Louisiana science coalition begs Jindal: Veto the creationism bill
posted at 9:10 pm on June 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via LGF, showcasing a killer quote from Jindal’s college biology professor, the Louisiana Coalition for Science makes its case. The bill’s been on his desk since yesterday, having passed the state senate 36-0 and the house 94-3. You’ll find the text here, scoured of any references to creationism or intelligent design and mentioning religion only in a heavy-handed section aimed at shielding the bill from the inevitable Establishment Clause challenge. I recommend reading the annotated version instead, but whatever you do, note that the state isn’t compelling every school district to teach ID; they’re leaving it up to each local school board that wants to teach it to request permission to do so. That’s another concession aimed at limiting the scope of the legislation to maximize its chances of surviving a constitutional challenge, although in light of what Jindal had to say about empowering individual school districts on “Face the Nation,” it might be there to make the bill more attractive to him, too.
Given the size of the majorities in both houses, it’s going to pass no matter what he does. Even so, I’m curious to see how he games this politically. If he signs it, he leaves himself open to attack from the left four years from now. If he vetoes it, he pisses off the base. If he does nothing … it becomes law in 20 days, although that would indicate a certain lack of backbone on the hottest of hot button issues. Prediction: He signs it.
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 ... 8 Next »
nice to see the Lousianna legislature being Pro-Science, unlike neo-darwinism.. The whole inclusion of the Laws of Thermodynamics and all for starters.
jp on June 17, 2008 at 9:13 PM
having passed the state senate 36-0 and the house 94-3
He should go as the peoples representatives have gone.
multiuseless on June 17, 2008 at 9:15 PM
I like Jindal, and I am a Christian, but this seems like a bad idea to push intelligent design in the classroom.
gmoonster on June 17, 2008 at 9:16 PM
If he doesn’t, he’ll still be attacked by the left for the next four years.
amerpundit on June 17, 2008 at 9:17 PM
He should veto the bill because teaching creationism in public schools is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. So Governor Jindal has to decide between doing the right thing or doing the politically safe thing.
SoulGlo on June 17, 2008 at 9:19 PM
It’s about time for us to move beyond the antiquated and flawed model of a bygone era.
Darwinism was a blossom in that Victorian garden among the blooms phrenology and eugenics. It’s high time this last, tenacious flower is recognized as the toxic weed it has always been.
Scribbler on June 17, 2008 at 9:19 PM
The left won’t attack him otherwise?
And they all lived happily ever after?
Scribbler on June 17, 2008 at 9:20 PM
I almost hope he signs it so it can be stuck down in the courts like all of the other creationism crap.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:21 PM
One of the best reasons to not have a Dept. of
IndoctrinationEducation right here. Freedom of movement means people that don’t wanna learn what the schools near them are teaching can go find a school more agreeable to them. Enough litigating every aspect of life. Sheesh.VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:21 PM
But how is it “pushing it”, when it’s not a requirement that schools teach ID…it only allows each school district to teach it if they desire.
JetBoy on June 17, 2008 at 9:23 PM
@ VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:21 PM
I am no fan of the DOE, but seriously you think that different jurisdictions should be able to teach anything they want? So a heavily religious district can teach creationism and alchemy and magic and all of the other things that have stopped being taught in schools? You dont think that will put them at a VERY large disadvantage when they try and get a job?
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:23 PM
What is the argument for having him veto it?
It’s got wide support from the people’s elected representatives.
It doesn’t appear to be a case where the elected reps are going against what the people back home want (like amnesty on the national field).
It doesn’t seem to be forcing anything on anyone. No district is required to teach it. It is up to the districts to request to teach it if they decide it’s best.
As a conservative, I’d be pissed off if he vetoed it, not because I care one way or another if ID is an option for schools to teach but because it would be a case of a small group of people deciding they know what’s best for everyone (more so than the people and their elected reps know). They need to make their case to the people, not ask for someone to single-handedly override the will of a large majority (though, as AP pointed out, with the numbers that passed it, a veto will never stick).
