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 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »
Well that doesn’t work so well if you don’t shut the lid!!!
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 12:28 AM
… a not so short video on the subject…
elgeneralisimo on June 17, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Not correct. “Old earth believers” hold to science and “Young earth creationists” hold to what is literally in the Bible or Koran.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Wow, 700 posts. Here’s one concerning establishment clause.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it define what a religion is. Therefore a religion does not require ‘God’. Ergo, it could be argued that teaching evolution (since it would thusly imply a random world with no God) would be a religion being established by the state that there is no God.
I did not realize that the argument against teaching Creation (that which people, cultures, and societies have believed and still believe) had a problem with Constitutionality over the ‘establishment of religion’ clause. I just thought it was a theory about explaining the same question that the evolution theory tries to explain anecdotally. I don’t understand why you can preach the religion that no God is possible in school, but you can’t preach the possibility that God exists and had a hand in the origin of the species.
I think I like attacking the teaching of evolution on the ‘establishment clause’. Thanks for that AP. Smart atheists are good for providing good legal ideas from time to time.
ThackerAgency on June 17, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Ok let’s look at the “fossil record”…
Maybe you are content to have “scientists” dictate their ever changing truth to you and accept it without looking at the evidence, because they are “scientists and always right..but I am not.
How do you date objects in the “fossil record”?
By using the geological column.
THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN DOES NOT EXIST EXCEPT IN THE MIND OF THE SCIENTIST.
There is no geological column! That’s a fact.
When a “scientist” says an object is 500 million years old because it is found somewhere in the geological column dating 500M years old..they are lying to you!
There is no geological column and the dates they assign to it are pulled out of thin air!
Second:
WHY DO YOU FIND ANIMALS THAT EXIST TODAY ON THE “OLDEST PART” OF THE “FOSSIL RECORD”?
Third:
WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL SPECIES?
In order to claim that macro evolution is possible, you would need to back up such a ridiculous unscientific statement with some facts.
In order to prove evolution..you would not only need to provide examples of transitional species…you would need to provide evidence of thousands and thousands of transitional species for each and every type of animal.
Curiously enough ALL of the transitional species seem to be missing.
The fact is, the reason why we can’t find them, is because they never existed.
SaintOlaf on June 17, 2008 at 12:36 AM
The fact is, the reason you can’t find your reason, is because it never existed.
Sigy on June 17, 2008 at 12:58 AM
I think it’s time to fumigate your couch and break out your prescription pad. Scratch that. Start initiating commitment proceedings.
RushBaby on June 17, 2008 at 1:12 AM
If evolution is so defensible and ID so bereft of scientific proof, why are the evolutionists so afraid of giving ID a fair shake in the intellectual community?
miron on June 17, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Your third point is the only one with any validity. The other two are your opinions, unsupportable by any form of scientific fact.
I wish creationists would sit this discussion out. This is really between the IDers and evolutionists. Leave the debate to the grownups.
stonemeister on June 17, 2008 at 1:30 AM
The “intellectual community” means peer reviewed journals and the like. And blogs. Obviously, blogs are included.
The “intellectual community” does NOT mean “a sixth grade classroom science class.”
e-pirate on June 17, 2008 at 1:32 AM
Personally I find little exercises like this to be helpful.
If modern medicine is so defensible and witchcraft so bereft of scientific proof, why are the doctors so afraid of giving witchcraft a fair shake in hospitals?
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Oh my god, who taught Olaf how to use the bold tag?! Do you know what you have done??
e-pirate on June 17, 2008 at 1:40 AM
No one is stopping witches from starting their own hospitals.
miron on June 17, 2008 at 1:45 AM
Evolution doesn’t say “no God is possible” it describes how species evolves, which our current scientific consensus holds does not require God’s intervention.
The objection to just “explaining an alternative theory anecdotally” is that it’s the same as saying things like “rain is caused by angel tears” – it’s wrong. If we’re trying to make our children as educated as possible, then we ought not base their understanding of the world in fairy tales we know to be false.
e-pirate on June 17, 2008 at 1:45 AM
And no one is stopping creationists from starting their own schools and maybe while they are at it their own hospitals.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 1:48 AM
Who needs witchcraft when we’ve got the healing power of prayer?
