Video: Jindal supports teaching of intelligent design
posted at 1:37 pm on June 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Qualified by the usual caveat, of course. He won’t say which theory he favors (beyond acknowledging some unknown role of the creator), but clearly he’s sufficiently sold on ID that he thinks it merits being laid in front of kids as an alternative to evolution. Which is a dodge, really, in the same way that the Truthers’ irritating “just asking questions” defense is a dodge: It uses the spirit of free inquiry as a way to avoid the threshold question of how credible any theory has to be to end up in the curriculum. Doubtless there are far left parents (and far right, per the Paulnuts) who wouldn’t mind seeing competing theories of 9/11 taught in history class so that kids can “make up their own minds,” but that ain’t likely to happen. Or actually, given the orientation of teachers’ unions, maybe it is. Stay tuned!
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 11 Next »
You sure you have the server space for this comment thread?
TexasDan on June 16, 2008 at 1:40 PM
1000 posts or bust!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Conservatives needed some more bad news. Thanks, AP.
Cicero43 on June 16, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Egg, chicken, continue.
I’m a Big-Bang Christian and am trying to be fully prepared for both Judgement Day and The Big Freeze.
Limerick on June 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Gov. Palin is more overtly religious (Evangelical) than just supporting a classroom introduction to ID theory (alongside theories of completely unaided evolution.) If this is a disqualifier for Jindal, Palin would be disqualified as well.
RBMN on June 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM
ID is not science and should not be taught as such. It is not the role of the state to be teaching religion. That is why you have sunday school. I personally believe that the big guy had a hand in creation but public schools are not the proper place for that discussion.
elBarto on June 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I’m not touching this one. Flaming hot. I just want science taught in the classroom and how about less talk about the origins of life in the science labs (from atheist and believers)?
terryannonline on June 16, 2008 at 1:47 PM
My impression is that most Roman Catholics believe in evolution.
Maybe he’s just trying to woo evangelicals so he doesn’t get the Mitt Romney treatment.
sandberg on June 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I support it. Not because I support ID (I outright oppose it, actually) but because I’m sick of atheists (see AP) self-righteously touting their perversion of the Establishment Cause with rogue teachers and professors pushing atheism on taxpayer dime. My parents paid for an education, not indoctrination, so **** you. Let there be war.
Darth Executor on June 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM
You are correct. It is a hypothesis. No one doubts that evolution (or devolution, in the case of Dumbocrats) exists. It’s the, “How did it all get started?” question. In this case, Big Bang and ID are hypotheses. ID does not have to refer to God. Some people believe ID shows proof of alien life forms.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM
This issue is a no win, no win for either side. Every person has what they think and feel. I doubt one person will change their mind today. I believe in ID, but that is my choice as a Christian. I can’t prove it, but the other side can’t either in my opinion.
L
letget on June 16, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Creationism is not at all the same as ID. Even if some of the Evangelical Community conflate the two every bit as the Darwinists are wont to do. Ben Stein’s No Intelligence Allowed was quite explicit on this essential point.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on June 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Slow news day, AP? Or maybe another “Atheists are smarter-er than everyone else ever” post should be done….
Personally, I don’t care about this debate. I believe in ID (for the record) and that is my bloody choice. You want to believe in evolution? Have at it. My beliefs don’t cause me to blow stuff up or honor kill people or whatever so stop trying to shove your crap down my throat. Grouchy morning for me? I think so…..
mjk on June 16, 2008 at 1:54 PM
He probably got word that he wasn’t going to be McCain’s VP. Otherwise, by touching this issue in this way he made himself less viable on a national ticket.
dedalus on June 16, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I’m a sad panda.
Why can’t our party just tell the Christian conservatives: “Hey, we like you and all, we’ve had a great working relationship and we 95 percent on the same page, but we’re going to have to disagree here and you’ll have to get over it. It’s science–it’s not religion class. And pease, no hissys: they’re unmanly.”
albo on June 16, 2008 at 1:55 PM
elBarto on June 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I am not sure how it isn’t science. Isn’t science the discipline to describe the world around us in a logical manner? I mean seriously there is less evidence of Global Warming and Evolution then there is in ID.
