Gartner addresses hypomania, a condition he holds to be genetic, a complex of traits that include major risk taking, a tendency to grand, sometimes grandiose visions, consummate “salesmanship” (selling others’ on one’s ideas), and dogged determination to not give up in the face of adversity.

The argument that black Americans descended from slaves might be genetically limited because they, alone among immigrant groups, did not seek opportunity and its attendant risks, but were passively transported to America, is not a new theory, nor absolutely racist, per se. Sociobiologists several decades ago pointed out that slaves were people captured and dominated by their fellow Africans, and sold to white traders. Many whites were taken to America only under the condition of free transportation, with an expectation they would fill low-wage manual-labor jobs. Many were brought in groups, and passively went along as followers of others. Millions of white Americans have the entrepreneurial “DNA” described by Whybrow and Gartner. Many do not.

Who knows why Medved wrote his natural-selection/differential DNA-supporting article? Perhaps it is because he is an intellectual explorer. It is common for people of this type to test, even promote ideas briefly, and then abandon them after further consideration. He left Yale law school as a far-left Democrat, working for African-American congressman Ronald Dellums, who was a socialist. Despite “conversion” to Republicanism, Medved has admiration for Mr. Dellums as a smart, hard-working and effective representative for his constituents’ interests (Dellums is locally beloved and is now serving as mayor of Oakland, CA) despite Medved’s current rejection of socialism per se.

That’s not what was proven in the Dover trial. The creationists were trying to teach creationism. The creationists managed to perjure themselves during the trial making the same arguments you are claiming.

“First of all, that article is not endorsed by the Discovery Institute.
Second, How is it racist?”

A senior fellow at the Discovery Institute writes an article espousing creationist beliefs and it somehow has no reflection on the Discovery Institute. How interesting.

As for your inability to see the racism in the article just shows me you are blind to common sense. Taking a people and declaring them genetically inferior because they were brought here against their will as slaves, and those slaves being largely of African heritage, is a racist statement.

In typical creationist fashion he relies on pseudoscience failing to realize that even the Europeans migrated to their lands. This is why the creationist tripe that comes from the Discovery Institute should be treated as the BS it is.

First of all, that article is not endorsed by the Discovery Institute.

Second, How is it racist?

Once again, Logic 101:

The simple fact that there are those Creationists out there that use ID to support and further their cause doesn’t prove that ID = Creationism.

The Dover Trial was a sham. The ID people do not advocate that we force schools to teach ID nor do they agree with what the people were trying to do there.

Creationist might have been trying to force ID into the school, but once again, that doesn’t prove that ID = Creationism.

Like Senator McCain, you should know the racists you associate yourself with.

Where did the Discovery Institute say any such thing about Whites and Blacks?

I don’t see how they are different. So creationists edited their textbooks and used a different phrase to replace references to creationism.

It was all made clear in the Dover trial that the two groups are exactly the same.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
The video proves it.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=”

Funny, I went there and went down to the peer reviewed section. First on the list was an article that was retracted from the publication for not meeting scientific standards and not being peer reviewed.

The second one wasn’t a scientific study.

The third and fourth ones are books, not a peer reviewed research articles.

Clearly I don’t need to waste my time looking through the rest of the dishonest work by the Discovery Institute. One of the more recent pieces of work to come out of there was some racist tripe about how White are genetically superior to Blacks because they migrated to America on their own and not slave ships.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/05/14/respecting_-_and_recognizing_-_american_dna

Once again, you are mixing two different groups of people. Not all Creationists believe in ID. I don’t.

ID doesn’t equal creationism. Yet you keep mixing the two.

Yes.

But I just asked for a summary, in your words, of what you would teach in a science class regarding ID.

So, why not give us your take on the subject?

Creationists don’t try to prove anything. It’s not like the Discovery Institute is spending their millions on research, they spend it on propaganda.

Scientists have already supported the fact of evolution with mountains of evidence. Creationists are the only ones with double standards. They demand scientists support evolution with facts (which they have) but don’t want to present anything to support their claims.

The analogy is accurate though. Expecting a theory to explain something involving a completely different theory is absurd. Should the germ theory of disease have to explain magnetism? Nope, so neither should the theory of natural selection have to explain abiogenesis.

Do you think that Evolution could be summed up in 3 paragraphs and taught in class just like that?

I don’t.

If you really want to read up then here you go:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

Because I would honestly like to hear an ID supporter give us their version of a science class ID lesson.

The supporters of ID want it to be taught in public schools - how would that go?

Why?

That is a rather absurd analogy and either way it is beside the point.

The point is that you and others here demand proof from ID that you don’t demand from Evolution.

Just as Evolution doesn’t prove life or attempt to, neither does ID prove the Designer or attempt to.

Who cares what Outlander thinks about the Designer. He is not the official representative for ID theory. That is not what ID theory states.

That’s how creationists sound to scientists when they demand the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life.

See Nathan?? Outlander thinks the Designer is God… or, “Him”…

I doubt he means the FSM!! LOL

——————-

Complex chemistry? I’d say so JR! So complex that the best scientists in the world cannot create life. Yet this supposedly happened by luck, stirring a bunch of chemicals together and voila, life.

Oh and that’s not all. In evolutionary theory, not only single cell life but life actually live performing incredibly complex functions. That can replicate itself, become more complex, become self aware, see hear, fly, think. The odds of getting the correct amino acids in correct order to even produce DNA have been computed as almost infinite.

How anyone could look at life and not see the hand of God is beyond me. Unless you are uber-evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins, who allows in an interview that possibly space aliens were involved.

No JR, we all have a very good Designer to thank for that. Tap into Him.

I rest my case.

Well it used to when it was still called creationism, but the schools wouldn’t teach it so they edited that part out and renamed it “intelligent design,” and couldn’t understand how anyone as dumb as they assumed educators to be saw through their little deception. Now I don’t know whether you’re being deceptive in your claim or just plain stupid. I suspect the latter. Unfortunately only deceptiveness is curable.

The trial kept ID out of the public school curriculum!! Geez!!

That is not what the Dover trial proved.