LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

  

Link address:
Link title:
Description: 
Remaining:

Video: Bobby Jindal Supports Teaching 'Intelligent Design'

Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:06:37 pm PDT

He tries to dance around the issue to avoid offending either side, but it’s clear that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal favors the teaching of “intelligent design” in science classrooms. Thanks to Allahpundit for letting me steal his video clip; his comment is also on the mark:

The politics of this issue are convoluted — majorities want both evolution and creationism taught, but roughly twice as many voters are less likely to vote for creationist politicians than more likely — so Jindal’s non-answer is the safe way to play it. But can we please, at least, lay off the federalist rhetoric he uses here until it’s settled whether ID violates the Establishment Clause or not? It’s a fine conservative idea that local school boards should have more power than state boards or the DOE, but constitutional violations are constitutional violations all the way down the chain, federalism or no. Jindal surely knows that too, which I guess makes that his second dodge.

Youtube Video

1741 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 The Other Les  6/16/08 4:08:28 pm reply quote 4

We need to start the Lizard Party.

2 Typicalwhitey  6/16/08 4:08:44 pm reply quote 0
3 harpsicon  6/16/08 4:08:58 pm reply quote 0

This is the end for him as far as being McCain's VP is concerned. The moderates McCain needs to win will take this as a poison pill - hard to imagine an easier way to chase them all away.

Sarah Palin for VP!

4 Ojoe  6/16/08 4:09:14 pm reply quote 2

Oh no, not again!

God could have come up with the current scene in many many ways.

Bye.

5 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:09:21 pm reply quote 1

Play nice lizardoids!

6 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:09:44 pm reply quote 1

re: #1 The Other Les


You think WE can agree on this issue? If so, you haven't been paying attention.

7 Typicalwhitey  6/16/08 4:09:47 pm reply quote 5

I don't know what it is about him, but I just think he is great.

8 CapeCoddah  6/16/08 4:10:42 pm reply quote 9

Good Evening all, Just stopped by to say hi, but, I don't think I can take any more ID arguments. ID is just plain silly, and everyone over the age of six should realize that, IMO. (that is just about when I started questioning it.) Sorry if that offends anyone, don't mean to be insulting, but I am of the opinion that being asked to believe in ID insults MY intelligence.

9 Typicalwhitey  6/16/08 4:10:54 pm reply quote 1

I don't see the problem.
Why can't they teach either BOTH sides or neither.

10 Typicalwhitey  6/16/08 4:11:41 pm reply quote 7

re: #8 CapeCoddah

Good Evening all, Just stopped by to say hi, but, I don't think I can take any more ID arguments. ID is just plain silly, and everyone over the age of six should realize that, IMO. (that is just about when I started questioning it.) Sorry if that offends anyone, don't mean to be insulting, but I am of the opinion that being asked to believe in ID insults MY intelligence.


No offense taken.
I feel the same about those that think we just evolved from blobs of goo lol

11 Catttt  6/16/08 4:11:42 pm reply quote 1

Whistles. Taps foot. Goes away.

12 Charles  6/16/08 4:12:00 pm reply quote 26

re: #9 Typicalwhitey

I don't see the problem.
Why can't they teach either BOTH sides or neither.

Because one side is science and one side is religion. Only the science belongs in a science classroom.

13 Sharmuta  6/16/08 4:12:38 pm reply quote 4

So now it's PC to insist on the scientific method. That's a nice way for a member of the right to smear his fellow travelers with the brush of the left and it's very dishonest.

14 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:12:50 pm reply quote 8

re: #8 CapeCoddah

Yes that IS offensive. I am glad that you don't agree, but your smug, and insulting comments towards those that do are unecessary and rude.

Its ok if you disagree with the idea of G-d, but you should do so politely, and without insulting those that disagree with you.

15 CapeCoddah  6/16/08 4:13:18 pm reply quote 1

re: #8 CapeCoddah

Crap, Im gonna get into it. We do not advocate teaching the true existence of Santa or the Easter bunny either. We should NOT be teaching this stuff to our kids in school. The educational system is already far enough in the toilet as it is in this country.