Except, of course, there are the times when prayer doesn’t cure a disease easily treated in a modern hospital, leading to charges of reckless homicide…
e-pirate on June 17, 2008 at 1:48 AM
So why not give a fair chance for ID to be taught by those who believe it?
miron on June 17, 2008 at 1:54 AM
But taxes extracted from Christians also pay for government schools.
miron on June 17, 2008 at 1:55 AM
Creationists have started their own schools. Government schools are not owned by atheists.
miron on June 17, 2008 at 1:58 AM
And I would strongly suspect too that creationists have started their own hospitals and that these hospitals serve not just those who agree with their beliefs.
miron on June 17, 2008 at 2:00 AM
In the immortal words of our own Ed Morrissey:
Stay classy, athiests.
The fact that Jindal is a Christ-loving, God-fearing, intelligent design-believing Christian only makes me love the man more. He certainly has all the potential to be what true conservatives need right now to get this country back on the right track.
Jockolantern on June 17, 2008 at 3:28 AM
You left out the exorcism to cure cancer part.
Barry “Mr. Conservative” Goldwater would have kicked him in right in the a$$.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 3:37 AM
If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in. When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these like Bobby Jindal [updated] and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength. Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?
The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, less the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for over 200 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.
Ever good Conservative should line up and kick Bobby Jindal [updated] in the a$$.
- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 3:42 AM
June 12, 2008
Can exorcist Bobby Jindal cure melanoma?
Bobby Jindal, the 36-year-old governor of Louisiana, is rumored to be on John McCain’s VP shortlist.
Eric Kleefeld and Kate Klonick of TPM broke the story that Jindal’s extensive CV includes one highly unusual qualification: exorcist.
Jindal’s 1994 essay, “Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare,” appeared in the New Oxford Review, an orthodox Catholic magazine published by a California non-profit. The full article is behind a subscription wall, but Kleefeld and Klonick obtained the full text. Here’s a sample passage:
The students, led by Susan’s sister and Louise, a member of a charismatic church, engaged in loud and desperate prayers while holding Susan with one hand. Kneeling on the ground, my friends were chanting, “Satan, I command you to leave this woman.” Others exhorted all “demons to leave in the name of Christ.” It is no exaggeration to note the tears and sweat among those assembled. Susan lashed out at the assembled students with verbal assaults…
Whenever I concentrated long enough to begin prayer, I felt some type of physical force distracting me. It was as if something was pushing down on my chest, making it very hard for me to breathe. Though I could find no cause for my chest pains, I was very scared of what was happening to me and Susan. I began to think that the demon would only attack me if I tried to pray or fight back; thus, I resigned myself to leaving it alone in an attempt to find peace for myself.
Jindal claims that the rite freed his friend Susan of the demon and may even have cured her skin cancer.
- Lindsay Beyerstein
The guy sounds like a fracken loon!
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 4:01 AM
Like I said, MB4… stay classy.
Jockolantern on June 17, 2008 at 4:52 AM
You’ve got a little froth around your mouth. Wipe it off.
fossten on June 17, 2008 at 7:14 AM
The idea of a ‘species’ fixed in time is an illusion we are led to by our short lifetimes. All species are transitional.
MrLynn on June 17, 2008 at 7:26 AM
I think he had a great answer. The local school boards should be deciding what is best. I am a Christian who completely believes in creation. But I am big on liberty. It should be left to the local school boards.
JellyToast on June 17, 2008 at 7:30 AM
And McCain’s ‘short list’ looks whackier and whackier. On the one hand, we have liberals like Lieberman and Bloomberg. On the other, religious nuts like Huckleberry and Jindal.
Another argument for Mitt Romney. He may be a Mormon, but at least he doesn’t go ’round claiming to cure cancer or pushing unscientific nonsense in the schools.
MrLynn on June 17, 2008 at 7:30 AM
LoL, It never occurs to anyone that they guy who created the Earth maybe shoulda’ written a better book. One that couldn’t be debated for instance. Instead this particular creator relies on believers to convince others that he exists. Imagine that.
frreal on June 17, 2008 at 7:37 AM
UPDATE!
I take back what I said about Jindal. Actually listening to the video clip, what he says, about his own kids, is,
The only thing he says about ID is that local school boards should make the decision, which (contra Allahpundit) is the proper, federalist, Constitutional response.
