dry).

Wed, 28 May 2008 12:39:00 UTC | #176351

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 8 by rod-the-farmer

I too got logged out for being too long listening to the show. Rather interesting, but the fascinating thing to me was that they had separate call-in numbers for the audience. One for Republicans, one for Democrats, and a third for Independents. Gadzooks. This is Dawkins' "muslim child" taken to a new level. I am still shaking my head and chuckling. What possible reason would there be for this ? Suppose a Democrat deliberately or accidentally calls in using the Republican phone number. Does a bolt of lightning strike him down ? Or deaf maybe ? Maybe his membership card is set on fire ? Do they stop him mid-question from asking a "Democrat" type question on the Republican line ? (Shakes head again.) I could NOT make this stuff up, and I have said that SOOOO many times on this site.

Wed, 28 May 2008 13:19:00 UTC | #176363

Severus Snape's Avatar Comment 9 by Severus Snape

LaurenceH86 - Lawyers are paid to represent their clients, so it certainly is typical for lawyers to be "in it for the money." Of course lawyers do pro bono work, but most of the time lawyers get paid for the work they do.

Wed, 28 May 2008 14:08:00 UTC | #176375

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 10 by Dhamma

As much as I dislike that the scientists are theists, they may be the only way to first get americans to accept evolution and eventually drop their ridiculous little belief in a god as well. If you believe in the evolution, I may accept that you believe in deism, but the judeo-christian god is NOT compatible with evolution. If the evolution is true, and god created the world and every animal in only six days, then the bible simply MUST be wrong.

Wed, 28 May 2008 14:16:00 UTC | #176377

swordsbane's Avatar Comment 11 by swordsbane

"What is Intelligent Design?"

"It's not Creationism."

"So what is Intelligent Design?"

"Evolution is wrong."

Yeah.. Nothing new going on here.

Wed, 28 May 2008 14:30:00 UTC | #176378

Geodesic17's Avatar Comment 12 by Geodesic17

I present the following argument from authority:

"How you believe doesn't affect the doctrine. Either at a certain moment in evolution God breathed into one particular ape-man who was Adam, or God could have taken a handful of dust and blowed and created a man just like that" - Billy Graham ("Cooperative Evangelism at Harringay," United Church Observer, July 1966).

Wed, 28 May 2008 14:37:00 UTC | #176379

AoClay's Avatar Comment 13 by AoClay

Rod,
I imagine it is so nobody can complain for a lack of balance. If there are different phone lines, you can make sure to do a fair share so some Billo figure doesn't get angry.
I haven't watched the show so I don't know, but that's my guess.

Wed, 28 May 2008 14:39:00 UTC | #176380

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 14 by Dhamma

Btw, was this really a video? I only got audio, despite running it in the realplayer. I just installed it in Ubuntu, because the others could only playback the audio. But I didn't get any video now either.

Wed, 28 May 2008 15:04:00 UTC | #176385

MuNky82's Avatar Comment 15 by MuNky82

Guide for Windows users:
Go to www.free-codecs.com
Search for "Real Alternative" (left pane under "Tools")
Download and install (Preferably the non-"lite" version)
Run Media Player Classic (bundled with non-"lite")
Drag and drop the rtsp link into it (or copy and paste the link in File>Open File...)

I prefer to use Real Alternative because it is just the bare, reverse engineered, codec. Unlike the bloated application from Real with its annoying background processes and ads. There is a Quicktime Alternative also. Media Player Classic is a great little application if you want a light basic player that handles most audio and video formats, as long as you have the codec.

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:07:00 UTC | #176394

quill's Avatar Comment 16 by quill

Unfortunately, people like this can always defend their use of the term "Darwinism" by pointing out that atheists and "evolutionists" like Dawkins also say "Darwinism" when they're talking about Darwinian theory. It gives them cover.

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:35:00 UTC | #176397

Quine's Avatar Comment 17 by Quine

Unfortunately, people like this can always defend their use of the term "Darwinism" by pointing out that atheists and "evolutionists" like Dawkins also say "Darwinism" when they're talking about Darwinian theory. It gives them cover.


Well, we can stop. I know some think it is pedantic, but again I must insist that vocabulary matters. There is no 'ism involved in the theory of evolution by natural selection. The "teachings" of Darwin have no special status other than what is demonstrably true. These days I try to use "Natural Selection" instead of just "evolution" to make it clear to everyone who is listening that this is the key point. I am no "Darwininist" just as I am no "Popperian" and correct anyone who mischaracterizes me as such.

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:47:00 UTC | #176400

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 18 by Border Collie

Does anyone know how to make RealPlayer not time out every 2-3 minutes? I can't watch this thing. And, yes, I've updated everything.

