Fairness Doctrine Watch: A preemptive strike
Received a notification this evening about a GOP preemptive strike against the Fairness Doctrine to be unveiled tomorrow. Good.
Several principled, free-speech Democrats have signed on.
No, just kidding about that last part. Just want to make sure you’re paying attention.
Here’s the press advisory:
January 6, 2009
*** Media Advisory for Tomorrow ***
Republican Leaders Announce Bill to Ban Fairness Doctrine
Congressmen Pence and Walden join Senator DeMint in a press conference to highlight the introduction of the Broadcaster Freedom Act on the floor of the U.S. House. The Broadcaster Freedom Act would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from implementing the Fairness Doctrine without an act of Congress.
Participants: Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)
Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Time: 12:30pm
Location: Senate Press Gallery, S-316, The Capitol
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Preemptive strike on the “Fairness Doctorine” | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- The Fairness Doctrine Clouds Are Gathering (UPDATE) « The Forum
- Fairness Doctrine News « That’s Elbert With An E
- Public Secrets
- Sierra Faith
- Rachel Wells - Conservative Patriot » Blog Archive » GOP Fairness Doctrine Fight Begins!!
- When Liberals Complain Aboot Fox News…(No. 12 in a Series) « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Knee Deep in the Hooah! » Fairness Doctrine; Preemptive strike
- Democrats Will Attempt To Re-Impose The Fairness Doctrine « America, You Asked For It!
- LOUNGE DADDY » Pre-emptive strike on the Fairness Doctrine! Can the loss of liberty be curbed, or is it too late?
- Coulter vs. Lauer: What did she actually have to say?
- 1/7/09 Wednesday Round Up « Jane Q. Republican
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Fairness Doctrine
Pundit & Pundette
» Our new overlords are just getting started
Daily Caller
» Bart Stupak is either not very smart of he’s not very honest. There really is no other optionDoug Ross @ Journal
» Barney Frank on the Rule of LawSister Toldjah
» Time to shame some House Dems, Senator Tom CoburnBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebNice Deb
» Paul Ryan For President
With the 111th? Let’s see how this flies with these non-partisans.
DeMint should be a real contender for the nomination in 2012. He’s showing more promise by the day. Get to his website or send him kudos at his senate office…he needs to know we’re backing him. That’s quite a limb to climb out on without support from the ranks.
I guess we should send him kudos now, because in the next four years we’ll get sent to re-education camp for supporting free speech.
I can’t find fault in DeMint’s voting record.
That said, he is too good to be president. We are not deserving of him.
DeMint has been a bright star for the dull GOP…we can only hope, can I say that or is it not allowed by the Messiah?
Utterly amazing to me this legislation would be needed, when the wording of the 1st Amendment is as clear as day.
The world is upside down. And it’s only going to get worse.
Our own “Pravda” apparatchiks in the MSM and Barry’s Ministry of Truth won’t take this lying down.
The “Fairness Doctrine” is the very reason God invented the Internet and had all those Talk Shows get websites with the ability for listeners to listen online or on Ipods.
Oh hum.
NOW the Republicans show some spine.
Too little, too late, too ineffective.
They are going to have to show me more than this to get my support again.
“No, just kidding about that last part.”
Been a long, long day and I fell for this line. Good one!
Ann Coulter was unavailable for comment.
GMAC Bowl
Is someone going to bail out Ball State?
The irony of the title “fairness doctrine” is that it is neither fair nor qualifies as doctrine.
The whining infants who suck at the teat of liberalism do not believe in religion per se, so the word “doctrine” in its historical context is obviously lost on them.
That’s because she was banned by NBC at the moment.
Will she actually get on NBC Wednesday or will this be like Jimmy Kimmel’s running joke with Matt Damon?
Any politician who wishes to silence our freedom of speech, should be
SHOT AS A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michelle…thanks for staying on top of this…we can’t let this happen without at least making a ton of noise about it.
Any politician who wishes to silence our freedom of speech, should…
Have their names spat upon.
Suffer a life a skin boils.
Boiled alive in oil.
Die of a thousand cuts.
Burn in eternal agony.
“….Vee haf vays…….”
DeMint is dah man!
Finally…they’ve actually grown some.
