Video: Jindal supports teaching of intelligent design
posted at 1:37 pm on June 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
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.
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: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 11 Next »
Ok, you win. ID is science, because it’s been refuted.
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM
I would say that “ID as science” can be “refuted” simply by virtue of the fact that science can be defined.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Didn’t take long at all Entelechy, you just got to know how.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM
then why the need for Kitzmiller? why the treatment of sternberg and gonzales? its obvious what is going on
no, that should be the private reserve of evolutionary ATHEISM. right.
gee moron, it hasn’t if you haven’t noticed. duhhhh
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM
I much do you think is enough?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on June 16, 2008 at 6:38 PM
I know how. I know the string/technology. Chavez needs your services.
Entelechy on June 16, 2008 at 6:38 PM
That’s a good way of putting it.
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 6:40 PM
What God lacks is convictions — stability of character. He ought to be a Presbyterian or a Catholic or a Mormon or a Muslim, something — not try to be everything.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Evolutionists: “I still believe”
Intelligent Designers: “I still believe”
It’s really belief. Look at Global Warmongers, they take science and twist it to their belief.
Can’t we all just get along? ;-)
kirkill on June 16, 2008 at 6:44 PM
yeah by simply defining ‘science’ as atheism, which is what evolution has done.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 6:45 PM
evolution is going the way of the dinosaur…
Papers are in. MIT will publish the findings in 2009 – the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species. And despite the fact that organizers are downplaying the Altenberg meeting as a discussion about whether there should be a new theory, it already appears a done deal. Some kind of shift away from the population genetic-centered view of evolution is afoot.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Not while fear and narrow-mindedness reign supreme on both sides.
Connie on June 16, 2008 at 6:48 PM
I don’t think theres much danger of that outcome.
aengus on June 16, 2008 at 6:48 PM
ID’s claims are not testable. No proposition about non-empirical entities can be supported or refuted by empirical observation. I think you’re clinging a bit desperately to what was merely a poor choice of words on the part of some district judges, who seemed to be looking for the word “rejected,” not “refuted.”
Blacklake on June 16, 2008 at 6:49 PM
“Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” — C.S. Lewis
“To be ignorant and simple now . . . would be to throw down our weapons and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen.” — C.S. Lewis
St. Thomas Aquinas said it best: “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary; to one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
kirkill on June 16, 2008 at 6:49 PM
There are settlements like Göbekli Tepe that appear to be closer to 10,000 years old.
dedalus on June 16, 2008 at 6:49 PM
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 6:45 PM
You jumped the shark quite a while back when you started repeating that silly claim. There is absolutely nothing inherently “athiest” about evolution. And don’t quote someone saying that it is… it’s nutty regardless of who says it.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Geez oh pete’s, MB4
you’ll hold your nose and vote for the guy when he runs..
so get off your holy.. no.. secular horse and cool off in the corner..
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Funny as adherents of those philosophies would say the same about yours. Odd how that works.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Connie on June 16, 2008 at 6:48 PM
I would be interested in hearing you explain how “both sides” are guilty of this.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM
It is rather amazing that a number of folks who claim to be offended by Indy’s F bomb repeat it. Strange.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Wait. Wait.
According to you, science hasn’t conclusively falsified the theses that:
(1) The earth is a mere 5000 years old; and
(2) The earth was created from nothing, and fully populated with plants and animals, in seven days.
Is that correct?
I just want to know, so that I can properly calibrate my gales of laughter.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Zero would be too few, but I do believe that more than one might be a bit more than some people could handle.
Holmes on June 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Your right. Science has absolutely disproven that the earth is old.
How will you reconcile evolution with the fact that the earth is very young?
Check out the research on POLONIUM HALOS.
The existence of polonium halos prove that “precambrian” granite came into existence instantaneously!
The “scientific” community accepted Robert Gentry’s research on polonium halos until they realized what it’s implications were…then of course they destroyed his career.
But the fact is Gentry’s research on polonium halos has NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN!
It is the deathblow to evolution!
Since they can’t disprove it..they ignore it and hope no one notices.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9DtY-BXWnY
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 7:01 PM
No, it should be the private reserve of naturalistic explanations of observed phenomena.
