Raving Conservative

Google

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

My Vision for America

Due to popular demand I have decided to outline my vision of what America should be.

1. Our energy policy is sadly inadequate. I want an America that invests heavily in alternative energy and energy transmission technology so we can wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and, hopefully, into clean and renewable energy sources. That way we have enough clean, cheap energy to meet our needs.

2. America has the best and most accessible medical care in the world. The only problem is that it is also the most expensive. To bring the cost of medical care down without socializing it is a big challenge that must be looked into for a comprehensive solution. Two good starting points are medical practitioner shield laws that protect doctors from frivolous and expensive lawsuits, and regulating insurance costs involved in malpractice, unemployment, and worker’s compensation, all of which gouge medical practitioners, and the last two gouge every other employer in America. There is more to be done, much more actually, but the best way to make the right things happen will need the study and involvement of experts on the industry, which I am not. And I will never support socialized medicine.

3. American agriculture practices are becoming more environmentally friendly without sacrificing production. We should encourage and speed this process.

4. Crime needs to be better controlled. In previous posts I have outlined ideas and suggestions on what we could do to make crime as unattractive as possible without overburdening the prison system. It includes mandatory execution for all murderers, rapists, and terrorists. Criminalizing membership in a gang or Mafia. Corporal punishment for petty crime. Choking off the drug trade by executing all drug dealers and aggressively attacking foreign drug lords with military operations aimed at assassinating them and all of their support personnel they happen to have with them at the moment. Sentencing drug users to rehab rather than prison. And I am open to any other ideas that stand any chance of working to try to get the crime problem under control.

5. The best communities are close-knit ones where the people all take an interest in each other’s well-being. There is reduced crime, delinquency, teenage parenthood, drug use, divorce, and single parenthood in such communities across the economic spectrum. I want to see this become the way of life for all American communities.

6. I would more responsibility and less personal bias in the press. It won’t ever happen since it has become such an ideological industry, but I would like to see it.

7. There are situations where scientific education has been stifled by ideology. This is wrong regardless of the science or the ideology. Ideology has no place in science. Unfortunately, part of the problem is the grant system that basically pays people to find a predetermined outcome to a scientific question or problem. I have no idea how to fix this mess, but I would like to see it fixed.

8. We are steadily becoming more regulated as a nation. On this issue I tend to side with the Libertarians on a less is more philosophy. I love my freedom, and I would not see it restricted just because some special interest has an axe to grind. The prohibition of alcohol was a mistake caused by one such group. Nuisance laws are a modern trend where our freedoms are being restricted because some people happen to find certain behaviors annoying. On top of that, if you were to look at any locality’s lawbook you would find multiple laws covering the same behavior but under different titles and names. This is silly and unnecessary. I would see the legal streamlined.

9. Taxes. Cut ‘em and quit spending so damn much money.

10. Speaking of taxes, a simplified, more equitable tax code would be fantastic.

11. I want to see our education system overhauled. This means firing incompetent teachers even if they do have tenure, in fact, eliminating teacher tenure altogether would be a very good start. Graduation exams for students to pass from grade to grade are being implemented, and I approve. But what we teach and how we teach it needs to be changed too. There is a small school district in New York (or was it Massachusetts?) that changed its entire curriculum to focus on racism in all aspects of education, and not just in history, but science, math, English, EVERYTHING! Civics has all but vanished. Classes on the Constitution are rare outside of the universities. Kids are graduating high school who cannot read or even do basic math! This is unacceptable.

12. I would see a more restrained court system where the judges quit inserting their personal views, ideas, and biases into the Constitution so they can justify any predetermined ruling they want to issue. The role of the courts is to enforce the rule of law, and ensure that laws that are passed do not directly violate the Constitution, the words of which are plain, but also has the full spirit and intent of it outlined in the Federalist Papers. Nowhere in any of these documents does it say that the responsibility of the courts is to protect the minority from the majority. Any serious study of the Constitution and the Federalists Papers, which were written by the same men who wrote the Constitution, will show that his idea is in direct opposition to the very concept of democracy.

13. Religious freedom is very dear to me. I value my freedom to worship my God as I see fit. I also value the freedom of others to worship their God as they see fit, as well as the freedom we have to not worship any God if we choose not to. What I do not approve of is people stripping away this freedom by perverting the Constitution. If there is a display of a religious nature on public land it should be left to the local voters to decide if it stays or goes. If they want it gone they can not only vote it away, they can also vote every representative involved in erecting the display right out of office. This is part of the freedom that democracy is intended to allow. Freedom of religion does NOT mandate stripping religion from sight and hiding it away in the dark corners of our country as some zealots are currently attempting to do.

14. I do not approve of providing free money, power, food, and medicine to countries who have declared themselves to be our sworn enemies either by official decree or by repeated malicious misdeeds. This appeasement has been tried and has been one continuous failure. I say we cut those countries off and use the savings to build up America or cut taxes.

15. Boot the UN out of America. I’m not saying that we absolutely must leave the UN ourselves, although I would like to see that happen, but we really don’t need an organization that has demonstrated a general hostility to the US while bungling almost everything it is supposed to do for the good of the world AND sticking the US with an overabundance of foreign spies and misbehaving diplomats who abuse diplomatic immunity based out of the US. Let them build themselves a new headquarters in Europe or some other more welcoming country that is willing to put up with that mess. On top of that, I am not convinced that the UN is really a force good in this world. There are too many problems with things like having the worst human right abusers in the world on the human rights committee, and that is just one example of how ludicrous and ineffective the UN really is.

16. I am a very traditional guy. So when I see good traditions under attack by small special interests who just want to have their will imposed on an unwilling supermajority I get rather outraged. One example of this is the way the homosexual activist movement, a movement comprised of some 2% of the total population and only a bare majority of homosexuals, if that much, has been using the courts to bypass the will of what has been shown in recent elections of at least 60% of the general population even in the most liberal states regarding marriage. People just don’t give up or change good traditions just because a puny group of people, no matter how loud and annoying, want that tradition altered or eliminated. I only used the homosexual activists as an example because I have been blasting them on a rather regular basis on this blog, and it is a familiar subject as a result. I also take issue with groups of people who promote hatred of anyone, wish to eliminate hunting and fishing, ban guns, promote single parent lifestyles, support abortion on demand, ban the military, and a myriad of other very bad ideas. On top of that, if it aint broke I see no reason to fix it, if it’s a bit creaky though, I will be happy to oil it.

In short, want a clean, safe, secure, prosperous, free America that upholds tradition and the Constitution. Anyone got a problem with that?

