« The McLaughlin Group | Main | Finding Their Voices »

September 14, 2008



Do they LIKE her stand on creationism being taught in public schools?


Do they LIKE her stand on creationism being taught in public schools?

Posted by: FredK2929 | September 14, 2008 at 08:05 PM
She is great. We love her.

Yes, unlike the far-left, we believe in "freedom of speech".

J. Pierpont Finch


All the news that's fit for my dog to crap on and end up in the garbage can.


MM is proud to be with the majority on creationism:

Yes, unlike the far-left, we believe in "freedom of speech"."

Posted by: M/M | September 14, 2008 at 08:18 PM

With just over a third of american adults on the far left I am surprised that there isn't a movement afoot to put Trotsky on the dollar bill.

I'm puzzled as to why this isn't even at issue in England. Maybe they actually read The Telegraph before allowing the dog to squat on it.


I looked up "Intelligent Design" and I absolutely DO think this should be studied in public schools. I've taken classes like this in college and it it is more like mixing science with philosopy.

Darwinism is based on random, natural selection. Intelligent design states that the "design found in nature" is not random, but based on an "intelligent cause, or design".

This does make sense because there is a certain order in nature, especially on the molecular level and in mathematics. Look:

Here are some articles on "Intelligent Design" from "Natural History".

I think a course on "Intelligent Design" would be great for kids because it would make them "think outside of the box", and, perhaps, develop their interest in mathematics and science.



(Moncia)"Maureen Dowd mocks her as a retro nitwit..."
These elitist snobs hate America and are willing to mock anyone who represents ordinary Americans. The majority of Americans believe in Creationism, God, the Second Amendment, and other conservative views of Sarah Palin and John McCain. Elitists like Dowd and Barack Obama don't understand why the boobs from the flyover states "cling to their religion and guns" and don't appreciate the socialists plans to "change" America to more resemble socialist Europe. They attack Sarah day after day as not being qualified to be President while for two years they gave Barack a free pass on his lack of qualifications. They question her religious views day after day, yet give Barack a free pass for belonging to a radical church led by a racist nut for 20 years.

Dowd, Rich, and Olbermann are nothing but PR hacks for the Democratic Party. As far as journalism, they are on a par with Arianne Huffington and Moveon.org.


(Monica)"What the hyenas at The New York Times and the comedy writers at "SNL" don't get is that what they mock and satirize is precisely what resonates with so many American voters."
According to the latest Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll McCain/Palin has opened up a 3 point lead on Barack/Good Old Joe. Good old Joe said the other day that Hillary would have been a better pick than him. This is one of the smartest things he ever said.

How could Barack/Joe get the Iraq War so wrong. Barack was against the surge and refused to acknowledge it worked, and good old Joe wanted to partition Iraq into 3 different spheres of influence. What a couple of swells. Of course the leftie media doesn't talk about that craziness, they would rather talk about creationism.


Do they LIKE her stand on creationism being taught in public schools?

Posted by: FredK2929 | September 14, 2008 at 08:05 PM


The record is clear: Govenor Palin supports teaching both evolution and creationism and letting the students debate.

A quote from a 2006 gubernatorial debate:

"Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Why are people on the left so afraid of ideas that don't exactly match their own?

I happen to LIKE a candidate who talks to me, not down to me the way Senators Obama and Biden do.

I LIKE a candidate who grew up in whole family (like I did) instead of one that ended in a split or divorce. I LIKE a candidate who believes that it takes a traditional family to raise children. I'm sick to death of the left constantly trying to re-define marriage "for" me. I know what a marriage is. I know what a family is. I grew up in one. Mom & Dad staying together and raising their own children. I LIKE that Sarah Palin is her own woman and that she's lived a normal American life, had a normal American upbringing and understands the needs and wants of normal Americans.



The "far-left" just can't seem to stop imposing their values on me. I used to LOVE NBC. I sent them fan mail. I woke at 4:30 am. twice to stand in front of "The Today Show's Window". But, I turned NBC off permanently when they decided to lecture me for approximately 10 days on Don Imus.

Now, let me be clear, I was not a Don Imus fan when this happened, but I did hear his show from time to time, and what NBC was reporting was not what I remember hearing on his show. So, after firing Don Imus, NBC lectured their audience with guests like Al Sharkton, Spike Lee, Whoopi Goldberg, and Pat Schroeder of the Feminazis. That was it for me. I turned off NBC permanently.