16 Typicalwhitey  6/16/08 4:13:29 pm reply quote 1

It would be nice if it could be taught in a scientific way, but I don't really see how.
Any teachers out there want to have a go at this?

BTW Charles, I truly enjoy being part of this community.

17 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:13:49 pm reply quote -1

re: #12 Charles

One could argue that Science IS religion. (see the Global Warming "science" for example).

Both require a very large amount of faith.

18 Charles  6/16/08 4:13:55 pm reply quote 19

re: #14 WrathofG-d

Yes that IS offensive. I am glad that you don't agree, but your smug, and insulting comments towards those that do are unecessary and rude.

Its ok if you disagree with the idea of G-d, but you should do so politely, and without insulting those that disagree with you.

Belief in "intelligent design" has nothing to do with belief in God.

19 karmic_inquisitor  6/16/08 4:14:11 pm reply quote 1

re: #1 The Other Les

We need to start the Lizard Party.

Or a 527 called the "lizard coalition"

20 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:14:19 pm reply quote 6

re: #15 CapeCoddah


Did you just compare the Real G-d, to the make believe "santa"?

You think this is going to help you?

21 Charles  6/16/08 4:14:20 pm reply quote 7

re: #17 WrathofG-d

One could argue that Science IS religion. (see the Global Warming "science" for example).

Both require a very large amount of faith.

You could argue that, yes. But you'd be wrong.

22 winston06  6/16/08 4:14:26 pm reply quote -1

I think the best policy s to let students choose what they want to learn.

23 snowcrash  6/16/08 4:14:54 pm reply quote 0

If he wants kids exposed to "the very best science" then he is not talking about ID. It sounds like same old political doublespeak. No surprise there. I will wait to see what this man can do as Govenor of Louisiana before I make any judgements re his credentials for higher office.

24 abolitionist  6/16/08 4:15:10 pm reply quote 0
25 Typicalwhitey  6/16/08 4:15:24 pm reply quote 5

re: #22 winston06

I think the best policy s to let students choose what they want to learn.


Uh well, mine would only take gym and music classes then lol

26 njspeer  6/16/08 4:15:28 pm reply quote 1

It's official. Science is the new religion, and NOONE is allowed to challenge the new religion.

27 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:15:32 pm reply quote 0

re: #18 Charles


in that case then I am confused on the concept of "intellegent design' as I took it as "The World & creatures were created by G-d". The Intellegent Design being from the Intellegent Designer.

I should maybe look deeper into this. Maybe LGFrs can help out.

28 Sharmuta  6/16/08 4:15:47 pm reply quote 7

re: #22 winston06

I think the best policy s to let students choose what they want to learn.

Many would choose to learn nothing unrelated to video games.

29 jemima  6/16/08 4:16:24 pm reply quote 0

#22
Most students would choose Wiccan 101 and the History of Football over science or literature. But yes, let's let them keep choosing the courses, it's worked out so well thus far.

30 Charles  6/16/08 4:16:56 pm reply quote 5

re: #27 WrathofG-d

You wrote:

Its ok if you disagree with the idea of G-d...

It's a non sequitur. He said nothing about belief in God. He expressed disbelief in "intelligent design" and that is NOT the same thing.

31 Ojoe  6/16/08 4:17:15 pm reply quote 0

re: #18 Charles

Belief in "intelligent design" has nothing to do with belief in God.

No it does not.

Better to perceive God, even in a thin way, than to believe in God, anyhow.

I know I said I wasn't going to pay attention to this thread.

Bye again.

32 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:17:15 pm reply quote 3

re: #21 Charles

Ok so we disagree. However, I would argue that if one would accept the proof, much of what is claimed by religion can be actually prooven (ie: faith alone is not necessary. However if this has nothing to do with G-d, then I might just, again, be confusing the issues)

In addition, I would point out how much of Science's "proof" and "truths' have been shown to be horribly wrong.

33 winston06  6/16/08 4:17:16 pm reply quote 0

re: #28 Sharmuta

Well, I meant letting them choose what they want to learn with respect to ID or Evolution.

I am an evolution believing infidel but I think people should be free to choose what they wish to learn. Nothing should be forced on people.