49 Comments:

  • The best communities are close-knit ones where the people all take an interest in each other’s well-being. There is reduced crime, delinquency, teenage parenthood, drug use, divorce, and single parenthood in such communities across the economic spectrum. I want to see this become the way of life for all American communities.


    Can't argue with you there. In fact, if this was the norm, I don't think any of the other points would have even needed to been made.

    By Blogger Son of Lilith, at 7:38 AM  

  • Daniel-I honestly CANNOT wait until you run for president!! I'm with ya 100% on everything here!!

    By Blogger Libby, at 8:59 AM  

  • Are you thinking flat tax or national consumption (fair) tax? I'll go with just about anything compared to the socialist tax system we have now.

    By Blogger Dr. Phat Tony, at 9:55 AM  

  • Dr Phat Tony,

    I am open to either one, though I prefer the flat tax at this time. I'm just not convinced that a national sales tax would work out equitibally. I would need to see research nad proposals before I settled on either one as a sure thing.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:00 AM  

  • Alot of former eastern block countries use the flaat tax now. I'm pretty sure Russia and Poland use it. I doubt if it's a good model to look at because of their semi-socialist attitude towards economy and government spending.

    By Blogger Dr. Phat Tony, at 10:22 AM  

  • would you like to expand on #1? How do you propose we do that? Tax credits? More $ for R&D?

    Also - if you care at all about EnviroLaw, I'd love your comments on my latest blog...

    By Blogger Nunzia, at 10:31 AM  

  • What's 'socialised medicine'?
    Is it like in England where as you pay your taxes you get free healthcare? We also have provate healthcare for people who have loads of money. I don't know much about America's healthcare system but my impression is that you have to pay for everything even though you pay taxes. Which is nice in theory but how do people on minmum wage do this? I am curious...

    And cut taxes? From who? How much is the average income tax in America? Does it go up in earnings brackets like in England? I don't know much about this either...

    and you almost had me agreeing with you until the gay thing. I just wanna get married like my other friends in long term relationships!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 11:33 AM  

  • YOu know socialized medicine, when the government controls what types of procedures are alowed, where everyone has to help pay for some one's abortion, where your physical well being is being controlled by an elected official instead of a doctor.

    Oh and minimum wage people aren't dying in the streets. They can not be turned away by emergency rooms.

    By Blogger Dr. Phat Tony, at 12:45 PM  

  • You mind some almost point-by-point thoughts and questions?

    1. We have enough clean, affordable energy to meet our needs. W e don’t to meet our wants.

    I’m not arguing against improving and cleaning up our technology, but we’ve a consumption/materialism/laziness problem as much as anything. That will improve only if we do.

    2. I agree that it’s a difficult issue. So, if you’re advocating the study and involvement of experts on the industry and their reports suggest that some form of socialized medicine is the most effective way to go, will you change your position against it?

    3. I agree we must support our farmers and sound farming methods. However, I’m not sure we can have our cake and eat it, too (keep high production and practice sustainable farming.) Some more authoritative on the subject than me have said that high production is unsustainable.

    4. Many of your crime solutions would not pass as law. Citizens of the US are not ready to start mass corporal and capital punishment. Assassination is against the law. Rightly so.

    5. We’re all in favor then of tight-knit communities. How you going to effect that change?

    6. Again, how would you effect this change (ie, make a press that seems to you to be less biased and more responsible)?

    8. At what point do we disallow irresponsibility? I’ll use environmental regulations for example: We would all like to be free to make as many of our own choices as we can, but does not our freedom to swing end at the other person’s nose? Why should a person or a factory not be required to be personally responsible? To keep their garbage out of my way?

    9. Taxes: What if we cut them and our expenses went up? For example, what if we quit helping pay for education and we save $100 in taxes but our college costs go up $500. Additionally, because fewer people are able to afford college, our earning power goes down and our taxable income goes down, meaning less money for the feds and for the programs you do deem necessary. You get the drift, I hope. Sometimes (always?), it’s cheaper to invest in prevention than it is to pay in reparation.

    11. If you fire more teachers (who are hard to attract already), will you then have to pay more to attract qualified people to replace them? Yes, you would – and I’m not arguing that this is a bad thing, just that you have to keep in mind the results of your actions and that running a civilization requires investing in the important things.

    14. “This appeasement has been tried and has been one continuous failure.”

    Actually, some studies have suggested that non-military peacemaking efforts have been fairly successful and cheaper than the military option.

    Daniel, we all want a want a clean, safe, secure, prosperous, free America that upholds tradition and the Constitution. But some of us have different traditions than you and interpret the Constitution differently than you sometimes. We have to work on this together.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 12:53 PM  

  • Those are great ideas, Daniel. It's too bad people in power aren't willing to act on ideas.

    One thing, though, on #1: I think alternative energy is a worthy goal, but also, unrealistic for now. Finding alternative places to drill should also be a priority so as to decrease our dependance on foriegn oil.

    By Blogger Rebekah, at 1:38 PM  

  • My vision for America would include banning people driving those ridiculous off-road vehicles on roads, especially in cities. I think you call them SUVs, I know them as 4by4s, and they are an epidemic in our towns and cities. Get a normal sized car designed for roads, fools!

    Must calm down now! :-)

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 2:04 PM  

  • Facinating post - will have to look it over as well as the comments posted.

    BTW - you have been linked on my blog.

    By Blogger Tom, at 2:12 PM  

  • Oh and minimum wage people aren't dying in the streets. They can not be turned away by emergency rooms.


    Right you are, but cancer is not an emergency. Neither is emphezema, scorosis (misspellings abound I assure you), AIDS, sickle cell anemia, depression, pyschosis, schizophrenia, drug addiction, alcoholism, Tourette's syndrome, asperger syndrome, autism, Alzheimer's, arthritis, diabetes, bipolar disorder, hemophylia, hyper-obesity, down syndrome, or avian flu.

    Had to throw that last one in for effect.

    So, how does a person with a minimum wage or working middle class income and no health insurance pay for these potentially fatal and at best life-hindering conditions?

    They don't. They suffer.

    Oh, they can go out and get a job...as a part-time worker in a compnay that only offers insurance to full-timers and hires some 80-90% part-timers. They can apply for Welfare, which is increasingly hard to get.

    But for the most part, they just die.

    So if you get shot on the street or cut your hand off in a construction project gone horribly terribly wrong, it's cool--no one will turn you away.

    But diagnosed with a long-standing medical condition? You're screwed.

