Bobby Jindal, governor of utterly doomed Louisiana, is a creationist. That’s very clear. And now he’s on YouTube making it even clearer!
Wow. He wants creationism to be taught in the classroom*! It’s that simple — don’t let them fool you with lies about Intelligent Design; that’s just another word for creationism (this was proved beyond a doubt at the Dover trial). If this guy were my governor… well. People of Louisiana, I implore you to get rid of this guy. But please please please, not by giving him to McCain. Just in case.
Crooks and Liars has more.
Hat tip to Dave from the Atheist Media Blog, who let me know about this video.
*Don’t forget about the exorcism, too! Here’s another video on that nonsense.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
“a republican of the future”
Oh my.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Jindal + McCain = American doomage to the gazillionth degree. I like to believe that no matter who takes over for Bush, they can’t really muck it up any worse than he has. I’m wondering if that isn’t the case.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Well that first video was pretty ordinary creationist propaganda, but that description of the exorcism was downright scary. I’m shocked and horrified that they did not realise that girl probably needed medical attention and that she was given an exorcism instead of being taken to a doctor or hospital.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Um, I can’t say that I agree with him about the teaching of creationism in schools, but I also can’t say I disagree with his ideas about the role of government. I also agree with him in general about education (just not on this specific issue).
Given the wide range of issues we have to judge politicians on, I don’t think we can discount his opinions entirely based on 1 thing.
I’m not apologizing for this guy, he may not be living up to any of his promises in other areas of government, I have no idea. I don’t live in Louisiana. But if he makes due on promises in a great majority of other areas, he would be a good governor.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Yowza! That little fellow is all-kinds of crazy all wrapped up in a dandy suit with the requisite “LOOK AT MY PATRIOTISM!” lapel pin.
He wants his kids to be exposed to the best thinking?
Well, they certainly aren’t getting that at home.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
He’s also an advocate of abstinence-only education. So when he says he’s all for giving kids the info and letting them decide for themselves, he’s LYING. The only consistency in his position on education is foisting his religious crap on everyone else.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
All theories and subjective facts should be put on the table… its a two way street… evolutionists are not able to “test” their ideas about origins any more than creationists can…
What I mean to say is, can an evolutionist provide fossil evidence (or scientific proof) of the primordeal ooze? Can a creationist provide fossil evidence of spontaneous creation of things? Can the evolutionist provide accurate dates that are not constantly changing with the latest findings? Can the creationist provide dates that don’t contradict the physical laws of the universe?
The point is… that we, *phil, is diving into the realm of meta-physics and philosophy… that is was “origins” cough cough “science” is all about… not about “proof” — as there is no “proof” on origins, rather on “ideas” …
These “ideas” could just as well be called “good guesses”… on both sides… creation or evolution, these educated professionals are giving us their “best guess” based upon the incomplete untested so-called facts.
But then we get lofted into the whole “facts” and “theories” game that both sides play… we’ve all heard the arguement from some, that evolution is NOT a theory, but a fact… the whole time we come to find out that the “theory” and the “fact” are both guesses. Again on both sides, not just the evolutionist.
Actually, its even harder for the creationist to try to “prove” their “facts” because most people refuse to base their “guesses” upon anything other than what is already “accepted” as being possible.
Its an endless circle, a cluster of philosophy so thick that the whole darn discussion of “origns” MUST be moved to another forum.. maybe creating a part theoretical science part philosphy class that touches on all theories, not just unproved secular one, or unproved religious ones.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
So, hey, if the local school board deems that 13 is a cursed number and, as such, won’t be taught to the students in math class, well that’s just perfectly OK. They know best. We just want the best math available to the students, whether that be the math where they learn to count correctly, or the one where odd errors creep into calculations every baker’s dozen or so.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Ugh, what a moron. Every time I hear of a creationist biologist, my future degree’s value plummets.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I’m still hoping for a massive hurricane to hit Louisiana this summer, then hearing Jindal’s explanation as to why God is punishing the state.
On an unrelated subjected, Phil, did you know that the Earth is expanding?
June 15th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
“this was proved beyond a doubt at the Dover trial”
No. As per the standard of the US legal system, it was proved “beyond a REASONABLE doubt.”
So for the doubts of unreasonable people, it is all still up in the air.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Lugosi, they earth should stop drinking all that pop.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I live close enough to Louisiana to see their local television. After watching him during his campaign, I can say this about Jindal — he seems to be honest, something new and unusual for Louisiana, and, he is a very polished and smooth talker, something not quite so new to Louisiana but very important there. The fact that he is a narrow minded and bigoted religious nut is not at all new, however, and is no surprise at all. Boy, am I glad that I live in Texas…er, no…I’ll take that back…
June 15th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I personally have no issues with evolution. The science is about as clear as it can be. The only issue I have ever had with it is when it comes to “origins”. And it kind of came out during Phil’s web video school lecture series. I very much liked them to be honest, and Phil’s enthusiasm about the subjects was contagious. The only part that raised my eyebrows a bit is when he talked about the big bang and what was there pre-big bang. The big bang has been proven to my satisfaction but it was difficult at the time for many scientists to accept. A lot of the difficulty had to do with the near religious implications the theory carried. Not to mention that the big bang theory came from Georges Lemaître who among other things, was a Catholic priest. And it makes no difference what your beliefs are, big bang and pre-big bang theories sound a lot like the first chapter of Genesis. In fact, the big bang theory made it possible for many Jews and Christians to look at creation in a new evolutional light. The separation of science and religion believes that science explains how things came to be and religion explains why things came to be. The idea of creation by means of evolution is due in large part to the confirmation of the big bang. In fact, the big bang is what has driven many an atheist into the agnostic camp. At one time, I was one of those people. Some folks enjoy throwing around terms like “ID” and “Creationism” as if they are of the same literal Genesis creation interpretation. They are not.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Way to dodge the question, Jindal.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Sorry to contradict a Dr Who fan, but you have been drinking some of the creationist kool-aid. First you’re confusing abiogenesis with evolution. There is plenty of evidence (i.e. not just fossils) that we have evolved from the “primordial ooze” as you put it, we just don’t know how it all got started (a pretty big question, yes, but lumping in evolution into the mix is a big red-herring.
