timestamp: 2005.08.19 @ 19:58 UTC
sent by the unrepentant curmudgeon
---dispatch follows---
Frist for President? No…
A Republican shows he is not worthy for the office he is so obviously positioning himself to try to gain.
Frist voices support for ‘intelligent design’
Senator encourages teaching of faith-based theory alongside evolutionAssociated Press
Updated: 3:41 p.m. ET Aug. 19, 2005NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said “intelligent design” should be taught in public schools alongside evolution.
Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, spoke to a Rotary Club meeting Friday and told reporters afterward that students need to be exposed to different ideas, including intelligent design.
“I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith,” Frist said.
Allow me to educate YOU on a few things, Senator Frist.
Faith is NOT science.
Faith is NOT fact.
Faith is faith.
To make it explicit:
faith -
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
To put it simply, no FACT is involved, AT ALL.
So…
Which part of this so so hard to understand for a Senator?
Is it because you are positioning yourself to run for President of the United States in 2008?
Is it because you are an idiot?
The two are NOT mutually exclusive, sadly enough.
Yes, in a pluralistic society one should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, AND of faith. Faith is NOT science, and it is NOT fact. Faith is FAITH, and it is taught in churches and by people who have a deep and abiding belief in their FAITH.
It is NOT the role of government to TEACH FAITH.
Which part of the Bill of Rights (specifically, the part regarding separation of Church and State) is too difficult for you to understand?
Senator Frist, you have demonstrated you do not have the qualifications for President of the United States, for you have failed the most fundamental test, one of understanding what our nation is all about.
Technorati Tags: politics, right-wing politics
---ENDIT---ENDIT---ENDIT------TRANSMISSION ENDS---
8 Comments so far
Leave a comment (Comments are MODERATED)
There was this great cartoon in our paper yesterday… I must find it and send it to you. It fits this post.
By Bou on 08.20.05 00:22
What could be worse than an incompetent political hack. Wanting to be a politician should disqualify one from holding office.
By Ron Beasley on 08.20.05 01:49
very nicely put. This guy is starting to sound like John Kerry, flip-flop and say whatever gets you elected
By Dean on 08.20.05 03:22
Care to quote the line in the Bill of Rights that mentions separation of Church and State? Once you’ve spent a good thirty minutes vainly trying to find THAT, you might better spend your time reading biochemist Michael Behe’s paradigm shattering book, DARWIN’S BLACK BOX. It doesn’t prove intelligent design, but it does convincingly show that evolution cannot explain the irreducible complexity at the molecular level.
Evolution is in trouble not because of so-called religious fanatics. It’s in trouble because it’s being questioned by reputable scientists. I’m not saying that ID is the best alternative, just saying that evolution has holes. Mr Frist knows that, and he’s willing to say so.
-Didsbury, aka Three of Six.
By Didsbury on 08.20.05 21:24
Regarding the “line in the Bill of Rights”, I refer you to this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
From here: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
Reasonable people can disagree regarding what is a “law respecting an establishment of religion”, but in my post I was addressing the comments of Senator Frist, namely: “I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith.”
Faith *is* religion, or more properly, religion is faith.
“Access to faith” in the publicly-funded schools *can* reasonably be argued to be a “law respecting an establishment of religion” (yes, this neglects private schools, as it should).
Regarding any problems with the theory of evolution, I have not had the opportunity to read the book you mention. I will try to find it, but as I am located in France, it may be some time before I can find a copy in English (my French is not up to the level of reading any extensive scientific or political arguments). I can say this: the theory of evolution meets the criteria of a scientific theory in that it is *testable* and *disprovable*.
Intelligent design is not testable, nor is it disprovable, and therefore it is NOT a scientific theory.
If it is not a scientific theory, why should it be taught in *science* class?