    And even if you can afford insurance or your employer offers it, you may very well still be screwed. Why? Well, since the government does not regulate the private health insurance companies they are at free reign to do whatever they wish. So to cut costs and boost profit (they are a business after all) they refuse to accept anybody with "pre-existing medical conditions." "Pre-existing" defined as "at the time you buy your policy."

    So my little brother has Tourette's syndrome. Has had it since birth. He didn't contract it, he didn't ask for it, he didn't have unsafe sex before marriage or use drugs. But he has a "pre-exisiting" medical condition.

    So Daniel, while your trying to give legal protection to bad doctors why not call for some ethics in the health insurance racket?

    Forgive me if I sound venomous--this is not a good topic for me to remain rational, logical, and intellectual about.

    And while

    By Blogger Son of Lilith, at 4:01 PM  

  • I shall address some concerns raised here by person.

    M. Brandon Robbins,

    Regarding your comment about protecting bad doctors. It's the good doctors who are being abused by an overly litigious system that I am concerned with protecting. It is these good doctors that make up the vast majority of the doctors in the US, and we should not penalize them, nor 300 million innocent people who require their services simply because there are a few bad doctors out there. For bad, negligent doctors, no lawsuit can be sufficient. I tend to favor criminal penalties for serious malpractice, and a set rate of reparations for less serious malpractice, AKA simple mistakes not resulting in death or disfigurment.

    Several commentors,

    In the short term we must ensure demand is met for energy resources, and if that means expanded oil explortaion and drilling then so be it. We have no reasonable alternative at this time. As for funding the research as I have proposed, my hope is to pay for it by reallocating pork-barrel funds and money wasted on $1,000 toilet seats into this vital area of research and development.

    DP76,

    Would you have preferred I used one of the other groups of people attempting to overthrow tradition in place of homosexuals?

    And as far as SUV's goes. I drive a 1989 F350 Diesel with 4-door cab and and an extended bed. I drive it on-road and off. I drive it to work and to go fishing and hunting. I use it to haul bricks, wood, concrete, and anything else I need to transport for whatever reason. It is my all-purpose vehicle. So any attempt to prevent me from using my truck would be met with serious opposition from me simply because I need a vehicle that can do all of these things, and cannot afford to have extra vehicles just so I can compartmentalize their utility. Although I wil admit that every time I see a shiny Hummer that has never been used for anything other than tooling around town I wonder at what could possess a person to buy such a vehicle for a job so easily done by a smaller, more efficient, less expensive, and more comfortable vehicle. Why buy a Hummer when you nver leave the city? Wouldn't a Lexus be more comfortable for a comprably ungodly price?

    Dan T and DP76,

    Socialized medicine is a primary reason that both British and Canadian medicine is not only not as good, but less available than US medicine. In the US we can see a doctor the same day for the flu and get help. I have heard many horror stories about 6 month waits to see a doctor about anything in Canada and Brittain. I have also heard horror stories about people being denied medical care altogether because the limited medical resources the government provides are determined to be better spent on patients with more treatable conditions. Socialized medicine is very bad.

    Dan T,

    As for the rest of your assetions, I will not rule out your concerns. It is such concerns, and others that neccessitate research and caution before inplementing widespread change. Others are woderful ideas, but cannot be mandated by the government, but they can be encouraged by the government. How best to do this is up for debate, but I can say that current methods and programs must not be the way to go since they don't seem to be working. Some fresh ideas would be nice.

    Dr. Phat Tony,

    Interesting point about the former Communist countries using a flat tax system. But I tend to agree with your concern that they are not the best examples to use since they are rampant with corruption, inefficiency, and incompetence. Far more so than our own governemnt at its worst. This reinforces the need to have economists and tax experts do the math, investigate the issues, and come up with competing proposals for review and approval.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 5:44 PM  

  • Daniel,

    I find myself agreeing with some of the points you have made. They are the sorts of things I think any reasonable person would wish to see. For some, you haven’t given any indication of how they could be brought about (#3, for instance), but that’s okay, it’s just what you would like to see.

    There are some, though, that I would like some clarification on, please.

    In #7, you say it is wrong for ideology to stifle science education and that ideology has no place in science. So does that mean that you oppose the teaching of Creation in all its guises (Creation Science, Intelligent Design, etc.) in public school science classes? And does it mean you don’t oppose the teaching of evolution in public school science classes?

    In #13, you speak of religious freedom so I think the question I (and I think others here) would like answered is, what part do you see religion playing in the role of government? Do you approve, in principle, of the separation of church and state? Do you think religion should have more influence on government?

    In #16, you claim that people want traditions to be altered or eliminated, but I think you’ve given a poor example in gay marriage. How does allowing gay people to marry alter or eliminate the marriage vows you made with your wife? Does it change your marriage in any way?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 6:43 PM  

  • CJB,

    Any ideology that teaches falsehoods has no placve in our schools.

    Religion is limited in the governemnt to avoid not only a theocracy, but to prevent the government from limiting religion in any way. See the Church of England for an the exact example the Founding Fathers were looking at when they decided to implement this cluase in the Bill of Rights.

    Allowing homosexuals to marry changes the institution of marriage itself in a very fundamental way. Never in all of human history has homosexual marriage been sanctified in any culture for any reason until just the last few years. EWven the most decadent societies understood that marriage is about traditional families. For religious people, meaning some 90% of America, Marriage is seen as a sacred institution, holy even according to some religions. These same religions teach that marriage is only for a man and a woman,not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or any other unnatural union you can imagine. I could go into the negative effects legalizing homosexual marriage, and even homosexual civil unions has had on tradtional merriage and the perception and degradation of marriage it creates in people's minds as is currently being proven most amply everywhere these things have been implemented, but I won't. Rest assured that this information is actively being suppressed as much as possible by the homosexual activist community and their liberal allies. Apparetly, they are so bent on making something happen just because they want it to that they are willing to lie and decieve, and to cause grevious harm to everyone else and even to the fabric of society itself to get what they want. This is the epitome of selfishness.

    On the religious ide of this issue I have heard it stated that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage because God doesn;t recognize it even if people weant to try to apply that label to a legally binding cohabitation and sexual relationshiop between two men or two women. You may want to consider that marriage was first instituted as a religious ceremony unifying two peole for life before you simply dismiss this notin. Given that marriage is as much, if not more a religious institution as it is a legal one such things must be considered before attempting to alter a tradition that goes back as far as human history records.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:23 AM  

  • Daniel: Any ideology that teaches falsehoods has no placve in our schools.