Second, the “changing dates” argument is another classic creationist misdirection. Yes, the dates change, that’s part of the scientific process, but to claim that undermines evolution is just silly. The dates change as more evidence is collected and the quality of the evidence improves — i.e. the dates, overall, get more accurate. Creationists cherry pick a few cases where errors were made and completely ignore the mountain range of evidence that continues to be confirmed by new findings.
So there is no real lack of certainty that we evolved over billions of years from far simpler lifeforms, except among those who have a religious objection to it. (Sure there are a few who think maybe aliens designed us, but they are a handful at most). That’s not metaphysics or philosophy, it’s science, and belongs in the science classroom.
Testable hypotheses dealing with of the origin of life (e.g. panspermia and abiogenesis) also belong there as long as it is made clear that they are just theories with little evidence to support them as yet. Theories that the supernatural or aliens created us are not testable, and don’t belong there.
Finally, all theories of origin, and evolution can also be discussed in a philosophy or religion class. Nobody has a problem with that at all. But it’s just ridiculous to make the argument that evolution doesn’t belong in science class, which is what you appear to be suggesting.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
[i]“Jindal + McCain = American doomage to the gazillionth degree.”[/i] – Atolibuson
Yeah, Jindal would introduce superstitious mumbo-jumbo into education while McCain tries to win the Vietnam war in Iran. NO!
June 15th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Guinness Stout, actually, it’s turtles all the way down.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Guinness, while there was some queasiness about the Big Bang theory from some scientists who thought it sounded too much like a creation story, I think you overstate the depth and duration of that queasiness. Once the evidence began to start piling up (especially the cosmic background radiation) then scientists soon got pretty comfortable with it and started to investigate.
I also don’t think it’s caused much of a discernible shift in the beliefs of scientists — they are still amongst the least religious and most atheistic community in the US, and probably the world. I would be amazed if you could come up with anything to show that there was a shift from atheism to agnosticism at any time in the last hundred years.
And interestingly enough, the Big Bang can be used as a counterargument to the creationist claim that scientists will twist any experimental result to avoid making it look like evidence supporting creationism.
As for the Big Bang allowing theistic evolution to become acceptable? I don’t think that’s the reason. The evidence for evolution has grown and grown to the point that it’s pretty much undeniable to anyone who doesn’t adhere to the inerrancy of the Bible doctrine. Theistic evolution is the only remaining creationist theory left that doesn’t flat out contradict much of modern science. They use the God of the Gaps method, into which the Big Bang has been included.
Nobody has ever seriously claimed that science will answer every question we have. It may well be impossible to know with any certainty why or how the Big Bang occurred or what happened “before” (if that’s even a valid concept). But while the Big Bang may leave room for deistic ideas of a Creator, given the sheer scale of time and space we small few beings exist in, it’s a small comfort for those who believe in a personal God who intervenes in world and personal affairs on a daily basis.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
So am I correct that the Republicans want each local school board to decide their own curriculum, but use the No Child Gets Ahead programs to enforce testing on a nationwide basis?
June 15th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I’m glad Tacitus, that you’re not taciturn!
Well put! Good on ya! Couldn’t've (?) said it better myself!
Saved me a -BUNCH- of keystrokes…
Rich
June 15th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Just put a different link to that on the other Louisiana thread! Spooky…
beeblebrox.
>>>”He’s also an advocate of abstinence-only education. So when he says he’s all for giving kids the info and letting them decide for themselves, he’s LYING. The only consistency in his position on education is foisting his religious crap on everyone else.”
Brilliantly put.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Well, if he thinks that only the best science and only the best thinking should be presented he is hoisting himself by his own petard. Intelligent Design is clearly poorly thought out except as propaganda and politics. It is not science, it is just a more clever version of Creationism. It makes no testable claims, it obfuscates demonstrated facts and denies evidence of evolution.
Jindal will probably ignore my claim, I am sure, and continue his propaganda.
As far as him being a “rising star of Republicanism,” well if his approach to science is an indicator of the way he approaches other issues then a Republican Party featuring the likes of Jindal is one to be feared.
sigh.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Lets hope he’s not a McCain running mate! Then again, I’m not sure there are any Repubs left who think critically.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
BA, Here’s a question for you:
Let’s say that you have an election in Boulder for city councilman. One candidate is rumored to be, shall we say, not quite an upstanding citizen. The other is so squeaky clean he makes Pat Boone look like a hoodlum. The only thing is that the squeaky clean politician also is a supporter of ID, and wants to get it into the Boulder school system.
Who do you cast your ballot for in the election?
A. The Shady politician who won’t try to get ID into the school system but who might be a corrupt official, or
B. The Squeaky clean politician who will be the very pillar of integrity, but who wants the schools to teach ID alongside evolution.
BTW, I disagree that the Dover trial “proved” ID = Creationism, for a very simple reason: I first learned of ID from an article about Fred Hoyle. Needless to say, Fred Hoyle was neither a Christian or a Creationist. Yes, I know that you hold that ID = Creationism, but Fred Hoyle seems to argue against that. And please, before anyone wants to argue about ID, the point is not whether Fred Hoyle was right, but that he supported the concept.
I also think it’s a bad precedent to look to the courts as an arbitrator of science. Science should be determined by who has the accurate facts, not who has the most persuasive lawyers. But then, I’m a bit old fashioned that way.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Glad to be of service
“Share and Enjoy”
June 15th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
KC, Dover proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Intelligent Design being promulgated by the school board and encouraged by organizations like the Discovery Institute was very much all about classic creationism dressed up in fancy clothes. The Louisiana efforts are simply more of the same.