DeMint always had a set, but sadly that just gets you ignored in favor of people like John McCain and their “bipartisanship”
GMAC Bowl! University of Tulsa 45 – Ball State 13!
Let’s go-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o Tu-u-u-u-u-u-l-l-l-l-s-s-s-s-s-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a!
Yess! That’s what we want!
I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
If the Democrats get pre-empted on passing a return to the “Fairness Doctrine”, they’ll simply use another method, most notably FCC licensing rules and that little bit of verbiage about “serving the public interest”.
“without an act of Congress”
Given how close the democrats are to 60 votes in the Senate and their control of the House that doesn’t mean anything. Remember McCain and the “Gang of Fourteen”?
Next up comes the “Fairness Doctrine” for the internet.
Nothing like suppressing rights all in the name of freedom. We are still paying for the actions of the Congress of 1933 and it only looks to get worse from here. Just wait til you see what they have planned for their next act!
On a side note and off-topic: It is great to be back!
DeMint is very promising. I have been watching him very closely for the past few years. He’s an old school Conservative from what I can tell through his votes, actions and words.
They …and we have to stop calling it the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’ It sounds too nice to the same dumb sheep that put Chairman Zero and the Rubber Stamp Congress in office. Call it what it is, “Government Speech Regulation.”
I think when they start attacking the US Constitution that should be the line in the sand that defines the traitors from the Americans. The traitors should be dealt with harshly. Does anyone remember the scene in John Adams where they tar and feather the “King’s Man” on the docks? Bring back the good ole days.
It seems, today, we are the “traitors” unless we join the new way. They call us “facists” when, in fact, they are the ones that embrace its principles. They want their own views only heard by the population. Sound familiar, historians?
It is clear that Pelosi and her socialist gang are planning to stay in power longer than Castro. To accomplish that they will need the “anti-Fairness Doctrine”.
Good luck to the republicans, but like others above, I think it is too little too late.
Has SanFran Nan implemented her new rules yet? I haven’t seen or heard anything about that in the last few days.
Either way, the Wicked Witch of the West will probably not let it come up for any type of vote in her “most ethical congress ever.”
mattymatt10 said:
So is the wording of the 2nd, and that hasn’t stopped them from trying to kill it for years now.
The government encroachment into our rights and liberties has always been incremental. They are not so blind as to think that they can take them all at once but like frogs in cold water, they will bring it to a boil over time until we the people are just servile and fully domesticated rather than cooked, although are collective goose certainly will be.
In other words, they will continue to take them one step at a time as long as we allow them to.
They can’t ignore them, so they “animal farm” them.
NEWSFLASH:
The Constitution has been tossed aside lock,stock and barrel.
Which is what one needs when it has been!
embrace the surrealism
Spot on. I wonder which freedom or liberty they attempt to take away next that will finally have us all exclaiming – enough!
30,
Nobody can take a “right” from me,they are God given PERIOD.
In California and Nevada they can come in to your home and tell you when you can build a fire to stay warm. They can tell you what kind of light bulb you can use. They can tell you that you cannot legally smoke in your home in Calaveras County. They tell you that it is illegal to allow people to smoke in your private business (If you own a bar you know how this impacts your business)
They cannot take your rights?
They already are unfortunately!
So, NOW the Republicans are growing a pair!? Well, better late than never. Here’s hoping Republican Party Chairman Mike Duncan and other RINO’s don’t sabotage their effort by offering to be “bi-partisian.”
30, I remember in 1996 the democrats started passing all sorts of gun controls. Then the Republicans, with the Contract With America, started making a comeback. Even Bill Clinton said the NRA was one of the main reasons dem’s lost so big that year.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have been in a slow decline eversince.
So, there was NO reason for the 1st Amendment? We have the 1st Amendment so we will not end up like Muslim countries. We can (for now) take about Jesus. That right is eroding – fast.
If you think your “right” to knowledge is god given (and it is), do go into a science class and talk about intelligent design. There is NO room for bringing facts into a science class (and we will not even get into the problems of bringing up Gorebull Warming in the science class).
No, we are rapidly having our right to free speech taken away by being complacent. Until America cares more about this country and less about Idol and Dancing, we can watch much of our god given rights evaporate.
