August 20, 2005
-
Bill Frist, Intelligent Design, And The Left
It Doesn’t Fit Into Their Kooky anti-God Philosophy….
“NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said “intelligent design” should be taught in public schools alongside evolution.”
Bill Frist speaking to a Rotary Club yesterday, said students should be exposed to Intelligent Design. Many on the left have already claimed “oh Frist is just looking at polling data and seeing what’s acceptable to the American people, just like the stem cell issue” You know, isn’t it just possible that Bill Frist actually believes that there’s a Creator, isn’t it possible that Bill Frist actually believes stem cell research is worth it. Republicans aren’t known for moving to the center, that’s what you lefties do. Republicans are solid, republicans are consistent, Bill Frist isn’t moving to the center,Frist simply believes ID is something that our youth should be exposed to.
Let me explain why the left hates this idea and why they are not willing to compromise on the issue. The libs cant let Intelligent Design be taught in schools because it doesn’t fit into their anti-God philosophy on social issues in this country. If liberals allow ID to be taught in schools, it will make criticizing the right on social issues like gay marriage and abortion harder. The left’s goal is for America to become a atheist nation, it’s a goal that will never be achieved and is highly idealistic but the left will take whatever help they can get. The left will not allow America’s youth to realize there is a Creator, it will weaken them politically. How else can you explain the left’s outrage at the idea of having ID be taught alongside the theory of evolution? I mean, what’s the problem there? Why cant we let the kids look at the issues and let them decide? But no, the left wont allow it, they wont allow the kids to make their own decision, they want the government to make the decision, they want the government to prohibit ID from schools, so the kids have no choice but to accept the twisted non factual theories spewing out of the mouths of liberal biology teachers. ID simply doesn’t fit into their philosophy and they will not let something like ID destroy their dreams of a atheist America.
Morrison
Comments (30)
This is perhaps your worst post ever…..
So many false assumptions and generalizations
I am not only disappointed in such analysis made but this truly shows how immature and naive you are when concerned with such political issues.
Your faithful readers may now spew their hateful rhetoric and generalizations at me
Unless they’re really smart……
Morrison when will you ever stop with the generalizations?
People…..read from a more credible source….be it from the left or right…
I suggest you read both and draw up your own plausible conclusions but do not get any of your information from Morrison.
Worst ever? Hardly. This is on the money. The USA is full of Marxist. They fill the ranks of the left. Marxist are anti-God. The religious left, if they are God-fearing, have been duped. It would not be the first time good people have been taken in by bad political leaders.
“How else can you explain the left’s outrage at the idea of having ID be taught alongside the theory of evolution? I mean, what’s the problem there? Why cant we let the kids look at the issues and let them decide?”
-It is actually quite easily explained. Evolution is scientific. It is based on evidence and experiment and trial and error, and where flaws are discovered it is repaired so that it continues to be a working theory.
Now, I would expect someone to respond with “but it’s just a theory…” Yes and no. A scientific theory is something that, while perhaps not completely provable, has been subjected to so much scrutiny, peer review, testing and retesting, that its flaws have been eliminated and it is essentially accepted as fact. Another fine example of a theory that religious fundamentalists seem less inclined to attack would be general relativity.
-As for intelligent design, it is merely creationism in disguise. It is based on dogmatic principles that have no foundation in science, and thus, it does NOT belong in the science classroom. I agree that people should be exposed to the notion of creationism (read: intelligent design), but religious beliefs such as those have no place in a science class. Such a belief (and yes, it is a belief – with no significant scientific evidence to support it) should be taught either in a philosophy class, in which case it can be discussed along side other creation stories that have been told in various religions, or in a religious studies course. Some others of particular interest are the Shinto story, and several Native American stories (including at least one in which the world is being carried along a turtle’s back). These all make for great reading, and a fascinating story, but have absolutely no business being taught alongside scientific theories.