Hoyle’s dabbled in an ID that was quite a different animal. If I recall correctly he was concerned that the nuclear fusion in stars required physical parameters that were so fine tuned that he found it hard to believe they had occurred without some sort of unspecified guiding hand. This is a deistic argument that is far removed from what the creationists/IDists want taught in our public schools. Hoyle would have been appalled at what the creationists are trying to do today.
When one branch of government doesn’t allow the facts to arbitrate what is taught in science class then I have no trouble in people resorting to another branch to correct the situation. It is not the evolutionists who started the fight, it is the IDists who are trying to circumvent and hide the fact that they have no science to back up their theories.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Intelligent Design.
“Understanding how this came about is too hard, ergo God did it.”
It’s a short-sighted and narrow-minded outlook.
Making the claim that “oh, we don’t mean it was necessarily the judeo-christian god” is merely a blind.
Intelligent Design also does not posit any testable hypothesis, and is not falsifiable. Contrary to the beliefs of some people who post here, Evolution does posit testable hypotheses and is falsifiable.
Intelligent Design does not “deliver the goods” as Sagan put it.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
That’s not an easy decision. A “might” be corrupt, but B will definitely work towards getting a patently fake scientific theory taught to your children. Indeed, you just don’t know who would cause the most harm in the long run, so the answer is probably impossible to gauge correctly.
After, if B is a creationist then B is likely also to be voting through other policies that BA doesn’t support — like abstinence-only education (lots of potential harm there) and pushing through traditional marriage amendments. Then you also have the issue of competence. Would you vote for a person who is honest but who is a dolt, or would you vote for someone who is brilliant but puts a little taxpayer cash aside to feather their own nest?
June 15th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Tacitus, I agree with you (and with Richard Drumm!) but you got my back up when you said “Theories that the supernatural or aliens created us are not testable, and don’t belong there.”
By definition, if it’s not supported by evidence, then it’s not a theory. Remember, a theory is pretty much the top level a scientific idea can attain; there is nothing more supported (in science) than a well-tested theory. So “theories” that the supernatural or aliens created us are not theories; they are conjectures.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
KC, false dichotomy. It will never happen. There is no such thing as a squeaky clean politician.
Fred Hoyle was brilliant. I also love his science fiction but in old age he was a bit loopy. Check out Hoyle’s Fallacy.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
KC, the Dover trial wasn’t an “arbitrator of science.” It was apparent to Judge Jones that some people in Dover were clearly equating Intelligent Design with creationism, and with the prodding of the Discovery Institute, were trying the stealth approach to get religion into science class. Biologist Ken Miller had facts and helped solidify the Judge’s decision that ID didn’t meet scientific rigor. The science side didn’t need much lawyerly persuasion – the ID side was a mess.
If you’re old-fashioned then you can appreciate the importance of precedent court cases and how and why they are repeatedly referenced.
At least Judge Jones was a Republican with his head on straight.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Crux — yeah I got a bit loose there throwing the theory word around. I did actually change two “theories” into “hypotheses” in that same paragraph, but I think my writer’s instinct took over and didn’t want me to use the same word a third time.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
B. The Squeaky clean politician who will be the very pillar of integrity, but who wants the schools to teach ID alongside evolution.
By definition, the politician who advocates for ID is corrupt, since ID is itself a false portrayal of creationism to attempt to sneak past the Constitution, and EVERY court case in which the teaching of creationism has come to trial.
Personally, I think I would rather have a politician in office that I KNOW is on the take, at least we would know to keep a close eye on him, rather than feigning surprise when the “squeaky clean” politician gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar/illicit undies.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
That’s easy. I’d speak loudly and clearly and let everyone know that we need a third choice. I’d do it myself if I had to, though it would be difficult. But I’d write letters and figure out ways to get the word out to people in town.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Rawr, he’s not very clear in that video. I agree with some of the much earlier comments that I like some of what he actually pays lip service to in this video, such as the government’s role in education and teaching the best science available. But knowing that he probably has a fundamental misunderstanding of science and that local school boards do underhanded things with creationism and abstinence-only education, argh, it’s just frustrating.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I wonder:
Ever since the Nixon years, the Republican Party has been slowly usurped by the ‘conservative’ wing of the right, while the ‘moderates’ have been pushed out and treated as ‘not true conservatives’. In the former, Jindal certainly applies, as well as Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee, while the ‘moderates’ count amont their dwindiling ranks: Bob Dole, John McCain, Colin Powell. With this in mind, does anyone else think that McCain is simply pandering to the conservative vote by providing an ideological ticket-balance? (To be contrasted by the Dems, who typically provide a geographically-driven ticket-balance) Or is this a case of the conservatives dictating to McCain, essentially forcing him into the position? Or does McCain actually sympathize with the conservatives more than he used to back in 2000?
I dunno. Thoughts, anyone?
June 15th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
P.S.
I recomend anyone who is interested to read Thomas Frank’s 2005 book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” It’s a great, and occasionally funny read that uses Kansas as a litmus test for larger socio-political trends in the US. (lots of evolution talk too!)
June 15th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Some Canadian Skeptic, it is unfortunate that the Republican party has screwed itself up in such a way that people think that about it. Or it’s unfortunate that I am delusional about what the Republican party used to be and could be again. That’s up for grabs.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
D’oh — I used another opening blockquote tag instead of a closing one. Sorry about that. The second indent is all my own work!
June 16th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Wow! Exactly how many times did Mr. Jindal contradict himself? Only after evading the initial question.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Well, I can take satisfaction from knowing that if Mr Jindal’s children are given access to all the facts, and apply the ‘best scientific practices’, they’ll eventually come home and tell Daddy that he’s an idiot.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:45 am
“Well, I can take satisfaction from knowing that if Mr Jindal’s children are given access to all the facts, and apply the ‘best scientific practices’, they’ll eventually come home and tell Daddy that he’s an idiot.”