After watching the mainstream media try to do the same thing to Governor Palin and after watching Charles Gibson report the evening news too many times, there is no point in even watching the mainstream media because it is a waste of my time.

The Left can mock Governor Palin all they want, but I'm just laughing at them. They are funnier than SNL and they don't even realize it.

Account Deleted


I am coming in on what seems to be the tail end of the intelligent design vs. evolution theory and I am not sure what the points of contention are. Darwin's theory is just that, a theory. I once heard a scientist doubt the probability of the theory as 1 to 1 million; i.e., it is highly improbable that we descended from fish or apes or whatever. An interesting theory that seems plausible because it is advanced in a vacuum of countervailing theories does not make it true. It would be like teaching the geocentric theory as a scientific fact before Copernicus and Galileo proved otherwise in contradiction to the Catholic Church.

What to do with "intelligent design"? Admittedly it is a stupid name attached to a matter of faith. Either say God exists and He created the universe or don't. What is "intelligent design"? Obviously we don't have a counterpoint to evolution so they invented ID to circumvent precisely that to which you object, the First Amendment ... But wait! Is that "religion"? Doubtful ... religion is an organized set of rituals and dogma that seeks to expand belief in the supernatural, spiritual, and metaphysical. Speaking about God is not only well within the traditions of American history and cultural, it is a necessary part of education. To do otherwise is to promote agnosticism or atheism, which I argue are forms of religions themselves. Is denying the existence of God not the logical equivalent of accepting His universal presence vis a vis political discourse?

So perhaps Palin is mollifying the right with the teaching of ID, Creationism, or whatever. The truth is most kids are taught anyway in Sunday school, CCD, or Jewish studies that God "created" the world. Perhaps science will one day remove the quotation marks. Until then, evolution is not the only game in town. And students ought not feel a discord in their lives.



I liked what Camille Paglia said about Sarah Palin in her latest article:

"Now that's the Sarah Palin brand of can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism -- a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism represented by Gloria Steinem, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be. Sarah Palin, if her reputation survives the punishing next two months, may be breaking down those barriers. Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

Here's another example of the physical fortitude and indomitable spirit that Palin as an Alaskan sportswoman seems to represent right now. Last year, Toronto's Globe and Mail reprinted this remarkable obituary from 1905:

Abigail Becker

Farmer and homemaker born in Frontenac County, Upper Canada, on March 14, 1830

A tall, handsome woman "who feared God greatly and the living or dead not at all," she married a widower with six children and settled in a trapper's cabin on Long Point, Lake Erie. On Nov. 23, 1854, with her husband away, she single-handedly rescued the crew of the schooner Conductor of Buffalo, which had run aground in a storm. The crew had clung to the frozen rigging all night, not daring to enter the raging surf. In the early morning, she waded chin-high into the water (she could not swim) and helped seven men reach shore. She was awarded medals for heroism and received $350 collected by the people of Buffalo, plus a handwritten letter from Queen Victoria that was accompanied by £50, all of which went toward buying a farm. She lost her husband to a storm, raised 17 children alone and died at Walsingham Centre, Ont.

Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today's pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else. "


Account Deleted

M/M: that is beautiful. If I were Gringoman I would suggest the following tag line ...

Sarah Palin: American Woman.

Account Deleted


Lehman falters as Bank of America buys Merrill Lynch ... all without government assistance (I hope).

Isn't capitalism great?!


Michael is glowing:


Lehman falters as Bank of America buys Merrill Lynch ... all without government assistance (I hope).

Isn't capitalism great?!"

Posted by: Michael Avari | September 14, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Don't tempt me Michael. As with bundled securities, regulation is necessary.



The farleft is Amy Goodman, Pacifica, the International Socialist Review; not NBC.
To suggest otherwise divulges more about the speaker than the spoken.

I agree that NBC need not atone for Imus, why do you think they felt a need to do this?

To suggest otherwise divulges more about the speaker than the spoken.

Account Deleted


Does Bob Barr know your position on regulation? ;-)

Regulation and libertarianism are contradictory.

The reason I am gleeful is that the Treasury finally drew a line in the sand. Wall Street firms must now pool their resources and buy the assets of Lehman (today's The Wall Street Journal). This is good for the market because it starts to brings sanity and stability. Had this position been taken with Bear and perhaps Lehman might have survived.

Little known is that Lehman owns a lot of mortgage assets and a predatory mortgage company that was too aggressive in writing homeowner loans without income or appraisal checks. There is a air of balance in Lehman's unfolding for those victims of foreclosure.