“it is actually quite easily explained. Evolution is scientific. It is based on evidence and experiment and trial and error, and where flaws are discovered it is repaired so that it continues to be a working theory”
Hahahahaha. They have NO proof on it and THAT my friend is a fact. Did you know that by the time he died even your beloved Darwin didn’t believe in evolution anymore? Kinda says something when the founder of a ‘religion’ no longer believes in it. They use bullshit claims such as “oh well we have 98% of the same DNA as this monkey-ish creature” — duh! All mammals have 98% of their DNA in common. They’ve also failed to produce ANY fossil evidence to prove that any of their supposed ‘missing-link’ creatures existed. They’ve found no fish with legs, no paritally formed eyes, nothing to prove evolution. So, basically it takes more faith to believe in something as outrageous as evolution than it does to believe in God. There’s just way too many flaws for it to possibly be taken seriously.
Also, did you know that more than half of the 50 states (at either the state legislature, board of education, or both) want to stop teaching evolution?
Oh, as for the theory of relativity — they’ve done things (such as the a-bomb) to prove that it works and it’s just something that was made up.
You fool. First of all, the A-Bomb has nothing to do with relativity. General Relativity has to do with the nature of gravity and its ability to bend time and space among celestial bodies. Your statement basically sums up your comprehension of science though, doesn’t it?
As for Charles Darwin recanting on his deathbed –
1. That is completely unsubstantiated – sounds like something made up to me.
2. Even if he did, it has absolutely NO bearing on the veracity of his observations.
Your attacks on evolution indicate an utter lack of understanding of biology. What sort of missing link are you looking for? Some sort of mutant transitional species that accounts for all the changes that have occurred over millions and millions of years? I suspect that your knowledge of evolutionary theory extends only to the propaganda and half truths that the religious right releases to fight off what they so wrongly assume is an attack on God. Get a biology book, and come back better equipped.
well outside the fact that I found this posting to be incredibly naive especially the statement that “Republicans aren’t known for moving to the center” which is completely without merit… during election cycles (mostly the primaries) you will see people from either party reaching to the more fringe part of the party along with the base core… as the election gets closer, they will go back more to the center to catch the independents… this is the art of politics…
Also the comment that Left’s goal is to make this country athiestic is also without merit… this is a stereotype driven drivel that continued to pushed by those on the right who like to compartmentalize the other side just as the left saying the right wants to shove the Christian religion down the throats of everyone… while there are some on either side that believe or do this, to make this wide range accusation is completely false…
One more thing on this whole “They have NO proof on it and THAT my friend is a fact.” notion –
Even if was proven wrong, that would still have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the fact that creationism has no business being presented in a science class. Fight off evolution all you want – criticize its shortcomings and point out why you think it is wrong. But until you come up with a preponderance of scientific evidence to support your alternative (in this case, creationism), it deserves no attention in a science class.
Bimmer… you seem to not have an understanding how science works… the act of creating a theory and then trying to dismiss it through experiments, calculations and research… to this day, Evolution as a whole has not been proven to be a false theory but has plenty of scientific data to prove its validity…
Modern whales have hip bones in their flesh that they do not use because they do not walk. Paleontologists have found fossils of a whale called Pakicetus that has more developed rear legs… thus the theory that whales probably evolved from mammals that did walk is the only reasonable theory… Another fossil that has been discovered is the Archaeopteryx which is a dinosaur that had feathered wings like birds. DNA wise, birds and dinosaurs have common ancestry… since we don’t have any dinosaurs running around, it would be easier to believe that through evolution the dinosaur ancestors have survived…
Your thought about Darwin is a big “so what?” in the argument… since Darwin did not “invent” the theory of evolution but his theory was an account of how evolution worked… in other words, Darwin’s theory isn’t THE evolutionary theory and should not be considered to be so but a theory that founded on the basic principles of evolution…
You say that we have no fossils of fish with legs (hopefully in jest since this is a silly bumpersticker logic argument)… There may have been all sorts of minor developments of one species into another distinct but closely related species (an established scientific finding). But since you and others have not seen this change visually, you call evolution “just a theory…” Of course it is theory… just as atomic structures, black holes, relativity, DNA, magnetism, electricity and so on are “just theories.” We do not have direct visual evidence of these things with our own eyes. What is done is to observe, often with the aid of sophisticated machines which help explain as effects of those theories and the components thereof… Most scientific theories involve natural elements we cannot see. If you seriously believe that this thought of “just a theory” carries any weight, then you need to become more familiar with the nature of scientific enquiry and the meaning of the term “scientific proof…”
By using your thoughts on scientific proof, then one can assume using the same arguments that there is no proof that smoking cigarettes causes cancer in humans… so should we start teaching that in school too? Since this fallacy falls directly in line with the thinking of those schools who want to de-emphasis evolution in science class…
The differences between ID and Evolution are less than thought of since ID is seen as a way for people who have a strong belief in God(s) to believe in evolution… ID is like evolution except it believes in supernatural events have caused the evolution of creatures rather than strictly nature itself…
“Even if was proven wrong, that would still have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the fact that creationism has no business being presented in a science class.”