Unfortunately, they’ll be brainwas..erm… brought up to believe this c**p, right from the word go. So the chances they’ll turn round and call him an idiot, are slim
June 16th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Speaking of anti science, I love this Conan O’Brien joke:
NASA has announced plans to send a probe to orbit the sun, where it will have to withstand temperatures of 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit.
When he heard about it, President Bush said, “Why don’t they just go at night?”
June 16th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Personally I’d like a bit of tit-for-tat.
Since the creationists want fairy-tales and religion taught in science class… make them teach science in church.
Henceforth ALL churches will have a scientist come in and explain evolution, poke holes in the bible’s stories of miracles, debunk the sheer ridiculousness of Noah’s ark and the flood, explain the scientific method and actually teach them what ‘theory’ means in it’s scientific context. This will also apply to Sunday-school so their children get a nice healthy does of education and skepticism.
I’m sure they’ll back off from ID in schools when they start losing followers to reason.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:57 am
I find algebra to be overly complicated and difficult to understand. Therefore, algebra must have been created by God.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:23 am
“Not by giving him to McCain”
A cogent warning.
As a Texan, the whole Bush administration is my fault. You see, we had been trying for years to find a way to get him out of Austin. This cool job opening came up in DC and, master conspirators that we secular science types are, we arranged for W to be hired and moved to some new digs at public expense.
We thought our problem was solved.
Sorry.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:28 am
@KC
You seem to assume that the reality of politics revolves around a two-party system. While that’s the sad current state of affairs in the US, it’s an exception compared to more genuinely democratic systems of government.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:32 am
My earlier post may have been a bit vague – my point is, if there are two (or more) candidates who are bad, for whatever reasons, they are not worth supporting.
If the only candidates who you have are all bad, then there’s something wrong with your system of government. If you’re making the choice based on the “lesser of evils”, you aren’t living in a decent country.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Dear Phil,
You seem to have exaggerated the talks of Bobby Jindal. He has just said that the students should be provided with all the data and let them decide. Whats wrong with that? This is very much in line with the way science functions when it reviews numerous data and then comes to a conclusion. Bobby has not resorted to ‘creationism’ in his speech. He has just expressed his personal belief. And again what’s wrong with that?
Think we need to be more tolerant and forthcoming to various ideas and opinions.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Some Canadian Skeptic
Liberals here may have a hard time understanding just how unpopular McCain is with the far right of the GOP, demonstrating once again that these things are relative.
Among other things, the right’s complaints involve McCain’s stances on immigration and campaign funding, and his refusal to deny the facts of global warming. His worst sin in their eyes, though, is his willingness to work with noted liberals at the legislative level; terms like McCain-Feinstein and McCain-Kennedy are anathema to the far right.
As a supporter and admirer of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, I have had a ring-side seat for the Republican right’s descent into madness over the past 30 years.
In the 1960s, Senator Goldwater was far and away the most prominent conservative in national politics. He literally wrote the book on it; (Conscience of a Conservative 1960).
Yet today, his positions would place him firmly at the left of the Republican Party, if he could remain a Republican at all. In 1989, at the height of the religious right’s power, Goldwater told a reporter that the Republican Party was “being taken over by a bunch of kooks.” In 1996, two years before his death, he told Bob Dole “We’re the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?” It wasn’t Goldwater who had changed over 30 years, it was the party and the commonly held definition of “conservative.”
McCain’s VP selection is especially important for reasons that need no elaboration here. Just remember that his choice could very easily end up as President of the United States.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Deepak
>>>”You seem to have exaggerated the talks of Bobby Jindal. He has just said that the students should be provided with all the data and let them decide. Whats wrong with that?”
Because kids should be LEARNING science, not DECIDING what is and what is not science. Plus the fact that ID is creationism and therefore illegal to be taught in public schools.
>>>”This is very much in line with the way science functions when it reviews numerous data and then comes to a conclusion.”
No, because ID starts with the conclusion that GODDIDIT! Which is the wrong way to do science.
>>>”Think we need to be more tolerant and forthcoming to various ideas and opinions.”
Not when certain ideas have been shown to be dishonest pseudo-scientific garbage in an attempt to get religion taught in schools.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Of course, what he says in that video IS perfectly possible and legal right now, no court challenge required.
Local schools can set the curriculum. They call them private schools. There’s nothing stopping parents from sending their children to the school of their choice. Of course, the parents, including Jindal, all know this. What the real issue is, is that they don’t want to pay taxes for a public school system that doesn’t promote a religious agenda, or put another way, it bothers them that if they sent their children to a religious school, tuition would be out-of-pocket on top of the school taxes they pay.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:58 am
You seem to have exaggerated the talks of Bobby Jindal. He has just said that the students should be provided with all the data and let them decide. Whats wrong with that?
Nothing at all!
As soon as creationists produce some data, I’m sure children will be allowed to see it.
It’s not “data” to say that “magic did it”, or “it’s in the bible”. That is NOT the scientific way.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:12 am
BA:
Thanks for the answer. But I’d like to point out that wishing for another candidate, while a common response, usually doesn’t result in anyone else tossing their hat into the ring. You’re still stuck with who’s met the qualifying fee.
tacitus:
I think you come closest to seeing the problem here. Really, it’s a problem with a lot of one-issue voting. Mussolini is said to have made the trains run on time, but was reliable train service worth a facist Italy?
Zeugnitz:
Do not assume two candidates mean a two-party season. We’re entering the primary voting season for many places in the US, and many races will be decided now because they’ll face no opposition from another party in November. I picked two candidates for simplicity – and it’s what would happen in a run-off situation, anyway.
On Fred Hoyle and ID:
Again, please note that the issue wasn’t if Hoyle was right, it’s that he supported the idea. Tacitus is dead-on that what Hoyle believed is different from what Creationists would be comfortable with – which I think is partially my point. Because of this introduction to ID, I cannot say ID = Creationism.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:00 am
What you or Hoyle thinks of ID is irrelevant, KC. The ID invented by the Discovery Institute and currently being pushed in schools, along with the same fallacious “arguments” in their “academic freedom” bill IS creationism.
