| Home | About Us | Login/Register | Email News Tips |

A liberal dose of news, national and local politics, commentary, opinions and common sense conversation…

McCain Supports Teaching Intelligent Design

by RonChusid

I’ve often said it here that John McCain is not as bad as the neocons in control of the GOP, but he is also certainly no moderate. Here’s another example of how McCain is definately a conservative. The Arizona Daily Star reports that McCain supports George Bush’s view that intelligent design should be taught in the schools.

To steal an idea from Bill Mahar, the next time a patient asks me about fertility issues I guess I’m going to have to include the stork theory in order to educate on all opposing viewpoints. So much for the view that opposing viewpoints don’t need to be taught if they are crap devoid of any scientific merit.

20 Responses to “McCain Supports Teaching Intelligent Design”

  1. My Congressman just came out with his support for teaching ID in public schools. Must be in the latest RNC talking points. Arrgh!

  2. Cali Dem

    What area of CA are you in? Near L.A.? Who’s the twit who supports this?

  3. Ron

    It’s good to be open minded… LOL! The stork…

  4. I’m in CA District 4. My dorky Congressman is John T. Doolittle. He is estimated to be about 6th in power in the House. He has close ties to DeLay & Abramoff. Anti-environment; anti-reproductive rights; anti-veteran…pretty much a Bush regime zombie.

  5. Where’s district 4, I’m clueless…

    I’m in the San Fernando Valley. When is Doolittle up for reelection? We’ll need to do something.

  6. I don’t know if I’d even want to legitimize Intelligent Design by calling it “conservative.” It’s not conservative to push religion in schools. This is another example of McCain bowing to the rightwing extremists in his party — unless he genuinely believes in Creationism. I’m not sure which would be worse, if he believes it or if he just feels the need to placate that group. In any case, separation of Church and State is a critical issue on which there can be no compromise, and if McCain is in favor of teaching religion in the public schools, that fact should definitely be made known to people who don’t believe in any such thing.

  7. Check out Deepak Chopra’s Blog — he’s got two fascinating threads on Intelligent Design – http://www.intentblog.com/

  8. Thanks for the Deepak Chopra link. What he’s saying rings true. Scientists do need to be open minded, but the close mindedness of creationists have led the scientists to feel like they’re always on the defensive and led to their own form of close mindedness. All of Deepak’s questions are good ones. But a 15 year old needs to learn the theory of Evolution, and the scientific method. They need to learn how to THINK first, and only then can questioning begin. I also think that this fascinating topic should be explored at the UNIVERSITY level. But in the high school science class, Evolution should be taught as scientific theory, and then perhaps an open ended discussion among students about their opinion of it. They can even learn the history of the theory and its impact on politics would be interesting, too. But to shove a half baked creationism in disguise “theory” down their throat is ridiculous. Of course, while we’re discussing this, the Chinese have churned out how many new engineers and scientists?

  9. Beachmom

    I see this more as a philosophy subject at the university level than a high school adendum to science.

    I’ve read most of Chopra’s books, including the very profound “How To Know God” in which he melds quantum theory and spirituality.

    Chopra’s blog is interesting. I found it through the Huffington and added it to the blog roll here.

  10. I wasn’t very impressed with Chopra’s comments or knowledge of evolution. As this is in a comment far from the top I won’t spend much time on this but just give a few examples.

    1) Chopra finds no fossil record of molecules leading to DNA. It might be hard to find such fossils of such microscopic molecues but there are real world examples, such as RNA.

    2) He asks why there are only positive mutations which I suppose suggests there might be some intelligence guiding this. Actually negative mutations do occur. In many situations they reduce chances for survival and therefore die out and we do not currently see them. In other cases the mutations persist. These negative mutations would include any geneticly transmitted disease, such as hemophelia.

