Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
Posted on 08/08/2005 8:49:04 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
THE GOD VS. Darwin debate went to the White House last week when President Bush weighed in, stating in a roundtable interview with reporters that ''intelligent design" should be taught along with evolution in public schools. It's a move that has undoubtedly pleased the president's conservative religious base. However, it has also caused much unhappiness among those conservatives who want the Republican Party to be something other than a political arm of the religious right, including such strong Bush supporters as columnist Charles Krauthammer and University of Tennessee law professor/blogger Glenn Reynolds.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
She had the Discovery Inst on the radio today discussing Intelligent Design.
http://www.lauraingraham.com/agnosticchart?charttype=minichart&chartID=23&formatID=1&useMiniChartID=true&destinationpage=/pg/jsp/general/readarchive.jsp
Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
Cathy Young is supposed to be a libertarian, so why isn't she taking a no-exceptions "separation of school and state" position on this issue? One wouldn't expect that from the President, bless his well-intentioned heart, but "big-government libertarian" is surely on the list for "ultimate oxymoron."
a no-exceptions "separation of school and state" position
Could you explain this statement a little clearer please?
Is that right next to the abortion rights admendment in our constitution?
Sure. Parents have the right and duty to educate their children, or have them educated by others. The government does not have the right, nor the duty, to determine the content of education for citizens.
With a free market for education, the question of "Darwinism vs. alternatives" becomes politically meaningless. Those parents for whom the issue is important will include that factor in making decisions about their children's education. Parents who don't care will value other factors more heavily. Nobody makes decisions for everyone else ... nobody gets any TV time over it :-).
In this context, the President's opinion on "Intelligent Design" would have no relevance to anyone but the members of his own family.
She probably realizes that public schools aren't going to be going away any time soon, and while they exist, they shouldn't be used to promote religious views.
I don't think creationists would be happy with the results of privatization of education, anyway. Even in a private system, the acceptance of high-school credits and the accreditation of institutions is going to be in the hands of the relevant professional bodies in a field, and there's no way the American Physical Society, for example, is going to accept a course that begins with the premise that the Earth began 6000 years ago. We've already begun a debate here in Nebraska about whether we should accept Kansas high school biology credits.
The U.S. Constitution does not delegate any powers relating to education to the Federal government. What more need be said?
Well that's true, but libertarians only seem get riled up on this issue when religion is involved.
PH has been rather conservative with his ping list lately, I somehow don't expect this to be one of those balloon threads that jump to 1000 posts.
Thats cool with me. I'm hoping to get the audio archive of the Laura show and post up here. It was an interesting 15 minutes of radio.
The public schools are riddled with ideological positions being taught as "fact," in every subject ... in addition to costing an outrageous amount of money for an inferior product. The fact that the voters not only put up with this, but continue to vote additional funding for more of the same, suggests that the system has produced exactly what was intended by the people who forced it on the citizens of the United States.
My point is that, by going into a fluster over this issue (or even bringing it up at all) conservatives are playing into the hands of the Marxists. Even if a student believes unquestioningly in Darwinism, what kind of future is he going to have if he can't read, write, or do math? Unless conservatives unite behind the idea that education is an individual (or family) responsibility, and an individual choice, costs will continue to increase while outcomes decline.
Good point.
Hey, last night I watched From Ape to Man on the History channel and other than them taking waaaayyy too much liberty at describing what 'happened' when all they have are THEORIES, they said that the neantherdal man was a DIFFERENT SPECIES than modern humans. They are NOT our descendant as I had always been taught.
How do evolutionists explain this?
What? That last sentence doesn't make sense.
''Intelligent design" boils down to the claim sarcastically summed up by aerospace engineer and science consultant Rand Simberg on his blog, Transterrestrial Musings: ''I'm not smart enough to figure out how this structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer."
Obviously an opponent of ID shouldn't be used as a source to define the ID movement. ID gets the cold shoulder from the secular materialists because it dares say that both Intelligence and Design are in evidence in our world.
I think this debate stems because it is about funding. Who will fund evolution if not the education system, i.e. tax dollars.
Now "if" the debate can be cast in the light of a bunch of "holy rollers" playing with serpents then who do you think is going to come out with the dollars.
Follow the money, it's job security #1, 'you know' it's all for the children.
I don't know how (unless you have very ugly kids :-)) you could think Neanderthal man was our descendant. Most of us know all our descendants; I have three of them, and none of them are Neanderthal, though my son's a 14 year old high-schooler, and so sometimes acts like a Neanderthal.
We always knew Neanderthals were distant cousins. The question is how distant; genetic evidence seems to be showing the answer is 'more distant than we thought'.
Very good point ... and another reason why conservatives (no matter what they believe regarding origins) should be united in seeking to put the money back in the hands of the citizens, to be spent at their discretion.
[Struggling to remember high school biology class]
Why? What does a person's religious/evolutionary views have to do with biology? A liver is still a liver and it's still in the right place in the organism, isn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.