Never said it should, but every scientist who’s not an idiot realizes that evolution is a bunch of bullshit and I can go on for quite awhile about it but don’t feel like taking the time to today, hence my short post ealier.
As for “Get a biology book, and come back better equipped.”
Biology books give no scientific proof of evolution — they merely telly myths similar to those made up by the Greeks and Romans without a single shred of fact to back them up.
In other words Bimmer, instead of arguing the facts of the particular case you would rather use ill-informed opinions (“but every scientists who’s not an idiot realizes that evolution is a bunch of bullshit…”) and nonsense (“biology books give no scientific proof of evolution — they merely telly (sic) myths similar to those made up by the Greeks and Romans…”)
I am sorry but this is the lowest form of discussion and debate which is no better than just calling people names since you have nothing to back up your opinion… you inability to look beyond your opinions at facts and other thoughts is a shame since it seems as if you actually have the ability to somewhat think…
“every scientist who’s not an idiot realizes that evolution is a bunch of bullshit”
-Well that is just brilliant. I stand corrected.
“so the kids have no choice but to accept the twisted non factual theories spewing out of the mouths of liberal biology teachers.”
- Good job Morrison. Call all our teachers whom we learn from and are essential to our learning process liberals playing a part in the conspiracy to turn our country atheist. Do you even go to school Morrison? Cause it hardly seems like you do.
Here’s my solution to this problem: ID and Creationism can be discussed and talked about, not taught, in such classes as history and religion and philosophy but not in the science classroom. People are exposed to the idea but are not force fed it to be true, they can choose accordingly with their beliefs. I would prefer they don’t teach it at all, because then you have close-minded individuals who will go on loud-mouthing their beliefs to people who rather learn true fact than moral beliefs, but this is merely a compromise.
There is no serious dispute in the science community, but instead there is a concensus met between the scientists where they all believe evolution.
“Biology books give no scientific proof of evolution — they merely telly myths similar to those made up by the Greeks and Romans without a single shred of fact to back them up.”
-Bimmer you have crushed my hopes of being a Bio Science Major….I think I’ll turn a Theologian
As a future scientist and doctor I am ashamed that Morrison here thinks that all intellectuals are trying to turn this country atheist. Religion has nothing to do with the scientific community and should play no parts in it at all. Rather science is out there to find a plausible explanation for many things happening in the world.
So what if contradictions are found every day? Science doesn’t promise to be 100% correct, to teach that would go against every thing taught in science.
So please, leave the Science community at peace.
Here’s something for all of you to read…
http://www-instruct.nmu.edu/biology/ALindsay/Evolution/Scott_Branch2003.pdf
Its rather interesting and sums up the conflict in what I believe to be in a nice manner.
I do believe Morrison should be included to this debate and let he, himself, defend his posts and points of view
Not his readers…
So when are we going to hear from you Morrison?
Snake_CharmerX, Morrison cannot debate. That is proven fact.
http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=BimmerPhile&tab=weblogs&uid=315140290
http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=ProudAmerican912&tab=weblogs&uid=315146478
Sorry, mislabeled one of the above links, I meant to include this:
http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=BimmerPhile&tab=weblogs&uid=315140290
And, for ideological balance, this:
http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=Liberal_Lion&tab=weblogs&uid=315157521M
I posted this link on my own blog, but it works fine here too. It’s a funny article from The Onion, which satirizes the intelligent design argument (the article is entitled “Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling Theory”):
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
There’s a very strong scientific basis for evolution, while intelligent design is based on faith. Even if you do believe that something must have designed the universe to account for the universe’s complexity, there’s no evidence that it was God who did the creating and not space invaders from another universe. I believe in God, and I believe in God’s power, but intelligent design is a faith and religion-based notion, not a scientific theory.
“So what if contradictions are found every day? Science doesn’t promise to be 100% correct, to teach that would go against every thing taught in science.”