    I believe that this is what is commonly known as a mealy-mouthed response. I asked you if you oppose the teaching of Creation and don’t oppose the teaching of evolution in public school science classes and all you come back with is this non-committal and ambiguous answer. Why are you being so reticent? Given your past posts and comments, I’m interpreting this to mean that you think evolution is an ideology that teaches falsehoods and has no place in schools. Is this an accurate assessment of your position? Do you propose that Creation (in whatever form) is taught in public school science classes, yes or no? Don’t try to weasel out of it, just tell us what you think.

    Daniel: Religion is limited in the governemnt to avoid not only a theocracy, but to prevent the government from limiting religion in any way.

    Yes, we know how it is, but tell us whether or not that’s the way you want it to remain.

    Daniel: Allowing homosexuals to marry changes the institution of marriage itself in a very fundamental way… [and so on for another 300 words or more]

    So if homosexual unions were allowed, would that degrade or diminish your marriage in any way? Would it render your marriage vows worthless? Would you feel any less commitment to your wife?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 3:57 AM  

  • Robbins,
    I've been one of those people living off of a low paying job with no insurance. My unfortunate problem was that because I didn't make miniumum wage I made to much money to have gov. assistance. So I did what any person can do. I paid off my debt to the hospital a little at a time. They don't charge interest and will not put anything on your credit report if you are making payments. Now for your assumptions that these people are suffering from life threatening illness, just show me some stats. You can go to the emergency room for flu, or for that matter anything. Long term ailments is usually covered by medicare since chances are you'll be able to claim disability through Social Security. So just let me know the References on what you claim.

    By Blogger Dr. Phat Tony, at 4:19 AM  

  • Real world experience with my brother. A mother who has worked in the medical field all of her life. My own experiences with the health insurance/health care racket.

    It's nice if you can go to a hospital that will allow you make payments indefinitely or that do not set minimum payments. I'm sure there are many that do. All the hospitals that I've ever done business with are not exactly forgiving when it comes to payment plans however.

    By Blogger Son of Lilith, at 5:30 AM  

  • Daniel: You use a truck for what it should be used for so don't expect it fire-bombed by environmentalists any time soon! :-) Unlike those bored housewives who cruise around town in their monstertrucks..

    Also: Your definition of tradition is over-rated. My family is a traditional family and it happens to include me and my life partner in it. Apart from both being guys we are just as traditional as you and your wife (apart from the church thing and the hunting thing :-) )


    I can't agree with you about the health service either because although I could afford to pay my medical bills if sucj a need arises I think we all pay enough tax and poor peoples' health and lives are just as important as mine.

    "...they are so bent on making something happen just because they want it to that they are willing to lie and decieve, and to cause grevious harm to everyone else and even to the fabric of society itself to get what they want. This is the epitome of selfishness."
    What sanctimonious narrow-minded bullshit! You still have not explained how my marriage affects yours or cheapens it or degrades it or any other negative impact... and a civil marriage ceremony has absolutely nothing to do with your precious religion so stop hiding behind 'what God wants'and be honest.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 9:19 AM  

  • CJB,

    1. I was ambiguous to avoid an off topic debate because your question regarding evolution will be answered more fully that you could ever probably want as soo as I find my missing boks so I can conclude my research and wrte my series. At the same, my asnwer, rather than being mealy-mouthed, as you claim, is the shortest, most accurate answer there is without going into specifics that are a topic all their own.

    2. Absolutely. Unfortunately there is an unconstitutional limiting on religion placing an undue burden on government employees and public areas that is in direct violation of both tradition, history, and what both the Founders, and 160 years of US Supreme Court precedednt prior to the current trend has established. The simple fact of the matter of the matter is that your isea of accomplishing what I have stated invoolves doing exactly what I have railed against in this post: relegating religion to the unseen corners of America, hiding it simply because you don;t like it.

    3. In short, yes. on point one because it violates my sncerely help beliefs regarding the purpose and sancity of marriage, beliefs I fully intend to pass on to my chioldren. A task that would be more difficult when I must battle not only omosexual marriage, but the existing prevalence of single parenthood, casual attitude toward divorce, fornicaion, pornography, and every other evil that has degraded and damaged the institution of marriage worldwide. Do some research and you will find that the countries that allowed homosexual marriage already had very little regard for marrriage, and are experiencing a host of problems as a result, and that those same countries are now experiencing an even lower rate of marriage in general, whle expreiencing a proportionatley higher rate of single parenthood, teenage prgnancy, adultery, abortion, and STD infection, while also expeiencing negative population growth. These trends started before they allowed homosexual marriage and opened the dor for it to be instituted, but have have gottten significantly worse in the short time hmosexual marriage has been allowed. Also, in parts of the US that have legalized homosexual civil unions, the divorce rate has spiked dramatically.

    For the last 2 parts of your question, my word is never worthless, and my commitment to my wife rivals my commitment to my God (It should not, but it does, I love her damnit!). At the same time I am not a typical person in many ways, and I am almost nothing like most of the young people growing up right now, the ones wo would be the REAL victims of legalizing homosexual marriage. I is thier commitment, ther attitude, their behavior that would be affected far more than most adults. You have demonstrated a rather short-sighted point of view by focusing you challenges on me directly. Do try to get a grasp of the bigger picture, and read some neutral studies (if such a thing exists anymore) that have been done regarding the effectof homosexual marriage on societies that have allowed it so far. I am guessing you might change your tune.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:21 AM  

  • anyone-at what point are bad teachers better than no teachers? that's a kind of tough one...would you rather have your kids not be taught than be taught the wrong things? if parents did a good part, well...

    By Blogger Libby, at 9:50 AM  

  • Daniel: "Do some research and you will find that the countries that allowed homosexual marriage already had very little regard for marrriage, and are experiencing a host of problems as a result, and that those same countries are now experiencing an even lower rate of marriage in general, whle expreiencing a proportionatley higher rate of single parenthood, teenage prgnancy, adultery, abortion, and STD infection, while also expeiencing negative population growth. These trends started before they allowed homosexual marriage and opened the dor for it to be instituted, but have have gottten significantly worse in the short time hmosexual marriage has been allowed. Also, in parts of the US that have legalized homosexual civil unions, the divorce rate has spiked dramatically."

