Iowa situation--update on the update

The tide is turning. Christians and scientists have come to same conclusion that ID is unnecessarily conflating science and religion.

Well good for you and your colleagues, Tara. I expect the pressure from the pro-science side had something to do with the speed at which Nussle disavowed Van Plaats' statements, and possibly with the fact that he took the trouble to do so at all.

Still, it's good to know that we don't have Nussle on record ever supporting the teaching of ID. I keep thinking that there must be some pro-IDists and creationists must actually believe in the separation of church and state on principle alone, and would support teaching science in public schools, religion in the churches. Perhaps Nussle is one of them, perhaps he has observed the credibility of the DI and their sort tank, or perhaps there is a synergistic effect between the two.

Anyway, thanks again for supporting the spirit of our laws and the integrity of science in Iowa.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

"I keep thinking that there must be some pro-IDists and creationists must actually believe in the separation of church and state on principle alone"

Hope springs eternal...

"and would support teaching science in public schools, religion in the churches."

Actually, religion is an appropriate subject for public schools, albeit not in science class and provided all viewpoints are accounted for (not an easy thing to do these days).

"Perhaps Nussle is one of them"

Or perhaps he's a politician who knows how to play to both sides at the same time. (I know, that's a redundant statement.)

Actually, religion is an appropriate subject for public schools, albeit not in science class and provided all viewpoints are accounted for (not an easy thing to do these days).

— jkc

Or perhaps he's a politician who knows how to play to both sides at the same time. (I know, that's a redundant statement.)

— jkc

The tide is turning. Christians and scientists have come to same conclusion that ID is unnecessarily conflating science and religion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/creation082799.htm Gore Avoids Stance on Creationism By Hanna Rosin Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 27, 1999; Page A8 Vice President Gore, known for his love of science education, refused yesterday to take a clear stand on whether public schools should be required to teach evolution and not creationism. Gore and the other candidates running for president have been faced with questions about their position on the teaching of evolution after the Aug. 11 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to wipe out evolution from the statewide science curriculum. The vote is the most decisive victory in recent years for creationists, fundamentalist Christians who believe that God created human beings and animals fully formed, as described in Genesis. When first asked about the Kansas vote, a Gore spokesman seemed to allow for the possibility of teaching creationist science, an option the Supreme Court has ruled out. "The vice president favors the teaching of evolution in public schools," Alejandro Cabrera said yesterday in response to a question from a Reuters reporter. "Obviously, that decision should and will be made at the local level, and localities should be free to teach creationism as well." The Supreme Court has ruled that schools are not free to teach creationism. In 1987, the court ruled in Edwards v. Aguilar that a Louisiana statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution unless creationist science was taught as well improperly endorses religion. After checking the 1987 decision, Cabrera adjusted his statement by saying that Gore supports the teaching of creationism only in certain contexts, such as in a religion class--an option that has not been ruled unconstitutional. The vice president, however, declined to criticize the Kansas school board vote, repeating that the decision to teach evolution should be up to local schools. Prominent scientists felt betrayed by their ally, and detected waffling in Gore's finely tuned answers. "What he's trying to do is carry water on both shoulders," said Daniel Koshland, former editor of the journal Science and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. "It reflects badly on him that he would say something incorrect in order to appease all parts of the population."

I believe that was a misunderstanding of the Gore spokesman's comments.

Please elaborate.

Chet Culver stands for abortion, gay marriage, gambling, human cloning, illegal immigration, and seizing private property through eminent domain.

Those aren't Iowa values.
Those aren't family values.
Those aren't Christian values.
And they certainly aren't MY values.

On top of that, Chet Culver is
just plain stupid !

I'm voting for Jim Nussle.

You do that. (yawn)

You know Woody, the first 4 issues you raise have no substantive opposition that isn't based on religious ignorance, the 5th I'd wager strongly is a misrepresentation of Culver's actual position (akin to those who claim anti-war folks are for terrorism), and the final one is something practically every politician favors, whatever their rhetoric may be.

I'd be careful slinging the "stupid" label around if I were you.

Way to Go!
The letter by Iowans Citizens for Science (including Tara) is in today's Iowa City Press-Citizen. see
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/OPINION02/610290310/1018
Now if you can get it reprinted in the Des Moines Register, the CR Gazette, etc. (Iowa City is the home of the University of Iowa, so readers of the IC paper are not the ones in need of enlightenment.)

I SEE THAT PANDA IS THE BEST AND I WILL NEVER STOP USING IT