Conservative Voice on June 16, 2008 at 1:55 PM
A liberal governor would have said, “There can be no more debate.”
whitetop on June 16, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Forget ID… Jindal has jumped the shark this week. Our legislature decided to triple its pay, then in the face of HOWLS of outrage, conceded to “only” more than double it. Jindal says he will not veto it, because if he does, they might stymie legislation later on that he wants passed.
So in spite of the fact that he’s got near universal support in vetoing this abomination, and that quite a long time back, a whole bunch of us worked our as$es off to give the Gov a line item veto to hold the excesses of the legislature in check, he’s going to allow himself to be blackmailed into letting this go through. If Jindal is the future of the GOP, then God help the GOP.
Laura on June 16, 2008 at 1:55 PM
em>Creationism is not at all the same as ID.
Yep, it is. A name change does not a difference make. And the Dover case provided the evidence for that.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Evolution vs. ID is a non-argument. It is a question of the beginning, not the process since the beginning. If you’re going to argue something it would be big bang vs. ID.
And frankly, they are ALL theories. Discussion of theories does have a place in education (higher education at least), just as you’d discuss different literary theories. However, it is absolutely no value at all to discuss them in lower grades, as it doesn’t help a child with reading, writing or math. It’s just extraneous nonsense for the rest of us to argue about. :(
tickleddragon on June 16, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Because “our party” pretty much IS the Christian conservatives. Take the Christian conservatives out and all you’re left with is a fringe mintority nobody gives a damn about.
Darth Executor on June 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM
yeah, and who is going to decide whether its ‘constitutional’ or not?? those same good ole boys (+1 gal) who gave us the habeus corpus decision!!
the constitution is whatever the libs say it is. so of course ID will violate the constituion, while the preaching of the atheism of evolution is just fine….some pigs are more equal than others…
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM
How is it a violation of the Constitution to teach ID? ID doesn’t promote one religion over another…or establish a State religion. I agree that both ID and evolution should be taught.
Just because one has the opportunity to accept ID or not, doesn’t mean any religion is being pushed in public schools.
JetBoy on June 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM
How would teaching ID “establish a religion?” What religion would it endorse?
Besides, evolutionism is a religion, and it has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. Where ID on the other hand, explains everything within the creation model.
Time to dump evolution and stop propagating this silly idea that has no basis in fact whatsoever.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I believe in the big bang and a creator.
Darth Executor on June 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I think he played it well.
He’s a Christian, one shouldn’t expect that based on a flip-turn in questioning he disavowes his Christian beliefs.
The ToE is here to stay, but make no mistake, the ToE does not in any way shape or form prove the traditional god-constructs as invalid. If one thinks that it does, I suggest they read some Darwin and Huxley. Jindal makes a good (perhaps key) point about “the way that He did it”.
BTW, I’m atheist.
Jason Coleman on June 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM
oh yes, another impartial decision rendered by our judicial gods, that just happened to copy the ACLU…nothing to see here, move along…
laughable.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Once again, if you allow for privatization, you can bypass this problem easily. You don’t even have to go all private, you can allow for vouchers, and those who want ID or Creation taught in classrooms enough to go to a private school are free to do so. Problem solved. Besides, allowing for competition in schooling would do wonders for our craptacular government run school systems anyway.
doubleplusundead on June 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM
So, by equating ID to 9/11 in your little analogy, I assume that you are equating those who believe in a Creator to Twoofers. Thin ice, man.
Beo on June 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Thank you for saving me the typing. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
NTWR on June 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM
You support teaching ID purely out of Allahpundit spite? Weird.
Zetterson on June 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Science uses the scientific method. Scientists pose a theory, search for evidence, and if they don’t find it or find evidence to the contrary, they abandon it and move on.
ID does not. It already has its theory (a creator did it) and is only looking for evidence to support it. Finding none or that to the contrary, it will still never abandon that theory.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM
don’t worry, many of us won’t be voting for your party this fall…
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Man – This issue sucks.