    I do so love the way you live in a completely fictional world sometimes, man! Gays getting married has no impact on straights getting married. If it did, it would be to increase the social pressure to marry, for instance "your gay friends are all married so why are you still only co-habiting with your girlfriend?" Are regular married folks getting more divorces because of a few gay weddings , thereby creating this preceived US divorce rate 'spike'? Why would they? This makes absolutely no sense as the two things are completely unrelated!
    It's like saying that there were more cats born last year so the rate of abortions went up as women decided they could only cope with looking after a feline rather than their unborn child!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 10:06 AM  

  • DP76,

    In short, you are simply wrong. But such denial is to be expected of a homosexual who supprts homosexual marriage, so I will not blast you for your assertion.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:11 PM  

  • He's wrong based upon what, Daniel?

    His question is one that always goes unanswered in the civic discussion about gay marriage: Simply - why not?

    (without offering personal religious reasons, which are not what we base law upon).

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 2:51 PM  

  • Dan T, I think you may be wasting your time with that question because, like you said, he (and others like him who are obsessed with homosexuality) has no answer that makes any kind of sense. It's a shame really, as it's the one area I cannot engage in debate about with Dan L.

    Dan L : "In short, you are simply wrong." Yes, I mean you! :-) but I wouldn't be so patronising as to tell you this, as you are a heterosexual who supports heterosexual marriage, as do I.

    Marriage for all humans, I say!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 3:16 PM  

  • Daniel: 1. I was ambiguous to avoid an off topic debate because your question regarding evolution will be answered more fully…

    Dear me, it’s like getting blood from a stone. Very well, if you are concerned about pre-empting your devastating series on evolution then, for the purposes of this post, put evolution aside—forget about it—assume it doesn’t even exist. My question to you is, do you want Creation taught in public school science classes, yes or no?

    Daniel: Absolutely. Unfortunately there is an unconstitutional limiting on religion…

    So let me get this straight… You absolutely agree that the limits on religion in government should remain, but at the same time, you feel that there is an unconstitutional limiting of religion in government. What does that mean? Given your previous post on litigation law, it sounds like you would like to see the constitutional rights of religion restored (were they ever abridged?) and have laws passed that prevent any challenges to religion’s powers (whatever they may be). I’m curious to know, what is your interpretation of the Establishment Clause? Do you think that the government should be allowed to endorse or favor one religion over all others or no religion?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 5:53 PM  

  • Teaching creation in school science classess. Hmmm. laying aside the fact that this was the norm until about 80 years ago, I must say that it can only be taught about under 3 situtations.

    1- It can be mentioned as a common religious belief and compared to Evolution, whish should be taught as mere theory in this case, with the flas taught alongside any supporting evidence, which is currently legal.

    2- It can be wrapped into intelligent design theory, which currently borrows from both creation and evolution to create a more unified theory that is upsetting to both evolutionists and creationists.

    3- It is taught seperate from an individaul theology and presented with the scientific evidence that supports it. And, yes, there IS scientific evidence that supports it.

    My preference is to teach all 3 thories from a neutral standpoint and present honest evidence for and against each as science is able to determine. This is also currently legal, but also under legal challenge by secular evolutionists.

    As for limiting government involvement in religion goes. I think you misread the Constitution. It says that congress shall not pass any law establishing or limiting religion. It says nothing about disallowing public displays of the ten commandments or other religious icons. It says nothing about banning references to God in government documents, or of banning prayer time in the Congress or other public institutions. It just says that NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED ESTABLISHING OR RESTRICTING RELIGION. I fully support this.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:22 PM  

  • Dan T,

    Once again you apparently were not paying attention to the discussion before you commented. I already outlined exactly what has already happened where homosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions have been legalized and predicted more of the same should this become law in the US. DP76 denied the facts, claiming I was wrong. Then you ask me to provide some facts. See the lack of attention here?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:25 PM  

  • Daniel: 1- It can be mentioned as a common religious belief and compared to Evolution, whish should be taught as mere theory in this case, with the flas taught alongside any supporting evidence, which is currently legal.

    I have several comments on this. First, because Creation is a religious belief, it has no business being taught in a science class. Religious beliefs are the very antithesis of science. Second, you need to look up the definition of the word theory when used in a scientific context such as gravitational theory, quantum theory or the theory of evolution. There is nothing “mere” about it. You are using it to signify a hypothesis or conjecture, which, in science, it most decidedly is not. If this is going to be the level of your denigration of evolution in your upcoming series then you will look very foolish indeed. Third, I can usually ignore your typos and glean the meaning from the context, but “flas” has me stumped. And finally, it is definitely not legal to teach Creation in public school science classes (see the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling).

    Daniel: 2- It can be wrapped into intelligent design theory, which currently borrows from both creation and evolution

    There is no theory of Intelligent Design, merely hypothesis. In fact, Intelligent Design is nothing but Creation in drag. Creationists tried to have Creation taught in public schools and failed because it is a religious belief. They changed the name to Creation Science in an effort to circumvent the law and failed again. Most recently, they changed the name to Intelligent Design and they still failed. This childish, transparent mendacity doesn’t sit well with the courts (see Kitzmiller v. Dover again).

    Daniel: 3- It is taught seperate from an individaul theology and presented with the scientific evidence that supports it. And, yes, there IS scientific evidence that supports it.

    I’m stunned. This would have to be the most ludicrous statement I’ve seen you make so far. There is zero scientific evidence supporting Creation and I defy you to produce any. It seems to me that the very first thing that you would need to do is show that God even exists, before you claim that he actually did anything.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 12:19 AM  

  • You still haven't answered Dan T's question because, like he said, you can't...

    and religion is not science. Fact!

    Just because of the old chestnut "You can't prove God doesn't exist" that doesn't make it a viable scientific concept.

    Thank God (!) English schools teach science not fairy tales.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 1:54 AM  

  • Daniel, you suggested I wasn't paying attention to your answer on "Why Not allow gay marriage?", saying you answered that already.

    But you didn't.

    What you said was:
    "Do some research and you will find that the countries that allowed homosexual marriage already had very little regard for marrriage, and are experiencing a host of problems as a result"

    I don't know that there have been any studies showing causality between gay marriage and marriage in general being in trouble - and that any reports that might have tried to link the two were probably from an organization with an agenda.

    Did I miss that reference somewhere? If so, I apologize, but I don't think so.

    In general, I think you are making a causality link that has not been proven to exist - I'm with others here who think that support of gay marriage is a way to strengthen the notion of marriage.