If there were contradictions I wouldn’t mind — but there is NOTHING at all to back up their claims. A scientific work in progress is one thing, where a work of complete fiction is a whole different story….
Bimmer, you provide absolutely nothing to support your position. In this post you have made clear that you obviously know nothing of relativity, evolutionary theory, biology texts, DNA, the fossil record, the difference between science and mythology, or the establishment of a cogent and respectable argument.
Bimmer, nice to see you ignore my posting which in fact does prsent facts and scientific theory… the very fact that you have ignored it goes on to support the claim that you have trouble arguing the subject… you have presented no data to back up your claims that evolutionary research has yielded nothing nor have you been able to present a logical argument altogether… you pick and choose sentences to attack without regard to context or rational…
“n this post you have made clear that you obviously know nothing of relativity, evolutionary theory, biology texts, DNA, the fossil record, the difference between science and mythology, or the establishment of a cogent and respectable argument.”
Never claimed to know about relativity. You on the other hand lack the ability to see that when there’s NOTHING TO PROVE A THEORY it ceases to be a theory and is in fact a myth instead..
As for “Altshiftdelete”
I didn’t read your previous post because I was in a hurry to go somewhere, so no I wasn’t ignoring what you said since I didn’t KNOW what it said.
I have read it now and I have never said that animals don’t adapt to new situations / environments. I’m talking about the fact that evolution claims that everything happend by random chance (which is statitically impossible especially given the age of the earth agreed on by the scienctific community) and that everything evolved from one little organism. They have no proof to back it up. Black holes and such have enough evidence to give us a very good reason to believe they exist. We know that the tar and everything else in cigarrettes gets into your lungs and those elements DO in fact cause cancer. Yes, there may have been animals that were part one thing and part of another — but they are EXTINCT, they didn’t become something else or else we’d have fossils showing how they evolved into other animals. So, just because whales have bones they don’t use doesn’t prove anything. A dinosaur (which all DIED — that’s a general consensus of the scientific community also) had feathers — so what? You want to use a few random and unrelated things to prove something outrageously impossible. So, bottom line is that you’ll grasp at straws to prove something that doesn’t exist. If you want someone who has the time to write out detailed things showing how evolution is a complete farce, go to boymarine’s xanga. When you can provide real proof of evolution (the WHOLE theory, not just minor parts), I’ll believe in it.
Oh and as for biology books — give me ONE BOOK that uses actual FACTS and not just fictional stories as to how life evolved and I’ll read it and get back to you.
This is getting old. My last comment on this…
Here is your book.
So in other words, to be able to prove to you that evolution exists (and not just “minor parts”) someone would have to prove the whole theory is true… thus, using your argument as black holes (and the such–atomic structures, relativity, DNA, magnetism, electricity, etc) do not exist because the entire theory has not been proven (only the minor parts)… Evidence in these cases, much like the evolution theory are being investigated but these theories have not been proven as a whole… thus they are myths… cigarettes causing cancer in humans? Myth… why, because there has never been an experiement in which would empiracally show to be true… however, you can take the minor parts (such as elements inside the cigarette) and make the theory that it causes cancer but using your thought process you can not prove it…
If you want to live in a world where facts are proof (as you seem to say here) then you must not want to believe in the Bible, ID or anything else that involves any bit of faith… since it can not be proven…
You denying the facts about the hip bones in whales or the feathered dinosaurs in the same family as today’s modern birds is a complete farce… you refuse to recognize the facts presented so in other words discussing such a subject with you would be like discussing it with a wall… you accept some evolutionary theory but seem to not want to believe where life begins… am I correct on that?
just for the record, please tell me how old earth is according to the scientific community… is it 6,000 years (creationist), 10,000 to 35,000 (part of the ID theory)… or is much more?
Hmm…Perhaps I came in to this too late, I’m not going to read all 20-some posts so I’ll try not to make redundant statements but I might, I read most of them.
-First of all, I hate to disagree with you, but most politicans to what’s most politically expedient, especially those who wish to run for president in the coming election. I don’t think Frist is an exception, he’s shown that through his recently-changed (though a small change) stance on stem cell research.
