Focus(J. Dobson)Pleased by Retraction of False Statements by Evolution

[RedEarth]

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Aug. 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Focus on the Family expressed satisfaction today at the retraction by a leading Darwinist advocate of potentially libelous comments about an Intelligent Design proponent. Mark Hartwig, the ministry's social research analyst for the origins controversy, said, "This admission is only the latest example of the disregard for scientific fact and a long-running campaign of personal attacks on the part of those bent on mandating an evolution-only policy for our children's education."

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, an evolution-advocacy group, has admitted to several errors contained in an article she wrote accusing California attorney Larry Caldwell of attempting to introduce books advocating Creationism into a public high school and attacking his credibility.

"This is a rare, and certainly begrudging, concession from one of Darwinism's leading advocates to a practice that is actually quite commonplace: the use of bad facts and bad science to prop up an intellectually bankrupt education policy," Hartwig said.

Intelligent Design is the view that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are detectable through observation and scientific inquiry. Scott's admission came only after Caldwell, the president of Quality Science Education for All and an advocate of teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution, filed a libel lawsuit against her.

"Driven by an underlying worldview that does not allow for any type of 'intelligent designer,' those who advocate evolutionary theory are dead-set against America's students hearing more than one narrow perspective, and use any means at their disposal to suppress those whose views differ from their own," Hartwig continued.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=51283

[ewagner]

1. Darwinism wasn't retracted

just statements an advocate of Darwinism said about a Creationist....

they're going to play this for everything it's worth though////

[54anickel]

3. Know of any articles that get into what was retracted? This is simply

a press release.

[meganmonkey]

2. God, do these people just NOT get it!!!!

Science is different from Theology.

Scientific Theoery uses the Scientific method. Theology is something completely different. Acknowledging that some things can't be explained by science does not mean that religious explanations belong in science classes.

Aaaarrrgghh!!!!

[mzteris]

4. "newswire"

Self-promotion "news" only. If it's there, it's suspect.

"U.S. Newswire launches www.usnewswire.com, becoming the first national news release wire services to make client news releases available via the Internet."

Same thing with PR web.

These are favorites of the fundie/conservative crowd. They can write ANYTHING, submit it and it gets put out as "NEWS"!! Then the ijuts believe it 'cause it was "in the news". :banghead:

[Kraklen]

5. Looks like it's this.

http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/2005summer/stories/letters.html

[RageFist]

6. intelligent design sucks...

because it facilitates intellectual laziness. The eye seems to complex to have evolved because we haven't filled in all of the pieces. There is, however, evidence to suggest that early eyes started in jellyfish, who use light to communicate. Rather than attempting to work this out, ID says g*d had a plan and he knows what an eye is and how it should work, hence the name.

[Kraklen]

7. The evolution of the eye is well understood.

Has been for decades. No reason for this "there is evidence to suggest" nonsense.

Dobson is the leader of an officially declared hate group and just goes to show you what Creationism is all about.

[RageFist]

12. Maybe I've the wrong impression...

but I was reading in Nature science journal that opponents of evolution use that argument all the time, and they also ran an article talking about how jellyfish could provide the "Missing link" we need for the evolution of the eye.

[Kraklen]

13. Yes, Creationists use that argument all the time.

Creationists are notorious for using arguments that have been debunked for decades.

I suspect Nature was using it as a lead-in for their article on jellyfish.

[RageFist]

17. Thank you...

this just goes to show that educating yourself a little bit will teach how much you don't know, which is the case for me :)

[wryter2000]

16. Their argument that kills me...

"If evolution happened, where are all the fossils?"

How many multi-million year old bones to they think we're going to find? It's astonishing we have as many as we have.

I always want to ask "How much of your grandmother's china can you find?" If they're like me, they have a few pieces, and that china is less than 100 years old.

[krkaufman]

11. Intelligent Design is simply Ignorance by Design. n/t

[powwowdancer]

18. BINGO!!

There's nothing intelligent about intelligent design, and it is most certainly NOT, by any definition of the word, either science, or a theory. It's "faith-based" wishful thinking promulgated by a bunch of bass-ackward mental midgets, predicated upon a serious case of intellect envy. Too bad their head honcho was allowed to hi-jack the whitehouse. Someone needs to tell these twits to be stupid on their own time, but instead, we've got one of the dopiest of their legion poised like Forrest Gump's evil doppelganger, with his finger twitchin' on "the button." Can you say, "Kleptocratic Oligarchy?" Neither can the current despotic junta of kleptocratic oligarchs. But then, evil never has to be intelligent or ugly; it has only to be CERTAIN beyond a shadow of a doubt. FEAR THEM!

:dem:
powwowdancer out

[bspence]

8. Looks like they're full of crap too

The article looks like this scientist retract what he said about Intelligent Design, but he only said that there were some errors in his reporting. Things like:

1. Getting a date wrong
2. He had the wrong person who submitted books to a library
3. Mischaracterizing a person's antievolution stances

There's nothing here to say that the scientist was wrong about intelligent design or anything. What bastards for them to make up a story like this. It's so misleading. Plus, they tried to sue the author, no doubt just to make some free press.

These people are scumbags.