    I mean, using that kind of causality link, one could argue that before W, we had few US soldiers being killed and since W, we've had thousands killed and tens of thousands injured, therefore, it is W's fault they're being killed, right?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 3:23 AM  

  • CJB,

    First, "flas" is a huge typo. It should say "facts" facts like "one reason many people belive in Creation is because science has, to date, been unable to explain the origin of matter itself, and how life was first sparked from a combination of chemical compounds."

    Or, for ID "One thing some scientists point to in order to explain the need for the evolutionary process to be guided by a an intelligent force is blood. Blood is composed of many parts that must all work togeher in order for blood to function. The red blood cells must have devloped the ability to carry nutrients and become the primary nutrient cariier at the same that vascular systems developed, plasma eveloped, and platelets devolped. HAd any of these things NOT ocured in conjunction with th eothers blood would have been a failed evollutionary experiment. The odds of all 4 of the parts evolving in unison has been demonstarted to be so remote as to be mathematicaly impossible."

    And in the same lesson series "When we look at the historcal data for Evolution we must reference the fossil record, which, while still incomplete, seems to indicate a logical progression of physiologicl changes in most phyla."

    Does this offend you little antireligious sensibilities? Because what I have just presented to you IS in fact legal to teach, and it is what I was talking about in the first place. And, of course, people like you are currently trying to have it outlawed through lawsuits rather than letting the people decide through their elected representatives.

    So, what in this is anti-scientific to you? Lemme guess. The fact that some people believe the first two for religious reasons regardless of any scientific evidence for or against them. Just like you say Evolution MUST be right simply because this heavily flawed theory is the best an Atheist has been able to concoct. That is some faith you have in evolution. Don't worry, you'll se why it's bad science, pseudoscience even, soon enough.

    2. You obviously don't know much about Intelligent Design if you continue to make such statements. You are coming across as more ideological than factual when you call ID the same as Creation. The simple fact is that it is not. But you would know that if you had your facts straight. If it were the same it would get much more support from religious ol' me.

    3. You will see some of the evidence in my series on evolution. Be patient.

    DP76,

    I didn't answer his question because I didn't feel like repeating what he would have seen had he bothered to look 8 comments up. Or had he bothered to review any one of several previous postings.

    Dan T,

    You assault my logic with something odd. Since it IS the President who commands our troops, and it IS our President who made the decision to send our troops into war then it very obviously IS his responsibility that we have had so many of our troops killed and injured in the course of the war. Some people would call it the enemies fault, and they are to blame too for actually perpetrating this harm, but the President bears the burden of responsibility for sending our troops to war. I have never said otherwise. He chose to bear this burden on himself because he believed, and still does believe that if he had not, then more attacks like 9/11 would have happened. And in case you forgot, more people were killed in that one attack than we have lost in Iraq so far over the last 2 years.

    So by your statement I must assume that my logic is perfetly reasonable to you and that you have no choice but to agree with me on the point of homosexual marriage being bad for heterosexual marriage.

    Was Iraq a bad decision? Time will tell.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:33 AM  

  • Using causality when causality can be established makes sense. Using causality when two factors correspond but have not been linked does not make sense.

    I agree with you that W's connection can be made for the deaths of the soldiers (didn't really expect you to agree, though) but don't agree that you've made any linkage between family/marriage issues in your point.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 1:00 PM  

  • Daniel: one reason many people belive in Creation is because science has, to date, been unable to explain the origin of matter itself, and how life was first sparked from a combination of chemical compounds.

    This is another example of an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy, Daniel. You are saying that people think that because science hasn’t yet explained it then “God did it”. Yes, many people believe this, but then many people are ignorant and think illogically.

    You should at least read the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling I linked to earlier before you try using the blood clotting cascade, the immune system or the bacterial flagellum as arguments against evolution. Failure to do so may leave you looking like an idiot when it comes to your series. Some time ago, I gave you links to other sources of information that you should read as well. It is going to be boring if others and I have to debunk the same tired old creationist canards such as the Cambrian explosion yet again. At least come up with some interesting new arguments.

    Daniel: Does this offend you little antireligious sensibilities? Because what I have just presented to you IS in fact legal to teach, and it is what I was talking about in the first place.

    There is nothing little about my antireligious sensibilities. Yes, it is legal to teach about the scientific arguments for and against evolution, but that has nothing to do with Creation. Negative arguments against evolution are not evidence supporting Creation. Creation is the religious ideology stifling science education, which was your original point.

    Of course it’s anti-scientific for people to believe things for religious reasons. Science is all about questioning, observing the natural world, examining the evidence, forming hypotheses and testing them. Religion is about none of these. Religion is about believing without question the words written in a book of fairy tales.

    Daniel: You obviously don't know much about Intelligent Design if you continue to make such statements. You are coming across as more ideological than factual when you call ID the same as Creation.

    All I can do is again ask you to read the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. ID is simply Creation with all references to God replaced with “Intelligent Designer”, which is why die-hard creationists object to it. In fact, the ID movement performed just such a find and replace on the book Of Pandas and People to convert it from a Creation text to an ID text. Those who object to ID on scientific grounds do so because it is totally unsupported by any evidence. All ID does is mount faulty negative arguments against the theory of evolution without providing any positive evidence supporting the notion of a designer, which to them is God, but they’re not allowed to say that for legal reasons.

    Daniel: 3. You will see some of the evidence in my series on evolution.

    You know, I seriously doubt that. I’m guessing that you are still proceeding under the misconception that arguments against evolution are evidence for Creation. They aren’t. You need to provide sound positive evidence supporting Creation. You need to show that God exists and show how he created things. It isn’t good enough to say that you can’t think how else something came into being unless God created it. That’s just an argument from ignorance showing that you can’t think properly.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 2:02 PM  

  • I think you should really read Sam's ideas...
    http://www.samuraisam1.blogspot.com
    They are way better!

    By Blogger Gifted-1, at 9:41 PM  

  • CJB,

    Why should I care what a judge thinks about science? Judges are lawyers, not scientists. Jusdges can't even figure out if a 9 month old unborn human child is A- alive, and B- human. I will stick to the scientists, thank you very much. And if your arguments in favor of evolution are going to based on lawyers and not on science then you are going to get laughed at.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:04 AM  

  • Oh yeah, I left something out. You oversentivity to anything resembling religion is astounding. I give you a real world example of how creation is being presented in som eclassrooms today, a way that the courts have sanctioned, and you start screeching about religion in the classroom. You even failed to notice that it was nothing more than explaining to the class a point of view that they will come across when dealing with other people on this particular subject. This is taught as a good practice in science most of the time, it just seems to become a bad practice to some people when they are afraid it might touch on religion in some way. Of course, you're going to ask for examples and I'm going to have to tell you as many of the different theories of the origin of the universe that I was taugtht as I can remember, the big Bang being only one of them. In fact, let me preempt that. There was a thory regading interdimnsional matter transfer. A theory that matter condensed form a universe of nothing but light. A theory that everything came from nothing in some kind of spontaneous generation event. And, yes, the thory/belief/idea that it was created by a higher being. Many theories, some, llike I dunno, all of them having flimsy to no actual scientific to back them up. The best scientific one being the big bang, but with the fundamental problem of being unable to explain the origin of the quantum anomaly that is supposed o have exploded.