34 Typicalwhitey  6/16/08 4:17:19 pm reply quote 0

re: #29 jemima

#22
Most students would choose Wiccan 101 and the History of Football over science or literature. But yes, let's let them keep choosing the courses, it's worked out so well thus far.


My older kids hated that I had to approve the courses they took in high school. They thought they could try to skim by and take easy stuff only.

35 The Other Les  6/16/08 4:17:34 pm reply quote 0

re: #17 WrathofG-d

One could argue that Science IS religion. (see the Global Warming "science" for example).

Both require a very large amount of faith.

Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't science. It's a con game.

As an atheist for three decades I could also say that Religion is a con game too. But I'm not a professional atheist so I'll stop right there.

36 Poopshoot  6/16/08 4:17:51 pm reply quote 3

So seriously, why is this kind of thing always railed against here? It's like the global warming issue - seems the blog entries are always phrased such that "the debate is over".

Why can't intelligent design be intelligently discussed?

37 winston06  6/16/08 4:17:59 pm reply quote 0

re: #29 jemima

Seems Public Education system sucks both in Canada and the States

38 Typicalwhitey  6/16/08 4:18:05 pm reply quote 1

re: #33 winston06

Well, I meant letting them choose what they want to learn with respect to ID or Evolution.

I am an evolution believing infidel but I think people should be free to choose what they wish to learn. Nothing should be forced on people.

We knew that ;)

39 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:18:35 pm reply quote 0

re: #30 Charles

Please see my #27. It seesms I am confused on the core issue here. When I hear ID I think "Created by G-d". It seems that you are trying to say that this understanding is incorrect.

40 Catttt  6/16/08 4:18:46 pm reply quote 3

Miracle

/runs away

41 Metal Man  6/16/08 4:18:48 pm reply quote 0

ID is flawed as a topic to be taught in science class but so is the goracles Fahrenheit 9/11 religion tape.

The only good that will come from this debate is that Science will actually start being taught again. But that is not likely to happen before the monopoly in education is broken.

42 Typicalwhitey  6/16/08 4:19:02 pm reply quote -2

re: #36 Poopshoot

So seriously, why is this kind of thing always railed against here? It's like the global warming issue - seems the blog entries are always phrased such that "the debate is over".

Why can't intelligent design be intelligently discussed?


Personally I think that has to do with the separation of Church and State, which is always, imo taken too far.

43 vapig  6/16/08 4:19:03 pm reply quote 1

re: #14 WrathofG-d

Yes that IS offensive. I am glad that you don't agree, but your smug, and insulting comments towards those that do are unecessary and rude.

Its ok if you disagree with the idea of G-d, but you should do so politely, and without insulting those that disagree with you.

Thank you! Nicely said. I try not to play on these threads for that very reason.

44 jim in virginia  6/16/08 4:19:29 pm reply quote 3

Jindal is a Republican from the Deep South. (Lousiana is a special case but the argument still fits.) A significant part of the base is fundamentalist Christians. Regardless of whatever his personal beliefs are, it's simple political calculus.
Politicians have to act like politicians.

45 Agahnim  6/16/08 4:19:39 pm reply quote 0

Weee!

46 Yashmak  6/16/08 4:20:08 pm reply quote 2
So now it's PC to insist on the scientific method. That's a nice way for a member of the right to smear his fellow travelers with the brush of the left and it's very dishonest.

- Sharmuta

Now PC? It has nothing to do either with PC or the left, or dishonesty for that matter. The scientific method is the very foundation of the sciences. You want to teach as a science, it has to fit the definition. ID doesn't, and that's the long and short of it.

47 gopninja  6/16/08 4:20:10 pm reply quote 0

this isnt nearly as damaging as his writings concerning catholicism and heretics. Weird exorcism stuff too, i dont know why it wasnt brought up more in his election.

48 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:20:19 pm reply quote 1

re: #35 The Other Les

Yes you could say that....and the truth is that noone will really know until the Moshiach comes, or after we are dead.

I do not believe it is a con game, for many reasons, including that my religion doesn't allow anyone to specifically benefit from this "con". (we don't have centralized tithe or other forms of benefit to specific cleagy). Thus there is no benefit to the con.

