Bobby Jindal, pro and con

[Balog]

I am fully aware of what ID is.

It posits a creator or guiding force, the "intelligence" which can only be identified by its alleged perceptible effects on the natural world.  You can't, with a straight face, say that positing the existence of a scientifically untestable and thus unprovable (ie supernatural) creator or guiding force is not explicitly a religiously-based creation alternative simply because you answer, "gee, I dunno" when asked to give that creator or force a name.

That is sophistry, perhaps not for you in particular, but for the ID movement as a whole in this country when it comes to education.

Trying to backdoor an unnamed god in in the name of science while simultaneously denying those who prefer to name their particular creator or force of choice is where the "pot calling the kettle" and thousands of alternatives that will demand equal time comes in.

I read that and lol'ed. Show me the testing that proves the non-created origins of the universe theory. I'll wait....

[MicroBalrog]

Let the locals decide is a nice thought. So is abolishing the NFA, GCA, bad parts of the FOPA,and  Bush Sr's import ban. Heck, let's repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish the IRS and enforce the 10th Amendment while we're at it.

Or we could deal with the system we have in a realistic way.

I'm reminded of the film "John Q" for some reason.

[Jamisjockey]

Who said anything about thousands of alternatives all being taught?  The idea is to teach the alternatives that parents want their children to learn, not every conceivable alternative anyone can ever think up.

And if I want the theory of the flying spagetting monster taught in my school, because its what I teach my children at home?
Here in Northern Virginia, there are dozens of different religious facilities just in my zip code.  I see bumper stickers with Pagan sayings, I see Darwin plaques on trucks, I see Cathloics and Jews and Buddhists and Mormons and who knows what else.  That oughta keep a school district busy for a long, long time coming up with cirriculums to teach "alternatives".
 :rolleyes:

Public school is no place to teach religion. 
I wholeheartedly agree with the concepts of choice and freedom.  But in public schools, only science and theory should be taught.  And any teacher that teaches evolutionary theory as fact should be sanctioned. 

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And if I want the theory of the flying spagetting monster taught in my school, because its what I teach my children at home?
Here in Northern Virginia, there are dozens of different religious facilities just in my zip code.  I see bumper stickers with Pagan sayings, I see Darwin plaques on trucks, I see Cathloics and Jews and Buddhists and Mormons and who knows what else.  That oughta keep a school district busy for a long, long time coming up with cirriculums to teach "alternatives".
 :rolleyes:

Public school is no place to teach religion. 
I wholeheartedly agree with the concepts of choice and freedom.  But in public schools, only science and theory should be taught.  And any teacher that teaches evolutionary theory as fact should be sanctioned. 
 

If enough other parents want the spaghetti monster to justify a school for them, then why shouldn't they have one?

We tend to forget who's supposed to be in charge here.  Schools exist to serve the students.  The parents and students should be the driving force.  Schools should adapt to them and their wishes, not vice versa. 

Also, I see no reason why government should have the power to compel people attend an institution that specifically requires them to be areligious.  Seems to fail that whole "no prohibiting the free exercise" thing.

[Jamisjockey]

Also, I see no reason why government should have the power to compel people attend an institution that specifically requires them to be areligious.  Seems to fail that whole "no prohibiting the free exercise" thing.

We certainly agree there.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Religion is an integral part of many people.  Trying to exclude it, trying to separate it from them, causes problems like this mess with creation vs evolution in the schools.

Religion should be a part of schools, to exactly the same extent that religion is a part of the people in the schools.  People should have a choice to attend an overtly religious school if they want, without penalty compared to somebody who wants to choose a purely secular school.

[Werewolf]

Or you could take a moment to learn something about Jindal and what he stands for, then make an informed decision.

If Jindal wants and stands for teaching Intelligent Design and Creationism in schools then that's all I need to know. I wouldn't vote him in as dog catcher let alone President of the United States.

I won't high jack the thread by getting into a discussion of the merits of either intelligent design or creationism and will just leave it at I vehemently disagree with both and neither has a place being taught in our schools...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If Jindal wants and stands for teaching Intelligent Design and Creationism in schools then that's all I need to know. I wouldn't vote him in as dog catcher let alone President of the United States.

I won't high jack the thread by getting into a discussion of the merits of either intelligent design or creationism and will just leave it at I vehemently disagree with both and neither has a place being taught in our schools...

Jindal wants his own children to have an opportunity to learn intelligent design.  To that end, Jindal (and many, many other parents) stands for teaching intelligent design alongside evolution, and letting each theory stand on its own merits. 

How on earth is that a problem?  Truly, I don't get you evolution only fanatics.  Why is religion such a threat to you? 

Take it one step further.  How can anyone justify the government forcing people to learn doctrines that are unproven and which conflict with their religion?  Forcing people to learn only evolution is as bad as forcing people to learn only creationism.

[Perd Hapley]

Back to the important issues.  If you're gonna have Jindal Derangement Syndrome, you need start using his middle name a LOT more often.  According to Wikipedia, he doesn't have a middle name, other than his nickname, Bobby.  So for the Jindal Derangers, just remember it's Piyush "Bobby" Jindal. 

Or would that be racist or anti-Christian or something? 

[Iain]

Jindal wants his own children to have an opportunity to learn intelligent design.  To that end, Jindal (and many, many other parents) stands for teaching intelligent design alongside evolution, and letting each theory stand on its own merits. 

Which is why the Wedge Strategy explicitly states that it wishes to do away with scientific materialism, or science as we know it. Without undermining those scientific principles that brought forth evolution then ID has no merits and cannot stand on its own next to evolution and other scientific theories.

Sure there are some rabidly anti-christian/religion types out there seeing ID as the front line. There are others who are concerned that teaching ID as a theory anywhere near on a par with evolution will seriously undermine educational standards (such as they are)

[Werewolf]

How on earth is that a problem?  Truly, I don't get you evolution only fanatics.  Why is religion such a threat to you? 

It's not.

That said: Teaching ideas based on magical thinking with zero scientific basis has no place being taught in a public school simply because young minds are like sponges and generally incapable of seperating the dross from the gold. It makes unraveling the garbage they're taught even more difficult than it needs to be.

Want to teach creationism and intelligent degign in a private school - by all means do so. Those parents that want their children to learn alternative views of where man came from are welcome to vote with their dollars and send their kids to them.

But don't force the nonsense called creationism and intelligent design on my kids.

And don't bother spouting off about how evolution is just an unproven theory and creationism and intelligent design are reasonable alternatives. They are not and the only people that think they are, are the scientifically illiterate and/or don't/won't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

[MicroBalrog]

See, as far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as ideologically unbiased educational content. This has never existed and will never exist. Such is the nature of man. And therefore ID emerges – as a marker issue. Obviously (at least to me) a school where ID is taught is a school where traditional monotheist values hold a bit more sway. And you know what? It is okay with me. It is natural that people want the public schools in their community to reflect their values.

Do I believe in ID? No, I don't. But do I think that believing in intelligent design makes you stupid? No, I don't.

Now, please understand here -  I carry no portfolio for Christian values. But because I know that the schools are biased, I do not really care to withdraw my support for a politican because he disagrees with me regarding the content of education.

Which politician is more likely to support school vouchers or tax rebates for homeschoolers and parents take their children to private schools? That politician is a friend of liberty, no matter if he believes in Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti monster, or whatever.

Which politician is more likely to support a system of education wherein most of the schools are public, and the private schools re merely clones of the public ones, like in Europe? That man is an enemy of liberty.

Is it truly relevant whether the President thinks scientifically? You are not seeking a candidate for Chief Scientist. America – thanks God – does not have a Chief Scientist yet. You're looking for a candidate that will drive back the limitations of your liberty, even if a few inches. The argument of what schools teach is completely besides that point. So is the argument of whether or not the President loves science.

[Matthew Carberry]

I read that and lol'ed. Show me the testing that proves the non-created origins of the universe theory. I'll wait....

There isn't any test, obviously, but there are sound theories, supported by the evidence available from after the creation, that can adequately explain the creation of the universe without the necessity (key word) of a creator.

Once you bring in any creator, named or unnamed, you have to allow ALL possible creator options, thus the thousands of options.  The Federal government has no business picking and choosing, if anyone does it is the local school boards.

So that's the point, teach the current areligious theory of creation and evolution (if only to demonstrate the scientific method knowledge of which is sorely lacking in a lot of people) while making it clear that it is, thus far, a sufficient way to explain creation without needing to bring in anyone's religious or spiritual beliefs.  

Make it clear that science, by definition, can only comment on the observable and testable, thus it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any creator of anyone's choice.  So the students are free, in a non-threatening way, to learn the one comprehensive non-religious option in school and can learn the religious option of their choice at home.

[Balog]

Once you bring in any creator, named or unnamed, you have to allow ALL possible creator options, thus the thousands of options.  The Federal government has no business picking and choosing, if anyone does it is the local school boards.

Unmitigated poppycock. ID says "We believe something created the universe." That's it. There would be nothing else taught, no floodgates opened, as that is the entirety of the theory.

There isn't any test, obviously, but there are sound theories, supported by the evidence available from after the creation, that can adequately explain the creation of the universe without the necessity (key word) of a creator.

That's your opinion. Many people hold to the sound theory that you cannot adequately explain the creation of the universe without the necessity of a creator. Why are you so afraid of opposing viewpoints being taught?

I'm right, and you're wrong. Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. QED.

 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Matthew Carberry]

I'm not afraid of anything being taught.  Remember the thread topic.

This is about disarming the Dems ability to paint solid candidates as theocrats.  Whatever the facts about ID, thanks to the press to the country as a whole ID = 6,000 yr old earth creationism and an absolute rejection of science.

We can defang the snake by simply making it a non-issue, rather than playing it up to energize a small segment of the base.

Also, on a higher level, I don't think the Feds should be involved in these issues at all, thus there should be NO discussion of ID by national candidates other than, "I believe what I believe, but it is up to parents and the school boards they create to determine the details of the curriculum in their schools or choose to not use those schools."

[Werewolf]

Do I believe in ID? No, I don't. But do I think that believing in intelligent design makes you stupid? No, I don't.

And neither do I.

However, I do believe that believing in creationism and/or intelligent design is a very strong indicator that one's world view is colored by what some today are calling magical thinking. Wishing something to be so just doesn't make it so.

World needs people like that I guess. Makes for an interesting variety of viewpoints.

BUT - and this is a big BUT! I don't want my children exposed to those view points until their young minds have absorbed enough information and developed to the point where they have a realistic chance of making a reasonable evaluation for themselves regarding the rationality of one view over another.

If a politician believes in either - human nature being what it is - there's a very strong possibility that he'll throw his support behind those that want to teach such magical thinking in the public schools.

AND that's one of my hot buttons. There's enough crap taught in schools today that we just don't need more.

I recently adopted my nieces son. He's going to be raised according to my beliefs and values not the states and not those who want to believe in creationism and ID.

Not a lot I can do to prevent him from being exposed to the state's views short of home schooling and that just isn't an option. But I can raise my voice in opposition to ID and creationism being taught in the public schools.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Also, on a higher level, I don't think the Feds should be involved in these issues at all, thus there should be NO discussion of ID by national candidates other than, "I believe what I believe, but it is up to parents and the school boards they create to determine the details of the curriculum in their schools or choose to not use those schools."

I think that's basically what Jindal has said.

[makattak]

And neither do I.

However, I do believe that believing in creationism and/or intelligent design is a very strong indicator that one's world view is colored by what some today are calling magical thinking. Wishing something to be so just doesn't make it so.

World needs people like that I guess. Makes for an interesting variety of viewpoints.

BUT - and this is a big BUT! I don't want my children exposed to those view points until their young minds have absorbed enough information and developed to the point where they have a realistic chance of making a reasonable evaluation for themselves regarding the rationality of one view over another.

If a politician believes in either - human nature being what it is - there's a very strong possibility that he'll throw his support behind those that want to teach such magical thinking in the public schools.

AND that's one of my hot buttons. There's enough crap taught in schools today that we just don't need more.

I recently adopted my nieces son. He's going to be raised according to my beliefs and values not the states and not those who want to believe in creationism and ID.

Not a lot I can do to prevent him from being exposed to the state's views short of home schooling and that just isn't an option. But I can raise my voice in opposition to ID and creationism being taught in the public schools.

And neither do I.

However, I do believe that believing in evolution and/or abiogenesis is a very strong indicator that one's world view is colored by what some today are calling "materialistic" thinking. Wishing something to be so just doesn't make it so.

World needs people like that I guess. Makes for an interesting variety of viewpoints.

BUT - and this is a big BUT! I don't want my children exposed to those view points until their young minds have absorbed enough information and developed to the point where they have a realistic chance of making a reasonable evaluation for themselves regarding the rationality of one view over another.

If a politician believes in either - human nature being what it is - there's a very strong possibility that he'll throw his support behind those that want to teach such "materialistic" thinking in the public schools.

AND that's one of my hot buttons. There's enough crap taught in schools today that we just don't need more.

When my children are born, they're going to be raised according to my beliefs and values not the states and not those who want to believe in evolution and abiogenesis.

Not a lot I can do to prevent him from being exposed to the state's views short of home schooling and that just isn't an option. But I can raise my voice in opposition to evolution and abiogenesis being taught in the public schools.


Now, perhaps you could tell my why your view is right and mine is wrong?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And neither do I.

However, I do believe that believing in creationism and/or intelligent design is a very strong indicator that one's world view is colored by what some today are calling magical thinking. Wishing something to be so just doesn't make it so.

World needs people like that I guess. Makes for an interesting variety of viewpoints.

BUT - and this is a big BUT! I don't want my children exposed to those view points until their young minds have absorbed enough information and developed to the point where they have a realistic chance of making a reasonable evaluation for themselves regarding the rationality of one view over another.

