The Observation Deck

Amen, Valerie.

People will believe in what they care to believe in.

We don't know much about Mrs. Palin's religious beliefs. There's a developing portfolio of associational data but who knows whether, for example, Mrs. Palin herself is young earth creationist or dominionist or christian zionist or whatever.

Does she think the Taoists are going to hell or heaven? That's what i need to know!

I should have made on thing clear. I am a Christian but I believe that religion does not have a place in schools. I worry that electing people like her could lead to having their values pushed on me and my family and on other people and that is just scary.

Now who's got the straw man...

So, give me some critically thoughtful justification for including Intelligent Design in biology class.

Did I suggest that it needed to be taught in class?

Here's a question for you. Does the Theory of Evolution negate any belief in Intelligent Design?

Why do you assume that I don't know the definition or proper use of a theory?

Intelligent Design is not a working theory, it's a belief. But similarly, evolution is a theory through which one can speculate as to the continuing changes in our biological nature. It does nothing to explain the question of where and when our very biological nature originated.

Intelligent Design is more at odds with the Big Bang Theory than with Evolution. But even that does not rule out a "creator".

If Sarah Palin wants Intelligent Design taught in classrooms, I'd ask her: "to what end?" What scientific good is accomplished by throwing that extra information at a kid? But, further, I would also ask that Public School teachers refrain from making value judgements on the belief structure of any familiy, where science has no "thoughtfull justification" in doing so.

MY MISTAKE.

Stephen, I think I can wrap this up quickly. I think my initial premise was in err.

I wrote:

If I read your post correctly (please say so if otherwise) it suggests that endorsing the possibility of Intelligent Design reveals a lack of critical thinking.

by quoting from only the second half of your statement, I missed a critical part of your initial statement, that Palin endorses not just Intelligent Design, but endorses TEACHING IT IN SCHOOLS.

My appologies.

In this case, I would still suggest that labeling her as lacking critical thinking skills would still be rather harsh. But I would agree that it might be more than adequate cause to question her conclusions.

I am so disappointed. ;-(

Intelligent Design is not a working theory, it's a belief.

Exactly. It's like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, except for adults.

It does nothing to explain the question of where and when our very biological nature originated.

Actually....the experimental regimen is posed to and can ask and investigate very interesting questions tracking back to the chemistry underlying the complexities of even the simplest implied prototypes of biological life. We're just at the beginning of our understanding.

***

It would seem everyone else is stuck with some form of story about that which might have preceded even the most archaic biological generativity. And, since the self-organization of the cosmos is principled and orderly and creative in at least the material-phenomenal senses, it seems quite miraculous that the principles exist whether they were designed or not.

Wrap 'em in mystery!

I'm not against belief in Intelligent Design, although ID itself is merely pseudo-science wishing to intrude on actual science. It seems ID offers neither science or story so even the young earth creationist possesses a more entertaining tale.

But, the implication of Mrs. Palin is she's not been critically thoughtful on this matter at all. I have no evidence that Mrs. Palin knows much about anything until she speaks or writes expertly about some subject.

I am perhaps the most irreligious person in town, but I understand that to religious believers, their faith is truth, so I don't feel any obligation to free them from their shackles. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of American history and culture would realize that the Judeo-Christian faith was an important guiding factor to our founding fathers, and remains so today.

So I think familiarity with those teachings is essential if you want to deal with Americans. In this context, I think intelligent design, or whatever we want to call this melange of beliefs, should be taught in the schools, not as science, but as history. This is a touchy area, however, as the believers would probably be offended if it was described as in any way less than the real truth.

Somehow, I would like my kids to study and learn the lessons, but not to be compelled to become believers, and that is a fine line that could easily be crossed. And as other religions become more prevalent in our society, I think they should be added to the lesson. I think particularly of Islam, as we have more and more Muslims in our country, but few of us have much, if any, knowledge of what makes them tick. I once had a Muslim working for me, and after a meeting we adjourned to the bar, where he declined a beer, pointing out that he was Muslim; I didn't feel insulted, in fact it was probably a good idea as he had to drive home to Toledo after the meeting. At an annual meeting later that year we asked everyone to bring their families for a picnic. When I saw him there, he had a jug of home-made wine and offered me a glass; it was good wine. I didn't think it appropriate at the time to ask why he declined a beer, but made wine, and I never found out. I have often wondered whether there was an exemption for home-made wine, or whether he was a part time Muslim. I think we could all benefit from increased knowledge of Islam, especially in these days when some people vilify Islam because of the Islamacists.