JadeNYU on June 17, 2008 at 9:24 PM
@ JetBoy on June 17, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Because first what happens is they pass this at a state level, and then they EASILY take over school boards, which no one votes for really, and then they push the ID nonsense.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Another banner day for America!
Not wonder the godless Chinese own us.
alphie on June 17, 2008 at 9:27 PM
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Yeah. It happens anyways. The Texas FLDS chruch is an example. The DOE is simply a funding black hole, and excuse for a beuracrcy to flourish and things like teachers unions to be organized. Out with the lot of ‘em.
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Possibly my worst misspelling ever. Anyone know what I was going for? :)
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Oh boy,
The mass of ID apologist will be invading in 5…4…3…2…1
Squid Shark on June 17, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Frankly, having this pass, and having a school district attempt to teach ID in school could be a good thing. Other than making Louisiana even more of a mockery to citizens in all the other states, it will lead to someone challenging the teaching of ID by suing the school district. Then after several wins, hopefully it will make it to the supreme court and the ID nonsense can be gone for good. Then the religious can create yet ANOTHER theory to try and push religion in schools.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:30 PM
There is actually nothing in the bill that is objectionable. The ID stuff is merely implied, if even that, and it actually reads more like a resolution almost than a law, so inspecific is its language.
He signs it, because it’s the right thing to do… and that’s coming from someone who thinks ID in the classroom is a STUPID idea.
DaveS on June 17, 2008 at 9:31 PM
And yes, he catches hell for it from the left.
DaveS on June 17, 2008 at 9:32 PM
I wonder what the ID fans would think if a Hindu version of creation was to be tought, instead of a the Christian version
firepilot on June 17, 2008 at 9:32 PM
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:30 PM
I know going to the courts beats jumping people and dumping them outside town, but I just cringe from the implication that all of life’s problems can be solved by 9 people who wear funny robes.
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:32 PM
firepilot on June 17, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Probably, “This school isn’t for us. I hear there’s one in Louisiana that’ll do just fine.”
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:33 PM
First of all, I don’t think being religious = holding on to long disproved things like alchemy and magic.
That aside, if a school district taught ID alongside or instead of Macro evolution, but they also managed to teach the kids to read, those kids would get much further in life than the kids in my old neighborhood whose science books are filled with acceptable theories, but they’ll never know because they read (on average) at a 4th grade level.
If we’re honest, outside of a career in the sciences, it doesn’t make much of a difference what one was taught in school or believes about these things. I can believe the flying spaghetti monster created us all so that we would create spaghetti dinners in his image and, that is not going to make one bit off difference in my ability to function as a contributing member of society.
JadeNYU on June 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM
It’s a shame that the right can’t embrace rational science without pissing off the base.
lorien1973 on June 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM
You’re panicking into error. I’m sure you’ve been wonked on the head by others with the lists of the great minds who were also Christians. Science itself was created and flourished not in spite of but particularly because of the Christianized mindset of western Europe.
TexasDan on June 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Actually, this could be spun as a “pro-science” bill, because it makes teachers less uneasy about addressing creationist concerns in the classroom, and certainly it is in the interest of science to respond to misperceptions about carbon dating or whatever other challenges could come in a classroom but which might make the teacher uncomfortable.
DaveS on June 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Darn, now the other thread is at risk of not making it to 1000 comments :(
Also, I think this will generate some traffic on topic.
Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM
@ VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Haha, and I feel for the kids who have to draw pictures of jesus riding a T-rex for their final exam before the ID is thrown out of the classroom.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:35 PM
I agree, finally someone will get between us (FL) and Mississippi on the bottom of the Public Education rolls.
Squid Shark on June 17, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Or on the backs of Muslim Scientists
Squid Shark on June 17, 2008 at 9:36 PM
That is clearly an imaginary part of the constitution, dreamed up by activist judges, therefore no harm no foul.
Wade on June 17, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Freedom…
Freedom to teach it if you wish to, you have the freedom to put your kids into those schools that teach it if you wish to…
We have choices in America… Freedom…
You should also the Freedom to take your kids out of failing public schools and put them into private schools also..
