In things like this, I think a Democratic president should ask him or herself the following question,"What would Huey (Long) do?" In this case, what would Huey do? Huey would do everything necessary to force Republican appointees off the commission, and then appoint liberal members of the Green party to fill their places until the entire commission is made up on Greens and Democrats, but no Republicans. Is it hard-knuckled? Yes, but the Republicans have decided that things like this are okay, so we might as well take advantage of it to give them a bloody nose. We need to keep things like this in mind. The only thing Republicans understand is raw political force. At this point, with all the horrendous things they have done to bring this country down, they don't deserve any civility or consideration.

Not a problem. I, a humble evolutionary microbiologist, could say nothing intelligent about dermatology, while yours was actually a pretty nifty comment.

What you describe with X-chromosome duplication would likely result in Eve being homozygous for all alleles across those two chromosomes, which is problematic because we usually have a number of recessive lethal alleles, and Eve would consequently be non-viable. It could be argued that by performing such a procedure god would have essentially created a programmed abortion, provided, of course, he did not alter each of those recessive lethals on the X-chromosome. This brings up the question of why god, being, well, god, did not simply snap his fingers and make Eve without reference to Adam.

However, what it all comes down to is that mythic explanations of the world should never be understood or explained the same way as scientific explanations are. Myths are metaphoric and should never be approached literally. The truths they contain crumble under such an approach. I think you know this, though. The problem is that the fundamentalists don't, which goes to their fundamental (pun intended) problem of misunderstanding religion (their own and others). The question I have is whether Huckabee understands such distinctions. I kinda gather that he likely does, but is willing to fudge to pander to the evangelicals the support of whom he wishes to garner.

While I agree with xxysyndrome that there is something that rankles about appropriating vapid "conservative" messaging tactics, I also think that it would be a good idea to use it. The problem is that the tactic works. The public is not the thoughtful, reflective decision making group we might wish it were. Certainly, pretty much everyone is capable of weighing options about complex issues, but that doesn't mean that their lives allow them to actualize those capabilities in regard to national issues. Given that rhetoric obviously works to at least get balls rolling, why not use it to accomplish some good? If it is necessary to use simplistic, rhetorical clubs to accomplish what needs to be done to fix this country and repair the damage done by the irresponsible "conservative" barbarians, then use them. It may be Orwellian to have initiatives called "Healthy Forests" that involve destroying forests, but it is not the same to have a "Healthy Kids" initiative that, well, is meant to help make sure the next generation is, well, healthy. Such a label would work to mobilize passions far more than would the laundry lists of specific policies that the Democratic party tends to put out. The list will still be there, but if we can talk about it in other ways that work better in debate, then why not?

Considering that the Republicans have been purposefully calling the Democratic party the "Democrat" party for decades as slur (there is no doubt about this, as it goes back even before McCarthy, and if you don't believe it is on purpose, you need to listen to any interviews with major Republicans - or Rush Limbaugh, for that matter), and whenever called on it, say they misspoke, I say don't give them the benefit of the doubt. Whenever a Republican does something like what Romney did, don't give them the benefit of the doubt. Whether it was a mistake or no, treat it as purposeful. Not only is this more likely to be the case, it helps to frame the Republicans as petty and childish people who cannot be trusted to have the maturity to effectively wield power. Obama should treat this incident as a purposeful slur against him, and use it to beat the dickens out of Romney for it. If nothing else, do you think the other side would do anything else? If the other guy is going to fight uncivilly, perhaps it is best to fight that way, too. Better that than risking another Swift boating.

Anonymous made a point I didn't disagree with. ID has no place in science, is scientifically invalid, and facts should not be distorted to make it seem scientifically defensible. However, ID is justifiable as a philosophy, as arguments can be made that can allow it to be consonant with the universe as it is observed, even if those arguments are not testable empirically. I also think that ID is perfectly valid as a part of one's mythos. It isn't logos though. Anonymous made it clear that he wasn't trying to argue that it was logos. I am fine with that, and I said so. If his religion includes ID as a position, but his view of science does not invoke ID, as a scientist, that does not bother me at all.

If there is a storming of Alexandria, I will be there with you on the ramparts, but I will not agree with you that all religion is worthless, or that there is not a qualitative difference between Rumi and bin Ladin (as you seem to be saying). I think you also need to keep in mind that passion can easily slip in under the name of reason. Now, if you will excuse me, I have some research to work on that I hope to publish on this lifetime.