    Lemme guess. All was well in your world until the idea of a creation event was mentioned, wasn;t it?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:16 AM  

  • Daniel,

    I wasn’t suggesting that you read the Dover decision for the legal opinions, but for the scientific arguments it contains. The judge does a very good job of distilling all the scientific evidence presented during the six-week trial into his 139-page ruling. That’s what judges do—they listen to all the evidence and make a decision based on that evidence. In this case, the decision was that ID is a religious belief, not science and hence it (along with Creation) is prohibited from being taught in public school science classes. Read it or don’t read it, I don’t really care, but you can’t say you weren’t warned.

    Daniel: You even failed to notice that it was nothing more than explaining to the class a point of view that they will come across when dealing with other people on this particular subject. This is taught as a good practice in science most of the time, it just seems to become a bad practice to some people when they are afraid it might touch on religion in some way.

    Teaching different scientific points of view in school science classes is good and worthwhile. Teaching religious beliefs in science classes is not. Creation and ID are religious beliefs, not scientific points of view so they have no business being taught or even mentioned in a science class. Teaching children about various religious beliefs (notice I said teaching about, not teaching) belongs in some other subject, not science classes. It is a waste of time to talk about religion in science classes—time that could be better spent learning about science. And we were talking about science classes not other classes, as you said yourself:

    Daniel: Teaching creation in school science classess. Hmmm. laying aside the fact that this was the norm until about 80 years ago, I must say that it can only be taught about under 3 situtations.

    1- It can be mentioned as a common religious belief and compared to Evolution, whish should be taught as mere theory in this case, with the flas taught alongside any supporting evidence, which is currently legal.


    I look forward to your attempt to provide evidence supporting Creation. It should be amusing, if nothing else.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 2:33 AM  

  • "The judge does a very good job of distilling all the scientific evidence presented during the six-week trial into his 139-page ruling. That’s what judges do—they listen to all the evidence and make a decision based on that evidence. In this case, the decision was that ID is a religious belief, not science and hence it (along with Creation) is prohibited from being taught in public school science classes."

    You mean the way another judge in Florida disreagarded numerous medical opinions form reputable doctors in the Terry Schiavo case, even refusing to allow testing to be done to determine her medical state of being? The way that same judge, while claiming that he knew better than doctors (well he and one doctor thet agreed that she should die, one known for being pro death), doesn't know enough about his own job to consider the testimony of Michael Shiavo to be potentially tainted due to his adulterous relationship with another woman when he suddenly "remebered" that his wife wanted to die if she was ever in such a condition? The way the judge took the belated word of an adulterer wanting to be free to marry his mistress over that of everybody else? Yeah, judges do a great job deciding about ethics, religion, medicine, and science. Really they do, if you don't mind vast inconsistencies from judge to jusde and the insertion of predetermined personal bias and opinion into all of these subjects at any rate. The fact is, judges have no place in science, medicine, or religion. It is NOT their field, and in evry case the jude has been swayed one way or the other in his or her decision based on their own personal beliefs, and used what they could from what was presented to justify their opinion and create a law, which is also not their job and is outside thier authority under the Constitution.

    But you don't care as long there are enough judges that are guaranteed to agree with your point of view that you can go judge shopping until you find one who will give you the decision you want. Yes, the people you are aligned with do just that. The ACLU, for example, is careful to file it's lawsuits with a judge whom they know is already biased in favor of their position. It is how they have such a high initial success rate, and such a high failure rate on appeal outside of the Ninth Circuit.

    Again, I don't care what a judges opinion is on science, religion, or any other subject that is not law. And any argument you present in favor of you positon in those realms is invalid.

    Now, if you want to see what religion motivated science looks like you should check out the Institute for Creation Science. You will note very important diffeences between what they say and what Intelligent Design says, as well as some similarities. I'm sure the overlap will convince you that creation and ID arethe same, but it is the differences you should take note of. Those differences are important. For example, Creationists say a specific God created all, ID says a far more secular thing, that an "intelligent higher being" (note the non-specific to any religion connotation) must have designed the universe due to the impossibility of such a set of conditions and concurrent development being able to occur.

    If you want to try to replicate even the very first condition for life I suggest doing the floowing experiment. Hang a dartboard at one end othe universe, then go to the other end and start throwing darts at it until you hit the bullseye. you have the same odds of doing that as you do for just the first condition of life to occur. And no, I am not going to say what that condition is here. I am saving it for my seies. I do hope you like and trust math.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:29 AM  

  • Daniel: Again, I don't care what a judges opinion is on science, religion, or any other subject that is not law.

    And the law says that it is illegal to teach religious beliefs in public school science classes. The Dover case rested on whether ID is a religious belief or science so the judge had to make a determination on this. Without first making that determination, he couldn’t have made a decision based on the law. The evidence presented at trial showed that ID is a religious belief and he ruled accordingly. You don’t have to take his word for it; you can read the transcripts and decide for yourself. They make for interesting and sometimes hilarious reading. I particularly liked to moment when Behe, like all creationists, stuck his fingers in his ears and chanted, “La-la-la-la-la”, metaphorically speaking of course.

    Daniel: If you want to try to replicate even the very first condition for life I suggest doing the floowing experiment…

    You do understand that evolution says nothing about the beginning of life, don’t you?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 8:48 PM  

  • Daniel -

    So a judge shouldn't be able to rule on anything outside of law? Bringing in expert witnesses/professionals isn't a valid means for a judge to do her/his job?

    I think you're acting silly now.

    ID says a far more secular thing, that an "intelligent higher being" (note the non-specific to any religion connotation)

    I think you are committing heresy and denying God by backing up such an assumption. Keep denying God, Daniel, and see what happens. Well, nothing... but that's certainly not what you believe.
    And as for what the proponents of ID believe, they'll only deny God long enough to get it shoved into a classroom. Once it's there, I bet the "mystery" God will quickly solidify into something a little more familiar.