Can church and state ever really be separated? Seriously? I’m a Baptist – I want to believe yes.
nailinmyeye on June 16, 2008 at 2:00 PM
evolution has its theory, there is no creator, and it is only looking for evidence to support it.
1) assume evolution
2) find a fact
3) fit it into the narrative of evolution
4) if that fails, wave the magic wand of time.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Judge Jones is a Republican from central PA, a hotbed of moderate Republicanism. Read the ruling–it is long and scholarly in its breadth.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM
ID lacks predictive power and isn’t falsifiable. Those are two ways that it doesn’t conform with science. Relying on supernatural explanations may be valid but it isn’t science.
dedalus on June 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
It’s turtles all the way down.
rightwingprof on June 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Alas,the gild is off the lilly.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Actually, I misspoke there. Just meant to say that evolution is about the process, not about the origin.
I don’t actually have a dog in the creation fight. No one knows, therefore it ain’t worth fighting over. But nor should it be taught as fact, like evolution.
tickleddragon on June 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
People are confused about what ID is. Even some of the proponents. ID can be discussed completely apart from divinity, if that makes you feel better. It can also be completely compatible with the huge body archaeological and anthropological evidence. It has to be, because it’s not trying to supplant the hard evidence. It’s only value is in the ways it might fill in the gaps in the hard evidence. But where hard evidence overrules ID, then the hard evidence overrules it. In IDs true form, ID and science don’t interfere with each other. If I find a sand castle on the beach, I can’t prove that it didn’t form that way just by wave action, but I can theorize that it didn’t.
RBMN on June 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Man, I hate this debate and wish we could get it out of the political realm where it doesn’t belong.
thirteen28 on June 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
You’ve said this before – and I still like it.
nailinmyeye on June 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
heh…this is gonna be a 500-comment thread by 8:00pm…
JetBoy on June 16, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Did the design docs have a stamp that said “Yahweh Planetary Construction” or something?
mojo on June 16, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Saying evolutionism (?) is a religion doesn’t make it so anymore than saying playstationism is a religion.
And it has 150 years of science to stand on. Just because you are not familiar with that science or haven’t read any of it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 2:03 PM
evolution lacks predictive power and isn’t falsifiable.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM
But when you have scientist who believe that evolution disproves God, therefore, that’s the way it should be taught. Isn’t that brining religion into the classroom also?
terryannonline on June 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Could we teach ID in, say, a literature class, or a class on world religions?
Just curious…
nailinmyeye on June 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Life had to have a creator..
just my opinion..
YMMV
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Good point.
nailinmyeye on June 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM
.
This isn’t fifth grade. “Nuh-uh” is not an argument.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Most egregious use/comparison of 9/11 truther movement here yet.
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Wrong on the scientific method.
Initially a phenomenon must be observed. From these observations a hypothesis (educated guess) which attempts to explain how the phenomenon occurs is ventured. The hypothesis must explain the phenomenon by proposing a testable and falsifiable set of factors and/or processes that result in the phenomenon. Thus if you change the factors or in some way alter the processes, you will change the phenomenon in some predictable manner. Predictable is the key word here. Altering the factors and observing how the phenomenon is affected is referred to as experimentation. The factor which is altered is referred to as to a variable. If the experiment does not result in the predicted outcome, the hypothesis has been demonstrated to be false and must be abandoned. If the experiments repeatedly turn out as expected, the hypothesis is supported. It must be stressed that a hypothesis is never shown to be true. Repeated experimentation which supports a hypothesis and develops the hypothesis further leads to the hypothesis being accepted as a theory. Often a well supported theory will be referred to as a law or principle. It should be noted that in reality it is still a theory, just one that has stood the test of time fairly well.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I just gave Allah as an example. It’s actually out of atheists spite in general. =)
Darth Executor on June 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM
albo on June 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM
And yet the “theory” of global warming is still pushed as science, as well as the “theory” of evolution. Science in its pure form is what you described, but the fact of the matter is there is far more politics than there is science in the discipline.
