Worse than I thought in Iowa

| 125 Comments

As one commenter at Aetiology pointed out, support for Intelligent design/creationism is included in the Republican Party of Iowa State Platform:

3.4 We support the teaching of alternative theories on the origins of life including Darwinian Evolution, Creation Science or Intelligent Design, and that each should be given equal weight in presentation.

What I don’t know is if this is typical of other Republican platforms in other states, or how frequently each candidate uses these points in their own campaign. I’ve still not heard back either from Nussle or Culver regarding Intelligent Design, either…

125 Comments

What I don’t know is if this is typical of other Republican platforms in other states…

It is typical of a few Republican state platforms for the Republicans, at least in the south. All should be pointed out.

Texas I’m sure of.

But I haven’t really researched it much beyond reading this: http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed[…]vo-main.html

“There is no other country where a political party has attempted to make evolution a political issue,” Miller says, noting that anti-evolutionary language has even been added to several state Republican Party platforms.

Guess we’ll have to dig into the Republican platforms for every state.

Maybe if we all work together and pick a state – I’ll look up my home state of Indiana now and get back to you.

After sending our oldest to State School and finding after 6months he had learned to scribble & be a behaviour problem, it wouldn’t concern me overmuch what a school taught about Origins, if only it ran a tight ship. (We just cop the “fine”, and teach them ourselves now. We had to teach them at home anyway, so why bother sending them?)

If they would just give the money back to the parents, and allow freedom of private enterprise and freedom of choice, we would be impressed by the improvement in educational standards - and economic spinoffs.

Suggest the same approach re Origins. There is an Internet out there. Insist on the geologic record, point out the unrolling of life, and give people the credit of being able to do some original thinking.

Evolution never has and never should = Darwinism. That is origins illiteracy. There’s too much of all sorts of illiteracy about.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote:

After sending our oldest to State School and finding after 6months he had learned to scribble & be a behaviour problem,…

I thought you were being satiric and talking about an oldest child who was in pre-school, but then I found out your oldest was 18. No wonder you’re upset.

By the way, Tara, I am begining to thing that the Indiana Republicans are hiding their platform – I can’t find it.

I found this supposed link, but it’s not bringing anything up: http://indiana.typepad.com/fwob/200[…]party_p.html

It is much worse than I, in my naivete, had imagined…

Next they will be insisting that the value of pi is exactly three…

Well, if I found the republican platform for Indiana, it’s still loading. In the mean time I found this about the platform:

http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/[…]nd-hide.html

On religious freedom, the party’s platform tells that “the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.” It adds, “We do not support court ordered mandates that remove prayer from the public forum.”

The oldest is now 22. In the Century previous to Darwin, John Wesley wrote, “There is a prodigious number of continued links between the most perfect man and the ape.” Do we suppose he was Darwinist? Sir Richard Owen helped identify Darwin’s specimens, but wrote off Darwinism (i.e.,full-on Darwinism)on the grounds that it did not explain the origin of species. He implied that he didn’t yet know the mechanism. You do? Perhaps congratulations are the order of the day?

Evolution never has and never should = Darwinism

Maybe that’s why the only people around here who talk about “Darwinism” are you and a bunch of other disingenuous creo creeps.

Do you ever make a point? Or do you only ask mindless rhetorical questions that it’s not worth trying to figure out the point of?

Several state Republican parties have pro-creationism sections of their platform. These states also have anti-separation sections as well.

The problem that state parties face is that their platforms are written by the most active parts of their supporters. In many states that means that the evangelicals get to write the Republican party platform. Texas being a prime example. The issues for the evangelicials is that although they write the platform, they often can’t get candidates to follow it. It’s a meaningless victory. About two years ago, the evangelicals in the Texas republican party tried to pass a bylaw that would require all canidates to support every part of the platform if they wanted state party money. This proposal barely failed; it was like 49% to 51%.

From the Texas Republican Party’s 2006 Platform, page 20:

Theories of Origin — We support the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as scientific theory not scientific law; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory.

If they would just give the money back to the parents…

Um, it’s not just parents with school-age kids who pay taxes you know. You should be thankful that other people are footing the bill for your childrens’ education, even if you don’t use it. Asking for a hand-out on top of that seems a bit excessive.

It’s quite widely spread in Republican party platforms. Indeed, a few years ago, a group of Texas Republicans tried to pass a plank declaring that the GOP is not a church, and that its platform was not based on any religion. That motion failed.