But he wants his kids to learn SCIENCE in the public schools, not theology.
Good for him!
MrLynn on June 17, 2008 at 7:43 AM
If that is indeed what he says I can live with that. However we all know how that “nuanced” position will be spun. Ad infinitum.
Dash on June 17, 2008 at 8:09 AM
I am truly astounded by how many anti-Christian “conservatives” (more like moderates) we have on this forum. It’s incredibly disheartening to hear our side talking like a bunch of loon leftists, who truly want nothing more than to destroy and discredit Christians and our belief in a loving and just God from the face of the earth.
I’m truly disgusted at each of you “conservatives” (I’m looking at you again, AP) who continues lambast beliefs that many of our own founding fathers held dear and created this nation upon. I am encouraged, however, by the many Christian conservatives on this board who have taken it upon themselves to stand up to history and say “STOP!” Kudos to you guys for fighting back this wave of B.S. from our own ideological brethren.
Jockolantern on June 17, 2008 at 8:13 AM
So, if we are created by alien’s all is good. But if God creates us, it’s unthinkable?
Why?
csdeven on June 17, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Local school boards don’t get to decide if they want to teach the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese, so why would they get to overrule evolution?
e-pirate on June 17, 2008 at 8:17 AM
I can see why some folks reject intelligent design. As did Adam and Eve in the garden, they are hiding from God. Too bad. You are missing a wonderful walk with a friend that sticks closer to you than a brother.
saved on June 17, 2008 at 8:20 AM
Talk about low class. Leave it to AP to compare ID to the 9/11 Truthers.
pecan pie on June 17, 2008 at 8:41 AM
its obvious you haven’t looked at the fossil record. newsflash: the fossil record does not support evolution. Ever hear of the lack of transitional forms? Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium? why do you think that theory came about? do you really understand what you are talking about?? obviously not…
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
please the vast majority of biologists are atheists.
you know as much about ID as you do the fossil record: nothing.
actually evolution is an appeal to the
‘HAIRYGOD (darwin) of the gaps’
its called projection, and you shouldn’t masquerade as a conservative.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 8:42 AM
obviously it does. you really don’t understand your precious ‘theory’ you do such a poor job defending.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 8:44 AM
becoming a darwiniac drains all reason and logic from a person. they become foaming at the mouth darwiniacs, doing anything to defend their hairygod darwin.
they’re not. I think most of them are libs pretending to be conservatives, like they do when they call rush’s show pretending to be republicans.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 8:46 AM
goldwater was a moderate piece of trash, just like captain queeg. and what do you think that makes those who qutoe him constantly?
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 8:49 AM
ever notice most hospitals have christian names?? like St. Lukes, or St. Johns….ever wonder why that is?
ever have an original thought?
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Darwin had much less of the fossil record available to him than we do now. Archaeopteryx was an early find that provides a snapshot of the evolution from dinosaurs to birds.
dedalus on June 17, 2008 at 9:04 AM
I strongly agree with those who emphasize that ‘Taste Great’ does not equal ‘Less Filling’.
wow.. nice game.. can be done with any two sayings..
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 9:12 AM
In 1964 Goldwater was considered radical compared to a moderate like Eisenhower, and, in practice, Nixon.
Goldwater helped Reagan shape his thoughts during the 1964 campaign, the core of them can be found in his A Time for Choosing speech.
dedalus on June 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM
pretending to be conservatives who will gladly put anyone who shows an ounce of faith in an God above on a train to Siberia..
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Excellent point and question. Something else our evolutionist friends won’t be able to answer.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Whoever is set on ONE THEORY banning all others is the loser.
People hear “Intelligent Design” and foolishly presume the worst rather than getting past the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial image of Bible thumper literalists AS IF that represents the Intelligent Design intellectuals.
There are brilliant scientists who see the fallacies built into popular doctrines INCLUDING the lengths to which Darwinianism has been taken.
Intelligent Design scientists do not suppose that evolution plays no part in the universe, but that intelligence WITHIN MATTER plays the designing role.
If a person sees the Intelligence as God, that is the person’s personal faith, and should be respected as such. Not all necessarily see Intelligence as the “God” image painted on murals or in stained glass windows. When dealing with faith, so long as it does not direct violent terrorism, those personal insights do not deserve castigation by the blind or hard hearted population.