Btw, I agree that evolution happens within a species, but there is yet any proof that it happens across species. I think Id can be taught without mentioning the “dirty word” God and still pass the science test, in that it describes the world in a logical manner, that one can apply the scientific method. If anything describe to the young skulls of mush that there are things science has yet to figure out…like why there is gravity, or show there are too many things in nature that would be statistically impossible if happened at random ( like evolution, no matter how many millions of years you apply to zero probability, its still zero )
Conservative Voice on June 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM
There’s your mistake. Scientists aren’t saying evolution disproves God. They are just saying “here is the way the evidence we’ve found shows how species have evolved.” It makes no commentary on the existence or non-existence of a God.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Got a time machine?
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM
No…because again, teaching ID does not, in any way, endorse any religion. It’s main premise is that life on Earth, and the planets and stars, were “created”, and didn’t just happen by “chance”
Acknowledging a creator does not mean endorsing religion. But also, again, evolution should be taught as well as ID…both as theories.
JetBoy on June 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Oh snap.
2000 comments or bust.
MadisonConservative on June 16, 2008 at 2:09 PM
This just makes way too much sense…it has been proposed time and time again and the NEA just won’t have it.
The only argument they have, and the only real one, is that what do you do with physically challenged? The vouchers would have to be “adjusted” for them, to allow them to go to the school of their choice.
The other argument is…that it is a conservative idea, therefore no matter how pratical, how worthy, it isn’t acceptable.
right2bright on June 16, 2008 at 2:09 PM
RBMN on June 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Even the name “Intelligent Design” implies a creator. Stop with the crazy.
terryannonline on June 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Yes, but it’s also a straw man. For the most part, the only people running around talking about evolution “disproving God” are people who deny evolution and insist on teaching ID in the classroom.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 2:09 PM
its called projection. you can’t win the argument on facts or logic, so you have to make unsupportable statments.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Ap – do you really think that about half of your readers are on the level of 9/11 truthers? Seriously? It is a bit surprising to me.
nailinmyeye on June 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I understand. I was just trying to help you get a rise out of AP. He’s always so busy throwing the red meat around for us to munch on that I have to assume he likes to get a little piece tossed back in his direction from time to time.
Zetterson on June 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM
And, like all theories, if the evidence is found to disprove it, scientists will abandon it. We’ve abandoned many, many scientific theories over history that were previously thought to be axiom, to be actual facts–the earth-centric solar system, the theory of earth’s formation and vulcanism, for example. It happens all the time.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM
So Palin (or Meg Whitman) it is!
I like Jindal but he’s got to prove himself so that he won’t be labeled by stuff like this.
ninjapirate on June 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM
At the Denver Museum of Natural History, you’re required to sit through a movie before you enter the Dinosaur Exhibit. In this movie, the Darwinist version of creation is presented as scientific fact: Lightning strikes primordial goo, and Hey, Wowee, Zowee, single celled organisms swim about.
This is a statement of religious belief that, right now, is taught as “fact” in our public schools. I would prefer our kids get taught all the competing religions, including Darwinism, or none of them at all.
Or one of you Darwinists could link to some research where scientists struck primordial goo with lightning and created a single celled organism? Anyone? Beuller?
bonnie_ on June 16, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM
well said.
Conservative Voice on June 16, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Dude, you have some serious issues. I resent this statement. I understand your NEED to believe in unproven evolution. But scientists used to think that the earth was the center of the universe. Scientists are the ones who think that global warming is MAN MADE. Are you going to force the teaching that mankind is a destructive force on the nature through global warming with Al Gore writing the textbook?
Really dude, I understand that you CAN’T be taught anything other than Godless, but it doesn’t have anything to do with establishment clause. Evolution is bunk dude. . . I don’t care how many times you say it is ‘fact’. We did not get here through evolution. If we teach the pseudo-science of evolution, then we can teach the theories of creation as well. . . if you think we must teach an alien type origin of the species as well (so that we aren’t establishing a religion by explaining the concept of creation – which most of the world including Darwin and scientists believe), I’m sure that there is as much evidence that supports it as there is evolution.