49 Charles  6/16/08 4:20:22 pm reply quote 10

re: #36 Poopshoot

So seriously, why is this kind of thing always railed against here? It's like the global warming issue - seems the blog entries are always phrased such that "the debate is over".

Why can't intelligent design be intelligently discussed?

We've had a lot of intelligent discussion and we'll have a lot more. But if you expect that to mean agreement with the intelligent design hoax -- well, you're going to be disappointed.

50 freakagriep  6/16/08 4:20:27 pm reply quote 0

re: #18 Charles

So on one hand you say it's religion, but then you say it has nothing to do with God? How can one believe in a God who did not create? Don't get that one.

Also, why is the o in God censored?

51 Sharmuta  6/16/08 4:20:34 pm reply quote 5

re: #33 winston06

Well, I meant letting them choose what they want to learn with respect to ID or Evolution.

The problem with that is it's still not science and it will hurt the children's ability to further their education. If they want to learn about ID- then they should add a philosophy class to the school's curriculum, but it's not science.

52 CyanSnowHawk  6/16/08 4:20:38 pm reply quote 0

re: #23 snowcrash

If he wants kids exposed to "the very best science" then he is not talking about ID. It sounds like same old political doublespeak. No surprise there. I will wait to see what this man can do as Govenor of Louisiana before I make any judgements re his credentials for higher office.

He has come out with a position on a hot button topic that is guaranteed to alienate many moderates from both parties. That alone is enough to poison his chances at the VP nom, regardless of any other credentials for higher office. One may wonder if that was his intent.

53 jemima  6/16/08 4:20:47 pm reply quote 0

Public education will be so much better when it's like that madrassah in Virginia. No choice at all. No science except what mohammed unintelligently invented.

Just ask Barry, he'll tell you all about it. Maybe that's why he knows zip and cares less about the Constitution.

/

54 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:21:08 pm reply quote 0

re: #43 vapig

My beliefs dont' require others to.

55 jim in virginia  6/16/08 4:21:19 pm reply quote 4

re: #22 winston06

I think the best policy s to let students choose what they want to learn.


Then no one would ever take algebra.

56 ted  6/16/08 4:21:43 pm reply quote 0

May as well teach this too.

[Link: www.theflatearthsociety.org...]

57 Catttt  6/16/08 4:22:18 pm reply quote 5

re: #39 WrathofG-d

Please see my #27. It seesms I am confused on the core issue here. When I hear ID I think "Created by G-d". It seems that you are trying to say that this understanding is incorrect.

Intelligent Design was created to remove a specific mention of God or a specific religion so as to avoid the legal problems with trying to teach creationism in public schools. However, it still evokes the supernatural, which cannot be subjected to the scientific method.

58 Reno911  6/16/08 4:22:20 pm reply quote 0

It's business time.

59 DeathtotheSwiss  6/16/08 4:22:22 pm reply quote 0

Hey, since I'm not in the mood to argue against the creationists I'm going to take the easy way out.

First, formulate your argument against evolution. The find it among the many such arguments here: CREATIONIST CLAIMS

The responses to your argument will come from the link you click. Thanks.

60 Charles  6/16/08 4:22:25 pm reply quote 18

re: #50 freakagriep

So on one hand you say it's religion, but then you say it has nothing to do with God? How can one believe in a God who did not create? Don't get that one.

Also, why is the o in God censored?

Good grief. Are you folks trying to misunderstand my point?

You can believe in evolution and believe in God.

61 ted  6/16/08 4:22:25 pm reply quote 0

re: #55 jim in virginia

Then no one would ever take algebra.

And Geometry.

62 Fat Jolly Penguin  6/16/08 4:22:26 pm reply quote 0

re: #55 jim in virginia

Then no one would ever take algebra.

See, I'm psychotic. I love math. I'd be the only one in those classes!

63 Summer  6/16/08 4:22:27 pm reply quote 14

ID is not science.

Even some die-hard Christian scientists working in genetics and biology recognize that ID is not science and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

There is no "debate" about evolution, and there is no "other side" to the theory. ID believers are coming across in the mold of historical revisionists at this point.