There is no logical reason to castigate the IDEA THAT DETERMINES FORM: INTELLIGENCE RULES MATTER. To deny that even as a possibility is not only ignorant but foolish.
maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 9:47 AM
pecan pie on June 17, 2008 at 8:41 AM
+1
once not enough–learning nothing the first time around stirring up the ant pile for a long thread to entertain himself on a long summer day
maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM
did you miss the link I previously put in? can you answer why punctuated equilibrium was posited?
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 9:56 AM
New scientific discoveries have often led to new questions. Scientists see these new questions as opportunities to add to our understanding of the universe and pursue the answers to those questions vigorously.
Intelligent Design raises questions about the nature of the supposed designer and the methods which would enable the design to be carried out; yet the ID’ers refuse to pursue the answers to those questions at all. And they expect me to believe they’re really scientific?
backwoods conservative on June 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM
The article by Eugene Koonin? I’ll read it now. My response was on the relevance of the fossils that were unknown to Darwin but have been found in the century and a half since. The transitional and intermediate fossils found have been more supportive of Darwin’s theory than Lamarck or a young earth.
dedalus on June 17, 2008 at 10:23 AM
science has been wrong forever. How often do scientists (nutritionists) say eat or drink more of something because it is good for you. Then 10 years later they say, you know we said that was good for you, well it isn’t. How often do they come up with drugs that cure something, but cause a much worse problem than they solve. How often do weathermen say it will rain when it doesn’t (even with all of their scientific equipment)?
Evolution is not science. Science causes predictable occurrences in the future. There is no evolutionist who can definitively say how any creature will evolve in the future. The problem is that you can not question any point about evolution or you will be branded ‘religious fanatic’. Look at the animosity of evolutionists about Ben Stein’s MOVIE. It did not get much press except for those who wanted to discredit it as loudly as they could. If it wasn’t accurate, why did they feel a need to complain so loudly? Wouldn’t inaccurate science be obvious?
Evolution is no more science than psychology is. Evolution is a guess about the origin of the species. How about not teaching Creation, or ID, but allowing the inconsistencies of evolution to be taught in the classroom? Why don’t they allow information in textbooks along with the text ‘we don’t really know why this exists because it doesn’t support the theory of evolution’. But you can’t put anything like that in school textbooks because sound science and critical thinking is rejected as ‘religious fanaticism’.
ThackerAgency on June 17, 2008 at 10:26 AM
This is better than an abortion thread
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM
ThackerAgency 10:26
+1
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 10:33 AM
The position you take on abortion or ID/Evolution shape your worldview. It matters. That’s why people are so passionate about their reasoning on the subjects.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 10:35 AM
When it comes to imaginary beings and fictional books shaping your worldview, history has witnessed the vast amount of blood that gets spilled.
People get passionate alright.
One day, maybe those same peoples’ descendants will ‘evolve’ out of their fantasy world and quit wasting their lives.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Intelligent design is viewed by the scientific community the way homeopathy is viewed by the medical community,
the way holocaust denial is viewed by the historical community,
the way DURFIREDOESNTMELTSTEEL is viewed by the pretty-much-everybody-but-truthers community.
Even the spiritually sympathetic Templeton foundation thinks it’s a bunch of crap. It’s not just unscientific, it’s stupid. The only thing it has going for it is that it’s specifically formulated not to offend certain Christians. This is what conservatives usually call political correctness, where truth is subverted by niceties. All I can say to Christians who are offended by evolution is: suck it up. I’d think you guys would be used to science contradicting the bible by now.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Remember, ID isn’t about God. It’s scientific. They use sciencey words and stuff.
Of course, the only way you can believe that is if you’re as dense as ID’s adherents.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I’m sure a little fuel can get this thread to pop 1000
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 10:47 AM
History has shown that those people without any worldview guidance from something greater than themselves, don’t have a good direction and spill just as much blood, and the current overflow in our prisons is because of our disregard for God.
Recidivism is 50% for prisoners who don’t get “saved” in prison. And 8% for prisoners who complete a program of the Interfaith Initiative.
