Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Teaching Darwin's Theory "Critically"
From a recent excellent debate on ID sponsored by the Federalist Society, the Pew Charitble Trust and others, a point from the defendant for ID:
I want to make clear that the Discovery Institute as an organization advocates that people interested in this question (ID vs. Darwinism) – school boards and so forth – adopt a policy of teaching Darwin's theory critically – that is, teaching the evidence for and against Darwin's theory, and not mandating the teaching of intelligent design.
And that's all I ask.
I think mandating pure Darwinian Theory or mandating ID in and of itself is the wrong way to go. Right now, though, the public schools teach Darwin like it is absolute truth. One wonders how they could consider it so absolute when most teachers and administrators oppose anything "absolute" and are subjective about every moral question under the sun.
I want to make clear that the Discovery Institute as an organization advocates that people interested in this question (ID vs. Darwinism) – school boards and so forth – adopt a policy of teaching Darwin's theory critically – that is, teaching the evidence for and against Darwin's theory, and not mandating the teaching of intelligent design.
And that's all I ask.
I think mandating pure Darwinian Theory or mandating ID in and of itself is the wrong way to go. Right now, though, the public schools teach Darwin like it is absolute truth. One wonders how they could consider it so absolute when most teachers and administrators oppose anything "absolute" and are subjective about every moral question under the sun.
A Feminist in Support of Alito?
Anchor Rising has an intereting interview with Susan Sullivan, a former law clerk for Samual Alito and also a "self described social progressive, (a registered Democrat, a pro-choice feminist who supports gay marriage, opposes the death penalty and supports gun control)," who is "not afraid to have Sam Alito as a Justice on the Supreme Court."
Prudence, skepticism and "unbought grace."
Professor Jeffery Hart of Dartmouth University does a nice job of examining the conservative mind today.
Monday, December 26, 2005
ID vs. Darwin
Intelligent Design advocates took several hits these past couple of weeks, while I’ve noticed an almost a conspiratorial attack on ID in letters to the editor, editorials (some from friendly places like the WSJ) and judicial rulings.
The liberal intelligentsia derides ID because it undermines a major premise in their thinking. All things are explainable sans Dieu.
The ID debate has its roots in the debate about origins. You have dogmatic arguments on both sides of this topic. Those who are dogmatic about Darwin really don’t allow any oxygen for those with a good critique of the theory – this is not scientific. The Darwinist say that ID is based solely on faith, but this is not true. They also discount that many great men of science not only had Faith but applied faith to reasoning when considering the universe. Consider Einstein who continually sought after an elegant universe based upon the foundational idea that there had been an intelligent origin to the universe. Consider Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, and Fibonacci.
We’ll weigh on this topic from time to time.
The liberal intelligentsia derides ID because it undermines a major premise in their thinking. All things are explainable sans Dieu.
The ID debate has its roots in the debate about origins. You have dogmatic arguments on both sides of this topic. Those who are dogmatic about Darwin really don’t allow any oxygen for those with a good critique of the theory – this is not scientific. The Darwinist say that ID is based solely on faith, but this is not true. They also discount that many great men of science not only had Faith but applied faith to reasoning when considering the universe. Consider Einstein who continually sought after an elegant universe based upon the foundational idea that there had been an intelligent origin to the universe. Consider Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, and Fibonacci.
We’ll weigh on this topic from time to time.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Life as a Blogger
Rich Karlgaard at Forbes has some observations about blogging. Some snippets:
and...Don't judge blogging by the "average" blog. The average blog is amateurish, just as the average crooner is no American Idol. The law of large numbers guarantees that. How many blogs are out there? Maybe millions. Soon billions. This means, of course, that the vast majority of blogs will be of no interest to you or me. Even a 95th-percentile blog--judged by its quality--has little chance of making it into our busy reading schedules. But don't judge the blogosphere by the average quality. At the top of this huge pyramid are thousands of readable and useful blogs. Think of the blogosphere as a bookstore where no book is refused. A store bigger than the Mall of America. (Ocean, pyramid, bookstore ... too many metaphors, I know.)