School Choice is a Freedom and the civil right that needs to be fought next.
Chakra Hammer on June 17, 2008 at 9:38 PM
He should sign it and then highlight it.
SouthernGent on June 17, 2008 at 9:38 PM
@ TexasDan on June 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM
And pretty much every advance was HIGHLY criticized and the scientists threatened for their “outlandish” theories. Whether its Keplar, Newton, Da Vinci, etc.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:39 PM
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:35 PM
I actually liked this response by: JadeNYU on June 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM
“If we’re honest, outside of a career in the sciences, it doesn’t make much of a difference what one was taught in school or believes about these things. I can believe the flying spaghetti monster created us all so that we would create spaghetti dinners in his image and, that is not going to make one bit off difference in my ability to function as a contributing member of society.“
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:40 PM
You should also have the Freedom to take your kids out of failing public schools and put them into private schools also..
Chakra Hammer on June 17, 2008 at 9:40 PM
@ Chakra Hammer on June 17, 2008 at 9:38 PM
So a publicly funded school should be able to teach straight Islamic subjects? Islamic math, Islamic science, Islamic history? And then its OUR choice to go there or not? I HIGHLY doubt you even agree with your theory.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:41 PM
There have been many asinine statements on this Blog, but this one…nevermind, not worth the time to explain facts to trolls.
Wade on June 17, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Can I borrow your crystal ball? Now, how do you know if this bill gets passed, that the state will take over the school boards? And that the state will “push the ID nonsense”?
ID may not be nonsense…and I’ll say it again, ID has nothing at all to do with religion. Only that some intelligence planned life and the galaxies. Sounds more nonsensical to me to suggest that the universe just “happened” by chance.
No one is saying that evolution be replaced by ID, but that both be taught tandem with each other. Heck, make an ID class an elective…that’s fine. But to totally deny students access to one theory over another is equivalent to censorship, even book burning.
JetBoy on June 17, 2008 at 9:42 PM
It’s not that it’s “outlandish”. ID isn’t testable or predictive…so it isn’t science. Newton and Kepler all provided theories which were testable and predictive.
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Absolutely. With your permission I would make one change to your statement though…
Wade on June 17, 2008 at 9:45 PM
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Is AGW testable or predicitve?
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:45 PM
I wasn’t aware that giving someone an option is “pushing” one particular idea over the other. It could be argued that not providing an option is “pushing” the hypothesis of evolution as fact.
Personally, I find it rather amusing that so many evolutionists are afraid to have their ideas challenged all the while touting their own superiority.
GT on June 17, 2008 at 9:46 PM
@ JetBoy on June 17, 2008 at 9:42 PM
No, not the states, the people trying to push ID. The discovery institute. Its what they have done in the past. They get people on the school boards, then the school boards set curriculum. ID has EVERYTHING to do with religion. All of its “scientific” tenets, all three of them, have been disproven and invalidated. All it has left is that a “higher power” because saying God would be creationism, created life. There is no evidence at all for this of course, which is why teaching it in a school under anything other than philosophy would be a big mistake.
Teaching a theory that has no proof, has all of its hypothesis’s disproven, and is an obvious replacement for creationism since it was created like 15 minutes after creationism was deemed illegal to teach, is plain ridiculous.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:46 PM
You veto it, sir.
And you make a statement during the ceremony in which you state that scientific facts are never incongruous with your Catholic faith.
You could even point out that Gregor Mendel was a Franciscan. Tell them for me, that Catholics are interested in every created thing, and afraid of nothing.
If you’re feeling bold sir, you can remind them that the Catholic Church built Western Civilization itself.
Do it, sir.
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 9:47 PM
He should veto the creationism bill, but I sure hope that if there is a curing cancer through exorcism bill he doesn’t veto that one as so many lives hang in the balance.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Umm,for the life of me,including my family,in our
public Canadian schools,we were never taught either
creation or evolution!