If a politician believes in either - human nature being what it is - there's a very strong possibility that he'll throw his support behind those that want to teach such magical thinking in the public schools.

AND that's one of my hot buttons. There's enough crap taught in schools today that we just don't need more.

I recently adopted my nieces son. He's going to be raised according to my beliefs and values not the states and not those who want to believe in creationism and ID.

Not a lot I can do to prevent him from being exposed to the state's views short of home schooling and that just isn't an option. But I can raise my voice in opposition to ID and creationism being taught in the public schools.

I think if you look into the science behind evolution and abiogenesis you'll find that there are an awful lot of holes in the theory, areas that aren't explained, portions of the theory that are posited but not proven, and many questions that haven't been asked by evolutionists but should be.  The result is that it is a remarkably unproven theory, compared to the amount of faith some people choose to place in it.

In that light, teaching children with impressionable young minds that evolution/abiogenesis is the one and only acceptable explanation for the existence of life is just plain wrong.  As you say, wishing it does not make it so.  Neither does teaching it, for that matter.

You claim that you don't want the state imposing it's views on impressionable children, but that's precisely what you're doing.  You seek to impose one unproven possibility which you prefer and exclude certain other possibilities with which you disagree.  What you really mean us is that it's OK for the state to have a view and impose it upon children so long as it's your viewpoint.

The whole point of teaching multiple alternatives is so that the state doesn't have a point of view that it seeks to impose upon children. 

[Werewolf]

Now, perhaps you could tell my why your view is right and mine is wrong?

Evolution is based on science. Observation of the real world. Rational analysis of fact.

Creationism and Intelligent design are based on nothing more than faith, magical thinking and religious effort to seem reasonable and rational which neither creationism nor ID is.

If living in a world of faith is what it takes to get one thru the day then so be it for those who live in that world...

Faith isn't gonna stop the tide from coming in no matter how much one wants it not to.

But science has stopped them from coming in on the coasts of Holland.

I choose rationalism and science over faith.

And yes I am right and you are as wrong.

That probably ends the conversation for there really is nothing left to talk about.

Should have known better to even start. Had this same discussion with my father, many, many times over many, many years - IQ 168, Bird Colonel in the Air Force. Respected cold war intelligence analyst. Logistics expert sought by industry and yet with all the scientific evidence available to him his strong religious beliefs prevented him from ever once saying that there was even the tiniest chance that science was right and he was wrong.

Magical thinking - <shakes head in wonderment> I just don't get IT!

Edited to add: Evolution is not "a remarkably unproven theory". Evolution is accepted as fact and the best explanation for the origins of species and how they change over time by the scientific community as a whole. It is observable at every level from the microscopic to the macroscopic, from short time scales to long.

Discussing it with those whose lives are a function of faith is an exercise in futility. <looks for head bang icon>.

I'm outt'a here before this getsf out of hand because in my experience neither side has, will or ever will budge from their personally held view on this subject.

[Iain]

So-called materialistic thinking has moved things forward just a bit. Evolution is testable, falsifiable. ID isn't. One is science, one isn't. Science good, teaches logic and reason.

Anyway, I distinctly remember a chemistry teacher saying that she personally had religious beliefs. She didn't get fired, it was hardly a remarkable comment. I call shenanigans on this being all that is wanted.

I think if you look into the science behind evolution and abiogenesis you'll find that there are an awful lot of holes in the theory, areas that aren't explained, portions of the theory that are posited but not proven, and many questions that haven't been asked by evolutionists but should be.  The result is that it is a remarkably unproven theory, compared to the amount of faith some people choose to place in it.

In that light, teaching children with impressionable young minds that evolution/abiogenesis is the one and only acceptable explanation for the existence of life is just plain wrong.  As you say, wishing it does not make it so.  Neither does teaching it, for that matter.

This is where I think the fundamental misunderstanding is.

What should be being taught, and what kids who are taught the scientific method learn, is not the evolution is the only acceptable explanation - it is that evolution is an acceptable scientific explanation. If we want to raise the next generation of scientists, or critical thinkers, we will teach them what science is and how science reaches the answers that it does.

This is where evolution intersects with that 'other' scientific topic - it's not the science itself, but it is the public debate about the science. What most anti-ID types want is science and the scientific method to be taught in the classroom - the kids that go on to study it in more detail will understand the problems, seek to fill them and know that if the theory is wrong it will eventually be discarded and another will arise, but not some 'creator did it and there is no explanation' hand wave.

All theories are 'unproven' HTG. Those that want evolution gone from the classroom need to come up with another explanation, and so far the only way they know how to do that is to undermine the scientific method and science itself. I'm not willing to discard a very useful system because it removes man as some special element and has no scientifically provable place for God.

[Jamisjockey]

And yes I am right and you are as wrong.

On that note.....