Say Anything Blog

Unless the school were to start teaching evolution, intelligent design and all the other creation stories from all the religions of the world.  Because that’s what it would take for such lessons to be Constitutional.

Best not to open that Pandora’s Box, no?

Rob,

I’d be surprised if any fewer than half the school districts in the US were not teaching some form of evolutionary theory already.

Your suggestion that Jindal should fall back on a “federalist” perspective of leaving such curricular decisions up to local and state officials is a wise one, but it is all but gratuitous to overlook the influence of the ACLU and the courts in such discussions.

Most conservatives I know would be perfectly willing to drop their insistence on ID theory, if only the schools would drop their dogmatic insistence on teaching evolution as gospel.

---

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I would suggest that you look back on what schools first taught when this nation was founded.  The Bible was as much a part of most curricula as any other textbook, and probably more.  “Establishment clause”...whatever.

Having said that, ID is not religion.  It’s such a watered-down bunch of gobbledygook that no self respecting atheist need even fear it.

Clint

Because that’s what it would take for such lessons to be Constitutional.

Best not to open that Pandora’s Box, no?

Rob,

This demonstrates some naivete.  ID, for the umpteenth time, is observational and needs no religious evidence to justify or support its claims.  So then there is no Pandora’s box to open.

Still waiting for speciation to be observed… In the meantime we’ll just keep teaching it as dogma.

My personal feelings about intelligent design is that it’s a bunch of patched-together hokum made up by pre-science zealots at a loss for explaining how the world was created

. Gee, that was my impression about the Darwinist THEORY which is being taught as fact.  Buuuttt, wait!  The evolutionists still don’t have a clue about creation except for the highly improbable theory that life came magically from slug.  As compared to that ‘hokum’, ID is vastly superior.

---

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Funny, my faith is not threatened by something that on the surface is as utterly absurd as evolution (molocules to man). 

However, ID is somehow a threat to education and science.  The religious ferver and zeal demonstrated by evolutionists betrays their objectivity and their better judgment. 

It is the demands of naturalistic exclusivity in science that is offensive to objectivity.  It is the naturalistic right of evolutionary science and its claims of exclusive access to academia that defies any logical explanation.

My personal feelings about intelligent design is that it’s a bunch of patched-together hokum made up by pre-science zealots at a loss for explaining how the world was created.

Darwinism aside, you just described the problem with a lot of the math based theoretical physics and astrophysics.

As a scientist, science is all about testing, process, and repeatable results based on observable result. Darwinism does a great job explaining speciation and adaptation, however, it does have holes. ID has holes. Gradualism has theoretical holes. So does the expansion of matter or gas laws or chaos theory. I don’t mind anything challenging the process, the tests, the results or the data as long as it’s done in the open.

You can say the world sits on the great turtles back, if you like, but you have to take on the data that says it doesn’t. What’s the problem wih that?

Typical evolutionists - never mind any objective research, my mind is made up, there is no Creator (God).  On that basis I think one could say that there is little difference between evolutionists and atheists.

---

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Rob

ID is not reflected by any religion nor is it representing any religious view. And evolution still has many unexplainable holes lacking clear empirical evidence.

Obtaining knowledge with blinders on lacks a view of the bigger picture. Learning both theories makes for a well rounded education.

As a Catholic, if I study Buddhism, does that make me less of a Catholic?

My personal feelings about intelligent design is that it’s a bunch of patched-together hokum made up by pre-science zealots at a loss for explaining how the world was created.

The same can be said for evolution. Plus ID doesn’t attempt to describe how the world was created. ID deals with life on the planet in the very same linear time frame as evolution.

Actually it wouldn’t hurt you to read some actual ID literature. Then you wouldn’t get so pissed over something you refuse to learn about.

But even so, I don’t want my tax dollars to go toward teaching religious creation stories in schools and I think that if such stories were taught in school it’d probably violate the Constitution’s establishment clause.
Unless the school were to start teaching evolution, intelligent design and all the other creation stories from all the religions of the world.  Because that’s what it would take for such lessons to be Constitutional.

For the umpteenth time, Rob:

ID IS NOT BIBLICAL CREATIONISM.

It doesn’t teach Adam and Eve, seven days of creation, or even promote a diety. It simply teaches that there is evidence that life arose not from chance, but from a creator, which can be God, Allah, Martians, or even (as some athiests throw out derisively) a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I recommend the Politically Incorrect Guide to Intelligent Design and Darwinism. You may not agree with it, but after reading it, it’ll be hard to pretend ID is religious and nothing but hodge podge anymore.

---

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Unless the school were to start teaching evolution, intelligent design and all the other creation stories from all the religions of the world.  Because that’s what it would take for such lessons to be Constitutional.

Actually, I disagree. Only because the curent teaching of CO2 driven global warming in school is totally ignoring things like the Milankovich theory. In the arguement on why the world is warming, the Milankovich theory, sunspot/cloud formation, volcanic outgassing and the polar magnetic effect all have a great deal of relevence and no religious componet but they aren’t discussed.