We don’t teach creationism or ID in the science classroom for the same reasons we don’t teach astrology or alchemy.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Seek professional psychiatric help.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Considering that biology is not my field, I’ll just have to defer to your wall of terminology, but none of those items are irrevocably tied to absolute unguided descent with modification (UDWM), which is the only sticking point between Darwinism and ID. They’re as much a result of a taxonomic organization of living things based on similarity of morphological and genetic structure. This kind of research existed long before Darwin and could have come to the same conclusions in the absence of Darwin’s doctrinaire insistence on absolute UDWM. That predictions can be made about one organism based on its similarity to other organisms is simply a proof of an underlying structure to the development of living things, whether by guided or unguided processes.
Unless you’re willing to state that it is always due to insufficient analysis, you’ve still got a serious problem with insisting on a continuous development function without exception for all natural biological phenomena. The existence of even a single irreducibly complex (IC) biological system is poison to absolute UDWM. IC systems require foresight (lookahead) that Darwinism cannot explain, except by saying, “It just is.”
spmat on June 16, 2008 at 7:02 PM
And, with the mention of THE ILLUMINATI and THE FREEMASONS this thread has officially jumped the shark. If only I had my graphic handy.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Watson is most insistent that this one who calls himself SaintOlaf is really an atheist trying to make believers look bad. I myself have not made up my mind on this matter however this SaintOlaf sure does make believers look bad so I must give Watson that much anyway.
Holmes on June 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Fact in point that you ignore the blatantly obvious scientific evidence that disproves evolution.
The evidence is right in front of your face but you won’t look.
Want to know about the roots of psychiatry too?
Nope.
You obviously do not care about the Truth as long as you can maintain your willfully ignorant stupor, denying the existence of God.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 7:13 PM
My sentiment exactly, kirkill:)
terryannonline on June 16, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Stunning that the biggest proponents of ID here turn out to be young earth creationists.
phronesis on June 16, 2008 at 7:18 PM
It’s very simple. Those who shout the loudest are usually those who feel they have the most to lose. No matter what the topic.
In this discussion, there are always the same characters. You have those who fear God will be lost and those who fear God will be found. You have those who abuse the wall of separation because they fear a child might abandon the parent’s idea that reason cannot include faith and some who fear that the refusal to recognize their particular beliefs as having validity as a science is a denial of the beliefs themselves.
I am not a fundamentalist. I prefer that scientific inquiry be taught (scientific method), maybe prefaced with a disclaimer that the purpose of the inquiry is to teach discovery, not to deny religious belief. I would have no problem with a Senior year elective that would discuss religion and science.
I’m tired of the fighting.
Connie on June 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Yeah, I’ve heard the same thing about 9/11 conspiracies, fire melting steel, UFOs, JFK assassinations, the scorge of mandantory vaccinations, chlorinated water, etc., all of which are championed by scientific illiterates who are convinced that prepending “blatantly obvious scientific evidence” to their “argument” will somehow bestow credibility upon them.
You aren’t in good company.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 7:22 PM
I’m still waiting for someone to disprove the implications of polonium halos.
How can you reconcile evolution with a young earth?
The answer is: you can’t.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Unless you’re willing to state that it is always due to insufficient analysis, you’ve still got a serious problem with insisting on a continuous development function without exception for all natural biological phenomena. The existence of even a single irreducibly complex (IC) biological system is poison to absolute UDWM. IC systems require foresight (lookahead) that Darwinism cannot explain, except by saying, “It just is.”
spmat on June 16, 2008 at 7:02 PM
That’s kind of the problem. Behe has offered the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade as examples of IC, and both cases turned out to be insufficient analysis. Behe would help his case immeasurably if he could actually produce an example of an irreducibly complex system in nature.
I’ve heard several different biologists give perfectly reasonable explanations for how apparently irreducibly complex systems can evolve. You probably have, too, I suppose. Just because you choose to ignore the explanations doesn’t mean biologists haven’t offered any.
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Someday, we will all die. ‘Cept some of us have eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
davidk on June 16, 2008 at 7:24 PM
An elective would be fine, but I disagree about the disclaimer. The disclaimer carries the implication that science stands in opposition to faith, and it absolutely does not.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Just sayin’.
davidk on June 16, 2008 at 7:24 PM
POLONIUM HALOS REFUTED. Shown for the junk science it is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Science tells us that plants populated the planet hundreds of millions of years before man. The Bible is less clear about whether man or plants appeared first.
dedalus on June 16, 2008 at 7:25 PM
A death blow to ID.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 7:25 PM
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 7:22 PM
What? The implication of whatever you’re talking about is probably and simply that we don’t understand or know everything.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Which was my point a few hundred posts ago…
Give them their 20 minutes in a classroom, let them submit their evidence. If for no other reason than to give our kids a lesson in logic.
Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Ouch!
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM
If that’s what Jindal was talking about, fine by me. Assuming you could find anyone qualified to teach such a class…
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 7:29 PM
hmmm
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 7:30 PM
I do. Links?
Understandable.
aengus on June 16, 2008 at 7:30 PM
I don’t think the way I wrote what I wrote implies that. I am simply referring to scientific methods such as lab testing, etc. But I’m not going to quibble.
Connie on June 16, 2008 at 7:31 PM
That’s gona leave a mark.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 7:33 PM
phronesis on June 16, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Entirely coincidental, natch. I have it on good authority–near the beginning of the thread–that ID has nothing to do with or say about the existence of God.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Don’t think so. Dr. Gentry has the following to say about Thomas A. Baillieul work.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 7:43 PM
yeah I’m the bitter clingy type!!
that high and mighty judge couldn’t even come up with his own ruling, he had to copy the ACLU!! too funny!!
As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. [p. 76, emphasis added]
Jones’ argument is that the alleged failure of irreducible complexity can be charged to ID’s account only if irreducible complexity is a part of Intelligent Design theory itself, since ID itself is not science and therefore not falsifiable. And yet, if it isn’t a part of ID, then it obviously cannot undermine the theory itself.
Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. [p. 76, emphasis added]
But how can this be if irreducible complexity is “central to ID”? He wants to use the alleged refutation of irreducible complexity against Intelligent Design, but he doesn’t want to do it at the cost of his argument that it isn’t science. And he does this by employing an explicit contradiction: that irreducible complexity is both central to ID and not central to it!
link
the kitzmiller ruling is as bankrupt as every other liberal wacko judicial ruling.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 7:46 PM
they should rename that site to rabid-darwiniac-atheist-mad-dogs-r-us.com
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 7:47 PM
yeah here they are:
it evolved!!!
thats the extent of their ‘explanation’ a nice story!
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Surprisingly enough, it is talkorigins that puts words in Gentry’s mouth and assumes that the rate of decay is not constant.
Oh well another typical unscientific smear from talkorigins.
Ronsfi you should know by now that talkorigins is exclusively known as an unscientific smear site.
It doesn’t help your credibility when it is the only website you quote from.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 7:49 PM
gee I didn’t know my name was BEHE!! or Dembski!!
laughable!! has any darwiniac ever taken a class in logic??
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 7:50 PM
If only somebody would liken somebody else to Hitler we could invoke Godwin’s Law and be done with the whole affair! (Godwin’s is an officially sanctioned trigger for closing down a comments thread, isn’t it, AP?).
Blacklake on June 16, 2008 at 7:51 PM
This is proof that you have not even read the Bible once!
The Bible is clear about the fact that plants were created before man.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 7:51 PM
you mean philosphical naturalism….ie atheism.
you don’t teach ID because it challenges your atheistic worldview. thus the fearful reaction from the darwiniacs. you are unable to argue the points, and have to resort to silencing and intimidating the opposition.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 7:52 PM
oh yeah the guy who took the theory of evolution to its logical conclusion.
truth hurts….invoke your laughable ‘law’ all you want!
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 7:53 PM
I’ll skip the details on whether ID allows you to predict detailed genetic structure and such that I could concretely (and unfailingly to date) predict based on evolution for an unsequenced organism (it can’t) and focus on your point above:
You are expecting too much of the scientific method. The approach is not to “prove” a model right under every instance, the object is to “disprove” it under a specific instance. Find an example that is inconsistent with evolution. Something being “too complex” simply doesn’t cut it, because major development changes can arise from a single change in a gene.
In my lab, with a single gene change, we can produce plants that create embryos along the surface of leaves, or along the length of the root. Plants that have two shoots and no roots, and vice versa. Plants that flower immediately, or never flower, or convert all leaves into petals. Give me a couple genes and the right drivers and we can completely reorganize the plants’ architecture. One thing we have learned is that small genetic changes can lead to major enzymatic or developmental changes.
If you want ID to be considered a scientific approach, simply explain the experiment that would disprove ID (and you can’t say evolution must be proven to the Nth degree). I gave one – simply come up with one organism that contradicts evolution (say, a mammal with a genome more like lizards; or a plant species that did not have a nucleus). If you are unwilling to reject your model under essentially any condition, then you are likely acting in an ideological, and not scientific fashion.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 7:53 PM
That’s actually an excellent question to Allah. What specifically makes him think that he’s got enough qualification to refuse to believe in global warming, yet he holds on to the theory of evolution?
freevillage on June 16, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Tune in to watch Ken Miller on the Colbert Show (tonight, I think). You might be surprised to find out that biologists have more to say than your pastor has led you to believe. Miller is a Christian, just so you know it’s safe to listen to his opinions.