Please leave ID out of the classroom and out of politics. You can keep it in your churches all you like. That's the real "debate" about the issue.

As Hitchens points out, if you truly are about "equal time", then start teaching evolution in churches as well. Until then, you're just being hypocritical.

64 reine.de.tout  6/16/08 4:22:28 pm reply quote 2

re: #23 snowcrash

If he wants kids exposed to "the very best science" then he is not talking about ID. It sounds like same old political doublespeak. No surprise there. I will wait to see what this man can do as Govenor of Louisiana before I make any judgements re his credentials for higher office.

Good idea. From a Louisiana Lizard, who voted for Jindal as Gov. He has a lot of learning to do; and he needs to rethink how he manages.

65 vapig  6/16/08 4:22:38 pm reply quote -1

re: #30 Charles

You wrote:


It's a non sequitur. He said nothing about belief in God. He expressed disbelief in "intelligent design" and that is NOT the same thing.

I'm as confused now as WrathofG-d, for I've always thought it to be the same thing just renamed so as not to upset the Establishment Police.

66 winston06  6/16/08 4:22:52 pm reply quote 0

re: #55 jim in virginia

Some courses are part of the mandatory general education, right?

67 Sharmuta  6/16/08 4:23:04 pm reply quote 1

Wrath- start here.

68 solomonpanting  6/16/08 4:23:07 pm reply quote 0

I thought life sprang from a coke bottle.

69 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:23:11 pm reply quote 4

re: #50 freakagriep

Jews use a - instead of an "o" in the name of Ha'Shem (ha! now I'll have to explain that too), the Creator because Judaism believes that out of respect for G-d and the name of G-d that His name shall never be erased. Thus if you use an - instead of an "o" you aren't actually using a "name" of G-d and therefore when the page goes bye bye the name isn't erased.

Its to show reverence to the holy name of the Creator.

70 CapeCoddah  6/16/08 4:24:02 pm reply quote -1

re: #14 WrathofG-d

Sorry, Wrath, but maybe YOU can answer a question I asked Father many years ago as a child, and got sent home for: If god created only Adam ans Eve to populate the Earth, who the hell did their children marry? Where did it go from there? It simply makes no sense. I believe in God, and I have faith in God. I also believe organized religion was devised as a way to police an early, extremely superstitious population, who had not the knowledge yet of how things worked. We have come too far and learned too much about what is real. The bible is a vastly entertaining book, and gives us great insight about how early humans thought. The ID "theory" is nothing more than early man's attempt to answer questions that no one had figured out yet. I also believed as a young child that if I dug a hole deep enough, I could end up in China. With education, and reasoning, I grew to understand that was not true.

71 cajunbelle  6/16/08 4:24:34 pm reply quote 1

OT, but the young gaffer has struck again:

Obama on "President Maliki"

72 Ojoe  6/16/08 4:24:43 pm reply quote 0

How soon will this thread evolve to 1000 posts, on another subject by that time?

73 vapig  6/16/08 4:24:49 pm reply quote 0

re: #40 Catttt

74 yochanan  6/16/08 4:25:06 pm reply quote 4

i for one don't give a hoot about this one way or the other,

an IRANIAN NUKE going off is my major issue the obamamassah will do nothing to prevent it.

75 WrathofG-d  6/16/08 4:25:33 pm reply quote 0

re: #57 Catttt

Why couldn't one "proove" scientifically that in order to have the molecules, etc., there would have to be a Intellegent Designer (ie: G-d).

The best Scientific explaination I have heard for this "prooving-up", was the book: The Science of G-d.

76 Poopshoot  6/16/08 4:25:39 pm reply quote 1

re: #49 Charles

I'll start with a scientific argument (because, well, I'm a scientist, both by education and philosophy):

Entropic arguments preclude the assemblage of complex molecules from a "primordial soup".

77 Catttt  6/16/08 4:25:48 pm reply quote 1

re: #62 Fat Jolly Penguin

See, I'm psychotic. I love math. I'd be the only one in those classes!