It sucks to consider the possibility that there is a higher power that your feeble little mind can’t comprehend, doesn’t it AP?
ThackerAgency on June 16, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I understand you point. But that’s be honest here you can’t tell me that you haven’t a noticed an increase of scientists and science teachers wanting to interject their beliefs (both atheists and believers, frankly) in their studies and classes.
terryannonline on June 16, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Good point.
nailinmyeye on June 16, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism’ and I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?
The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for over 200 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.
Ever good Conservative should line up and kick Bobby Jindal right in the a$$.{updated]
- Barry Goldwater (For conservatives, “the father of us all”)
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 2:12 PM
This is what you get with an unconstitutional government education system – squabbling over what to propagandize the children with.
You send your kids to these monkey-farms, it’s your own fault.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Do Ed and Allah have a side bet going as to who can get the most comments in a day?
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Except for evolution. In evolution if evidence is found to disprove it, the person who brings it up is considered a ‘religious fanatic’. And they conveniently say ‘well, we’ll figure out why in the future’. Or they’ll say it is a ‘mutation’. . . meaning everything evolves for survival of the fittest except when it doesn’t.
Evolution has been disproven. But no other origin of the species is actually proven so scientists CLING to evolution out of bitterness from not knowing.
ThackerAgency on June 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Nothing in Jindal’s response struck me as a dodge. He supports ID enough to want to see it presented in school along with creationism. He admits to being a christian and believing in God and believes that God had a role in creation.
If the interviewer wanted to ask him why he believes the things he does, the interviewer could have asked him to explain why ID is “credible.”
Jindal played it straight. And this has nothing to do with whether I believe in ID or not, or whether I think it ought to be taught in school or not. But I do think I now know what Jindal thinks. What more do we want?
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Yeah.. line them up and ship them off to camps..
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I’m with you on the ‘it began’ BS. I believe in the Big Bang and I believe in evolution, either is incompatible with my Christianity (IMO obviously). One science offers up it-all-began theory as your lightning strike that is where I draw the line. They can no more prove that then the creationist can prove the let-there-be-light statement. BOTH are faith. Science needs to drop the faith and stick to what they can can prove. Once they open the door to the maybe argument then all maybe arguments are fair play.
Limerick on June 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM
there is no separation of church and state in the US constituion.
you’re not conservative.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM
No scienfic theory, no matter how much evidence is out there, is ever complete. We could be wrong about gravity and you could float up to the ceiling right now and we’d not know why.
This is a classic creationist argument–you pick a scientific question not yet answered and yell “gotcha.” But that doesn’t mean evolution is wrong or that ID is right.
Let’s switch it around. No human saw God create the earth. So, “gotcha,” ID is wrong.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM
I’m sure you’ll love it when taxpayer funds are used to send kids to the equivalent of madrassas. The thing is, if vouchers are implemented, and can be used to send kids to schools on religious grounds, you can’t prohibit their use for certain religious schools and not others. THAT would violate the establishment clause as well.
Big S on June 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Darwin’s work led the way for the discovery of the genetic process decades later. Also, since Darwin the build out of the fossil record has been consistent with evolutionary theory.
If you want to prove evolution wrong, one could do so by finding fossils of greater complexity from early geologic periods. That would really put a dent in Common Descent.
dedalus on June 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM
not either, ….NEITHER
Limerick on June 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM
evolution cannot be demonstrated in the lab, supported in the fossil record, or supported by observation in nature
yet evolutionists fervently believe it…its a faith, not science.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 2:17 PM
There are times where science and faith compete to provide answers about reality. This competition does not always spring from ignorance or faulty reasoning on the part of the faithful, but from philosophical differences at work: valid disagreements that ought to be addressed.
I agree that ID “isn’t science” but I also believe that science is not the only perspective from which to understand the world. Science is usually taught like this is the case – as if it has no assumptions and is limitless in its ability to dissect and comprehend reality given enough time. This is done intentionally and I wish people would quite pretending otherwise. Scientists and science teachers have an agenda. Shocker. What’s more, they often treat expressions of faith with hostility.
