http://www.space.com/searchfor.....70215.html

Movie director Frank Capra wasn’t disclosing a staggering new truth in noting that “what interests people is people.” One dead-obvious reason is that those who are thoroughly unresponsive to their fellow humanoids don’t get a lot of representation in the next generation. We’re most interested in people, in the same way that click beetles are most interested in click beetles. That’s evolution.

But why the seemingly preternatural fascination with famous personalities, be they powerful figures (politicians, for example) or mere celebrities, as was Ms Smith?

That, too, seems to have a clear evolutionary benefit. Unlike most of the beasts of the forest, we’re quite good at learning things. Stories–made possible by speech–are efficient ways of conveying life lessons to the young without the trouble and danger of actually having to demonstrate. Hearing stories about successful people, as well as those who have fallen, could prompt us to imitate the behaviors of the former and avoid those of the latter. Heroes, in other words, have survival value.

Conflating arguments for common descent with arguments for the whole paradigm is becoming pretty common.

The real answer to the Republican stuff is “so what?” If true, so what? Look up the genetic logical fallacy. This is a case of it. I think the best answer is to joke and try to work in the phrase “Karl Rove’s mind-control device.”

Also, if you ever have to engineer something, even a software system, you learn about trade-offs. Maybe a sinus that never clogs will cause the brain to explode. This seems to be an argument from ignorance.

His insistence that Bush increased his vote by attacking science elicited, “You really believe that?” But Robyn had it on good authority, it seems: “It increased his vote, and it’s all in print … it’s in the book by Chris Mooney … ” he stated. Well, I guess that settles the issue!

She also corrected him on other points, including ID’s history. The debated philosophical points made interesting listening as well. A very entertaining interview, but yes, the controversy goes on …

It’s easy to talk about what a better human would be like. But it’s impossible to talk about what a perfect human would be like. So for me, the fact that there are always things we can improve upon is – oddly – more evidence of intelligent design on the grand scale. Because we’re able to understand the process of improvement and ascent. I wonder if that’s a uniquely human trait.

“Most computers have a backup/standby system…” Says Robyn.

Yes Robyn, and most computer systems have intelligent designers behind them. Sorry, did I say “most”? I meant ALL!

Good gracious this guy is dense.

Denyse, I wish you would have jerked a knot in his tail – you were entirely too patient.

In Peter Ward vs. Stephen Meyer at the Discovery Institute back in April 2006, Dr. Ward couldn’t resist a few jibes at Republicans, even going way back to Richard Nixon.

In Richard Dawkins vs. Steven Colbert back in October 2006, they can’t resist taking a small swipe at poor George (see long link at end of message).

But I must say that this most recent exchange between Robyn Williams and Denyse O’Leary is the most bizarre example of the syndrome that I have heard to date. I can’t believe that Robyn Williams seriously thinks that George Bush’s 2004 presidential election victory was influenced by intelligent design. There is nothing about the presidential election process that could ever be associated with the word “intelligence”.

Is ID a political movement? Clearly the other side wants to quickly dismiss it as such. Where is the non-ID debate partner who is willing to actually address the ID question head on?

——
Dawkins on Colbert (part 2):
http://www.comedycentral.com/m.....ideo=76820