I liked math too. I'd be there too. :D

78 Fat Jolly Penguin  6/16/08 4:26:13 pm reply quote 1

re: #77 Catttt

I liked math too. I'd be there too. :D

Yay! A kindred spirit! XD

79 buzzsawmonkey  6/16/08 4:26:18 pm reply quote 15

re: #17 WrathofG-d

One could argue that Science IS religion. (see the Global Warming "science" for example).

Both require a very large amount of faith.

One could argue that, but one would be wrong.

The "global warming" faith is an example of the bad science you inevitably get when you try to make science a substitute for religion.

80 njspeer  6/16/08 4:26:21 pm reply quote 0

Why isn't ID science? Can someone explain this?

81 Racer X  6/16/08 4:26:36 pm reply quote 1

re: #60 Charles

You can believe in evolution and believe in God.


Just in case anyone missed it.

82 jemima  6/16/08 4:26:38 pm reply quote 2

#70

Perhaps the Torah (Old Testament) is not meant to be taken at face value. It requires study and thought. It's not like a comic book that you read then throw away when you're done.

83 Inquisitive  6/16/08 4:26:44 pm reply quote 0

re: #27 WrathofG-d

in that case then I am confused on the concept of "intellegent design' as I took it as "The World & creatures were created by G-d". The Intellegent Design being from the Intellegent Designer.

I should maybe look deeper into this. Maybe LGFrs can help out.


I guess I am wrong also because I thought the same thing.

I also brought up the ? on the last ID thread of whether we are talking about Biology Evolution which is
Evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next ---I could agree on this due it is prov en that genes/DNA is passed from one generation to the other, but if talking about evolution as us evolving from a blob, then I could not agree because as an ID believer I believe GOD created all.
So will someone not only explain to me what distinction we are discussing and if Wrath and I are wrong on the term of the meaning of ID will you please let me know what it is.

84 thinkingmom  6/16/08 4:26:44 pm reply quote 2

Teach evolution only, if you must, but at least have the intellectual integrity to point out its flaws (for instance, the lack of a fossil record). As I see it, the problem is that macro-evolution theory is presented as scientific fact, and any dissent that points out a lack of real evidence (eg. a fossil record) is somehow anti-science. The refusal to admit the mere possibility that there may actually be evidence of intelligent design in life-forms suggests (to me, at least) a lamentable lack of objectivity.

85 the_vig  6/16/08 4:26:47 pm reply quote 0

I have changed my mind on teaching ID in schools. Obviously it ID is a very complex subject so it requires prerequisites so that the discussion can be useful for the kids involved. The Prereqs. should be advanced calculus (college level), advanced biology (college level), advanced chemistry and physics (college level). The will allow the teachers and students to actually explore the merits of Intelligent design.

86 Mars Needs Neocons  6/16/08 4:26:48 pm reply quote 0

re: #41 Metal Man

ID is flawed as a topic to be taught in science class but so is the goracles Fahrenheit 9/11 religion tape.

The only good that will come from this debate is that Science will actually start being taught again. But that is not likely to happen before the monopoly in education is broken.

Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't connected to Algore's global warming farce, that was something else entirely.

87 jim in virginia  6/16/08 4:26:48 pm reply quote 1

re: #62 Fat Jolly Penguin

See, I'm psychotic. I love math. I'd be the only one in those classes!

First they hook you on algebra, then they turn you on to the harder stuff. Trig, calculus, differential equations. Before you know it you're addicted to vector calculus.

88 freakagriep  6/16/08 4:27:07 pm reply quote 0

re: #60 Charles

Gotcha.

89 CapeCoddah  6/16/08 4:27:20 pm reply quote 1

re: #32 WrathofG-d

Like Galileo, for example?

90 buzzsawmonkey  6/16/08 4:27:21 pm reply quote 3

PS to #79: It is really, really stupid to substitute science for religion. It is equally stupid to attempt to substitute religion for science.

91 Sharmuta  6/16/08 4:27:42 pm reply quote 5

And Wrath? I hope you pay close attention to this quote from the founding father of the ID moveement:

"The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"

Is that what you really want kids exposed to in public schools?