Just out of interest, do you have a link to this Fred Hoyle/ID thingy, so we can see what you’re talking about?
June 16th, 2008 at 7:23 am
The sad part of this is that Governor Jindel has a degree in biology from Brown, Un., home of Prof. Ken Miller. Apparently, from a comment on another blog, Mr. Jindel never took a course from Prof. Miller.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Again, here are the two theories:
1) God Did It
2) Theory of Evolution, plus hundreds of years of scientific research, experimentation, better technology, dedicated peer reviews, improvements in theories due to better evidence (seeing things we were unable to see or record in the past), etc.
Now, I am not an Athiest (and am surprised by the unadulterated hatred thrown the althiest way by Christians – most the fundies), and I do hold out that there might be the possibility of something out there that might have started everything in the beginning.
But, everything else should be based on rational thinking, scientific evidence, and education about the way things work. It is not above my thinking that everything we know was put in motion by some “guiding hand” in the very beginning with the Big Bang & then nature took its course over billions of years.
But again, that is something that cannot be scientifically proven – unless God himself (or herself, or itself) stands up and introduces himself, herself, itself to us.
Until then, please keep the ID or Creationist crap out of the classrooms, because I want my kid(s) to be educated to the best of their abilities – so they can compete in the high tech world for the best jobs.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Deepak said:
The problem is, this is *exactly* what the creationists say. They can no longer make a naked demand to have creationism taught in the classroom so their strategy is now to put ID/creationism on an equal footing with evolution in the classroom by claiming it’s only fair to have both sides of the argument or “all data” — which is even more vague and unthreatening — presented.
As others have rightly said, there is no valid scientific data they can present that supports ID/creationism. All they have is a hodgepodge of ideas some supporters have written a few books about. That’s it. No science, no papers, no studies, no experiments, nothing. And there is no doubt that this is what Jindal wants presented to the kids in our schools as science.
It’s an insidious tactic because it appeals to people’s sense of fairness. Why not expose the kids to all viewpoints? Seems like a sensible thing to do, right? But then, why not give astrologers access to the classroom, or flat earthers, HIV deniers, Holocaust deniers, and on and on. They have just as much evidence for their crackpot theories as creationists have for theirs.
So please don’t let Jindal fool you. He is advocating that ID/creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution. All the right code words are there in his comments.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:48 am
OT: Hey, in Legends, Lies, and Lore, the anthology my freshmen will be reading this fall, there’s an article by one Philip C. Plait entitled “The Disaster that Wasn’t: The Great Planetary Alignment of 2000.” You can bet I’m going to assign that one!
June 16th, 2008 at 8:49 am
First, it’s atheist.
I’m not sure you’ll find many atheists who would completely rule out the possibility that someone or something (a “guiding hand”) got things started in our Universe. I certainly don’t, I just don’t think it’s very likely. I suspect most of those who define themselves as atheists do so because they reject the notion of a God/Creator as defined by the world’s religions, which is a far cry from an entity who kick started the Universe then let nature take its course. So I am sure there must be a good deal of overlap between agnostics, atheists, and even deists. It’s probably all down to the degree of certainty you have in the end.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:57 am
A note for our Creationist “friends”.
The correct term isn’t “Evolutionist” or “Darwainist”.
The correct term is Scientist.
Something Creationists aren’t.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Oops – wish I had a spellchecker on here
Thanks for the correction.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Well, if Jindal’s faith is not your cup of tea, you could always try this:
http://www.ussvictoria.co.uk/fullofshat/index.htm
June 16th, 2008 at 9:33 am
I have GOT to get out of La soon!!!!!! I hate it hear! It is NO PLACE for an atheist. and their kids…
June 16th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Three of my teeth fell out just watching that video!!
June 16th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Ah, it’s so tough to listen to this myopic drabble. However, keep in mind – EVOLUTION is at work, and I would bet the genetic fitness of his line is approaching zero quickly.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Darth Robo:
Although the article I read predated the WWW, information on Fred Hoyle and ID is easy to find: Google is your friend. Here’s one on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
To get a solid grasp on what he believed, find “Intelligent Universe” by Fred Hoyle (not to be confused with “The Intelligent Universe” by James Gardner).
Now, some might say this is like referring someone to “Worlds in Collision.” Yet the easiest way to find out what someone believes without actually meeting them is to read what they write.
In this case, what Fred Hoyle believed is important in that it scuttles the ID = Creationism claim, for Fred Hoyle wasn’t a Creationist.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
How can he sit there and say that he wants ID in schools in order to challenge accepted theories when it’s been proven that ID isn’t a testable hypothesis? As a non traditional Christian I receive flack from many people who question my belief system on a regular basis and I have found that the ones who are willing to question me but don’t want to answer themselves are the militant Christians that are offended by my “manipulation of their religion”.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Dear Darth Robo,
I agree with your view points. I am a great follower of science and everything scientific. But I have a quarrel with scientist for not giving even 0.001% chance of an ID or God existing who may have started the universe. Dont scientist always take the escape route and call it ‘nature’ when they can’t explain something? Why the speed of the light is set at 3 lakh km? The standard answer – ‘nature has defined it that way’. Whats wrong if the creationist replaced the word nature with God?
Though we have no evidence of time travel or existence of parallel universes, scientist say that it is possibility. How come? The same way, why can’t God be a possiblity though we dont have any evidence?
Creationist ignore and dismiss science. But let scientist not dismiss it and conclude without giving a another view of a fair chance of being heard.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Ugh was it just me or does he say (around the 4sec mark) that both ID and Evolution are wrong?
June 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
What would you have scientists do? What research could be done into the idea that God created the Universe?? And what is a “fair chance”?