As to the media, I think we make a mistake in thinking that they are in the business of bringing us information. They are in the entertainment business, and know that if they are not entertaining enough to attract an audience, they will be out of work. If one of them presented a clear and informative explanation of the news, in a monotone, he would probably be disappeared during a commercial break.

I've been critical of the media for presenting their explanation of the news, but not presenting actual source material. I was pleased to find recently that the New York Times, which I had viewed as one of the worst offenders, has recently been publishing links that enable the reader to view a speech, and concurrently read a written copy of the speech. I hope other media companies follow this example, as I'm getting too old to stay up and stay awake for a 10:00 pm political speech; Its a lot easier to view it the next morning.

I think we should all realize that each party has wings that don't always agree, and in order to get the nomination, a candidate has to reach out to a wing with which he does not fully agree. To complicate this, the candidate has to analyze where he can get some votes; so he, or she, will not put a lot of resources into trying to attract votes that are already tied up by another candidate. Once the nomination is achieve, the candidate will then try to reach out to those voters who are not in the party, while at the same time making mild gestures to retain those who supported him in the primaries. Thus, a Democrat usually presents as an unrepentant liberal in the primaries, then moves to the middle in the general election; a Republican pursues the conservative in the primaries, then moves toward the center in the general election. The trick for the independents is to discount the machinations of the nomination process, and try to discern what the actual beliefs and positions of the nominees are, in hopes that one can discern what the nominee will actually do if elected. In doing this, one also has to consider what the composition of the legislative branch will be; some people think the government works best when there is some disagreement between the legislative and executive branches, as this would compel a more middle-of-the-road result.

As to the current candidates, I am not sure I support any of them, although I specifically defer judgment on Palin as I don't yet know enough about her. In this context, I think it is telling that it has only been one week since any one of us heard of her, yet the thread discussing her has already gone dormant. I don't put a lot of faith in the postings from the shoot-from-the-lip crowd; I don't value rash judgments.

It's interesting that the Democrats appear to be running against Bush; perhaps they don't realize that he isn't running.

But our history seems to be that when a weak candidate is up for reelection, the other party puts up a weak candidate in opposition. almost as though there is a political mercy rule. The most recent example seems to me to be when Bush was running for a second term, and the Democrats nominated the least apt candidate in the history of the world; an undistinguished junior senator, with no history of legislative achievement, yet an arrogance that turned many off. Well, I guess we have paid the price for that mistake.

Will Brown wrote: ... Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of American history and culture would realize that the Judeo-Christian faith was an important guiding factor to our founding fathers, and remains so today.

Strong evidence suggests it was more like the freemasons: George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, Paul Revere, Thomas Paine, John Paul Jones and others. In fact 28 of the 40 signers of the declaration of independence were either verified Freemasons or believed to be, such as Thomas Jefferson.

I'm not saying that a "conspiracy" exists. I just think that as each new group comes into power they rewrite history to their liking. I grew up with the Art Schlesinger view of history which has since been revised. My favorite prof used to say don't read history books, read what people of the time wrote.

The popular view of history varies substantially from what really happened.

This argument has been going on forever: flat world round world, christian muslim, euro dollar, democrat republican, intelligent design evolution, tastes great less filling.

It's all to keep the people off balance and unable to form a cohesive resistance to the inequity between the haves and have-nots. Problem-reaction-solution and divide and conquer.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:Amen, Valerie.

People will believe in what they care to believe in.

We don't know much about Mrs. Palin's religious beliefs. There's a developing portfolio of associational data but who knows whether, for example, Mrs. Palin herself is young earth creationist or dominionist or christian zionist or whatever.

Does she think the Taoists are going to hell or heaven? That's what i need to know!

Taoist do not go to hell.. They tour it..