The education system of science has a meta-narriative you don’t get past until you get to college and are expected to know more. For that reason, in schools I have less hope that any scientific parity will happen but I’ll continue to say that we should allow for maximum theoretical exposure because this will be all of the science a large number of those student are ever exposed to. Since that is the case, they need to learn the paradox of science: The more you learn, the less you truely know.

My personal feelings about intelligent design is that it’s a bunch of patched-together hokum made up by pre-science zealots at a loss for explaining how the world was created.  But that’s just this man’s opinion and I certainly don’t begrudge others their opinion on the matter.  But even so, I don’t want my tax dollars to go toward teaching religious creation stories in schools and I think that if such stories were taught in school it’d probably violate the Constitution’s establishment clause.

Bango! Right on!

---

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I don’t want my tax dollars to go toward

___________ (fill in the blank)

That argument carries little weight.

Bango! Right on!

Kind of a chauvanist tone, wouldn’t you say?

Banog! Right on!

Well, you’re never right on anything else. Why start now?

---

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

I agree with Bobby Jindal that different viewpoints should be taught without prejudice. The theory that one plus one equals three should be offered next to the theory that one plus one equals two, and let the students decide which they prefer. Fair is fair.

Jindal can easily nip this controversy in the bud by saying that he has a personal preference for teaching ID in schools but that he thinks the issue is something for each state, and each local school board, to solve for themselves.

Because of course it would be horrible for Jindal to stick to his principles and not back down from them!  I thought that us conservatives wanted to let differing points of view to be heard.  I guess I missed the memo that we were going to start acting like the global warming crowd and refuse to let a differing point of view be heard.

---

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

All he has to say is,

“That is not the Intelligent Design I knew!”

---

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

It requires much more faith to believe in evolution than it does Intelligent Design or Special Divine Creation. The missing data to make Darwinian Evolution credible would fill all the oceans of the world, several times over. When Darwinian evolutionists confront the absence of credible data and that data which clearly contradicts their beliefs, they simply create new special theories, which cannot be proven until that theory is brought to the point of scientific ridicule and then they make up more stuff. It is not science.

Why do evolutionists resist ID or Divine Creation? Because they know that when compared side-by-side evolutionary theory fails all the tests. It is a battle between the God of all Creation and the false religion of Darwinian evolution. The evolutionists fear any other theories being taught, as they know evolution is a lie.

Show us modest credible evidence of fully developed vertical transitional forms? How about the many transititional forms between each successful form, where are their bones? Show us how random mutatations over time do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Show us how random mutations over time can produce complex design, the mathematical odds of that happening are beyond the laws of probablity. Evolution is the religion of secular, atheist men and it is at war with the God of all Creation to dominate man.

Liberals want control over the minds of our children, thus they will advance in dogmatic fashion idiotic theories like human caused global warming. The same goes for evolution, it cannot be tested and proved, it cannot be observed happening today; but it opposes faith, the opiate of the people (masses), and they must remove that from the minds of the next generation. That is why people are afraid of ID or Special Divine Creation, they must kill any faith in God so that they can force the people to place all their faith and obedience in the state and the ruling elite. It is pure communism, we have seen it before and it always fails, but our liberal brethren are convinced they can avoid the mistakes of others and create a socialist utopia in America if they can kill all that God crap. Which is also behind homosexual rights, legalization of drugs and our sexed up culture - they must kill God if they are going to win.

---

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Regardless, Jindal can easily nip this controversy in the bud by saying that he has a personal preference for teaching ID in schools but that he thinks the issue is something for each state, and each local school board, to solve for themselves.

“There are two sides to every issue. One is right. The other is wrong. But the middle is always evil.”

The older I get the more overwhelmed with reverence that I feel for what is. The way things are these days it is easy to fall into cynicism. I’m guilty and I admit it. I take comfort in the laws of science and reason as much as any reasonable man. Excessive pride in ourselves is a human fault that we could possibly do without. This flaw is part of us and part of the puzzle. It separates us from the other mammals as much as the missing link between man and ape. Are we part of a random existential accident or is some cosmic muffin responsible for the cause and effect of it all? Beats me but it sure delights the mind.

Wayne Campbell and Garth Algar summed it up the best with one word:

“Excellent.”

“There are two sides to every issue. One is right. The other is wrong. But the middle is always evil.”

No generalization is worth a damn. Including this one!

---

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Show us how random mutatations over time do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

A simple version of the 2nd law is “the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” Now the important part of this law is the “isolated system” part.  The earth is not an isolated system.  We receive energy from the sun and as long as this happens, evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I guess for the evolution totalitarians, the debate is over.

---

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Hawk:

We receive energy from the sun and as long as this happens, evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This response above is irrelevant, meaningless, since it confuses quantity of energy with conversion of energy. The question is not whether there is enough energy from the sun to sustain the evolutionary process; the question is how does the suns energy sustain evolution.

In all systems the second law describes a tendency to go from order to disorder; in most systems, time produces an actual change from order to disorder.

“No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we [do] encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world.” Harold F. Blum

---

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.