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Inherit the Wind!
DrW on June 16, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Clark,
For a biology teacher it is shocking that you do not comprehend the difference between natural selection and macro evolution.
I hope you take my words to heart and repent from your complicity in brainwashing thousands of children to believe in atheism.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Yep, I sure am, young earther all the way. Six to ten thousand years is all you got to make evolution happen and the evidence for a young earth is piling up fast.
When it becomes accepted knowledge that the earth is only about 6,000 years old, will you give up on your fairy tale evolution theories then or do you plan to cling to it?
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 8:00 PM
right…..
Pallen’s article further admitted that “the flagellar research community has scarcely begun to consider how these systems have evolved.” By claiming “there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria” and that there are “intermediate forms of flagella,” the NAS is promoting incorrect information about the flagellar structure, and the NAS is wrong to imply that the evolution of the flagellum is understood.
link
miller’s ‘just so’ stories don’t cut it.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 8:03 PM
oh of course he’s a christian…who said this:
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)
how very ‘christian’ of him. maybe you should try listening to a real christian for once, you would definately learn something.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 8:05 PM
its really simple, you would disprove ID, and prove evolution at the same time:
evolve something…take a bacteria, and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 8:07 PM
I come to one of my favorite sites to take a mental break, and what do I find? Same arguments, different day/thread.
Yeah, most here know how I feel, if they’ve read my comments. Don’t believe in ID, but I have no problem with it being taught in public schools. I think teaching both evolution and ID will make children think critically about both topics. Heck, from what I hear, I’ll be happy if my children’s teachers bother teaching them anything at all (besides sex ed and mental abuse).
So, having neglected to read the comments yet, is this news because Jindal is short-listed for Veep/2012 candidate? In any case, it shouldn’t matter very much right now – we have bigger considerations to consider (immigration/Iran/energy). And that’s my $.02.
Anna on June 16, 2008 at 8:11 PM
the tuatara.
link
it has the fastest DNA microevolution of any animal, yet it is a ‘living fossil’
platypus
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Cool, we agree. Quote mining is fun!
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Nothing (short of accepting Jesus Christ as their Saviour) will stop them from clinging to the unscientific theory of evolution.
Baal told them that he created man through evolving them from fish and to spread the evolution theory in order to destroy Christianity.
They must do what Baal tells them. Or they might be the next one sacrificed to him by their brethren.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 8:17 PM
translation of darwiniac use of the phrase quote-mining:
truth hurts.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 8:19 PM
This has degenerated to the schoolyard level. Partly my fault. One last thought for you R4L- Seriously, lying is bad. It’s in the bible. You should stop doing that.
Ok, one more thought. This fight ended in Dover a couple of years ago. It’s been fun, though.
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Not about to read the 500+ comments, so forgive me if this has been asked and answered:
What’s the big deal? When I think of “teaching intelligent design,” I think of the first (or last) day of class, the teacher saying, “And oh yeah, God could have done all this.”
What else is there to “teaching intelligent design”?
misterpeasea on June 16, 2008 at 8:25 PM
you should evolve some new lines, its so lame and so old.
when a liar accuses you of lying….yeah.
yeah just like the fight over abortion ended…why do you darwiniacs always bend over for liberal judges?
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 8:25 PM
whats there to teaching evolution:
1) there’s no god
2) it just happened
3) we can’t reproduce it, or observe it, or see it in the fossil record
4) believe it, or we’ll make you pay.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Isn’t your argument pretty much something like this:
1) there’s a god (or gods!)
2) He just just made everything happen
3) You can’t see ID or God in the fossil record
4) believe it, or He’ll make you pay, by sending you to hell
How is that better?
e-pirate on June 16, 2008 at 8:33 PM
actually you can see ID or God in the fossil record…ever hear of the cambrian explosion? why do you think punctuated equilibrium came about?
the truth is always better than a lie, don’t you agree?
why don’t you explain how the matter for the big bang got here without God, and what caused it to go ‘bang’??
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 8:35 PM
I have a friend that recently went to a bohemian grove event..and he has confirmed that yes they do have a giant Molech statue and they DO perform mock human sacrifices to Molech(Baal).