But,no matter,God has built the whole nine yards,
thats what I beleive! :)
canopfor on June 17, 2008 at 9:48 PM
@ GT on June 17, 2008 at 9:46 PM
No evolutionism is afraid of having a valid theory with observable hypothesis’s taught. What evolutionists, since apparently we are a type of people now, want, is for random theories with no proof which have EVERY SINGLE one of its hypothesis’s found to be wrong, NOT in the classroom.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Just how do we “test” evolution?
GT on June 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM
yes.
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM
We really need school choice. We really need an education system that has to compete for students. We need to end the government monopoly on education, and government monopoly on curriculum.
Then a school could chose to include this ‘intelligent design’ thingy, or philosophy, or science and mathematics, or what ever. Then parents could choose which school they wanted their kids going to.
Then as kids go through the school system, businesses could choose which of those graduates were best qualified to become employees of those businesses.
rockhauler on June 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM
In short, yes.
The market would dictate this…
We are a Christian country so obviously, MOST of the money would be going to Christan schools…
CIA World FactBook
Protestant 51.3%
Roman Catholic 23.9%
Mormon 1.7%
other Christian 1.6%
Jewish 1.7%
Buddhist 0.7%
Muslim 0.6%
other or unspecified 2.5%
unaffiliated 12.1%
none 4% (2007 est.)
—————–
So obviously..
MOST would be going to Christan Schools or Christian Children that cant afford private schooling right now..
Chakra Hammer on June 17, 2008 at 9:50 PM
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Care to explain? Can you find me a single predicitve element of AGW that has been found to be correct i.e. not revised drastically? Or is it testable? How does one test it?
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:51 PM
However obviously, schools do have to meet requirements as set by the government.. by testing..
Chakra Hammer on June 17, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Matters little. It’s too late.
No god and no religion can survive ridicule, no politician, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field and live.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 9:52 PM
@ Chakra Hammer on June 17, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Our education system would be in shambles under a system like yours. I am all for school choice, but i think we should have at least a certain standard of education for our students. We are already falling WAY behind in education. Compared to some asian countries, some of our kids come out of high school certifiably mentally retarded. We don’t need to worsen this by having no set minimum standards.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Meh. People have been ridiculing all differnt sorts of religions for a long time, and yet here we are.
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:54 PM
He should veto….
MB4 on June 17,2008 at 9:48PM.
MB4: What are you thinking,get the priorities straight,
forget about the curing cancer through exorism bill!
The Liberal exorism bill has to get passed first,
then when their moderates or fence sitters,maybe
something in Washington might get done! haha:)
canopfor on June 17, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Keyword: Theory, therefor nothing more than an abstract thought or speculation, videlicet ‘The world is flat’.
Wade on June 17, 2008 at 9:55 PM
No brainer.
Of course he signs it. I’m willing to bet, when faced with questions from the press or attacks during a debate, he’ll knock it out of the park.
Saltysam on June 17, 2008 at 9:55 PM
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Seeing as how the DOE was created in 1979, and before then American education produced many able and exceptional people, I find this very unpersuasive.
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Well advances in science have tested it on a number of occasions. One good example would be the development of genetics. Even though Darwin had no knowledge of genetics because he lived in the 19th century, the development of genetics ended up actually strengthening his theory. When organism’s reproduce, the DNA is subject to random mutations which give each organism a unique blueprint. These mutations can create negative defects, but also can create changes advantageous to the organism. So 100 years after Darwin proposed new traits appearing in organisms, genetics revealed the biological mechanism that gave rise to these traits. Darwin’s test proved predictive. It was also tested by the development of genetics, and it passed with flying colors. If it hadn’t. scientists would have had to seriously reevaluate, or perhaps dispose of the theory.
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 9:56 PM
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 9:56 PM
AGW. Give me something about it that is either predictive or testable. Just one thing. Please.
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 9:56 PM
I agree, the bill should be vetoed. It is not the place of the government to teach the Abrahamic religion’s version of creation. There are lots of other religions in this world, too and many of them have different creation beliefs. I don’t send my kids to school to learn religion, that’s what church is for. They can learn evolution in one place, creation in the other and make their own minds up.
crosspatch on June 17, 2008 at 9:57 PM
So many people still clinging to their fictional gods.
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 17, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Careful, old man.
Newton: testable and predictive.
Kepler: predictive only.
These details are important. Galileo provided a theory that “predicted” the planetary positions, but he was an arrogant blowhard who said that prediction alone was enough to prove that his “picture” of the Universe was correct.
A child can tell you that the mathematical equations can “save the phenomenon,” but not tell you whether your picture of the Universe is correct.
The Church told Galileo to back down, they said he could teach that the equations certainly seemed to fit the predictions of planetary positions, but this is a far cry from saying they implied his image of the solar system was correct.
The Church was right. Galileo was like the global warming nuts, trying to tell everyone the debate was over merely because he imagined it was over. Typical leftist ploy.
Stay on offense!
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 9:57 PM
So, you have observed evolution. A process that allegedly takes millions of years.
What proof of evolution do you have? Fossils? Supposition should never be confused with scientific theory which is exactly what has happened with the “theory of evolution”.
Facts are things that can be observed and measured. Have you observed evolution? No. Have you measured evolution? No. Therefore, isn’t evolution just as much a religion as Islam?
.
GT on June 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Have these “scientists” had a consensus reached that proves their point because they have demonstrated the new science proof…”consensus”.
BL@KBIRD on June 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM
We also have the “theory” of gravity, and the germ “theory” of disease. Scientific theories have been developed over long periods of time and have massive bodies of evidence supporting them. You’re equivocating the common english usage of the word theory with the scientific usage of the word.
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM
@ A thing remains a theory always until its absolutely proven. Almost nothing can be ABSOLUTELY proven. However, a theory can have certain evidence observed. We have observed and measured that the world is not flat. We have observed variation in species in different climates. We have measured DNA changes over time. We have ample evidence to say that evolution is the best theory to explain the advancement of life.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Also, those would not be “publicly funded schools” they would be “private schools” that are teaching religious things… with students transferring their public funds from the public school system on a per student basis over to the Private School.
Chakra Hammer on June 17, 2008 at 9:59 PM
So many atheists clinging to the delusion of self sufficiency.
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 9:59 PM
They are one in the same….
Wade on June 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM
And how long has AGW been developing as a science. Where is the evidence?
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM
@ GT on June 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM
I personally haven’t done any of those. But people have observed all of the mechanisms of evolution, and have measured them greatly. This is no longer the 19th century. Read up on it, there is a TON of evidence on the internet, if you can wade through all of the religious sites trying to disprove evolution when you search google for it.
muyoso on June 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM
And this crap distracts from a real debate because the ID folks go: SEE G-DLESS ATHEISTS!!!!!!!!!!!
Squid Shark on June 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Allah,
The ability to post these non-issues must give you great joy. Pitting people of faith against your kind of person. You have to do nothing more than post a story with proper barbs and then stand back and watch the “fun” of your efforts.
Seem’s to me you are nothing but a sick stalker by the way you format these debates.
highhopes on June 17, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I like it. Intelligent design criticism actually violates that “promote logical analysis” clause.
RightOFLeft on June 17, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Hey what’s going on? I just got done teaching my son his alchemy lessons (tricky thing lead to gold). Boy I sure hope he signs the bill so we Christians can finally get on with what we are preoccupied with: taking over the education of all your children, raise up an army of alchemists and magicians, sink the U.S. into a new dark age, reintroduce a geocentric worldview into “science”, begin a new crusade, and ultimately take over the known world. And as luck would have it, we (The Society of Christians In Favor Of Taking Over The World Through The Perversion Of Science) intended all along for this quest to begin in Louisiana.
Weight of Glory on June 17, 2008 at 10:02 PM
highhopes on June 17, 2008 at 10:02 PM
highhopes, you must watch the horror movie series Saw.
it’s about a voyeur sadist who basically does the same thing.
now excuse me while I peel the flesh off my face!