    3) He believes evolution has stopped as sharkes and insects are staying the same. Evolution takes place very slowly in most cases. Human civilization has been around for a tiny portion of the history of the earth and we would not expect to see massive evolution of other organisms in this period. I have recently cited some cases where evolution does continue, such as with influenza and with selection for antibiotic resistant bacteria. I have also read from time to time examples of evolution seen in larger animals.

    I’ll stick with debunking him on the first few points.

  11. Ron

    Perhaps you and Dr Chopra should discuss your differing views. From what I read over there he reached a lot of dissenting opinions. I felt it was interesting that he was discussing it. His views on many things are out of the mainstream. He has a vast new age following. much of what he says in the realm of new age spirituality makes sense to me. Of course I am no scientist or Dr so the technicalities of evolution are way over my head.

  12. Pamela,

    I really don’t see any more point in discussing this Chopra than with the ID proponents. This isn’t “differing views.” This is a matter of well established science. If he is ignorant of the science I really have nothing to discuss with him.

  13. Ron

    Chopra is a Dr, also. I believe he’s not only trained in traditional medicine but also Aruvedic. He worked at Brigham Woman’s in Boston, back in the 70’s, I think.

    I only mentioned it because I thought it was interesting he was discussing it, with his medical background and his spiritual background being different from that of the fundies, it seemed to be another view in the debate.

    I think teaching this in school regardless is wrong. Having read a wide range of spiritual philosophy I see this as university topic – philosophy or better yet, anthropology, but it’s too deep for high schoolers.

    Every religion has a “creation” story. But none of those stories fall into science.

  14. Pamela,

    If Chopra wants to have a religious view in addition to the scientific view, that’s his business. In this case he is paralleling the views of the ID people by falsely denying the degree to which evolution is established and raising the same type of bogus objections that creationists have used for years.

  15. Ron

    I’m not sure that I have heard the fundies talking about quantum physics when they talk about Intelligent Design. I think Chopra is trying to point out they don’t own the debate, on one level. His views are more on the realm of spiritual than religious. He’s a fascinating man, but his stuff is not for everyone. People love what he says or disagree.

  16. Pamela,

    It doesn’t matter if he talks about quantum physics or not. He is basically doing the same thing as the ID people by trying to hide an opposition to scientific principles by sprouting pseudo-science.

  17. Ron

    He said early on in his first post on the subject that he was trying to take the debate beyond the us vs them. He being one of us. Personally I feel that the fundamentalists are usurping the creation theory that belongs to all religions and spiritual thought processes and claiming it as their own.

    While scientists can prove evolution, and I don’t dispute that, people of all faiths want to believe in some sort of higher power as well. It’s just another side of the debate of life theories, that no doubt will go on forever. All philosphers have debated the meaning of life forever.

    I respect that he is willing to share his views, agree with them or not, at least someone from a “new age” — liberal stand point is putting the conversation out there.

  18. He may claim to be one of us, but he is actually providing ammunition, even if flawed, to them by bringing up such bogus criticism of evolution.

  19. Ron

    After 9/11 I was watching CBS or ABC, one of the networks and Marianne Williamson was on discussing 9/11 as a “spiritual leader”. Honestly, regardless of his views, I think it’s great that Larry King aired them. The debate between religion and science will always rage on, but as Chopra said, religion does not belong in politics. That’s it in a nutshell.

    What Chopra said in the begining of his first post: “It’s high time to rescue “intelligent design” from the politics of religion.” — makes sense. Don’t allow the debate in the public high schools, take it back to where it belongs with the theologians and philosophers (of which Chopra is considered to be a modern day philosopher).

    People with backgrounds in science will disagree with any theory, but there is merit for those with spiritual and religious views.

    I know as a Dr you see this differently and I respect that. I don’t neccessarily agree with Chopra, I just found his musings to be interesting and was glad to see that Larry King gave some air time to the otherside of the debate — a non-fundamentalist.

  20. […] orse to a popular incumbent, but to Mr. 33% And Falling? That’s no more sensible than to back the teaching of intelligent design. We’ve seen delusions of grandieur as he’s imagined being p […]