Teaching creationism also used to be part of the NATIONAL Republican party platform. I don’t know if it still is.

But then, these platforms mean essentially nothing. No candidate has to follow them, there are no penalties whatever for rejecting them, and most people don’t pay the slightest attention to them (or even know what they say).

Platform planks like this one are nothing but harmless sops that are thrown to the foaming fundies to make sure they keep those checks coming.

I looked around on the Pennsylvania GOP site and didn’t find a platform. Plenty about their history and the people but no platform. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were treating ID like the plague about now.

Oklahoma Republican Party platform has had a plank for intelligent design in public school science courses for at least the past two years. This year the Democratic platform had a statement against creationism/ID. Oklahoma had four creationist/ID bills this year, more than any other state. All were killed in committee by the Democratic controlled Senate, except for a House resolution that did not get sent to committee and dies.

This was the sixth consecutive year that creationist bills (or textbook disclaimer in 2000 ruled unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Attorney General)were killed by the Democrats in the Legislature. Should the Republicans take control of both houses in this elections this year (not likely, Oklahoma will be in trouble!

USA Today sez

… Republicans and conservatives are divided over intelligent design. Seven state Republican parties — Alaska, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas — have “anti-evolutionist” platform planks that support teaching creationism and/or intelligent design, according to the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education.

But the national GOP platform does not mention it. In Pennsylvania, says party spokesman Josh Wilson, “there are Republicans on both sides” and it has never come up at a state committee meeting. …

From the Oklahoma Republican Party Platform:

4. Where evolution is taught, intelligent design must be taught as well. The differences between fact and theory shall be included in instruction.

Newt Gingrich, in a recent interview in Discover magazine (subscription required), said that he personally accepted evolution, but leaned toward allowing “local control” or “community standards”, or some such drivel. Maybe that will be the next shift in strategy.

From the Oregon Republican Party Platform:

2.4.3 Science curricula shall accommodate diverse theories of origins

2.4.4 U.S. History shall include a thorough mandatory study of the U.S. Constitution, and the inclusion of our religious heritage. Emphasis should be placed on teaching from original historical documents and quotes of historical figures, not just editorialized commentaries about those events or figures.

Next they will be insisting that the value of pi is exactly three…

The idea that pi is exactly three is a valid scientific theory and should be taught in mathematics classes alongside the theory of pi equalling approximately 3.14. Students should learn to critically analyze numbers and to evaluate weaknesses in geometry and arithmetic, especially as much of mathematics is ultimately a religious cult founded by Pythagoras. Pythagoras only developed his theorem because he had rejected God. Also, I read somewhere that Pythagoras had a deathbed conversion to evangelical protestantism. The system of base 10 is irreducibly complex, in that if you eliminate even one number the entire system will crash. This obviously means it is the product of an intelligent agent.

A past multiplication table is undeniable. A present multiplication table is undemonstrable.

3.4 We support the teaching of alternative theories on the origins of life including Darwinian Evolution, Creation Science or Intelligent Design, and that each should be given equal weight in presentation.

Lesse, so that adds up to 2/3 of the time alloted to crankery. They should throw in “abrupt appearance” and “sudden emergence” and they’d have 80% of the time.

USA Today, citing NCSE, Wrote:

Seven state Republican parties — Alaska, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas — have “anti-evolutionist” platform planks that support teaching creationism and/or intelligent design, according to the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education.

Here “support” includes both endorsing teaching creationism and referring the decision whether to teach creationism to local school districts. Since then (August 2005), the Republican parties of Kansas and South Dakota have adopted platforms with such planks, I believe. (I’m not in the office at the moment, so I can’t check my notes.)

From the Alaska GOP’s platform:

D. We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.

Should the Republicans take control of both houses in this elections this year (not likely, Oklahoma will be in trouble!

I think not. Bills like that get introduced every year, all over the country, and none of them ever pass. Most of them don’t even get out of committee. The people who introduce them KNOW they won’t pass, and don’t really WANT them to – it’s just a way to pander to the fundies and raise money/votes.

For years now, the Republicrats have already had the White House, both chambers of Congress, and most of the Federal judiciary. They can quite literally pass anything they want to, and nobody – not the Democans, not the Libertarians, NOBODY – can stop them.

And they haven’t passed a single bill for the IDers. None. Not a one.

Why not? Because they don’t WANT to.

There’s too much of all sorts of illiteracy about.

something you are a definite expert on there, Heywood.

please don’t tell us you are homeschooling your kids in biology?

Nick Wrote:

Lesse, so that adds up to 2/3 of the time alloted to crankery.

I think they meant “creation science or intelligent design” as basically one item. So you teach Darwinian evolution and “creation science or intelligent design”. I guess they haven’t gotten the Discovery Institute’s note that ID is totally different from creationism.

The 2006 Texas Republican Platform says:

Theories of Origin — We support the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as scientific theory not scientific law; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory.

No kidding. Go see: http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocSer[…]f?docID=2042

please don’t tell us you are homeschooling your kids in biology?

In which case tell them to read the Thumb, post haste, or any biology book written by a biologist.

Actually some of my children do read THE THUMB sometimes. They do it for the laughs.

Perhaps a serious question at this point isn’t appropriate, but which SCIENCE exactly is it that these Republicans are warring against? I’m not American. Are they warring, for example, against the “science” of the NCSE & ACLU, which I assume is approximately equal to the Australian Science Teachers’ Association and the Australian Sceptics, who simply say Evolution = Darwinism = Science, nothing else. Thus they tear up the dictionary, the scientific credentials of almost every respected scientist who ever lived, and free speech in science to boot?

Do you suppose the Republican Party would have a policy of disenfranchising people such as Richard Owen, Georges Cuvier, or Lord Kelvin, from the halls of science? Of ignoring their advice, without considering that advice? Of ignoring glaring facts, such as the failure of ancient Man to leave enough trace fossils to indicate his presence here in any numbers for anything like the time-span proposed? Or ignoring the facts of the fossil record, which throws into question the idea of gradual change from one life-form to the next? Or for that matter, the observed fact that life is not just one great continuum of intergrading statistical concepts arbitrarily called species?

Tell us now - if someone comes along and says, Oi, Quantum Theory is showing us what happens at speciation, and it only partly aligns with Neo-Darwinism but it does advance Health and Genetics - who is most likely to embrace these new developments - the ‘Publicans who are warring against science, or the “scientists” who claim they are being warred against? Shades of Galileo, in reverse? But I’m not au fait with the politics over there. I do acknowledge the difficulties posed by the YEC’s, who will of course only increase their influence whilst substandard science is being foisted on people.

A Flock of Dodos played at the Denver Museum of natural history last night with Q and A with the filmmaker afterwards. The response was so great that it was moved to the big IMAX theater and still sold out. The movie is not about science at all. It is about communication of information that scientists seem uniquely ill suited to do leaving science education vulnerable to politically motivated inroads by better organized and funded institutions such as the Discovery Institute. One of the issues brought forth which gets entangled at PT over and over ad nauseum is that gratuitous attacks on religion where science is seen as the TRUTH that will release the shackles of superstition and ignorance is not a useful tactic. He asked the question of who will be the next communicator of the joy of evolutionary biology now that S. J. Gould is dead? Certainly not R. Dawkins who is the epitome of the divisive and strident scientist who, despite his intellect and clear ability to put ideas to paper, probably does more harm than good.

Consulting with the Oracle - even though he stole my rubber ducky and owns puddings - is advice I can second. We lesser tape-worms should defer to his wisdom & experience. My advice will be poor by comparison but I suggest Mr Robo take time out with an episode of STAR WARS. It could refresh the neurons. For the remainder, I would say, go around and join him. He’s congenial enough. Watch him, though: he’s a terror on the girls.

Terribly sorry (not) for talking Origins on TALKORIGINS. If the organizers have a problem with that, please advize. I tell you one place I won’t be talking origins, that’s at AIG; and I don’t know if I’d last long with the other crews that are about, on that side of the fence. Strange world. The more people vociforously champion any sectarian view, be it atheism, or whatever; and act as though their religion entitles them to tear up empirical laws and procedures, the more they alienate the public. I’m interested in facts; likewise many of the viewers.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

If we got down to the nitty gritty, would you and I be villains?

Not me. I don’t lie constantly or own a home, so only you can be the villain here.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

The world is full of imponderables.

Like why I’m bothering to respond to you.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

Does the word, horrible, come from the word, horror?

See, stuff like this you don’t have to ponder, you can LOOK IT UP!

Stunning concept, I know.

Neat fact: Horror and horrible come from the same root, but that root means “hair”. Originally “horror” referred to having one’s hair raised. The word “hirsute” comes from the same root.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

If so, I doubt I have ever used it correctly.

This would surprise no-one.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

What does gross mean? Is it a dozen, or 20, or just something large, or what?

Gross has several meanings in modern English, almost all of which derive from the original meaning of “thick”. As a number, it’s 144, or a dozen dozen (a thick dozen, in original usage). I suspect the use of “gross” as “disgusting” comes from it’s use to mean “thick-headed” (we still use “thick” as an insult), which came to mean “vulgar” (from the upper-class condemnation of the underclasses as “thick”), and from the meaning of “low-class” to “disgusting”. However, this is merely speculation.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

Are we in danger of generating a sort of national remorse re the common language?

Oh, so YOU are too ignorant to understand something and suddenly it’s a national crisis. Get over yourself.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

I feel my state of knowledge approximates to zero, or could be in the negatives.

No. Too easy.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

Even coming from less than zero, we need not be equivocal re the difference between animals that can, over prolonged time, under natural conditions, breed together or not breed together. (Even Darwin did talk about the origin of the SPECIES - I’m confident of that.)

You have no reason to be confidant of anything, given your display so far.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

The difference is an empirical, measurable, ultimately observable, difference in the chemistry of each species.

True! And we can quantify that difference increasing over time in disparate populations.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

It is not time, chance, random mutations, nor yet a piece paper with “natural selection & survival of the fittest” written on it.

False, as for everything but the paper.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

It is different chemistry.

And since each mutation changes chemistry and makes it different, your “argument” stinks like a fish out of water after three days.

Mutations change chemistry, yes or no? Changed chemistry is different, yes or no? Therefore, by your own simplistic definition, mutations can lead to speciation.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

And different chemistry is quantifiable.

Yes! Which is why we can say you are 96% chimp. That number there, see it? It’s a “quantity”. As in “quantifiable”. Amazing! These words and what they mean are just so powerful!

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

Sorry, Descent with Modification is not quantifiable, because there is no quantifiable species barrier between an offspring and the parent from which it descends.

Lie lie lie Lie lie lie All you do is lie You’ve got no truth You’ve got no facts So all you do is lie.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

Please, pretty please, (Mr Suttkus, take note), don’t anyone say that one species gives birth to another. I’m running out of jokes along the dogs-give-birth-to-cats line. THERE ARE SPECIES.

I am sorry, liar, but the facts are against you. Hyla chrysoscelis is a species that descended from H. versicolor. The genetics make this undeniable. They are the same except H. chrysoscelis has twice the number of chromosomes as H. versicolor. It is the result of a duplication event. Very simple. They cannot breed with each other, they are chemically different, and, unusually, it happened in a single generation.

Make all the lame jokes you want, they only display your willful ignorance.

And, again, dogs and cats aren’t even all that closely related. They’re separately evolved from the miacoids over 50 million years ago. You’ve been told this before, but you can’t even be bothered to accurately understand your opponent’s claims. But do keep it up. Every time you lie so blatantly, you convince a lurker creationism has nothing to offer.

demallien Wrote:

Actually, to be nit-picky, I’m pretty sure that “villain” is old French, meaning someone of low social standing that lives in a town, where town = “ville” in French.

The Latin root “Villa” followed a different history in French than English, which isn’t really surprising. Both derive from the Latin word for house (village, a collection of houses, is also linked in English, ditto the “-vile” suffix meaning city).

Robo, the only reason to “debate” with non-comps like PBH is to show lurkers that he really doesn’t have the first clue about which he blithers.

And, um, PBH, I know your having some troubles with reality and all, but this isn’t talkorigins. Do try to remember where you are and what you’re doing. It’s basic sanity… oh, right, sorry. Nothing to do with you then.

PBH:

I’m interested in facts

In that case, why do you so completely ignore them? There are well-documented examples of species that intergrade into each other even if “my eyes plus public opinion plus the written testimony of thousands of competent investigators constantly say otherwise”. Check out the Larus argentatus / L. fuscus group of gulls.

If you think that people are not understanding what you are writing, perhaps instead of implying that we are all hidebound, at least consider the possibility that the problem lies within you. You do really need to write with more clarity, although I suspect you can’t because your thoughts are equally muddled. Every now and then I think I get a glimmer of what you’re driving at (not traditional creationism, but some form of driving force being involved) but then you write something that fogs the issue again.

PBH:

“Watch him, though: he’s a terror on the girls.”

Pay no attention, ladies. I’m a nice boy! ;)

The world is full of imponderables.

Like why I’m bothering to respond to you.

yup.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tara Smith published on October 14, 2006 5:45 PM.

Iowa Lieutenant Governor candidate supports intelligent design was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank #64 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 4.381

Site Meter