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:54:00 UTC | #176403

chuckg's Avatar Comment 19 by chuckg

As one caller eluded to, I thought the discussion here was very useful and civil. Rev Lynn did a great job. He made me both proud of and confident in the NCSE specifically, and all us rationalists generally.
For the person having trouble with the video, you need to have Real Player available, as well as Firefox as your browser. My Firefox browser asked me if it was ok to launch the player, so I guess it needs to be told of the link at some point. Real Player is now available on Mac's for free, in a stripped down version.

Wed, 28 May 2008 17:20:00 UTC | #176407

smithsb's Avatar Comment 20 by smithsb

C-SPAN didn't start using separate phone numbers for different party affiliations until the Monica Lewinski situation developed in the 90s, when the number of anti-Clinton callers was way out of proportion to what was reflected in national polls. So the separate phone lines enforce a reasonable balance that would be difficult to achieve if one partisan group decided to launch an assault on the phone lines. Note that these are not toll-free phone numbers. Note also that C-SPAN hosts remain as neutral as possible--but they also leave it up to the callers to ask questions that are almost always more penetrating than anything one is likely to hear on CNN or MSNBC.

Shawn Smith

Wed, 28 May 2008 18:37:00 UTC | #176420

Quine's Avatar Comment 21 by Quine

The calls to C-SPAN showed many of the same problems with general lack of knowledge that have popped up on the radio shows visited by Prof. Dawkins in the last couple of years. At this time RD is writing a new book presenting the evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection which should give us a quick touchstone to answer many of these problems.

Perhaps we could find a university statistics department who would be interested in doing a comprehensive survey of what the public knows, does not know and actually thinks is true about all of this. If we had that data we would know the specific points that need to be addressed to move the public understanding of science along by the most targeted application of resources.

Wed, 28 May 2008 18:49:00 UTC | #176421

Frankus1122's Avatar Comment 22 by Frankus1122

From Quine:

Perhaps we could find a university statistics department who would be interested in doing a comprehensive survey of what the public knows, does not know and actually thinks is true about all of this. If we had that data we would know the specific points that need to be addressed to move the public understanding of science along by the most targeted application of resources.


This is a great idea. Get statistics. Use evidence to focus education.

From Border Collie:

Does anyone know how to make RealPlayer not time out every 2-3 minutes?


As chuckgoecke intimated: get a Mac.


From leviticus:


I hate how this thing logs you out if you take to long to post your comment f***** annoying, and something that should be addressed elsewhere is suppose.


Get in the habit of doing a quick Select All and Copy before you hit send. It works well for me. Unless of course I post something very long and uniquely insightful. Then I forget:(

Wed, 28 May 2008 19:11:00 UTC | #176424

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 23 by mordacious1

Anyone recognize Betty, the crow, who keeps flying behind the rev. Barry Lynn? It would have been great had she bent a wire on camera, but it looks like she was just collecting loose change.

Wed, 28 May 2008 23:01:00 UTC | #176454

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 24 by mordacious1

The phone lines should not be dem. rep. ind. , but rather believers, non-believers, and don't give a crap. Or perhaps, scientists, laymen, morons. They assume that Rep./Dem are divided homogeneously on this topic. They're not.

Wed, 28 May 2008 23:08:00 UTC | #176455

Rachel Holmes's Avatar Comment 25 by Rachel Holmes

Quine,

I thnk that's a great idea.

I'm not sure how much money the RDFRS has, but it might be worth pitching the idea to them.

Wed, 28 May 2008 23:30:00 UTC | #176459

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 26 by mordacious1

One caller: Where's the fossil link between the Brontosaurus and the elephant? WHAT? Brontosaurus? Do you mean Apatosaurus?
That would be one giant leap for elephantkind. The elephant evolved in tiny steps, tiny steps. Over long periods...oh why bother.

Wed, 28 May 2008 23:44:00 UTC | #176462

GoodbyeGodNZ's Avatar Comment 27 by GoodbyeGodNZ

Great stuff Reverend Lynn. I thought I was hearing things to start with. Your whole argument and delivery was just superb. God we've got some amazing people in our camp. The whole religious establishment has every reason to be shitting themselves.

Thu, 29 May 2008 00:26:00 UTC | #176465

Lightnin's Avatar Comment 28 by Lightnin

I can't get it to play *cries*

I did everything MuNky82 said, and it still doesn't work. I guess my only option left is to move to the US.

Thu, 29 May 2008 02:42:00 UTC | #176480

home8896's Avatar Comment 29 by home8896

I just can't take it seriously when I hear someone say "many people have their own definition of [Intelligent Design.]" If you can't even come up with one definition to agree upon, and everyone gets to define it however each person desire, then there's simply nothing to argue about. I mean, if everyone gets to define it their own ways, can I just define it as slow changes in the populations of animal species over time promoted by natural selection? At that point, I just couldn't listen to the ID lawyer seriously anymore.

Thu, 29 May 2008 03:40:00 UTC | #176488

Philster61's Avatar Comment 30 by Philster61

Whats a lawyer doing promoting ID anyway? He isnt a scientist.

Thu, 29 May 2008 04:48:00 UTC | #176498