[wryter2000]

14. Actually, she's a she

Eugenie Scott. I love her. :loveya:

[Ian David]

9. Here's more (warning: from right-wing fundie source WorldNut Daily)

From WorldNut Daily:

EVOLUTION WATCH
Darwin defender retracts accusations
Eugenie Scott responds to lawsuit by parent-activist
Posted: July 26, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

<snip>


In a lawsuit filed against Scott and her Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education in April, Caldwell had claimed that Scott's article, entitled "In My Backyard: Creationism in California," contained numerous factual misstatements and libeled him in an effort to discredit efforts to promote his "Quality Science Education" policy. Calwell's aim is to include some of the scientific weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution in biology classes, without introducing religious content.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the legal action stems from Caldwell's civil-rights lawsuit in federal court against the Roseville Joint Union High School District and school officials in Sacramento, Calif., alleging his constitutional rights to free speech, equal protection and religious freedom were violated when he was prevented from introducing his curriculum.

Scott's article claimed Caldwell attempted to get the district to adopt materials advocating biblical creationism, including a young-earth creationist book, "Refuting Evolution," by Jonathan Safarti; and the Jehovah's Witness book "Life: How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?"

Scott retracted that claim and also conceded her allegation that a science expert had said Caldwell had a "gross misunderstanding of science" was false. She also backed off on her contention that the Roseville board had passed a resolution "recommending" that "creationist" materials be used in science classes.

More:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45442

[Ian David]

10. What happened was SHE GOT PEOPLE'S NAMES WRONG!

In My Backyard

Having reviewed my article, "In My Backyard: Creationism in California" (Spring, 2005), I would like to make some clarifications.

The Cobb County, Georgia, evolution disclaimer referenced in the first sentence initially was introduced in March, 2002; the November, 2004 date referenced was when a challenge to the policy by parents was tried in federal court.

Further investigation suggests that the books Refuting Evolution and Life: How Did It Get Here? were submitted to the Roseville school board by other residents, not by Larry Caldwell, and were not considered after submission. (Note also that the surname of the author of Refuting Evolution is Sarfati, not Safarti.)

Members of the board of education did not formally recommend the antievolutionist materials, though they supported their use.

Of the two incumbents not re-elected, one, who supported Caldwell's position, did not seek re-election; the other never identified himself as a creationist, although members of the community perceived him to support the antievolutionist efforts.

Finally, the person described by a scientist as having a "gross misunderstanding of the nature of science" in his analysis of the Holt textbook was not Caldwell.

Eugenie C. Scott
National Center for Science Education
Oakland, CA

More:
http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/2005summer/stories/letters.html

[Ian David]

15. James Dobson: Masturbation Enthusiast and Batrachian Fetishist

Dr. James Dobson: Masturbation Enthusiast


From Focus on The (your) Family:

Challenges in the Teen Years
Masturbation
Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions

QuestionMy 13-year-old son is in the full bloom of adolescence. I’m suspicious that he may be masturbating when he’s alone, but I don’t quite know how to approach him about it. Should I be concerned, and if so, what should I say to him?

Answer I don’t think you should invade that private world at all unless there are unique circumstances that lead you to do so. I offer that advice while acknowledging that masturbation is a highly controversial subject and Christian leaders differ widely in their perspectives on it. I will answer your question but hope you understand that some Bible scholars and ministers will disagree emphatically with what I will say.

First, let’s consider masturbation from a medical perspective. We can say without fear of contradiction that there is no scientific evidence to indicate that this act is harmful to the body. Despite terrifying warnings given to young people historically, it does not cause blindness, weakness, mental retardation or any other physical problem. If it did, the entire male population and about half of females would be blind, weak, simpleminded and sick. Between 95 and 98 percent of all boys engage in this practice — and the rest have been known to lie. It is as close to being a universal behavior as is likely to occur. A lesser but still significant percentage of girls also engage in what was once called “self-gratification,” or worse, “self-abuse.”

As for the emotional consequences of masturbation, only four circumstances should give us cause for concern. The first is when it is associated with oppressive guilt from which the individual can’t escape. That guilt has the potential to do considerable psychological and spiritual damage. Boys and girls who labor under divine condemnation can gradually become convinced that even God couldn’t love them. They promise a thousand times with great sincerity never again to commit this “despicable” act. Then a week or two passes, or perhaps several months.

<snip>

We were riding in the car, and my dad said, “Jim, when I was a boy, I worried so much about masturbation. It really became a scary thing for me because I thought God was condemning me for what I couldn’t help. So I’m telling you now that I hope you don’t feel the need to engage in this act when you reach the teen years, but if you do, you shouldn’t be too concerned about it. I don’t believe it has much to do with your relationship with God.”

What a compassionate thing my father did for me that night in the car. He was a very conservative minister who never compromised his standards of morality to the day of his death. He stood like a rock for biblical principles and commandments. Yet he cared enough about me to lift from my shoulders the burden of guilt that nearly destroyed some of my friends in the church. This kind of “reasonable” faith taught to me by my parents is one of the primary reasons I never felt it necessary to rebel against parental authority or defy God.

— Dr. James Dobson

This article was adapted from Complete Marriage and Family Home Reference Guide by Dr. James Dobson with the permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Copyright 2000 by James Dobson, Inc. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

More:
http://www.focusonyourchild.com/develop/art1/A0000553.html


See also:

January 22, 2005
Erect frog on Dobson kiddie site
http://www.realitybasednation.com/blog-archives/2005/01/erect_frog_on_d.html