Greenspan, who started this mess with low interest rates, said on This Week yesterday that the crisis won't end until home prices stabalize. The weekend's events will only accelerate that and be good for everyone.

More regulation and government intervention would have prolonged the protracted.


Account Deleted

Palin and McCain have two problems, one major, one philosophical, that gives me pause.

The first is that she sought $453 million in earmarks over the past two years. This puts anti-earmark McCain in a tough spot.

The second is a tripling in taxes on oil companies and a redistribution of these funds to Alaskans ... smacks of socialism, or a plan Obama might propose.

Both might be chalked up to innocence or state interest over good economics. Her instincts need recalibration, though, and Conservatives need to be reassured of her born-again economic understanding.

McCain/Palin ought to come quickly out of rock-star mode and release a principled economic plan. Done correctly to capture people's imagination, it would give them even more of that rock starriness.

Account Deleted

More reason to be sanguine:

"No 'Golden Parachutes' at GSEs"





The farleft is Amy Goodman, Pacifica, the International Socialist Review; not NBC.
To suggest otherwise divulges more about the speaker than the spoken.

I agree that NBC need not atone for Imus, why do you think they felt a need to do this?

To suggest otherwise divulges more about the speaker than the spoken.

Posted by: GilbertWashington | September 15, 2008 at 01:33 AM


Gilbert the reason that I listened to Imus in the first place was because I heard all the NBC reporters on his show. Imus promoted their careers and sold people's books when they appeared on his show. How many of those people defended Imus?

I found the truth on a competitor's show, "Hannity and Colmes". The Gwen Ifill remark was part of a comedy skit and it was taken out of context.
What is really sick about the Imus incident is that Imus is not a racist. There are examples throughout his radio career of supporting Afro-Americans. For example, he supported Harold Ford Jr. when he was getting smeared during his campaign and he plays Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream Speech" in its entirety every year on Martin Luther King Day.

I don't need Spike Lee telling me to boycott Imus' advertisers when his movie "School Daze" introduced two of the offensive terms to the pubic. I don't need Whoopi Goldberg to lecture Don Imus when some of the things she says on television shocks adults I know. And I don't need Pat Schroeder telling me what I can and can't watch.

The public knows how biased NBC is and cheered "NBC, NBC" when media biased was discussed at the Republican Convention (I think it was Governor Palin's speech, but I'm not sure.) Here is how Andrea Mitchell refers to voters in parts of Virginia:


There are alot of other places to get my news, and NBC is no longer one of those places.


Don't tempt me Michael. As with bundled securities, regulation is necessary.

Posted by: GilbertWashington | September 15, 2008 at 01:24 AM



The securities industry is highly regulated, but I'm not sure if the same regulation applies to mortgages.

I agree with Michael. I don't want my tax money used to bail out banks who should have known better.

This isn't just George Bush. What did the "do nothing" Congress do while this was going on? I heard Barney Frank is the head of the Congressional banking commission. What did he did he do to prevent this?



The securities industry is highly regulated, but I'm not sure if the same regulation applies to mortgages.

I'm listening to Charles Payne, a FOX business analyst, on Imus right now. He is discussing the ARROGANCE of Wall Street Bankers and how he is going to do a report on the BONUSES that they made over the years to get us into this mess and how THOSE BONUSES should be used to finance these bailouts.

Charles Payne also wonders why the bankers did not follow their own "risk/reward models".

Account Deleted

Thank you M/M. My theory about Wall Street not following risk/reward models is that the Fed made easy money too ... easy. When this happens greed oversomes prudence and judgment. This the bubble phenomenon that was first documented with tulips in 1637 in Holland. We saw the same in 1999-2000 with the Internet: people speculating on dot coms with no profit, some with no revenue! With the current crisis, Wall Street firms were tripping over themselves to create esoteric and synthetic ways to lose money.

This should not forebode more regulation, rather better Fed policy.

Here is a bit more good news, however. Arthur Laffer, author of the Laffer curve, showing how lower taxes increase government revenue, has an article in The Wall Street Journal demonstrating how Reagan's tax policy helped bring many out of poverty:


McCain should be all over this. It is curious that we know Forbes influenced McCain to adopt FAST - Fair and Simple Tax; why is this policy in stealth mode?

Reagan communicated sound tax policy as a way to win. The Laffer article and supporting data show Obama's position on taxes wrong.

Account Deleted

"greed overcomes prudence" ... sorry ...

I was overcome.


Thanks Michael for your input on economics and for the WSJ article. We certainly will be needing more input from you this week.

I just learned that former Presidential candidate Chris Dodd co-chaired the Banking Committee with Barney Frank. And people wonder why we vote Republican.


Where is the Intelligent design in human conduct, is often what I ask myself.

Where is the intelligent design in the financial system? 350 pts this morning - a sign that Wall St. is mad, but not too much.

Google intends to place its web crawlers (that consume 1% of the world's electricity by the way) offshore, they say to evade taxes (doesn't that hurt the American system?) , and save energy, but actually they are trying to evade restrictions placed on them because of privacy invasion concerns. So they are evading taxes, and trying to force their way into our lives whether we like it or not. Some company. Why instead of paying for this boondoggle, don't they invest in R&D to develop more energy efficient circuits? Why don't they want to make sure they are not intruding on people's privacy? Wouldn't that be a more intelligent design? Supporting our democracy, investing in America, and its values?

We have Google - our big brother and Sarah, as our big sister - watching out for us, doing what she deems is best for us. What about Sarah offing that librarian because she failed a loyalty test that involved censoring books at the library - for shame Sarah.


Where is the intelligent design in having Wall St. owned by the Arabs? Shouldn't they let my people go?

On intelligent design - why if this principle is in operation is the average person so stupid? And when you realize ... half the people are stupider than that! ....


Michael asks:
"The securities industry is highly regulated, but I'm not sure if the same regulation applies to mortgages."

My thesis is that the mortgage industry is not adaquatly regulated and that this has little to do with libertarian ideas.
Consider simply this: Mortgages were bundeled into a releativly new instrument and sold as a security. Most carried AAA or AA ratings when they were, in fact, something less. Thus the issue isn't kensyian economics, it's misrepresentation.
Regulation to curtail fraud should not be viewed as an attack on the free market.



I can understand your dislike for the NBC media outlets. However you characterized this distaste euphamistically with the label of being the "far Left". NBC is corporatly sponsored. There are media outlets (ie Pacifica) that run substantially more to the left of NBC (Pacifica calls for a socialized economy, single payer health, and dismemberment of the armed forces). Seen compared with the press that represents the legacy of Eugene Debs, I'd say NBC is centerist. You then being right of center; or, NBC being left of center, but not far left simply put.

One of the responsibilities of journalism is to define terms for the public who generally rely on what they hear. Fair comment is different as long as the lines between what is being reported as fact and offered as opinion are differentiated.


M/M --

You still don't get it.

The creationism issue is not about free speech.

For one thing, the Supreme Court has made clear that there are limitations on speech in a public school. For example, you can't publish anything you want in a school newspaper.

But the creationism issue is about the establishment of religion clause. You have every right to express your views on creationism, but you cannot insist that it be taught as part of a public school curriculum because doing so would be teaching religion.

Why are people like you not content to have the forum of a church to indoctrinate your kids with outdated thinking? Why do you need to infiltrate the public schools and indoctrinate everyone else's kids?

I know, I know. If you don't believe in Jesus, the Easter Bunny won't come.

Exactly how are you more evolved than the polygamists in Texas? Oops, I'm sorry: I should avoid the word "evolved" so as not to confuse you.

Account Deleted


I believe M/M asked that question, not I. No worry, though.

With due respect, you seem to be conflating two markets: the primary mortgage market and the secondary mortgage backed securities (MBS) markets.

I agree, and so does McCain, that the primary mortgage market needs better governance. That doesn't necessarily mean more regulation, however. And, as a Conservative, I am obligated to ask what is the minimum the Federal government can do (preferably zero) because these matters are better left to the states. The governance should come because there have been too many inflated appraisals, crooked mortage brokers, and complex contracts that hurt home buyers. The role of the Fed, nonetheless, or shall we say "complicity"?, should be re-evaluated and new plicy set. See monetarist Noble economist Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economics.

The MBS market is what spawned CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) which is what you are describing. This is a bank to bank deal that only served to make the bubble more liquid but whether it encouraged bad primary mortgage choices is debatable. Perhaps the SEC or FINRA (Financial Regulatory Agency) ought to set disclosure rules when these are sold to the average investor (most weren't), but I have no sympathy for the Wall Street guy selling it to another Wall Street guy and don't feel I have to bail either one of them out as we are doing with Bear. The Financial Times ran an article today: "Hubris -- is thy name Richard Fuld?" (Fuld: head of Lehman).

Even the Greeks couldn't regulate arrogant pride.


The tenants of biblical christianity has been under attack since Cupernicus & Gallelio by a secular understanding of the world thru science.