Is it a chance to write a paper or technical book on the subject, or is it a chance to inject the subject into the school science curriculum without any evidence or research to back it up? If it’s the former, then there is nobody is stopping them.
In any case, there are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and plenty more who have some form of deistic belief. They just know that their beliefs are a matter of faith not scientific inquiry, and they will agree that science class is no place for such a debate.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
No, he said that teaching one without the other is wrong. He’s wrong, of course.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
What I want to know is how does he do as the governor? Does he do a good job overall? What are his strengths and other weaknesses? Could he be excellent at going his best to help keep the Louisiana economy strong, crime and taxes low, and so forth?
I ask this because as lame as promoting the idea of creationism in the classroom, it isn’t the single make or break issue for me, primarily because I am not a single issue voter. AS VP I am more interested in taxes, economy, energy independence, first and second amendment rights and national security then creation/evolution debate in schools, even if I don’t think there is really a legitimate debate to begin with and can see no reason for teaching creationism in academic institutions.
Guess I am saying it is some points against him, but not a fatal flaw, depending on how he measures to my wants as a voter in those other aforementioned areas.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
There is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution. It’s growing and changing as we take it through the scientific process and make new discoveries.
There is NO evidence for ID. None that can be scrutinize with the scientific method, which the curricula requires.
How can you give children both theories and let them critically evaluate them? Unless of course you tell them the scientific method only applies to one. It is plainly evident that we are trumping science for faith and encouraging our students to do so as well.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
@Snazz: Along those lines, I sometimes think we should give these people exactly what they want – teach alternate ideas to how the world “came to be” the way it is. For example, they should spend time on Christian ideas, evolution, scientology, Native American, greek myths, etc.
Then again, I’m guessing Jindal doesn’t want his children being taught that we might have landed here on earth in airplanes.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
@joemono
If you go to some of the ID websites, their mission statement says just that. They believe that a higher power created us, but not just any higher power, the Lord God Almighty only.
If ID theories are allowed into the classroom, I’d like to see how they weed out the other gods and just allow theirs to take the credit.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The thing that bugs me is that Jindal is un-American.
But, I was born in the Roman Empire so I’m going to argue pro-Jupiter every time (and his only-begotten son, Mars).
June 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Macron has it right. Jindal dodged the question, and the reporter let him get away with it. I’ll bet Tim Russert wouldn’t let him get away with that type of dodge. Watch the Video again.
He says “God played a role” that could very easily mean that 13.7 billion years ago God said “let there be light,” or maybe he burped.
Notice he never says he believes in ID, creationism, just his BS about big govt is the enemy and let kids have the best information.
By the way KC, Dover did in fact conclude that Creationism did equal ID. They showed that the ID proponents simply replaced scientific creationism with intelligent design. The also found that the authors were not as careful as they should have been during the editing process and found the “transitional fossil” of intelligent design:
cdesign proponentsists
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html
You can find all the info you want on the talkorigins web site They have the ruling and transcripts of the trial.
kid cool
June 16th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Kid Cool:
Courts also ruled that Tennessee could forbid the teaching of evolution. Which is why I’m somewhat bemused that people are touting a court rulling in arguing that ID = Creationism.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Jeffersonian said:
“But, I was born in the Roman Empire so I’m going to argue pro-Jupiter every time (and his only-begotten son, Mars).”
HERITIC!
Everyone knows that Vulcan was also a son of Jupiter!
And Vulcans can kick Martians’ butts any day of the week!
So there!
(* Display Grin *)
June 16th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
KC
I suppose you are refering to the Scopes Trial (1925). That is a little bit of a stretch. There have been several ruling since. Most notably Epperson 1968 and Edwards in 1987 by the US Supreme Court.
So unless the ID’ers are going to appeal Kitzmiller v Dover, it will be the basis of legal precedence.
Once again, if you have any doubt that ID = creationism, google the words:
cdesign proponentsists
kid cool
June 16th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
KC,
It’s utterly obvious that the kind of “intelligent design” promoted by the discovery institute etc is just creationism re-branded in an attempt to circumvent the establishment clause. That is what the Dover decision ruled. The fact that there might be other theories which could be called “intelligent design” (like Hoyles panspermia argument) is irrelevant, because it isn’t related to what people are trying to get put into the science curriculum.
It’s quite disingenuous to keep conflating these after the difference has been pointed out.
Bringing up Scopes is rather disingenuous too, since the courts (all the way up to the Supreme court) have repeatedly repudiated that decision.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Excellent comment by Ad Hominid, quoted below.
Liberals here may have a hard time understanding just how unpopular McCain is with the far right of the GOP, demonstrating once again that these things are relative.
Among other things, the rightâ??s complaints involve McCainâ??s stances on immigration and campaign funding, and his refusal to deny the facts of global warming. His worst sin in their eyes, though, is his willingness to work with noted liberals at the legislative level; terms like McCain-Feinstein and McCain-Kennedy are anathema to the far right.
As a supporter and admirer of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, I have had a ring-side seat for the Republican rightâ??s descent into madness over the past 30 years.
In the 1960s, Senator Goldwater was far and away the most prominent conservative in national politics. He literally wrote the book on it; (Conscience of a Conservative 1960).
Yet today, his positions would place him firmly at the left of the Republican Party, if he could remain a Republican at all. In 1989, at the height of the religious rightâ??s power, Goldwater told a reporter that the Republican Party was â??being taken over by a bunch of kooks.â??
June 16th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Reed:
Actually, the Scopes case went to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which upheld the ruling. Such a case didn’t reach the USSC until 1968.
Here’s an interesting thing: First the courts rule that Tennessee can ban the teaching of evolution, then several decades later the Supreme Court said it can’t. Courts can – and have – reverse rulings, and based on similar evidence. Which is why some fear the USSC could one day overturn Roe vs Wade.
Compare this to science, on which theories stand on facts until such time as new facts come to light. This isn’t lost on the general public.
