Marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural
states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived
hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between “white” and “colored races” was self evident
(Hailer 1963, p. 52).

In 1917 the immigration of “defective” groups was forbidden even in the United States by a
law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law
was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country
based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the “nordic” balance in population, and was hold
through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

Richard Lewontin writes:”The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working
class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the
Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.)

Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the “yellow” group (Kemiläinen
1993, p. 1930).

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

Stan,

You are making a mistake in dismissing scientific facts and the theory of evolution, induced from them, as only probabilistic…and therefore not proven.

You are asking for an absolute assurance of truth, but that is impossible with induction.

With religious beliefs it is the norm, but with scientific knowledge there is always an open door to new facts, new variations of theories, new theories…if the facts change or new facts are discovered. Highly probable is not “I don’t know” or “It might be”. Highly probable means that the evidence is conclusive, although not absolutely true. That’s the nature of induction.

The evidence for evolution from palentology alone is overwhelming in favor of evolutionary processes shaped by natural selection on variations of structures by genes, and variation of environmental pressures. The numerous other areas of science concur.

The question for you, Stan, is “compared to what?”

In the less-than-totally-true-forever “theory” of evolution there are minor gaps here and there, but what’s the alternative? Ben Stein’s ID or Creationist version of the changes in living creatures and the origin-of-life-in-one-fell-swoop, with no evidence but for the Bible, isn’t even a wrong theory. It isn’t a theory. It’s a belief, with scant evidence.

Stan, you are not playing fairly, or thinking logically, with your use of probabilities and conclusions. The criticisms of your thinking is fair and appropriate. To call you names is not.

Now, go ahead and tell me that I am inferior and not capable of the standards you hold.

Considering that you are arguing that hundreds of thousands of scientists working in biologically related fields are all inferior and incapable of meeting your standards of science you shouldn’t really complain too much if people tell you that you don’t understand science.

A statement was made that was made as fact. It is not a supportable premise, under current knowledge as far as I know. I seriously doubt that an emotion has been captured for analysis. When statements of fact are made that are challengable, then a request for verification is valid. What I did was to make a smart-alec comment designed to decorate the fact that there won’t be any forthcoming truthvalues assigned to that statement. I am totally aware of the probablistic nature of both empirical and forensic science. I should have said that rather than what I did because what I said confused the issue, apparently leading you to believe that I believe the opposite.

I do believe that correlations are more easily arrived at in physics than in paleontology. And I disagree that expecting cause and effect to be valid is actually an extrapolation. It is more on the order of an axiom. And it appears to me that in paleontology, extrapolation must be used, for example, the development of the ear mechanism from jawbone(s). Don’t get me wrong, I understand that the more fossils that are found, the shorter the extrapolation and the higher the correlation. But it is still a necessary extrapolation, and it won’t likely be produced experimentally in a lab.

Now, go ahead and tell me that I am inferior and not capable of the standards you hold. Then try to get over it, if you care to discuss any of this. Or maybe just tell me to leave, so you can chat undisturbed with your buds.

One more thing, then I have to go. I am not a creationist. I do not think ID could ever be considered a science, and I do think it is a shallow cover for creationism. But I am also highly sceptical of the statement that “evolution is fact, get over it”. You have not made that explicit statement but the general attitude here is of that nature.

Gotta go.

“Or more pointedly, who is the arbiter of justice in those cases? If no one else knows about it, what is the harm?”

Apparently Josh must be the sort person who if he encounters somebody dying on the street has to ask himself whether God is watching before he goes to help. After all if no one knows about it what’s the harm? Why not get to your important meeting on time? Why waste time helping a stranger?

People like Josh scare me.