We needn’t teach ID in science class, but in the interests of honesty science teachers ought to be required to recognize and talk on the epistemological limitations and assumptions behind science. Points of conflict ought to be discussed in a value neutral fashion. Kids aren’t stupid. If you teach it well they can handle it.
Heavens, incorporate a little deep thinking in between the rote memorization. Maybe the kids will develop a little taste for inquiry and curiosity instead of just sitting there as some teacher dumps ideologically loaded perspective mixed facts into their heads.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 16, 2008 at 2:17 PM
The difference is that evolution is theory with substantial scientific underpinnings… we can observe evolution in the short-term, and we have ample evidence of long-term evolution.
ID is basically nothing more than “we don’t have enough knowledge to explain this, therefore it can’t be true”. It is not entirely unlike the “we cannot explain any mechanism by which the sun could have warmed the Earth, therefore the CO2 must be doing it as in our computer models”.
And the Truther analogy is dead-on… they’re entire M.O. is “we don’t understand it, therefore some intelligent guiding force (Bu$h) must have done it.”.
ThackerAgency on June 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Name one scientist who has “disproven” evolution and been shunned for it…
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM
I’d really, really like to hear what this thing is that has disproved it. Can you provide a link?
albo on June 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM
This is an absolute loser issue, and it does serious damage to hopes of slowing the all-but irreversible tide of statism and socialism. Republicans sabotage not just the party but the nation by putting this kind of tertiary religious talk front-and-center, when there are actual vital matters of public policy that should be receiving attention instead. If one ever wants to see a smaller, less intrusive federal government, the Republican party must de-couple that notion from religious proselytization (to which it has no rational connection, anyway).
Blacklake on June 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM
How could you accuse him of not “considering” it? A feeble mind? He’s an ex-Christian. Did that happen by accident?
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM
ID isn’t science. It relies upon a creator which isn’t even theoretically falsifiable and is thus outside the boundries of science. Therefore ID shouldn’t be taught in science. This is a negative for Jindal in my book, and it an unnecessary one as his Catholic faith doesn’t require disbelief in evolution.
phronesis on June 16, 2008 at 2:19 PM
albo on June 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM
No as we have seen here and elsewhere, the theory of global warming is pushed with religious zealotry. There is major evidence against global warming, yet you can’t speak a word of it without being flogged, because there is too much invested in global warming.
Evolution same thing, doesn’t pass the smell test, yet is passed around as fact. You can’t even mention the major holes in it without political consequences.
Conservative Voice on June 16, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Who ever said evolution cannot be part of intelligent design?
Rogue Traveler on June 16, 2008 at 2:20 PM
ID is such a foolish tack for the right. Stick to more pertinent, pressing, and clear issues. I can understand the faithful component, but we’ve got real troubles like energy policy, foreign policy, growing statism, etc. for our concern.
JeffB. on June 16, 2008 at 2:20 PM
really? then why the need for punctuated equilibrium? the fossil record does not support evolution, sorry.
In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
link
happens all the time, nothing can disprove evolution. every fact is woven into the evolutionary ‘narrative’.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 2:21 PM
And I’ll keep saying it until it starts sinking into social conservatives’ heads. Social cons are again falling into the same trap Mike Huckabee falls into time and time again, they’re trying to treat a symptom of the problem, not the source of it. The government-run racket that is the public school system is the source of the problem, not the lack of God in public schools.
Playstationarian? You should become a Nintendoite, we have ’shrooms.
doubleplusundead on June 16, 2008 at 2:22 PM
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, it is probably a duck.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I gotta hand it to you. Just when I think you could not say anything more stupid, you produced a winning turd like this. I’m sure the Scientific Community will be rocked by your earth shattering discovery. Where will be publishing your findings for peer review?
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I suppose the point behind my post is that government should not push secular humanism as the default philosophical perspective. Failure to address the limitations of science does exactly that.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 11 Next »