Frankly, my opinion of the Dover ruling matches that of Mr. Bumble in “Oliver Twist,” when he was told that the law presumed his wife acted under his direction.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
That is especially difficult given that the trend is observably in the other direction:
Btw, that and similar statistics that has recently been doing the rounds are simply misinterpreted by apologists:
[The author's thesis is that "the great majority [of democracies] enjoy long, safe, comfortable, middle class lives that they can be confident will not be lost due to factors beyond their control. [...] Not a single advanced democracy that enjoys benign, progressive socio-economic conditions retains a high level of popular religiosity. They all go material. ” The US differs, as it, ironically, is involved in the “darwinian” rat race that fundamentalists yearn for in their societies, competing without for these purposes enough social security.]
June 16th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
@ KC:
It isn’t so much the ruling as the provided evidence.
This goes far outside the court room to satisfy those who suspected the historical trend from creationism to “scientific creationism” continued unbroken into “intelligent design”. (And then “teach the alternative” which became “academic freedom”.) It is the same arguments and the same players recycled.
Well, your reference is indeed what is called Hoyle’s fallacy, as pointed out earlier.
The argument (which is actually of older heritage), and the term “intelligent design” (again of older heritage) was adopted by the ID movement that started at about the same time. Simple as that.
But FWIW Hoyle was a creationist at that time, just not a fundamentalist creationist as IDers; your own reference says so. These types of fallacies and their motivation are more often than not connected.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
The standard answer – ‘nature has defined it that way’. Whats wrong if the creationist replaced the word nature with God?
Actually scientists don’t use that standard answer because we know that nature hasn’t defined it at all. It just is. Nature is not sentient, it doesn’t have a goal, it doesn’t mess with people’s minds, eg the fossils being buried by Satan to confuse man. The definitions have all been done by humans trying to measure the universe. Nature didn’t define a kilometer or a second. That’s why you can’t use “God” instead of “nature”.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
@Mike Haubrich
“Well, if he thinks that only the best science and only the best thinking should be presented he is hoisting himself by his own petard.”
Dumb question here, but what is a petard? Im sorry but I really dont know; I feel ignorant. Is it sumthin I dont wanna see in a photo?
)
@Kid Cool:
“He says “God played a role” that could very easily mean that 13.7 billion years ago God said “let there be light,” or maybe he burped.”
It wasn’t a burp…where do you think all the methane in the universe came from anyway? Huh? Answer me that.
)
June 16th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
KC wrote:
BA, Here’s a question for you:
Let’s say that you have an election in Boulder for city councilman. One candidate is rumored to be, shall we say, not quite an upstanding citizen. The other is so squeaky clean he makes Pat Boone look like a hoodlum. The only thing is that the squeaky clean politician also is a supporter of ID, and wants to get it into the Boulder school system.
Who do you cast your ballot for in the election?
A. The Shady politician who won’t try to get ID into the school system but who might be a corrupt official, or
B. The Squeaky clean politician who will be the very pillar of integrity, but who wants the schools to teach ID alongside evolution.
# The Bad Astronomer replied:
That’s easy. I’d speak loudly and clearly and let everyone know that we need a third choice.
Unfortunately, we often have a fourth choice: the candidate who wants to put ID in the science curriculum who is also in the pocket of every corrupt special interest in the county? Worse yet is when there is really no choice because that describes both candidates and the incumbent . . .
June 16th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Thoughts, anyone?
My take is that real conservatives were pushed out by fiscally liberal religionists. The iconic conservatives of decades past like Barry Goldwater would never have put up with this theological nonsense. In fact, Goldwater specifically warned against mixing religion and politics.
In fact, here’s a handy page:
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Goldwater.html
Key quote: “I don’t have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country.”
If the GOP can recapture *that* type of conservatism, I might look at the seriously again. Dim hope, I know, but I have to hope for something. Obama wants to rape my financials because I made an effort to live responsibly.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Deepak
>>>”But I have a quarrel with scientist for not giving even 0.001% chance of an ID or God existing who may have started the universe. Dont scientist always take the escape route and call it ‘nature’ when they can’t explain something?”
There is always the possibility that a God may have started the universe. But that has nothing to do with science. Unless there is some observational evidence of its existence. There are many scientists who are religious, but STILL reject ID, since they understand that ID has nothing to offer science because it is simply apologetics dressed up in “sciencey” sounding language. And I’ve never heard of scientists using nature as an “escape route”. If they don’t know something, they will admit that and say “Let’s try and find out.” But postulating “GODDIDIT” as an answer serves no useful purpose in helping us to try to understand the world we live in, as it makes no predictions. It might make people feel better if they are believers, but again, this is for theology, not science.
>>>”Though we have no evidence of time travel or existence of parallel universes, scientist say that it is possibility. How come? The same way, why can’t God be a possiblity though we dont have any evidence?”
There is at least the maths to back those up. For instance, Hawking talks about quantum computers in his book, The Universe In A Nutshell, I think it was. Stretching my memory a bit here, but he talked about quantum computers being faster than your average computer. The reason being that using quantum calculations there was possibly many computers in parallel universes all working on the same calculations all at the same time working in tandem with each other. Now, this may not necessarily describe reality, there may or may not be parallel universes, but the maths works because it makes useful predictions. And it has practical applications. No, I don’t know how quantum science works either.
The point is, that God is unfalsifiable. The moment it becomes falsifiable then maybe useful predictions can be made from that hypothesis. Until then, whether a god really exists or not is a moot point in science. So asking for a “fair hearing” of a “god hypothesis” is a counter-productive idea, until anyone can posit a falsifiable test or theory for such a being. Note that just because the idea of a god is kept out of the science arena (for pretty obvious reasons when you think about it) that doesn’t mean to say it doesn’t exist. But it doesn’t mean to say the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn’t exist either.
Isn’t that right, Robbie? (grin)
KC
>>>”In this case, what Fred Hoyle believed is important in that it scuttles the ID = Creationism claim, for Fred Hoyle wasn’t a Creationist.”