So if you want to think your ancestors are monkeys, go ahead and do whatever you want. Because if I’m wrong about Jesus Christ, them I admit to being the fool. But I have faith, so I don’t expect you to understand.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM
BTW Limey, I used to be a lost soul just like you. I had evolution hammered down my throat throughout High School and College. I saw the light, and I “evolved” past my dense ignorance.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Archaeopteryx was just a fricking bird. It had no “dinosaur” features.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM
That’s about the billionth time that you posted the same (identical) Goldwater quote. You do the same thing with your Samuel Clemens material. Why don’t you construct a blog and post this stuff ONCE? If you want to keep pointing everyone to it, you are then free to do so with a link. As things stand, you are wasting a lot of space here at HotAir, and it forces the participants to do a LOT of scrolling — and scrolling is evil. Perhaps you are not aware that what you are doing is rude, inconsiderate, and boorish behavior.
My collie says:
Yeah. I know. He sure talks a lot about “lining up to kick people in the a$$”. What do you bet that MB4 is an effeminate beta male?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on June 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM
The funny thing is it isn’t going to be the Christians who demand their kids get left out of the class that teaches evolution because it is ‘offensive’. It is going to be the Muslims (1.5 billion of them) who will claim it is offensive to be compared to apes and pigs – and the evolutionists will agree that it is against THEIR religion and should not be forced on them. EVERY religion believes in Creation. . . it isn’t just the Christians. Christians get their account from the Jews. Buddhists, Hindus all believe in Creation. But like this poster, you have to be a ‘crazy Christian’ to believe in this stuff. World view indeed.
I think it is mostly hatred of Christianity than a desire to teach ‘science’ based on anecdotes.
ThackerAgency on June 17, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Anyone who considers the existence of God a scientific hypothesis does a disservice to whatever side he represents.
Take the debate out of the science arena and put it back in the philosophy arena where it belongs.
Spoiler: when you finally do get this to the philosophical arena, evolutionists get their asses kicked every time.
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM
thats not what the fossil record shows…thats why Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium…
Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?
Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.
I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.
link
As leading evolutionary biologist, the late Ernst Mayr, wrote in 2001, “When we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. . . . The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”3
link
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Oh, I know my ancestors were monkeys…check out my hairy legs ;)
Be sure to attend the spiritual dairy on Sunday, where you can get milked for more cash.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
#$%^#$% #$%%. I’m assuming you saw the Richard Dawkins bit in Godwin’s Law: The Movie (aka Mock Ben Stein’s Credibility). I don’t blame you for being confused. If intelligent design is good at anything, it’s good at confusing people (hey, let’s teach it to high school kids!). If God did it, that’s fine. If aliens did it, also fine. If neither did it, that works, too.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
doesn’t happen, sorry.
although I have seen the atheists twist scripture to make it appear to do so….its usually good for a laugh.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
So I wonder if Jindal believes that exorcism to cure cancer represents “the very best science”? Should that be taught in health classes, or is exorcism an advanced study that should be reserved for medical school?
Ars Moriendi on June 17, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I can’t say some of my best friends are Christians. All of my best friends are Christians. I really have nothing against you guys. It’s really simple for me – we should teach the orthodox view of science in high school science classes, even if it offends a few Christians.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
1000 Posts or Bust!!!
Anyway. Come on folks. When someone starts throwing “The Illuminati” around you know they’ve gone round the bend. What’s next, the tri-lateral commission and the gold standard?
And seriously. The only thing threatened by the Freemasons these days is a snifter of brandy and orthopedic shoes.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:11 AM
you mean the atheist view
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
You claim it is ‘offensive’ to Christians. I am not ‘offended’ by evolution. Evolution is fascinating to me. I have studied it, and I have studied the problems with it. There are enough problems with it for me to conclude it is not accurate. The problems with the theory aren’t discussed or debated. It isn’t ‘offensive’ to Christians. It is ‘offensive’ to Muslims because it compares them to apes (which is a punishment God gave to Jews and Christians for not being Muslim).
I think that is the issue we have. You think we argue because it offends us. It’s not offensive, it’s just wrong – and people need to be given ALL the data, not just the data that supports the hypothesis. Evolution being wrong does not mean that Creation is right. . . but it does mean that evolution did not happen as it is taught today.
ThackerAgency on June 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM
My Illuminati masters have asked me not to comment on that.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM
No. Science is irreligious, not anti-religious. I happen to know many devout Christians and Jews that are brilliant scientists.
They (and I) see absolutely no conflict between the two. They are absolutely unrelated. Which is why I resent the fraudulent misrepresentation of ID as ‘science’.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:19 AM
I have noticed that MB4 is fairly obsessed with the a$$..
only saying..
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 11:20 AM
The throwing out the Gold Standard has really devolved the US dollar..
Happy?
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Yes, it’s always about the tithe isn’t it? Yep, it’s easy believing you are the only one that matters. Looking out for number 1. LimeyGeek is the only person that exists, really.
Can’t wait for the government to shut down churches so they can increase their own tithe?
Hopefully, you are a conservative, and donate to good causes.
My Church has helped grow many Churches around the globe, especially in Zambia, where they’ve taught several villages to provide for themselves. There has also been many Muslims in the area that have seen the good of Christ, and have converted, at risk of being murdered. So you just go on living your narcissistic cushy life here in America, the greatest nation on God’s Green Earth.
kirkill on June 17, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I’ve noticed that you’re fairly obsessed with trawling posts for evidence of homosexuality.
Just head on over to bumboys.com and be happy.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Can’t wait for the government to apply corporate tax to churches just like any other industry.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM
they absolutely are. Dawkins is a prime example. the hostility towards christianity is palpable.
evolution has a series of consequences…No God, no morality, no sin, no need for a savior. to say you’re a ‘christian evolutionist’ is an oxymoron.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Question, and I’m genuinely curious about what you think.
If man evolved, was there a literal Garden of Eden? If not, was there original sin? If not, why do we need a savior?
How’s that all square?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:29 AM
meet you there, big boy
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 11:30 AM
There is no god.
Morals are what I make them.
Sin is for the gullible.
I am my own savior.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM
uh good luck with that. of course you see no problem teaching this in school.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 11:33 AM
The process of evolution is entirely distinct from any abstract concept of ‘sin’, ‘saviors’ or mystical locations.
For what it’s worth, I reckon that as life began to expand on Earth, the planet must have been rather lush – Eden-esque if you like.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Oh oh. I misread. I thought you were a Christian proponent of ID.
But thanks for answering anyway. Tis an honest answer.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Ahh.. so Limey can rationalize.. my kids are hungry.. I have no food.. Limey does.. my kids are what is important to me.. takeing food from Limey doesn’t really mean stealing so much as providing for my hungry kids.
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I don’t teach this in school. I don’t want it to be taught in school. I don’t want there to be any such thing as ‘government schools’. Privatize the entire industry and let the market decide whether ID/Evolution etc has a worthwhile place.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Taking food from Limey results in your kids growing up fatherless.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:35 AM
So.. it’s okay to murder by you..
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Justifiable homicide is not murder.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
you would have to catch me first.
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
it is taught in schools…situational ethics, values clarification, etc.
I agree with that.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Regardless of who it offends, the orthodox view among biologists is that all organisms share a common ancestor, and that the history of life on Earth forms a continuum from single-celled microbes to the complex organisms we find today. Having studied the issue myself, I agree with that view.
It’s a little specious to say that because you have doubts about evolution we should teach intelligent design. That’s like saying, “the AC is out on my Jag, so I’m going to trade it in for a Gremlin.”
Evolution is messy. There are details remaining to be worked out, possibly insurmountable observational challenges, and (yes) controversy. It’s a good theory, it’s not a perfect theory. The challenge for evolution is to complete our understanding, not to overturn it. Intelligent design adds nothing to the conversation.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM
So.. who or what would make it justifiable? can it be said that it is justifiable for someone to mug you for your shoes?
you set your own moral law.. but if you set yours, what’s to set someone else’s moral law different from yours?
DaveC on June 17, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I imagine you’d be the stranger in my pantry.
This is not a nice avenue of conversation. I don’t know you and I certainly don’t wish you harm.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
why not? to the evolutionist, evolution is sacrosanct. it is holy, and that is why they react with such anger to anything that threatens their beloved theory. they defend it like an imam defends islam, because it is their religion.
we should teach intelligent design because it fits the facts much more closely than evolution does. nothing evolves, sorry. micro changes do not add up to macro features, as the tuatara demonstrates.
right4life on June 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »