Author Topic: Bobby Jindal, pro and con (Read 23438 times)

MechAg94 · « **Reply #50 on:** February 25, 2009, 03:31:05 PM »

Quote from: Cmdr. Gravez0r on February 25, 2009, 03:20:03 PM

This is a false dichotomy that has been perpetuated since the advent of Darwin.

To answer your question, more and more scientists are accepting ID as a plausible solution because they acknowledge the level of complexity in nature is too high to deny a Designer. Even Discover magazine sent an article to press that essentially admitted, "unless our Multiverse theory works, there has to be a God." And the multiverse is far from proven. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

Once you take the arguments beyond evolutionary biology and into physics denial gets a lot harder.

That is the problem. No one knows what happened. Evolution is just one of the better 100% non-religious theories. It has it's problems also. A guy on another site works with genetic microbiology stuff and he thinks the whole idea of species and all that will change down the road changing a lot of these arguments.

Jocassee · « **Reply #51 on:** February 25, 2009, 03:36:08 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on February 25, 2009, 03:31:05 PM

That is the problem. No one knows what happened.

The problem is the Darwin Dogmatists continue to insist that "we don't know what happened, but despite the apparent design in our universe, it couldn't possibly have been intentional."

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #52 on:** February 25, 2009, 03:37:23 PM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on February 25, 2009, 03:04:00 PM

Bullsh__. Unmitigated bullsh__.

Even the Catholic Church rejects ID as a bunch of phony nonsense. It's "Because we said so" cloaked in pseudoscience terms that are laughable to anyone who's actually had a single science course.

When people pray and think, they're fine. ID people start praying and stop thinking. ID people have no concept of time, of the passage of time, the scale of time, of how genetic traits work...and they REVEL in their ignorance.

It isn't science. It isn't anything. It's exactly like "Global Warming", only with even less but fluff and nonsense to back it up. And any schoolboard member, any politician who supports that crap needs to be thrown out on their ass yesterday.

Your disagreement with intelligent design is duly noted. Now, let's set aside the zeal and red herrings and get back to the point.

The issue is whether parents should have a choice about what kind of schools their children go to, and what kinds of curricula are taught there. There are various ways to achieve more free choice in schooling, such as charter schools, vouchers, and the like. If you can't have multiple school/curricula choices, if you can only have one school system that teaches only one curriculum, then the nearest alternative is to tailor that one curriculum to present multiple viewpoints side by side.

So the question is this: is a free choice school system a better policy or a worse policy compared to the single viewpoint school system we have now? Jindal prefers the free choice models. Is he wrong to do so?

I think Jindal is dead right on this one. Free choice in schooling can be nothing but a good thing. Even if some parents choose a curriculum that I disagree with, I still think we're all better off for having the choice.

Jocassee · « **Reply #53 on:** February 25, 2009, 03:45:47 PM »

What would be even better is if he dismantled the DoE. Would that be too much to hope for?

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #54 on:** February 25, 2009, 03:56:59 PM »

Quote from: Cmdr. Gravez0r on February 25, 2009, 03:45:47 PM

What would be even better is if he dismantled the DoE. Would that be too much to hope for?

Yes, that would be too much to hope for.

Balog · « **Reply #55 on:** February 25, 2009, 04:10:28 PM »

How is offering multiple viewpoints for consideration an infringement of freedom, and rigidly insisting "This belief system (secular evolution) is the only possible truth" be forced on all children freedom? Oh right, because you happen to believe in what is mandated.

When I want equal time for my viewpoint, that's evil and forcing my view down your throat. When you insist only your belief system be acknolwedged as a possibility, that's A-ok because you know you're right. Good logic.

Wouldn't want to confuse kids in school by teaching them to examine alternative viewpoints on controversial issues. They might have to actually think for themselves!

Werewolf · « **Reply #56 on:** February 25, 2009, 04:40:26 PM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on February 25, 2009, 09:34:37 AM

He has even said that he thinks both evolution and "intelligent design" are wrong, and that he wants creationism taught in public schools.

Heard the name Jindal...
Didn't know much about him...
But if the above is TRUE it is all I need to know about him to:

JUST SAY NO TO JINDAL!

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #57 on:** February 25, 2009, 04:46:05 PM »

Quote from: Werewolf on February 25, 2009, 04:40:26 PM

Heard the name Jindal...
Didn't know much about him...
But if the above is TRUE it is all I need to know about him to:

JUST SAY NO TO JINDAL!

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

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #58 on:** February 25, 2009, 04:50:38 PM »

Quote from: Balog on February 25, 2009, 04:10:28 PM

How is offering multiple viewpoints for consideration an infringement of freedom, and rigidly insisting "This belief system (secular evolution) is the only possible truth" be forced on all children freedom? Oh right, because you happen to believe in what is mandated.

When I want equal time for my viewpoint, that's evil and forcing my view down your throat. When you insist only your belief system be acknolwedged as a possibility, that's A-ok because you know you're right. Good logic. Wouldn't want to confuse kids in school by teaching them to examine alternative viewpoints on controversial issues. They might have to actually think for themselves!

How many "alternate truths" are we going to allow? The earth is a disk on a turtle? Ocean lady shook all the animals of the sea out of her hair?

You don't get to say "I just want alternatives taught so kids can think for themselves" if the only alternative you want taught is yours. Pot meet kettle.

The Republican candidates could take this issue out of the hands of the Dems, without promoting secular humanism or godless communism or whatever other bugbear, by simply making it clear that:

"I believe, as do millions of people in this country in "X", however, I believe that no religiously-based viewpoint should be given preference in our schools and will not push for nor support any such effort on a national level.

Parents are free to instruct their children however they wish, and it is the duty of teachers to not denigrate those teachings. What is taught in science classes should be determined by the people whose children it effects, the local voters and their state and local school boards and departments of education.

Boom. Consistant state's rights, small government, tolerance and freedom of choice, all without giving the opposition a hook to paint one as an "anti-science theocrat".

Balog · « **Reply #59 on:** February 25, 2009, 04:58:52 PM »

Carebear: there are two possible models for the origin of the universe. It happened utterly by itself, or it was in some way created. IF I was talking about teaching the Christian creation account your point would be valid. As I'm not (nor is any serious ID proponent I know of) that is a strawman of the first order.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #60 on:** February 25, 2009, 05:10:42 PM »

Quote from: carebear on February 25, 2009, 04:50:38 PM

How many "alternate truths" are we going to allow? The earth is a disk on a turtle? Ocean lady shook all the animals of the sea out of her hair?

You don't get to say "I just want alternatives taught so kids can think for themselves" if the only alternative you want taught is yours. Pot meet kettle.

Wait, what?

Who wants to teach that the earth is a disk on a turtle?

Who wants the only alternative taught to be their own? Other than Maned, that is...?

Perhaps you misunderstood. The whole point of the exercise is to give people choices about what is being taught to their children. It's about NOT forcing any particular ideology (be it creationism, or Darwinism, or whatever else) onto students.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #61 on:** February 25, 2009, 05:13:59 PM »

Quote from: Balog on February 25, 2009, 04:58:52 PM

Carebear: there are two possible models for the origin of the universe. It happened utterly by itself, or it was in some way created. IF I was talking about teching the Christian creation account your point would be valid. As I'm not (nor is any serious I'd proponent I know of) that is a strawman of the first order.

My mistake.

Doesn't affect the larger point though. How do we determine what or how many alternatives get actually taught and how much time does that leave for any one of them to be taught in the detail necessary for schoolchildren to learn anything at all about them?

Open the door to one alternative that is even remotely religiously based, and I'm unaware of more than a couple variations of creation and development that aren't at root patently religious, and you have opened the door to all of them. There isn't enough time in a science class to cover them all.

Wait a minute, not my mistake at all. You can't just say "teach alternatives" and then accuse me of straw-manning when I point out how many alternatives there are for any "creation" story.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #62 on:** February 25, 2009, 05:17:53 PM »

Furthermore, note what I actually wrote...

Quote

"I believe, as do millions of people in this country in "X", however, I believe that no religiously-based viewpoint should be given preference in our schools and will not push for nor support any such effort on a national level.

Parents are free to instruct their children however they wish, and it is the duty of teachers to not denigrate those teachings. What is taught in science classes should be determined by the people whose children it effects, the local voters and their state and local school boards and departments of education."

Boom. Consistant state's rights, small government, tolerance and freedom of choice, all without giving the opposition a hook to paint one as an "anti-science theocrat".

The elections that the Dems are hitting with their theocrat libel are the national ones. State that you intend to push the decisions out of the national level, other than to ensure that teachers are held accountable for not denigrating students beliefs, and the local schools can teach whatever they choose.

The Palin's and Jindal's are thus armored against "theocrat, 6,000 year old earth, hating science" accusations.

Iain · « **Reply #63 on:** February 25, 2009, 05:28:32 PM »

Carebear - allowing such things to be decided at local level has already been tried has it not.

The outcomes run something like this:
- Motivated group takes control of school board and pushes for their agenda
- Other local parents react badly
- It goes to court
- Science teachers take on Discovery Institute in court
- Everybody hates each other and blogs have a field day

Dover springs to mind.

Balog · « **Reply #64 on:** February 25, 2009, 05:37:39 PM »

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.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #65 on:** February 25, 2009, 05:42:31 PM »

Quote from: Balog on February 25, 2009, 05:37:39 PM

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.

Again, how "realistically" do you determine which alternatives of the thousands, religious and not, available in our pluralistic society are going to be allowed to be taught as "alternatives"?

And the larger thread is about Jindal and as it evolved

into his (and other national level GOP candidates) electability given his stated beliefs on ID being taught. My point was more narrowly tailored to how to "theocrat-proof" his beliefs in the press.