-Second of all, I can see where both sides are coming from on the issue of whether ID should be taught in science classes. A science class teaches science, and there is nothing scientific about ID. However, you have to look at who is going to be taught this information. Let’s just take the U.S. percentages, since most children take the religious beliefs of their parents. It’s close to 77% of all Americans are of a Christian faith, whether it be Catholic or Protestant. I’m pretty sureJudaism is under 5% of the total population, I could be mistaken. Islam as well is under 5%, I’m pretty sure of that. These are the main three religions that believe in some form of ID, they make up 80-90% of the population. Therefore, 80-90% of the people being taught the theory of evolution will either be offended by it, or not believe it at all, for the most part. What would be the point of only teaching one way of thinking? Well, I’d think it would be to change people’s minds. Let’s take for example, social studies classes that teach about the different religions. Do they only teach about Christianity? Nope, they teach about all of the major religions and let the children decide on their own. What you’re doing by only teaching evolution is only teaching one way of thinking. Hmm…now let’s think…who else only taught one way of thinking? The Nazis, the Soviets, ect. When you’re teaching about how humans came to be on this miserable little planet, why not give the kids all the popular theories and let them make up their own minds?
“When you’re teaching about how humans came to be on this miserable little planet, why not give the kids all the popular theories and let them make up their own minds? “
Well myth1ca, that would inspire free thinking —- something the liberal regime is adamantly against. You can’t be a good little slave if you think too much.
Myth1ca… interesting analysis… seriously… you had a working argument until you went off the chart with the “who else taught only one way of thinking?” crap… I really thought you were on a roll… then you shot yourself in the foot using a reactionary opinion that devalues the rest of what you say…
As far as your stats go, you are correct on the Christian (76.7%)… Jewish is 1.3%… Muslim is .5% then you include other religions and things like Wicca and you end up with 81% profess a certain religion (includes Wicca and other smaller religions)… Yet you are making the assumption that because someone declares themself as Christian, Jewish or Muslim then they will either be offended, not believe it at all or only some of evolution… this is a huge leap of logic…
Let’s take another look at it, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll taken in 2002, 50% of Americans consider themselves religious, 33% consider themselves somewhat spiritual and 10% contend no spirituality at all… thus using your leap of logic, that would mean that 50% of the country would offended, not believe in at all or only some of evolution…
Now if you were going to argue that recent polls show a majority of Americans believe the basics of ID with pure evolution coming in second and creationism lagging far behind, then you would making a point… I believe the numbers were 64%, 29% and 7% if I remember correctly…
liberal regime? oh brother…
“You know, Bill Frist actually had a chance to become President in 08. He might have very welled pulled off an easy landslided victory against any Democratic politician. But sadly, Frist killed his chances of ruling the free world by announcing his decision to endorse expanding stem cell research. This isn’t a debate about stem cells. This is a debate about a majority leader who gives his commander and chief a slap in the face after all his President has done for him. Bill Frist is a staunch republican, he strongly believes life begins at conception. So he’s basically saying he condones the murder of unborn children. Its depressing if you actually analyze it. But you don’t have to, Im here for that. Either Bill Frist has adopted the liberal technique of moving to the center before an election year, or he condones murder. Its that simple. Liberals have gotten away easy on the stem cell debate because they claim they don’t believe life starts at conception. But here we have a religious conservative republican who believes it, and he’s endorsing stem cell research!?! Its absolutely ludicrous!”
Hmm…A sudden change of opinion? Perhaps the pundits you religiously listen to and mindlessly follow weren’t so critical of Frist and so you have fallen suit, which is just to show that you really can’t formulate your own ideas. But then again liberals are guilty of this too.
Morrison
They’ve also failed to produce ANY fossil evidence to prove that any of their supposed ‘missing-link’ creatures existed.
This is simply wrong. For example, the transition from reptiles to mammals is extremely well documented, and the chronology is exactly as the theory of evolution predicts. I think the most interesting fossil is the one with both mammalian and reptilian jaw hinges. How’s that for a missing link? If you feel like reading about it, knock yourself out. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm
Of course, even though the theory of evolution consistently makes sucessful predictions, we shouldn’t accept ANY theory without question. Say we found a bullet-ridden corpse. Our first reaction would be that it had been shot. However, we can’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. Gaps in our hypothesis, such as the lack of a nearby gun, are bothersome. There could be a debate within the detective community, so we should consider all popular conjecture. Teach the controversy: A wizard did it!