Maybe not, but if still alive, going by what was in that link, he might have been considered one today. Certainly, the Creationists have adopted all of his “arguments” as their own. Even if they didn’t, and his ideas of an ‘intelligent creator’ were somehow different to creationists, all it shows is that creo’s had this idea of changing the word “creationism” into something that sounds more “sciencey” and they just happened to come up with a similar sounding-name for their idea, or they stole the phrase from Hoyle. Either way, ‘Creationism’ was deliberately changed to ‘Intelligent Design’ for the express purpose of circumvent the law in order to teach Creationism in public schools (cdesign proponentsists cough cough). And many of Hoyle’s ideas on certain areas of science are simply not accepted by the scientific community in general, like quasi-steady state cosmology for example. And this has little to do with his opinions on a creator. Simple fact, ID as it is pushed today, IS Creationism, and whether it be Hoyle’s ideas or Creationists ideas, even if there were any difference, simple fact, ID is not science.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:23 am
DenverAstro, a petard was an explosive used to breach castle walls. Explosives work being inherently dangerous, being hoist with one’s own petard meant being too close to the thing when it went off. It’s another way of saying your plans have backfired, scoring an own goal, etc. The phrase was popularised by Shakespeare in Hamlet.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:46 am
DenverAstro:
The universe started with Hydrogen, helium, and some Lithium, no methane.
Maybe God did burp, and the last 13.6B years has been indigestion, with occasional flatus.
Do you suppose Titan has a lot of cabbage and soft drinks??
kid cool
June 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Lab Lemming, nice joke. FYI, the legal standard for civil cases (Which Dover was) is “the preponderance of the evidence”. “Beyond reasonable doubt” is the standard for criminal cases.
tacitus said:
> I would be amazed if you could come up with anything to show that there was a shift from atheism to agnosticism at any time in the last hundred years.
Especially since those two are not mutually exclusive positions.
KC said:
> Tacitus is dead-on that what Hoyle believed is different from what Creationists would be comfortable with – which I think is partially my point. Because of this introduction to ID, I cannot say ID = Creationism.
Sounds more to me that Hoyle was a proponent of the Anthropic Principle. That is the notion that physical constants of the universe were fine-tuned to provide a universe so that humans could/would evolve. It’s relationship to ID is that the ID camp does rely on the anthropic principle and AP arguments. ID is most visible in the Evolution/Creationism debate, but don’t let that fool you, ID is looking at other realms of science. Guillermo Gonzalez, the guy that the ID crowd cry foul over not receiving tenure, is an astronomer. He is the author of The Privileged Planet, which is heavy on AP reasoning. In its strong form, the Anthropic Principle reads very much like Intelligent Design – something is guiding and controlling the universe.
From the wiki article linked:
Reading that material, I’m at a loss to understand what other kind of guiding intelligence could be at work. Furthermore, Hoyle makes arguments for why Evolution is incomplete, but I don’t see any offerring of alternate mechanisms for the development of life. He proposed panspermia, that life came from space and not originated on Earth, but that doesn’t address the origins question, how did life form in space? So he fails in exactly the same way the Discovery Institute fails. It’s still magic. I can’t see any justification to argue Hoyle is not a creationist. Hoyle may not have been a biblical literalist (I don’t know), but he certainly has some notion of a creator being at work.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Before you do your own exorcism on Jindal, look at his record (and compare it with, for example, Obama’s):
Graduated high school at 16.
Graduated from Brown U (Rhode Island) with honors in biology and public policy.
Master’s degree from Oxford. Rhodes Scholar.
Led Louisiana’s Medicaid program from a $400 million deficit to a $220 million surplus, in 3 years.
In 1999 he became the youngest president of the University of Louisiana system.
Unanimously confirmed by Congress to be Bush’s Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation.
In 1997, he won as Louisiana Congressman with 78% of the vote.
He’s the youngest serving governor in the country, and the first non-white Louisiana governor since 1873 (another Republican).
And he was (1) born in the US, and (2) is now 37.
So you can take your pitchforks and torches, and in the immortal words of Miranda Priestly, find someone else to bother with your silly questions.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
@ ZZMike
Yeah… and all that means he’s not a creationist kook, woo-woo and someone we should be afraid of ever having a position as important as VP?
Ok… so resumes are the deciding factor for you… try this one on:
This person:
Scored a 1590 on his SAT’s
Graduated Princeton with honors.
Scored a perfect score on his LSATs
Graduated with honors from Harvard Law School
Won his party’s gubernatorial nomination with a whopping 81% of the vote.
Spearheaded reform in the Securities and Insurance industries by investigating and prosecuting crooked executives while a District Attorney.
Led the investigation that put an end to the Gambino family’s control of the trucking and garment industry in Manhattan.
Won his state’s gubernatorial election easily, with 69% of the vote.
Seems like a pretty good resume right? Well, that resume belongs to one Eliot Spitzer. So please spare me your “look at his resume” rhetoric. Doesn’t prevent him from being a whack job.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
[...] almost a foregone conclusion that Jindal will sign it; oddly enough a man who is both a creationist and thinks exorcisms can cure cancer may not have a very good grasp on [...]
June 19th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
No, physics finetuning is something else and well defined, and anthropic finetuning from the religious Anthropic Argument something else and fallacious.
There is a whole range of more or less likely APs, from the Tautological AP (TAP) that the universe has suitable parameters (which could be due to coincidence or a perfectly constrained fundamental theory), over the Weak AP (WAP) that observers are likely to be found with suitable parameters, to the Strong AP (gods or similar principles ordained that observers must be found with suitable parameters).
The AA is mistaking a posteriori likelihoods for a priori probabilities – it is very unlikely I got the poker hand I got when I was dealt, but it was very likely that I got a poker hand when I was dealt.
Actually he makes (fallacious) arguments for why abiogenesis is incomplete. Same mistake as creationists willfully propagate.