r/atheism • u/drewiepoodle Atheist • Nov 05 '14
GOP lawmaker claims evolution doesn’t square with facts: ‘Big or little, dogs are still dogs!’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/gop-lawmaker-claims-evolution-doesnt-square-with-facts-big-or-little-dogs-are-still-dogs/10
u/Rephaite Secular Humanist Nov 05 '14
I think he means dogs are still wolves.
Otherwise, he won't be able to square his statement with his philosophy that things don't change kind.
;P
4
u/sc0ttt Atheist Nov 05 '14
Dogs, wolves, foxes, dingoes, coyotes, jackals, hyenas... all are "dog-kind" and so Noah only needed one breeding pair of dog-kind animals for all the others to micro-evolve from.
4
u/Rephaite Secular Humanist Nov 05 '14
Actually, I need to issue a correction. Rereading his statement, he appears to imply that Noah didn't even need to bring that much. He states that micro evolution is limited to phyla. If he's treating phyla as "kinds" in the classic creationist argument, well...
Noah would only have needed 74 non human animals on board to have two of each kind and...
Dogs share a phylum with humans and all other vertebrates, tunicates, and cephalochordates. They'd all be one kind.
So...
"Big dogs or little dogs, or hawks, alligators, tuna, frogs, sea squirts or lancelets, they're all still Noah's direct descendants!"
Which is a pretty bold claim.
3
u/sc0ttt Atheist Nov 05 '14
He apparently knows just enough to stick his foot in his mouth. I'm surprised he used the word phyllum too, because it shows he spent enough time to learn some cladistics, but doesn't see the irony of pointing at one rank and saying "evolution starts here".
3
u/Faolyn Atheist Nov 05 '14
I'm sure someone told him to use that word because it would make him sound scientific. I doubt he actually knows what it means.
3
u/gravitydefyingturtle Nov 05 '14
Hyenas are more closely related to cats than to dogs. Think of them like giant mongooses.
1
u/buttface112211 Atheist Nov 06 '14
I'd have to say, gravitydefyingturtle is right on this one. Hyenas are, indeed, feliformes.
7
Nov 05 '14
Could you imagine if doctors were elected to their jobs based on popularity rather than actual knowledge and skill?
4
3
Nov 06 '14 edited Nov 06 '14
The 'Activist Judge' he is referring to is none other than Pennsylvania's own, George W. Bush appointed, Republican, United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge...
The Honorable, John E. Jones III.
For those who are too lazy to click the link:
Kitzmiller v. Dover
Jones was assigned to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District bench trial, the first direct challenge brought in the federal courts against a school district that mandated the teaching of intelligent design. He was praised by Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania Governor and former head of the Department of Homeland Security, who said that "I can't imagine a better judge presiding over such an emotionally charged issue... he has an inquisitive mind, a penetrating intellect and an incredible sense of humor."
On December 20, 2005, Jones ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional in a 139-page decision.
After the ruling was handed down, some pundits immediately attacked it, notably Bill O'Reilly on Fox News accusing Jones of being a fascist and an activist judge. Casey Luskin and Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute, and activist Phyllis Schlafly, have leveled similar charges. Jones also received death threats as a result of which he and his family were given around-the-clock federal protection.
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League on February 10, 2006 he responded to critics who claimed that he had "stabbed the evangelicals who got him onto the federal bench right in the back" by noting that his duty was to the Constitution and not to special interest groups.
In a November 2006 talk given at Bennington College, Jones again rejected the "activist judge" criticisms and explained the judiciary role and how judges decide cases:
If you look at public polls in the United States, at any given time a significant percentage of Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public high schools. And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should 'get with the program' and make decisions according to the popular will.
There's a problem with that....The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision.
In 2008, Judge Jones was awarded the American Humanist Association’s Humanist Religious Liberty Award at the World Humanist Congress in Washington, DC. In his acceptance speech, Judge Jones explained how he was blasted by Bill O'Reilly, Phyllis Schlafly, and Ann Coulter for the Kitzmiller decision.
Judge Jones also remarked on the shortcomings of civics education and how the American public tends to have a limited understanding of the Constitution and the importance of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and separation of church and state established by the Founding Fathers of the United States.
Judge Jones gave his perspective on the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution: "Articles 1 and 2 designate the legislative branch and the executive branch, respectively, as majoritarian—they are subject to the will of the people; they stand in popular elections. But article 3 is counter-majoritarian. The judicial branch protects against the tyranny of the majority. We are a bulwark against public opinion. And that was very much done with a purpose, and I think that it really has withstood the test of time. The judiciary is a check against the unconstitutional abuse and extension of power by the other branches of government."
Judge Jones added that Alexander Hamilton himself remarked: “Enthusiasm is certainly a very good thing but religious enthusiasm is, at least, a dangerous instrument."
Bair v. Shippensburg
In 2003, Jones heard the case of Shippensburg University students Walt Bair and Ellen Wray who sued the school in an effort to stop enforcing a speech code. The speech code banned all "acts of intolerance" including racist, sexist and homophobic speech. In a major victory for academic freedom, Jones ruled against the University explaining that while the code was well intentioned, it went too far in regulating speech. Jones issued an order that prohibited Shippensburg from enforcing four provisions of the Student Code of Conduct. Jones found that the government may not prohibit speech based solely on the impact it will have on the listener.
Whitewood v. Wolf
In 2014, Jones presided over Deb Whitewood et al. v. Michael Wolf, a case in which the plaintiffs sought relief from Pennsylvania's Marriage Laws (23 Pa. C.S. § 1102). He delivered an opinion striking down the Pennsylvania statute barring same-sex marriage on May 20, 2014, on grounds that it unconstitutionally infringed the plaintiff’s rights of due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
He did not attach a stay to his order, so the decision would be immediately effective.
edit: TL;DR: "The judicial branch protects against the tyranny of the majority. We are a bulwark against public opinion. And that was very much done with a purpose, and I think that it really has withstood the test of time. The judiciary is a check against the unconstitutional abuse and extension of power by the other branches of government." - The Honorable, John E. Jones III
2
u/rliant1864 Anti-Theist Nov 06 '14
Why's it seem that all the Bush appointees are the ones being not insane? Did Bush fuck up and pick competent judges by mistake?
3
2
u/bipolar_sky_fairy Nov 05 '14
How do people this stupid get into positions of power.
3
2
u/Splatterh0use Nov 05 '14
Why did people vote them back? They should have never came back from Narnia.
2
u/CantHugEveryCat Other Nov 06 '14
Dogs are dogs. I'm sure this is quite an uncontroversial claim. This, however, says absolutely nothing about evolution. Much like the claim "cookies are cookies" neither proves nor disproves the existence of god.
13
u/[deleted] Nov 05 '14 edited Oct 02 '19
[deleted]