My first post was about Ann Coulter. She had the audacity to criticize a person who is not even in office yet and she got the boot from NBC – AND THE PEOPLE CHEERED!!! [insert roar of crowd here]
Please, just continue to say your rights can’t be taken away. Don’t be shocked when you end up being charged with a hate crime for saying something about our black POTUS.
I think what you are saying is that you would be willing to fight for your rights (correct me if I am wrong). I am in complete agreement. That’s the point of my statement. What is it going to take before we say – enough?
States’s rights trump my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. My ability to own a handgun (or any gun for that matter)is, unfortunately, at the mercy of the Chief of Police in my county. He can decide based on whatever, if my husband and I can protect ourselves and our home with the stroke of a pen.
I’m sure that Reid and Pelosi will send that bill right to the floor!
Right along with a congressional demand to see obamas orginal birth certificate.
Thank you Michelle. I will add this to my list of oxymorons.
Well, it would force the Democrats to actually vote, in public and on the record, to roll back the 1st Amendment. The possibility of a backlash may give them pause.
I think the public bought into the McCain-Feingold abomination because they were led to believe it was some kind of anti-corruption bill. It would be much, much harder to sell the fairness doctrine as such.
There is a reason for the First Amendment, as there is for the entire Bill of Rights. But the purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to grant rights, only to enumerate them. In the Founders’ view these rights are endowed by the Creator and the Government’s job is to guarantee them. A government that doesn’t guarantee them, or worse actively abridges them, is illegitmate.
No, the Dems have firm enough control of both Houses that bill would die a quiet death in committee, and would not be reported on by the MSM at all, and only the listeners of Rush, Levin, et al and readers of sites like Malkin, who already know the truth, would hear anything about it.
This bill won’t make it out of committee.
If they refuse all House Republicans should walk out. The MSM has no choice but to report that.
Pelosi has set the standard with her new rules. Take off the gloves and forget any pretext about being civil. No quarter asked and none given.
Starting to stir some…its not groundhog day or something is it?
Fairness Doctrine, i believe, is simply a way of trying to force liberal viewpoints down the throats of people who don’t want them, or dont agree with them. I would say that if liberals want to push their agenda on the airwaves, they could just get their own radio stati….oh wait, they did, and it’s a flop. conservative talk radio beats the crap out of air america-type radio consistantly and definitively.
Or, they can just keep using MSNBC, with Keith Blabberman (who i loved while he was on sportscenter, but now he just needs to STHU because he’s way over the hedge now). Either way.
I would also comment on something I have a hard time explaining to others, that i feel is important.
I wholeheartedly agree that the global warming garbage is something that needs to be addressed. But ID is also something that doesnt have a place in a science class. It’s not science. there’s no measurable way to quantify the existance of god, or anything else like it for that matter. Leave the religion in the church. ID “facts” are not facts. It’s a religious agenda with pseudo-academic wrappings.
Beware of anything that uses the word “Fair”.
Just in case, I still have my shortwave hidden in the basement so I can tune in “Radio Free Rush” when he is forced to transmit from a pirate station on a barge anchored outside the territorial waters.
Obama may gut the military, but he’ll have one or two patrol craft that will sink any pirate radio ships.
Let me guess: Pot si, tobacco no, right?
Specieation has never been proven.
There are no “half bats” in the fossil record.
Darwinism is a religion whose dogma cannot be challenged, regardless of the holes in the theory.
You’re attempting to make a case for me, that I never made myself.
I dont belive in Darwinsism either.
I don’t pretend to know all the facts. But what i do know is injecting anything but science into a classroom lowers the standards by which we teach said classes.
When you can prove the existance of something intelligent that created this, in a scientifically sound manner, then we can talk about ID.
I don’t want to hijack the thread either, and I have more study to do on the issue. But I don’t have to produce a watchmaker to prove one exists.
A good sign that the apolocapyse (sp?) is upon us will be when “Voice of the Martyrs” starts listing the United States of America as persucting Christians just like China/Iran/and et al.
GSP (in humble prayer>
“This is Sparta!”
…just proved my point.
See, science is NEVER wrong. Any objection to the majority view is NOT science.