Balog · « **Reply #66 on:** February 25, 2009, 05:50:41 PM »

What "thousands of alternatives" are you talking about? ID is not based in any specific creation account. It is merely the view that there was a "uncaused causer" as Lewis put it. The nature or form of that causer is where the alternatives come in, and has nothing to do with ID as proposed. So yeah, it is a strawman, and it mainly showcases your ignorance about the subject you're attacking.

As for Jindal, I don't think the debate on ID is a particularly critical one at the national level, and I think it is best framed as a matter of giving parents options.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #67 on:** February 25, 2009, 06:00:31 PM »

The problem lies in assuming that every single school in the country (or county, or town) must all agree on one particular viewpoint and teach only that. There is absolutely no reason why different schools can't teach different viewpoints. Let students and parents decide which schools to use based on what they teach there. This notion that all schools and all students must conform to the same ideologies is nonsense.

Parents shouldn't be forced to send their children into a school system that seeks to achieve uniformity and conformity, particularly when the target model to conform to isn't something they agree with.

Why should Bobby Jindal or anyone else be forced to use a school that indoctrinates things they don't agree with?

Iain · « **Reply #68 on:** February 25, 2009, 06:10:06 PM »

Is anyone seriously suggesting replacing evolution with ID in science lessons? Or are we talking about discussions of the origins of life in religious education? Or are we talking about science teachers being allowed to go off on one about 'religious zealots' or 'there are no transitory fossils' every now and again?

Balog · « **Reply #69 on:** February 25, 2009, 06:15:18 PM »

Quote from: Iain on February 25, 2009, 06:10:06 PM

Is anyone seriously suggesting replacing evolution with ID in science lessons? Or are we talking about discussions of the origins of life in religious education? Or are we talking about science teachers being allowed to go off on one about 'religious zealots' or 'there are no transitory fossils' every now and again?

Nope. Merely presenting both without prejudice and allowing the students to make up their own mind.

Jimmy Dean · « **Reply #70 on:** February 25, 2009, 06:15:58 PM »

I think that the problem with Jindal in this speech was how it was written. I think that Jindal is running into a wall here. Here in lil ole louisiana (where I live and he is my governor), he can say what he feels, and do what he feels is right. On a national level, the national GOP is going to try and tell him what he can and can't say, what opinions he can and can't express. I think he may have issues learning how to play the game their way. However, Jindal/Huckabee 2012!

On the ID, evolution, creation teaching in schools.

Well, We can either teach one belief, or we can teach multiple.

Lets say we decide to teach one belief...which do we go with? The 'scientific' non-religious one that has no actual scientific proof backing it up? Or one of the many religious types that also have no/very little scientific proof backing them up?

Ok, lets just teach the one with the most support......guess we get to teach creation then huh?

Lets teach multiple ones, well, how do we decided which ones? Should we start teaching our kids about the spaghetti monsters? Or should we take Greek mythology out of the literature classes and teach it as possible fact?

This is something that simply put has to be left up to the independant school districts, OR, better yet, left OUT of school altogether.

Jimmy Dean · « **Reply #71 on:** February 25, 2009, 06:17:38 PM »

Quote from: Balog on February 25, 2009, 06:15:18 PM

Nope. Merely presenting both without prejudice and allowing the students to make up their own mind.

Sorry, I have to laugh here. You are saying that we need to tell a teacher to present their own viewpoint (as chances are, their own beliefs will coincide with one of the major theories) and opposing viewpoints without showing any preferance from one to the other. You, friend, have way too much faith in people to be able to do that.

Balog · « **Reply #72 on:** February 25, 2009, 06:20:45 PM »

Quote from: Jimmy Dean on February 25, 2009, 06:17:38 PM

Sorry, I have to laugh here. You are saying that we need to tell a teacher to present their own viewpoint (as chances are, their own beliefs will coincide with one of the major theories) and opposing viewpoints without showing any preferance from one to the other. You, friend, have way too much faith in people to be able to do that.

It's not a perfect system. I hardly expect all (or even most) teachers to not betray their own bias. But the inevitability of personal bias from teachers is no excuse for institutional bias.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #73 on:** February 25, 2009, 06:24:06 PM »

Quote from: Balog on February 25, 2009, 05:50:41 PM

What "thousands of alternatives" are you talking about? ID is not based in any specific creation account. It is merely the view that there was a "uncaused causer" as Lewis put it. The nature or form of that causer is where the alternatives come in, and has nothing to do with ID as proposed. So yeah, it is a strawman, and it mainly showcases your ignorance about the subject you're attacking.

As for Jindal, I don't think the debate on ID is a particularly critical one at the national level, and I think it is best framed as a matter of giving parents options.

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.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #74 on:** February 25, 2009, 06:37:51 PM »

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.

News:

Author Topic: Bobby Jindal, pro and con (Read 23438 times)