Creationism is a reactionary counterattack to darwinism in Biology. The seeds of creationism are not from the scientific community but rather have been injected in the subject of Biology as taught in the high schools.
So much so, that to get a secular grounding of the biological sciences one is advised to do so outside of the public secondary school system.
For inside american public schools ontogeny recapitulates philogeny only inasmuch as god has permitted.

Account Deleted


Under what principle of academic freedom or complete intellectual inquiry should we proscribe against teaching another theory of human creation? Has the theory of evolution been proven?




It is starting to get personal. I have been advised by my accountant to take my money out of my present bank and place it somewhere else.

You are correct that I semantically confused the markets.

We had discussed earlier the relative nature of the 'free market' and that some regulation is necessary; and in this case to prevent fraud.

Once fraud has occured those affeceted look to civil and criminal remedies. When an institution becomes defunct persons look for underwiters.
Its been the wild west out there for some time with the FDIC insuring only 100k.

Once the public confidence is eroded (like me, I'm off to change institutions) then persons (mostly foriegn) decide to pull out.

Why? there is inadaquate injunctive relief or money damamges and criminal sanctions though satisfying do not put food on my table.

Housing prices tumble because banks are not writing loans and potential buyers are uncertain if the market has reached its nader. The middle class measured wealth in home equity and that has been steadily eroding.

In hindsight there were regulatory measures that should have been taken to insure integrity, not to meddle, because the relative irresponsibility of my neighbor buying an unaffordable home and my banker lending and repackaging bad loans has now come home to hurt me.


Why are people on the left so afraid of ideas that don't exactly match their own?


Posted by: mjfell


Because their own ideas are dogmas.. beliefs.. and they cannot stand the scrutiny of intellectual challenge.

Account Deleted


The most important thing to do at this moment is "to keep your head when all about you are losing theirs". If your accountant advised you like that, either he wants you to spread anything over $100K to other banks or you need a new accountant. The last thing we need is a run on banks. The FDIC will, must, insure deposits up to $100K. If Bush had any sense of leadership, he would address the nation tonight and say exactly that. Maybe McCain should do it.

And to put your mind further at ease, hopefully, Warren Buffet is fond of saying we should be so lucky when the market drops 50% ... great opportunity to buy!

Be cool.


Under what principle of academic freedom or complete intellectual inquiry should we proscribe against teaching another theory of human creation? Has the theory of evolution been proven?


Liberals don't believe in academic freedom. They may pay lip service to it but they don't belive in it.

Columbia University invited the world's foremost fascist to speak to their students yet they failed to intervene when brownshirt socialist thugs violently force the *American* minutemen off the stage.

That is the state of present-day academia. There is no room for intellectual freedom in that environment.

Personally I *believe* in evolution which is why andother idea doesn't threaten mine. Besides, I really don't think that ID is a direct contradiction of evolution but rather a synthesis between Creationism and evolutionism.

THAT is what truly frightens liberals.

The re-introduction of the Spiritual and Concepts of the Divine into science.

In the eyes of liberals it is only a shirt step to religion from there.


Michael reminds:

"Warren Buffet is fond of saying we should be so lucky when the market drops 50% ... great opportunity to buy!"

The same Warren Buffet is getting out of insuring accounts over $100k

BTW I am not having a run on the bank, I'm having a run to the bank and opening new accounts, speading liquidity within two seperate institutions.

But we were discussing regulation of the market to protect from fraud.


Michael: Under what principle of academic freedom or complete intellectual inquiry should we proscribe against teaching another theory of human creation? Has the theory of evolution been proven?

Et tu, Michael?

I'm not sure what constitutes whether the theory of evolution has been "proven" or not. But I do know that it is a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious theory. Hence, it has not place in a public school.

The teaching of creationism is not proscribed in a church. That's where anyone who wants their children indoctrinated can go.


Darwinism is a scientific theory.

Creationism is a religious theory.

Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory.


Michael asks of Fred:

"Under what principle of academic freedom or complete intellectual inquiry should we proscribe against teaching another theory of human creation? Has the theory of evolution been proven?"

For one, within the relevant scientific community, is the teaching of creationism science?

Secondly, oustide of the rubric of the public school system is creationism recognized with the disapline of biology?

If the tenants of creationism do not disturb the fundemental findings of darwinian theory is the supposition of intelligent design necessary?

As to the issue of darwinian theory versus darwinian law, within the relevant scientific community the issue is only one of semantics.