92 Charles  6/16/08 4:27:51 pm reply quote 12

re: #84 thinkingmom

Teach evolution only, if you must, but at least have the intellectual integrity to point out its flaws (for instance, the lack of a fossil record). As I see it, the problem is that macro-evolution theory is presented as scientific fact, and any dissent that points out a lack of real evidence (eg. a fossil record) is somehow anti-science. The refusal to admit the mere possibility that there may actually be evidence of intelligent design in life-forms suggests (to me, at least) a lamentable lack of objectivity.

There is no lack of a fossil record. Seriously. This is simply not true. Please research it for yourself, before believing the dishonest claims of the creationists.

93 buzzsawmonkey  6/16/08 4:28:09 pm reply quote 4

re: #80 njspeer

Why isn't ID science? Can someone explain this?

Because it starts out with an assumption that it seeks to prove at all costs, instead of building its understanding based upon observation.

94 angst  6/16/08 4:28:19 pm reply quote 0

re: #3 harpsicon

I like Palin, too, but she'll be better in four years.

Will moderates see this as a poison pill? I doubt it. Social conservatives have long been the bane of moderate Republicans and libertarians. The abortion issue has taught them not to throw the candidate out with the bathwater when it comes to Presidential politics, because they know social change will come through the courts or on the state and local level.

The federal gov't doesn't have a lot to do with schools. There was the No Child Left Behind legislation years ago, but that's a pretty rare scenario. Jindal probably doesn't have the desire or the Congressional backing to even get a bill out of committee.

95 Dar ul Harb  6/16/08 4:28:26 pm reply quote 0

re: #16 Typicalwhitey

It would be nice if it could be taught in a scientific way, but I don't really see how.
Any teachers out there want to have a go at this?

BTW Charles, I truly enjoy being part of this community.

Well, if you attempted to teach it in a scientific way, you'd have to account for all the evidence contradicting intelligent design.

Start with, for example, the fact that the neural connections for the human retina are "backward" from the way you'd engineer it if you were designing it from scratch, resulting in a blind spot in your visual field where the optic nerve passes through the retina that your visual cortex then has to fake the data for and patch over.

"Intelligent" design apparently only got it right in the cephalopods. (see Fig. 1)

96 mean Gene  6/16/08 4:28:54 pm reply quote 1

Couldn't this have waited till a Friday or Saturday night drinking thread time?

97 Mars Needs Neocons  6/16/08 4:29:01 pm reply quote -1

Ok, I'm leaving. Charles, any chance of an open thread for those of us sick of the whole thing?

Let me know when the bannings are done.

98 Dayenu  6/16/08 4:29:27 pm reply quote 7

Forgive me, but I got to ask... is this issue really such a big deal? What with the war on terror, the rise of Islamic Supremacism, a Democratic party with its head firmly in the sand, if not outright aiding our enemies... and we're worried about whether or not kids learn that Evolution is a totally random process, or perhaps, just perhaps, there's a reason behind it?

I once taught Evolution in a Environmental Science class at a trade college. Only to find as soon as I said the word, I had some religious students say: "Evolution isn't true! It's just a theory!" It was like being sent back to my High School chess club bull sessions.

My response was that Evolution is what the scientists believe, whether they believe it or not didn't matter to me as long as they understood the basics of Evolution. And if the college ever asked me to teach a Religion class, I'd teach that G-d created life on Earth. But that class was Science. Somehow this argument worked and I could finish the lesson in relative peace.

From some of the stuff I looked into, "Microevolution," where species adapt to their situations, is pretty much proven. "Macroevolution" where a species evolves into a completely different species, has not been demonstrated nearly as conclusively. And, as always, there's the question of "first cause" which is virtually synonymous with G-d anyhow, so what's the big deal?

I kinda put this in the same ball park as Gay marriage... an issue which, in the larger scope of things, doesn't amount to hill of beans. There are huge problems in the Schools, certainly. But trust me, Evolution is the least of the Schools' problems.

99 vapig  6/16/08 4:29:36 pm reply quote 0

re: #75 WrathofG-d

Why couldn't one "proove" scientifically that in order to have the molecules, etc., there would have to be a Intellegent Designer (ie: G-d).

The best Scientific explaination I have heard for this "prooving-up", was the book:

100 ted  6/16/08 4:29:51 pm reply quote 1

"Religion is concerned with man's attitude towards nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with human mutual relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of accepted ideals.
It is this mythical, or rather symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. "

(Albert Einstein, 1948)

101 pre-Boomer Marine brat  6/16/08 4:30:04 pm reply quote 0

re: #12 Charles

Because one side is science and one side is religion. Only the science belongs in a science classroom.

Amen (that word deliberately used).

Keep religion out of the public square, for its own protection. Sharia will be the destroyer of Islam, because it exposes religion (the search for spiritual truth, the betterment of the soul) to the expediencies required of governance.

102 njspeer  6/16/08 4:30:11 pm reply quote 0

re: #93 buzzsawmonkey

Hmm, so it's not the theory, but the advocates? I that what you're saying?

103 Summer  6/16/08 4:30:14 pm reply quote 9

re: #75 WrathofG-d

Why couldn't one "proove" scientifically that in order to have the molecules, etc., there would have to be a Intellegent Designer (ie: G-d).

The best Scientific explaination I have heard for this "prooving-up", was the book: The Science of G-d.

There is no proof of God. People have been trying for thousands of years to prove God. It hasn't been done yet. Believe me, people have tried. If you know something that the entire rest of the world doesn't know, and can actually prove the existence of God, or a designer, in a scientific way...then you have the biggest Nobel prize coming to you - not to mention the adulation of every single religious organization in the world today and most of their adherents. But you can't do it. Nobody can do it. And until you can, it isn't "proof" that belongs in a lab, a scientific paper, or a science classroom.

Religious writings are not "proof" of god; not in the Bible, the Koran, the Gitas, the Eddas, or anything else. Just as I don't take religious writings to "prove" to me that the earth is flat either.

104 Charles  6/16/08 4:30:20 pm reply quote 2

re: #79 buzzsawmonkey

Oops! That's the first time I hit the minus button by mistake. Meant to plus you.

105 Gagdad Bob  6/16/08 4:30:21 pm reply quote 5

I thought that S.J. Gould's theory of punctuated equlibrium was advanced because of the acknowledged gaps in the paleontological record.

106 jim in virginia  6/16/08 4:30:51 pm reply quote 2

Everything evolves. Architecture evolves. Music evolves. Human beings in North America are now, on average, taller and live longer than they did two hundred years ago.
Why is it not possible for an omnipotent g-d to have used the process of evolution to create the world we see today?

107 Sharmuta  6/16/08 4:31:13 pm reply quote 2

re: #80 njspeer

Why isn't ID science? Can someone explain this?

Read up on the scientific method and tell us how one can apply ID to it.

108 gotha  6/16/08 4:31:44 pm reply quote 2

How horrifc. The thought of truth being taught in school. That's terrible.

109 MellyMel  6/16/08 4:31:52 pm reply quote 2

Ya know, I don't have a horse in this race as I really don't care what others believe and am not sold on creationism or ID being taught in schools.

However, I did get a kick out of my AP Bio teacher in high school. Whenever anyone asked a question that science couldn't answer, she would always say "Why is the sky blue?"

/Of course we all knew the answer to that scientifically, but it was a cool way of saying man doesn't know everything.

110 reine.de.tout  6/16/08 4:31:53 pm reply quote 1

re: #27 WrathofG-d

in that case then I am confused on the concept of "intellegent design' as I took it as "The World & creatures were created by G-d". The Intellegent Design being from the Intellegent Designer.

I should maybe look deeper into this. Maybe LGFrs can help out.

My understanding is that "creationism" is a literal belief of the world's creation as described in the book of Genesis. Creationists oppose evolution, believe the earth is young, and doubt that the evolutionary process exists.

"Intelligent Design" is one of the ways in which creationists attempt to insert their non-scientific view of the world's creation into science classes, rather than in religion classes, which is where I think God's creation of the world should be taught.

Charles mentioned "wedge strategy", and so I found this at Wikipedia:
Wedge Strategy

This contains an explanation of the Creationist / Intelligent Design as well as other informative links.

111 Summer  6/16/08 4:31:57 pm reply quote 7

And for the record, there is no lack of a fossil record. Have