    So, after so many years of denying God, how do you think that conversation will go when you die? Will you say it was for the best? You just couldn't let those Atheist Scientists win? I'm sure God will understand... you know, that purely secular God that even Atheists can worship.
    Cheers!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:09 AM  

  • CJB,
    "You do understand that evolution says nothing about the beginning of life, don’t you?"

    Of course, but for evolution to be possible we must first have life. And, Darwinists have attempted to replicate the condiitions for life to riginate for many years with the understanding that for evolution to remain valid life must be able to start, preferably without any God creating it. No life randomly created to date, I might add.

    Anonomys,
    "I think you are committing heresy and denying God by backing up such an assumption. Keep denying God, Daniel, and see what happens."

    Kepp thinking that. I NEVER deny God, and for you to think I was doing such a thing by what I presented anout ID is ignorant of the fact that I am a Creationist who sees ID as an attempt to secularize and water down the truth of Creation. It makes many fascinating points though, but then again, so does evolution.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:10 AM  

  • Daniel,

    Could you please define ‘Darwinists’. I think we are going to need this for later discussions. Your use of this term implies that they are some form of cult members who worship Darwin as though he was Jim Jones or David Koresh. Are you saying that there is some form of religion known as ‘Darwinism’?

    It now seems that it isn’t only evolution that you deny, but other branches of science as well. I’m guessing you’re okay with physics and chemistry, but you disagree with anything that contradicts your creationist beliefs. So, even though all branches of science use the same scientific method and so are equally valid, you disagree with some, but not others. Why should some branches of science be lying, but others not? Don’t you think it strange that the only branches of science that you think are lying are the ones showing that Creation is false?

    Daniel: No life randomly created to date, I might add.

    Let’s see now… It took 100,000,000 years from when the oceans formed to when the first molecules of life formed. Perhaps you should give it just a little more time before you declare the matter settled or jump to the unsupported conclusion that there must be some supernatural being involved.

    I take it then from your original post and the ensuing discussion that you do want to see Creationism taught in public school science classes. Your vision for America seems to be that you want it to lose its lead in science and technology by producing generations of children who are ignorant of science. There are already children being refused entry into university because they’ve been taught Creation in Christian schools and hence don’t have a clue about science.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 4:24 PM  

  • CJB,

    Your unyielding faith in evolution is astounding considering the biology is disproving it as well as physics and chemistry.

    Consider this: What you you call a thory that requires such inhumanly vast amounts of time that it cannot be proven? What is thattheory was in direct conflict with what has been proven in another field of science? what if it were also in direct conflict with mathematics, AND a second beanch of scientific study? What if, on top of all that, it was in conflict with what has been proven in some disciplines of it own branch of science? Perhaps "questionable" would be an apropriate term to describe it?

    The intersting thing about evolution is that it fits all of the conditions of uncertainty I have listed above. Theamazing thing about is that rather than seeking new answers, darwinists are simply trying to suppres other ideas from being taught, as well as trying to suppress the science that demonstrates the unreliablity of evolution being taught. Why, the ACLU sued, and actually won a riidiculous lawsuit where they wanted to stop a schoool from putting a sticker in it's biology books stating that, to date, evolution remains a theory and is hotly contested. The ACLU freaked out because, to them, this simple statement constituted religion in the classroom, and some judge actually agreed with them. Personally, I fail to see the religion in that sticker. Yet another example of why I don't trust judges in science.

    See your problem withthe assertion that I don;t trust biology due to my religion is also false. Evolution, every aspect of it, is called itnot question by the combination of biology, paleontology, geology, physics, chemistry, and statistics. I will grant that the Big Bang is very well supported by some very good, very thorough physics, and I will outline why can buy the big bang theory, with the direct intervention of God, early in my series on evolution. I figure that if I am going to talk about the origin and development of life I may as start at the beginning.

    A question for you: why are you afraid of anythind that quetsions evolution? I don't mean just religion. I mean the science that does as well. From you previous staements it would seem that all science, whether it ID decides to incorporate it or not, that is contrary to what darminian evolution says MUST be false, and therefore suppressed. This would define you as a Darwinist. It is ironic that you speak out against ignorance, and yet you demand it in this one field.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:33 AM  

  • Daniel: Your unyielding faith in evolution is astounding considering the biology is disproving it as well as physics and chemistry.

    I consider faith to be belief without logical proof or material evidence so I wouldn’t say I have faith in the theory of evolution. I would say, though, that I trust the results produced by using the scientific method.

    I think we will see when you begin your series that what you think of as negative arguments against the theory of evolution are the result of misconceptions and a general misunderstanding of the terms and principles of science on your part. I think you are going to trot out the same well worn creationist claims that have been debunked so many times that it is laughable that anyone should continue to use them. Time will tell.

    Daniel: This would define you as a Darwinist. It is ironic that you speak out against ignorance, and yet you demand it in this one field.

    It is only creationists (those who think that Creation is true) who use the term ‘Darwinist’ and they use it as a pejorative. If you must use a term to describe those who think the theory of evolution is true, then call them ‘evolutionists’. To say that I demand ignorance when it comes to the theory of evolution is preposterous. I welcome any advances in science. If someone were to show that aspects of the theory are wrong, then more power to them. Science will accept the new information and incorporate it into the theory.

    You really do have a warped view of science. You seem to think it is like religion where no contradictions to received wisdom are allowed. Science is the complete opposite of religion in this regard. Remember, science questions everything whereas religion believes without question. Which approach do you think is more likely to discover the true workings of the natural world?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 3:07 PM  

  • "I consider faith to be belief without logical proof or material evidence so I wouldn’t say I have faith in the theory of evolution."

    I say it takes a ton of faith on your part to disregard do much science in favor of your own poorly founded views, just to protect a thoery that is coming apart by th eday. The thinking man might start seeking a better, more provable, less flawed answer.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:26 AM  

  • Daniel: The thinking man might start seeking a better, more provable, less flawed answer.

    What—like Creation? Bring on your series and we’ll see which answer is supported by mountains of real-world evidence and which is supported by nothing more than the words in one book of fairy tales.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 3:55 AM  

  • CJB,

    Like ANYTHING. Evolution is fatally flawed. Creation is religion based. ID seeks to meld the two. Perhaps YOU can find a fourth? People stopped trying after evolution came out. that puts science, what, 150 years behind? Time to get cracking. Seek answers, accept what you find and quit clinging so ideologically to a broken theory. Worst case scenario: eventually you just have to say "I don't know."

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares