In Iowa’s ongoing saga, yesterday’s Ames Tribune, the paper that originally carried Republican lieutenant governor candidate Bob Vander Plaats’ comments supporting the teaching of intelligent design in schools, contained an article noting Republican governor candidate Jim Nussle’s dismissal of Vander Plaats’ idea:
(Continued at Aetiology)…
The tide is turning. Christians and scientists have come to same conclusion that ID is unnecessarily conflating science and religion.
Well good for you and your colleagues, Tara. I expect the pressure from the pro-science side had something to do with the speed at which Nussle disavowed Van Plaats’ statements, and possibly with the fact that he took the trouble to do so at all.
Still, it’s good to know that we don’t have Nussle on record ever supporting the teaching of ID. I keep thinking that there must be some pro-IDists and creationists must actually believe in the separation of church and state on principle alone, and would support teaching science in public schools, religion in the churches. Perhaps Nussle is one of them, perhaps he has observed the credibility of the DI and their sort tank, or perhaps there is a synergistic effect between the two.
Anyway, thanks again for supporting the spirit of our laws and the integrity of science in Iowa.
Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
“I keep thinking that there must be some pro-IDists and creationists must actually believe in the separation of church and state on principle alone”
Hope springs eternal…
“and would support teaching science in public schools, religion in the churches.”
Actually, religion is an appropriate subject for public schools, albeit not in science class and provided all viewpoints are accounted for (not an easy thing to do these days).
“Perhaps Nussle is one of them”
Or perhaps he’s a politician who knows how to play to both sides at the same time. (I know, that’s a redundant statement.)
I don’t think they’d need to teach all viewpoints so much as cover a broad spectrum of viewpoints and make sure they are teaching about religion rather than teaching religion. I think this is an important distinction.
It would only be redundant if you had said “successful politician”. :-)
More likely, Republicrats realize that they are about to get the worst drubbing they’ve had since Watergate, and are scrambling desperately for something – ANYTHING – to help them staunch the massive hemorrhage.
And, lest anyone think I’m crowing for the Democans, I will once again post this, as a little reminder:
I believe that was a misunderstanding of the Gore spokesman’s comments.
Please elaborate.
Chet Culver stands for abortion, gay marriage, gambling, human cloning, illegal immigration, and seizing private property through eminent domain.
Those aren’t Iowa values. Those aren’t family values. Those aren’t Christian values. And they certainly aren’t MY values.
On top of that, Chet Culver is just plain stupid !
I’m voting for Jim Nussle.
You do that. (yawn)
You know Woody, the first 4 issues you raise have no substantive opposition that isn’t based on religious ignorance, the 5th I’d wager strongly is a misrepresentation of Culver’s actual position (akin to those who claim anti-war folks are for terrorism), and the final one is something practically every politician favors, whatever their rhetoric may be.
I’d be careful slinging the “stupid” label around if I were you.
Way to Go! The letter by Iowans Citizens for Science (including Tara) is in today’s Iowa City Press-Citizen. see http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/p[…]0290310/1018 Now if you can get it reprinted in the Des Moines Register, the CR Gazette, etc. (Iowa City is the home of the University of Iowa, so readers of the IC paper are not the ones in need of enlightenment.)
I SEE THAT PANDA IS THE BEST AND I WILL NEVER STOP USING IT
Update