By the unrepentant curmudgeon on 08.20.05 21:50
In our interpretation of the First Amendment, something has gone terribly wrong. The notion of “separation of Church and State” is a phrase foreign to the Constitution, and first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, eleven years after the Bill of Rights was adopted. What was intended as a commentary on the text has in the public mind become confused with the text itself. Apparently, the “Unrepentant Curmudgeon” is among those who have confused the two, with unfortunate consequences.
The “separation of church and state” has been repeated so many times, that it has become akin to the expression, “cleanliness is next to godliness.” A lot of folks think that Franklin’s expression is in the Bible, but it’s not. In the same way, too many folks think that Jefferson’s phrase is constitutional, and it’s not. In fact, it has been abused to the point of inveighing against the very freedoms Hamilton and others sought to protect in the second half of the First Amendment, the Free Exercise clause. The Establishment clause simply meant that the U.S. shouldn’t have a state church, like England has. It was never intended to be used as a muzzle over the mouths of those who seek to exercise their religious liberty in public, and those liberties don’t magically disappear once a student walks through the door of her high school.
As for evolution vs. ID –
Intelligent Design theory, as it currently is formulated does not meet the “science test” as Mr. Curmudgeon points out. However, the work by Behe makes a solid case against an understanding of evolution that rests on random mutations, and leaves no place for design. In fact, Behe argues that the “irreducible complexity” found at the cellular level cannot be explain by Darwin’s theory, therefore mitigating at least part of the evolutionary theory’s so-called “explanatory powers.” Instead, irreducible complexity is much more easily explained as being the result of “design,” rather than natural selection. Of course, the implication of “design” is a Designer, and that’s why those who view evolution as random must rebut Behe, as a Google search shows they have felt it necessary to do.
So, what’s a biology teacher to say when she comes across evidence of design in her class? Would the state muzzle her from talking about it, with its obvious inference of a Designer? To me, that’s what this debate is all about. Shouldn’t a science teacher, even public school teachers, in the spirit of academic freedom and the scientific method, at least be able to follow the evidence where it leads, whether that’s bio-chemical evidence of design, or astronomical evidence of design in the Big Bang? Random evolutionists seem determined not to allow even this small concession, and that’s where eyebrows are being raised in State Legislatures, like in Kansas. No one expects the science teacher to cross the line and break into a theology lecture, but can’t they at least go as far as a growing body of scientific evidence does, showing design?
When Dr. Frist says that Intelligent Design should be taught “alongside” evolution, it’s interesting that he doesn’t say “alongside evolution, in the science classroom.” He has some obvious wiggle room there. Until ID comes into its own as a predictive theory, on a par with evolution,
it shouldn’t be taught in the science classroom. Meanwhile, it would be totally appropriate to read Genesis 1 in social studies class, for example, as one creation story alongside others, as my social studies teacher did exactly that, in a public school, when I was in 7th grade. We learned both the biblical and the Iroquois creation stories.
Interesting, isn’t it, that everyone is spoiling for a fight, when it’s not even necessary, as I argue here. (Many, myself included, believe in theistic evolution, but don’t expect the public schools to teach that.
Hopefully, in the coming days, Mr.Frist will further clarify his position. Rick Santorum reversed his, coming out against teaching ID in the science classroom, and he’s as conservative as they come, so it would be wrong to think that all conservatives are in lock-step on this issue.
Excellent discussion, Mr. Curmudgeon!
By Three of Six on 08.21.05 02:04
Ah, but here’s the thing: Frist is a Rove-picked fair-haired boy. Or at least he was when Trent Lott got sideswiped.
Unfortunately for Frist, he’s made such a complete ass of himself that I doubt Rove has any enthusiasm left for him. I suspect Virginia’s Sen. Allen is being penciled in where Frist’s name has been rubbed out.
By S.W. Anderson on 08.21.05 06:34
[…] Senator Frist is demonstrating that he has no core beliefs beyond those that might get him nominated as the Republican candidate for President of the United States in the 2008 elections. […]
By Random Fate » What a maroon… on 10.09.05 19:29
Leave a comment (Comments are MODERATED)
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>