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 10:03 PM
No…they’re not. Science uses the word differently then it is used colloquially. Here’s a little helper.
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 10:04 PM
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Heh. Your lack of response is all I need. Thank you. :)
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Careful, you slipped and revealed you swallowed the entire mouthful about the middle ages and the crusades.
The Crusades were a defensive act to stop radical Islam from raping the world.
People like you said it was a war crime.
Thanks a lot, Jack.
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 10:05 PM
I’m sorry, I may have misunderstood you. When you say AGW….you mean?? And how is it relevant to this thread?
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Canopfor do you know where the term “the whole nine yards” comes from?
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 10:08 PM
No No. The Crusades were the evil white European Christian’s evil attempt to take over the world…evilly.
Weight of Glory on June 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Anthropogenic global warming. It’s not relevant except to the extent that you seem to have a firm grasp on what constitutes a science. And since I know yousa liberal, I thought I would test your orthodoxy.
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 10:10 PM
A quote which sets up, in my opinion, a false dichotomy. Some people act as if the very introduction of different ideas will bring down the scientific community, and halt all progress that has been made or will be made, and even send us into retrograde motion. It is not a convincing argument to me.
I’m not saying I’m for the law, or a proponent of ID. But, sometimes I wonder why objections sound like they are not interested in free flow of ideas.
nailinmyeye on June 17, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Ah…genetic mutations. The problem with that argument is that naturally occurring mutations have a detrimental effect on organism. In no case has a positive naturally occurring mutation ever been observed.
Remember, evolutionists want us to believe that everything came from nothing and that chaos produced cosmic order.
I find it humorous that evolutionists are proud that they are nothing more than happy little accidents. ;)
All bow to the Peppered Moth.
GT on June 17, 2008 at 10:11 PM
No No. The Crusades were the evil white European Christian’s evil attempt to take over the world…evilly.
Weight of Glory, you are so close, so close. Oh yes, the Christians were the evil ones. Everyone knows that. At least that’s what my college teacher told me and who am I to doubt it?
But the Christians were not all white. That’s the catch, right there!
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 10:12 PM
You need to clean that statement up, then you will see it’s absurdity.
Wade on June 17, 2008 at 10:12 PM
That’s easy. You go back on HA and look at the first thread on Evolution v. Creationism and then compare it to this one. That should test evolution or maybe devolution, although it could arguably be some kind of a test for either intelligent design or unintelligent design I suppose.
MB4 on June 17, 2008 at 10:13 PM
No it was just a shameless power grab with a thinly veiled religious context.
Squid Shark on June 17, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Or not…Idiot
Squid Shark on June 17, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Well, that’s kinda sorta what the Constitution says: the States should have exclusive rights in that area.
Realistically, nobody’s going to teach stuff that reduces their tax base.
misterpeasea on June 17, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Ok. Well, to be honest I’m not as interested (read:knowledgable) about global warming as I am on the ID debate, and I’m not one to base all my arguments off of hasty google searches. But I’d always like to learn. Why do you think that AGW is relevant to this discussion. Is it a scientific “theory”? It seems like it is falsifiable, unlike ID.
crr6 on June 17, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Oh so right! Of course the thinly veiled religious context was the muslim slaughter of thousands of innocent Christian women and children making their way nonviolently from Turkey to Jersulalem for religious observance.
I guess one man’s veil is another man’s bloodbath, but let’s not quibble over words.
jeff_from_mpls on June 17, 2008 at 10:16 PM
How about a private school? Would you have a problem with it then? Why not let these people who want ID in the classroom get vouchers, let them find their own grants and donors and build their own schools? Seems like the logical step instead of this endless slapfight.
doubleplusundead on June 17, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Well we do try. We have learned from our mistakes in the past, however, and have instead turned to Louisiana to begin our new power grab. Its the ol’ “they’ll never find me in here!” strategy.
Weight of Glory on June 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 Next »