The few that believed that the world was round were laughed out of their field and proven later to be right (P.S. the Bible said it was round BTW).
The science class if filled with “theory” that has to have other “theory” to back up the lack of physical evidence. Case in point: No evidence in the fossil records exists where a species (and there are all kinds of problems with this definition) changes dramatically into another species. Answer? Punctuated Equilibrium saves the day. You can’t prove it so it MUST be true. What a flipping joke.
Check this out and see how science does not want to be challenged.
ROFL at the explanation of how life started. Back of crystals, seeded from space travelers… all good science????
Completely agree. So, when do we get rid of evolution? Even speaking about getting rid of false science is silenced and that was the point of bringing up science in the first place.
Check out the video I linked and see if the science community is not into censorship.
Um, can I mention the Goreacle’s movie?
ID? God? Crawled out of the primordial ooze at the beginning of time?
Look, I’m in the middle of a 15 year crisis of faith. Still have my bible, still open my bible. Make certain my kids are in church. But do I necessarily beleive the bible? Nope.
Now, that said, I most certainly believe in God. Or, for the sake of argument, and intelligent designer. And the only proof of that I need is to look at my hand.
Look at your hand. Look at the palm of your hand, fingers outstretched. Make a fist and turn your hand over so you are looking at the back of your hand. Stretch out your fingers again. Move them. Independently of one another.
The human hand-for form, simplicity and function-is the most amazing piece of mechanical engineering ever devised. The chances of it being an accident are, I would guess, around the same as me winning the powerball in every single state that I run my truck through*. Every time that I pass through.
That there is a God, I don’t doubt. And that he or she is one h#ll of an engineer is painfully obvious to anyone who looks at themselves and the world around them.
*My chances would greatly improve of winning those power balls if I ever actually bought a ticket I suppose. But hey, when it comes to gambling, I am a confirmed loser. So why waste money I could spend on my wife and kids?
yeah, i figured this was going to happen.
Perhaps you dont need to prove the point about the watchmaker, but i can also look them up in the phonebook. In fact, to illustrate…in the Washington DC area, if you do a yellowpages.com search on “Watch Repair”, I received over 658 listings. That would be 658 more listings that God’s phone number.
A weak, tired, and useless analogy. I expect more from you guys. Please tell me the last time you picked up the phone and called god. Or got a letter in the mail? How about a visit at the front door, or had coffee with him (and calling prayer talking to god is not exactly what I mean, so, skip that too..)
Didnt think so. Dismissed on that.
I didnt say evolution shouldnt be challenged either. In fact, i’m sure i said i didnt have the answer. And i’m not convinced anyone else does either. Dont take my dismissal of one aspect of the conversation for absolute agreement with another. Do i think anything brought into a science class, or a discussion for that matter, should be tested, challenged, retested…you know, the scientific method…as a matter of fact. Absolutely. Intelligent Design doesnt, at the end of the day, fall into line with anything scientific. “Something intelligent created everything.” Well, that sounds nice. Until you even attempt to place the scientific method to it, and suddenly find yourself scratching your head, because there’s nowhere to begin. I mean, lets take Id and apply it, so there’s no question about it later.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question: Did God create the Earth?
Do Background Research: The bible…yeah, not a credible scientic journal…so where now? There’s no place for me to obtain said research…
Construct a Hypothesis: “I believe God Created the Earth.”
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: OOPS. Now what? I dont have anything i can apply the test to…but i’ll just accept it because my religion tells me to…
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results: CRAP. I couldnt get past anything that required me to apply fact, and thus….well, thats a bust.
Evolution, even as a theory, is distasteful to me, if you want to know the truth. The conclusions seem to be haphazard or presented in a way as to seem to fit the facts and theories out there, but…no, i think things like that need to be properly vetted as well.
So please dont shove an argument into my mouth i clearly wasn’t making to begin with.
You can. I think Gore is a hypocrit, playing on the fears and ignorance of others for his own personal gain. I’ve discussed gullible warming here before, and I’m pretty sure we’re all in accord that people who swear its humans trashing everything have no clue about natural warming and cooling cycles, how the environment works on a basic level, and so on.
My point, directly…is that ID isn’t science. I dont know how to make it any more plain than that. If you believe god made the earth and heavens, then fine. You’re entitled. But dont try to teach something as science that isnt.
And we can deal with the other things people push as science, that arent, as we go as well. I’m not picky about getting rid of things that aren’t true. I don’t want to be confrontational, but…sometimes, just as you believe something…i feel the need to not be silent because I don’t believe it. Everyone is welcome to their thought on the matter, but, science and religion are things that can sometimes mix perhaps..but ID isnt one of them. I’ll stop jacking the thread, because the bottom line is at the end of the day, regardless of anything i say…if i dont agree with religion, then its clear i’m wrong. /sarc off.
and twofoot…
i hear ya. i’m on year 17. i can completely relate. Its all about the search, all about what it is you find the truth to be, for you. And in that respect, i’m good with whatever people believe (as long as its not harmful to others, ala RoP)
As far as the fingers part, it doesnt prove there’s a god. It proves i have a hand, and nothing more really.
Again, to each their own..and i hope you find some resolution to your crisis, like i hope i do for my own one day.
Peace
Fairness Schmairness.
My blog will continue as is with or without the “Fairness Doctrine”.
Anyone who wants to silence me can come meet me personally.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Why does water boil?
It seems there are some here who only think about the transfer of heat, movement of molecules, and expansion of gasses– when an equally valid answer is “to make a cup of tea”.
Quantify and scientifically prove the existence of Love. If you love your wife 5 cupids, how many do you love your neighbor? 3 cupids? 2? How about your kids? Also 5 cupids, or 4.5?
Gravitational attraction, while quantifiable, can only be proven by its effects. You can’t put some in my hand. It can’t have an address or phone number.
I think there are questions science can’t answer, and to try to do so is meaningless.
But you’re still trying to defend something that can’t be defended.
Take boiling water. You nailed it, and then cut yourself down in the process when you through in the “because” reason at the end. Not really a good example though.
Love is an emotion. I’m not trying to pass it off as some scientific explanation to something you can’t answer otherwise. That example doesn’t fit the narrative of what you’re asking me to accept. Whether I can personally quantify it or not, we experience them constantly. Humans have the ability to experience emotions, can communicate them (sometimes easier than others), and their effects (both internally, physiologically, and so on) CAN be measured. Increases in pupil dialation, heart rate, etc. But still, not the same comparison. You’re asking me to accept something as science that in the end, is not in fact scientifically based. I’m not asking you to justify human emotions. Stay on point.
And you provide me with the fodder for the last one. While you can’t hold it in your hand, it can be identified, measured, and its effects seen. Wind is no different. But using your own mentality, i dont need to be a meteorologist to know the wind is or isnt blowing outside.
That is to say, for both of those examples, that there are legitimate, physical ways to measure both gravity and wind. Molecules are “invisible” to the naked eye as well, no? (unless you’re eyesight is THAT good), and yet…we have a way to prove they exist.
Again, you’re free to believe as you wish, but..trying to throw a “well, since you cant prove me wrong, I’ll just use examples of other things that are difficult to prove or quantify”…doesnt really approach the problem of ID being unscientific.
Not everything is science, nor should it be. But dont come to me with “ID is scientific” when its clear there’s no way to prove it is, and any proof system we use AS part of science can’t justify your claim.
ID isnt science. Bottom line.
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)
Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302
Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of “irreducible complexity.” Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the “no end in view” mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.
Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design.
Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.
Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)
Biology exhibits numerous invariants — aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lönnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that, if corroborated by experiment, could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB)
This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
Nevermind. Abstractmind says it’s not science. It must be so.
When they eliminiate conservative talk radio, then they probably will go after conservative blogs on the net. After that they will tell preachers in their churches on what they can preach or if they don’t they will arrest them. I see the antichrist coming fast.
There was balance in the latest election–the MSM for Obama and talk radio for McCain.
The American Conservative Union gives Senator DeMint a 98.22 rating voting Conservative.
Senator Obama got a 7.67. Interesting that 7.67 number-rather close to a pistol bullet caliber 7.62 Nagant, the pistol the NKVD used to exterminate the Polish Officer Corp at Katyn. Stalin is being rehabilitated at the same time Obama is being worshiped and William Ayres is being accepted mainstream.
—
That every man be armed-you too ladies