Shocking?
What do our world leaders do when they get together at the bohemian grove…oh nothing….just normal stuff like performing mock human sacrifices to Baal.
http://www.postpositive.org/images/bohemianGroveOwl.jpg
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 8:36 PM
Actually this is one case where SaintOlaf is dead on. It is my personal belief that the Big Bang was caused by Baal. I only cling to evolution as a way to spread lies amongst the pure and innocent, per Baal’s orders.
Olaf, you saw right through me. Foiled again!
e-pirate on June 16, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Wait a minute, your friends with a guy who worships Baal and performs mock human sacrifices? What do you guys talk about?
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 8:46 PM
For the record, I like Baal. He’s my favorite goa’uld.
/cannot help myself
Anna on June 16, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Hey Moron! It never was an either/or proposition. You can introduce quite nicely into curriculum- respecting both points of view. That is if ignorant close-minded fools like would get away from your anti-Creator bias long enough not get into a hysterical snit the minute your world view is challenged. You said it yourself, evolution is an explanation. So is ID and I’d say thousands of years of people believing the latter is sufficient enough to be included in schools alongside your theory that there is no such thing as a higher power.
highhopes on June 16, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Sheesh! Sometimes it’s just plain embarrassin’ to call myself a conservative.
But I know there are even more damn fools over on the left.
Then Allahpundit comes up with this gem:
The First Amendment concerns the FEDERAL government, the CONGRESS of the United States, “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The states and localities can do whatever they want.
Remember federalism?
So if your state or town decides to teach so-called “Intelligent Design,” your recourse is to move.
I haven’t read the previous comments. Don’t have a spare week.
MrLynn on June 16, 2008 at 8:52 PM
mwhahaha
crr6 on June 16, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Hello. Muslim is not a race.
BTW, if you don’t stop tap, tap, tap stalking IC some folks will think that you may be Larry Craig. And we wouldn’t want that, now would we?
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Proof of a negative? Really? I could prove otherwise.
As it relates to plants the second chapter of Genesis seems to have man created from dust in order to till the ground (2:7 – 2:9)
dedalus on June 16, 2008 at 8:57 PM
I know what you mean. These darwiniacs pretending to be conservatives. its like the democrats that call rush’s show and loudly announce they’re republicans..but…
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Normally, I have no issue with you, but I take issue with this statement. Since when does one have to believe in God to be a conservative? And I’m not talking about Republicans either, just conservatives.
Anna on June 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM
When religious faith is invoked as an argument in a debate serious discussion has ended. It is possible for someone to claim that 1+1=3 because his god told him in a dream that that is the way it is in heaven and no logical argument will move him if his ‘faith’ is strong.
Fundamentalist Hindus believe that the monkey god Hanuman carried an entire mountain to Shiva because he forgot which spice (found on that mountain) he was supposed to get. Fundamentalist christians of the St Olaf type would surely find this ridiculous but it no more so than their fantasy of a seven day creation a few thousand years ago, or a virgin birth would seem to their Hindu counterparts.
The fundamentalists in both camps are part of the childhood of our race and some of the toddlers posting here only prove that the age of ignorance is to continue for some time yet.
Annar on June 16, 2008 at 9:04 PM
I find it a big incongruous that people who believe in constant change can be conservative about anything? after all what is there to conserve in an evolutionary framework, and what is right and wrong? conservatism is based upon unchanging values, derived from religion, whereas darwinists have a sneering hatred for religion and it’s values.
I just think ‘conservative evolutionist’ is an oxymoron.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 9:04 PM
evolution is a faith. an atheistic faith. thats why its defenders react so strongly to any criticism. its their worldview, and they freely admit it.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Clark,
I love your logic. I was being antagonistic earlier just to spar. I wish we could have a beer sometime. Just like plants, I love playing microevolution with my yeast.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM
See… now you are trying to get my goat. I don’t have one MB4, honest.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Hey y’all, it seems to me that this has degenerated into a Huckabee-like thread.
Here’s my prediction for how this discussion is going to end.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Maybe you should ponder some that not only is this not your web site but that you may be making conservatives look bad by calling names and trying to shut someone up.
Think about it.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 9:07 PM
True but I think he may be referring to a different thread where IC referred to the White House as being of an opposite colour if Obama were elected.
When AP asked IC why he even reads his posts IC more or less called AP a moron. IC was banned and thats the last we’ll hear from him.
aengus on June 16, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 11 Next »