Blogs really do threaten the mainstream media. Thought experiment: Suppose you call yourself a pro-technology supply-sider. (That's what I happen to be, because I think Moore's Law and Say's Law drive growth and prosperity in the world.) A reader with such an outlook will find a home at RealClear Politics and Tech Central Station because the editors of those überblogs see the world in the same way. You might ask, "Well, doesn't the Wall Street Journal see the world likewise?" Yeah, mostly. But the WSJ needs thousands of employees and tons of ink and paper to produce its product. RealClear Politics gets by with fewer than ten employees.
Friday, December 16, 2005
What will happen to Linc Chafee next year when Democrats will be voting in the Democrat Primary and Republicans will be voting in the Republican Primary? HT: Anchor Rising.
A Sunni Disposition
From the Weekly Standard on the success of the Iraqi elections:
The biggest story of [the Iraqi] election, apart from its obvious milestone character, is the staggeringly high Sunni turnout. In October we were being assured, by the usual experts, that the passage of the constitutional referendum was a disaster, another of many final nails in the coffin of Iraqi democracy: The Sunnis would now never participate in the electoral process. It turns out that they did participate, and they did so with eager anticipation that through the new democratic process their voices could be heard and their interests protected.And I thought all the Sunni's were boycotting the elections because their Shiite friends had a natural majority and were going to lord it over them nonetheless. Well I'll be a blue nosed gopher!
It also turns out that one of the major reasons Sunnis had not participated before was fear that they would be killed by terrorists and insurgents. This time, with 160,000 American troops and thousands of newly trained Iraqi soldiers and police, there was a sense of security. "Last time, if you voted, you died," Abdul Jabbar Mahdi, a Sunni, told the Times's Dexter Filkins. "God willing, this election will lead to peace." As Filkins notes, "Comments from Sunni voters, though anecdotal, suggested that a good number of them had stayed away from the polls in January not because they were disenchanted with the democratic process, but because they were afraid of being killed."
More Fun & Games from Maryland Democrats
Michelle Malkin continues to follow the adventures of MD democrats - this time the Washington Post appears to be again involved in making news rather than just reporting it. Read about the latest attempts to undermine Republican Gov. Ehrlich's re-election efforts Here.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
More on Laffey v. Chafee
Town Hall reports that the National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole, is continuing to meddle in the Rhode Island GOP primary at the expense of conservative US Senate challenger Steve Laffey.
In response to today's Club for Growth endorsement of Laffey (see Gary's post below), the NRSC has released this dirty attack document against the conservative challenger.
Says Town Hall: The NRSC should not be spending its money against conservative Republicans... period.
Currently, Laffey is said to be polling very well against Chafee. If Chafee sees the writing on the wall and leaves the party to run as an independent, he would not have to undergo a primary challenge. Town Hall asks: If [Chafee] does this, will the NRSC still support him?
In response to today's Club for Growth endorsement of Laffey (see Gary's post below), the NRSC has released this dirty attack document against the conservative challenger.
Says Town Hall: The NRSC should not be spending its money against conservative Republicans... period.
Currently, Laffey is said to be polling very well against Chafee. If Chafee sees the writing on the wall and leaves the party to run as an independent, he would not have to undergo a primary challenge. Town Hall asks: If [Chafee] does this, will the NRSC still support him?
Monday, December 12, 2005
Laffey v. Chafee
The Opinion Journal website of the Wall Street Journal is pushing Steve Laffey today. Read it here.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
The Lion of Narnia
In 1970, I was strongly influenced by a writer who had died seven years prior to my being introduced to his works of non-fiction and fiction. Today, one of his works of fiction hits the big screen, and many have wondered whether the film does justice to the man and his message. One skeptic has seen the movie and has come away with, well, you'll have to read the whole thing. Better yet, you may want to see the movie for yourself.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]