Perhaps a better line of reasoning on the issue of intelligent design is to seek to uncover the motive why so many outside of the scientific fields want this to be taught in schools.


PS. Creationism as a theory beats "kill the infidels".


I know the motives of those who want to see Creationism taught in school are not to kill me or to convert me to some satanic Ponzi scheme called islam.

And that is good enough for me.

I don't find it particulalry plausible nor do I find it threatening.

Intelligent Design however, is a rather compelling premise deserving of further investigation.

Liberals simply can't stand the idea that Hegelian thought has been applied to introduce the Concept of the Divine to what have hitherto been the secular sciences.


Is there no joy in Obamaville these days, despite the Obamastream Media's efforts to breast-feed Barry and destroy Sarah Palin?

The nervous Dems now compare their Messiah to Jesus Christ as a "community organizer," yet another ominous sign hits them, a sign previously unthinkable.



New Democratic KIller Slogan:
Prove You're Not a Racist

Obama/Biden "Articulate and Clean."


And thus liberals have to hopd on firmly to their mantra that Intelligent Design = Creationism.

Because to acknowledge otherwise would be to have to give this new theory due consideration.

The danger being that the camp of secularism could be split into diverging schools of thought.

liberals are not interested in an independent investigation of theories to see where they may lead.

liberals are interested in maintaining the status quo of their power and of course expanding their power whenever possible.

They've been doing rather well ever since the 1960s and are for the first time facing a serious challenge.

They have gone too far with their nomination of the America-hating international Socialist Barak HUSSEIN Obama in an election cycle where their candidate should be expected to trounce anyone the Republicans could possibly put up against their candidate.

They weren't satisfied with the sure thing "first Woman" candidate Hitlery, no they had to go for the most leftard Senator of them all.

They teach islam in some of our schools and NAMBLA politics to boot while they distract us with their blather over whether Intelligent Design should be allowed to be discussed in our schools.

I think the libs have put a few too many straws on the camel's back.

Account Deleted


Buffet is under no obligation to provide you or anyone with insurance over the FDIC limits. Why is that even relevant to the soundness of his investment advice? That insurance service is a private business. It would be the equivalent of saying that if GEICO (a Buffet Company) no longer wishes to insure against hurricanes we should discount his advice to build waterprooof homes.


Mjfell --

Congratulations on growing up in an intact family.

Lots of people don't grow up in intact families, and it's not their fault, and they should not be made to feel like freaks because of it.

The traditional family is not the only way to be raised, and perhaps some of us are sick of those who were raised that way being arrogant about it and looking down on everyone else?


UG --

Yeah, the liberals have so much power. Is that why there are group sings (what are they singing? Christmas songs) in public school? Because the liberals are in power?

It's a conservative country, but that doesn't mean conservatism is right.


Conservatives on this blog try to draw a distinction between creationism and intelligent design.

But Palin was referring to CREATIONISM being taught on par with evolution. She did not say "intelligent design". So the issue is whether creationism should be taught in public school.

Listen. I think the McCain-Palin ticket will win. Hopefully this stupid issue will just be static in the end and Palin will continue to do nothing about creationism being taught in school.

But she has identified herself to those of us who are watching as another religious freak, like George W. Bush. I don't like it when religious freaks run the country.


The intact family remains the ideal and should be held up as such.

Freak vs. MJFELL are both shining examples of their respective categories.

MJFELL is well-adjusted and logical while FreaK is full of anger and hate and derison for those who remind him of his own tragic upbringing by virtue of their wholesomeness and their steadfastness in standing up for principles and for their Nation.

Account Deleted

Fred and Gilbert,

Has anyone ever seen an "id" or an "ego"? Is psychology therefore scientific theory or something else?

The point is that these definitions, scientific theory vs. religious theory, are inherently arbitrary. Einstein had trouble accepting uncertainty in physics and therefore could not reach quantum mechanics, a task left to others. "I refuse to believe that God plays dice with the universe.", he said. Should we teach quantum physics or Einstein or both in high school? Should we not mention the quote because he referred to God?

These examples are admittedly reduced to the simplistic to make the point: complete academic inquiry should permit all points of view. What is wrong in teaching, for example, here is evolution theory, but it is unproven and only a theory, here is the counterpoint to that theory, here is what the Bible teaches, here is what Christians believe, even here is what pagans believe … etc.

A course in philosophy would deal with such issues … or is your objection only to the exposition of creationism in biology class? Should the pre-Copernican beliefs be mentioned in astronomy?

The comments to this entry are closed.