Iowa Lieutenant Governor candidate supports intelligent design

| 19 Comments

Vander Plaats supports teaching intelligent design

“If we are going to teach evolution, there is another viewpoint and one that holds pretty good too (evolution) in regards to creation,” Vander Plaats said. “I think that is something that I would want to visit further along with Jim Nussle in regards to ‘Where are you at on that?’ But my viewpoint is I would like to give both of these (time in the classroom).”

For those of you unfamiliar wth Iowa politics, Jim Nussle is the Republican candidate for governor, opposed by Democrat Chet Culver. Bob Vander Plaats, as noted, is Nussle’s running mate.

(Continued at Aetiology).

19 Comments

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library[…]niverse.html

I found this link on idthefuture.com. It appears Jim Nussle is in good company. Not on “time in the classroom”, but his conclusion that design is “another viewpoint that and one that holds pretty good too in regard to creation.”

Vander Plaats and possibly Jim Nussle. My mistake. Here is the article I got the link from.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/10/[…]_laurea.html

That ID proponents quote-mine compulsively is hardly news, ya maroon.

It is, however, a travesty–and one you are now complicit in perpetuating.

You (TS) commented over at Aetiology:

Finally, to be fair, Vander Plaats does say that he’s not discussed his stance on the issue with Nussle, and having only lived here not yet two years, I’m still not that familiar with Nussle himself. However, according to this site, he’s received campain money for Discovery Institute funder Howard Ahmanson Jr., but I’ve not seen any statements from Nussle directly addressing the topic.

The DI is not Ahmanson’s only interest, and he does have some links to Iowa: IOWA: Art and antiques amid the Iowa cornfields

At Hotel Pattee, owned by Roberta and Howard Ahmanson Jr., guests have a choice of 40 theme rooms. By Kathryn Wilkens, Special to The Times August 21, 2005 …

Nice rebuttal Steviepinhead, you’ve appearantly mastered the art of personal insult. Congratulations. Now that you’ve had your fun, try reading the article. Then come back and post a valid argument.

I found this link on idthefuture.com. It appears Jim Nussle is in good company. Not on “time in the classroom”, but his conclusion that design is “another viewpoint that and one that holds pretty good too in regard to creation.”

Ah, I see. So when all those leading IDers testified in Dover that ID had nothing to do with creationism, they were just lying to us, under oath. Right?

Ohhh, I forgot – you’re one of those people who have no idea at all whatsoever how to tell if someone is lying or not . …

Then come back and post a valid argument.

A valid argument against WHAT? The IDers don’t present anything to make any argument AGAINST, other than whining and weeping because science doesn’t pay any attention to their (and your) religious opinions …

As for your fearless candidate friend, his opinion simply doesn’t matter. ID is illegal to teach.

Sorry if IDers don’t like that. (shrug)

There are several valid arguments, maroon.

First, quote mining is unethical debate behavior. Personally insulting maroons who engage in unethical debate behavior is not.

Second, as everybody at PT–but you, apparently–is well aware, neither the appearance of design nor the alleged statistical improbability of emergent phenomena equate with the actuality of design. Evolution is the answer to the unevidenced design/improbability claims as regards the diversity of life on earth. Physicists are still working diligently at explicating the scientific bases for whatever “apparent” design there may be as regards cosmology.

Third, even–in the unlikely event that all the physicists thus quote-mined could be confirmed, after deeper inspection, to be deists or theists of some stripe–that would be of absolutely zero service to you in your anti-science, anti-evolution blitherings, since as everybody at PT is well aware–except you, apparently–there is nothing incompatible* between holding such religious positions and being persuaded that evolution is the only consistent, coherent, and evidence-supported scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

And fifth, you’re still a maroon. Whispers: Psst! Don’t look behind you right now, HG, but there’s a very statuesque and, um, well-developed Teutonic-looking woman in a white health-care uniform approaching you in stealth mode. Any idea what she might want?

_________ *I insert the usual caveat that, depending on one’s particular set of religious beliefs, vel non, one may hold the additional view that such compatibility is maintained only by mechanisms such as psychological compartmentalization.

HG - You are a troll. Please leave. You bring nothing to the discussion except tired old YEC and ID assertions. The drivel you spout can not even be dignified as arguments, only assertions.

You have hijacked 2 threads in the past week. Go home, if you have one.

“Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!”

Knock off the insults, okay?

Second, as everybody at PT—but you, apparently—is well aware

If only everyone else agreed that those at PT possess the highest evolved intelligence, you wouldn’t have to question it anymore.

neither the appearance of design nor the alleged statistical improbability of emergent phenomena equate with the actuality of design.

In the meantime all of us who agree with Einstein’s statement will continue to disagree with you.

and being persuaded that evolution is the only consistent, coherent, and evidence-supported scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

Pinhead,

Apparently you didn’t know this is my position.

and being persuaded that evolution is the only consistent, coherent, and evidence-supported scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

Pinhead,

Apparently you didn’t know this is my position.

So if this is your position, then why endorse the teaching of the “design” non-consistent non-coherent non-evidence-supported non-explanation for diversity of life on earth, as you seem to be doing at the top of this thread?

I see your Bob Vander Plaats and I raise you Thomas Dill, candidate for the Cecil County school board in Maryland:

County school board candidate Thomas Dill on Thursday blasted the teaching of evolution in schools, adding that the “vast majority” of adults deny the validity of the theory.

“It all adds up to the best description of evolution that I’ve ever heard - that we went from goo to you via the zoo,” he said.

Speaking at the Pleasant View Baptist Church, the 46-year-old carpentry teacher appealed to a largely Christian audience, refusing to back a concept fusing evolutionist theories with creationist beliefs.

The candidate, campaigning for the seat representing western Cecil County, was one of three school board hopefuls to appear Thursday at a candidates forum at the church near Port Deposit.

State candidates and county hopefuls also spoke at the forum.

Drawing applause and cheers, Dill labeled science a religion and accused schools of discriminating against Christian beliefs.

“What the deal with this is faith vs. faith,” he said. “Science is almost deified in our day as a religion.”

So if this is your position, then why endorse the teaching of the “design” non-consistent non-coherent non-evidence-supported non-explanation for diversity of life on earth, as you seem to be doing at the top of this thread?

Andrew,

I posted: (Not on “time in the classroom”, but his conclusion that design is “another viewpoint that and one that holds pretty good too in regard to creation.”)

The first five words of my sentence seems to rule out your inference. As far as I can tell ID cannot be taught as science since it is limited in scope by methodological naturalism.

In Colorado, the lieutenant-gubernatorial candidate, Janet Rowland, responded to the question,

Do you believe that creationism should be taught in our schools along with the theory of evolution or just one?

with

Either both or neither. All religions are welcomed in the schools except Christianity. This is wrong.

See The Testimony, http://www.thetestimony.cc/Jul-Aug04/page13.htm. All I know.

The politicos are just pandering to their fundie base. They know as surely as I do that ID will never see the inside of a science classroom. So by declaring their undying love for it, they get to kiss fundie ass, get their checks and votes, and know that they never have to actually face the consequences that the Dover School Board did.

It’s just a harmless sop.

In the movie Man of the Year, starring Robin Williams as a comedian who runs for president, he disses Intelligent Design, turning it into a joke.

Turning ID into a joke?

Are you joking?

Do you mean MORE of a joke?

I mean he expresses his lack of support for ID, and makes a joke about unintelligent design. It’s not a new joke either.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tara Smith published on October 13, 2006 4:45 PM.

World’s Smallest Genome was the previous entry in this blog.

Worse than I thought in Iowa is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter