Bush says intelligent design should be taught along side evolution..
Now, if Bush said we should teach alternative ideas like the sun orbits around the earth or that you can get pregnant from kissing or that blood letting is an efficient medical practice, there would be an outcry. But because radical Christians have their heads so far up their asses that they refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of evolution compared to absolutely zero evidence for intelligent design, somehow the President can be on the record saying something this fucking stupid. Unbelievable. Teaching alternative ideas is not a stength when those ideas are completely fucking looney.
lolife 
Hi adgrad. I’m not an expert on the international criminal court, and I mentioned it only in passing, so I’m a bit surprised you picked up on it. I just think it is funny how seldom we cooperate with international initiatives. Kyoto? No. ICC? No. The UN? Barely. I would prefer, as I talk about, that we FIX what is broken in these things rather than take our ball and go home. I do not understand that attitude. Can you explain it to me?
LikeLike
Just listened to your lastest podcast and was a bit surprised that you think conservatives are against international law simply because we are brats throwing a tantrum (I’m paraphrasing here.)
U.S. participation would violate our Constitution by subjecting Americans to trial in an international court for offenses otherwise within the judicial power of the United States, and without the guarantees of the Bill of Rights.
Second, our ratification of the Rome Treaty would constitute a profound surrender of American sovereignty, undercutting our right of self-government.
My desire to “get along” with other countries does not have a higher weight than your rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I suggest a trip to Washington D.C. for the inspiring realization that this is not a conservative issue, but an American issue.
Conservatives also want accountability for the tax dollars that are spent. The U.N. Oil for Food program was wasted taxpayer money since the U.S. covers 20% of the U.N. costs. When we have countries lining their pockets when we could be reducing the total contribution, we believe a shake-up is needed and that no further support should be given until the U.N. shows they have a mechanism to ensure the end of corruption.
This is not an issue about not being fair but that we simply have laws in place. If you don’t like the laws, get the needed support for your international laws.
I invite you to read some of the more famous international law cases and the rights those people had in comparrison to those you enjoy as a citizen. You remember the caning one kid was subjected to in Asia? How about the Australian women being held because they think she’s a drug dealer? The numerous kids thrown into Mexican jails under suspicion. And, let’s not forget about foreign entity mandatory sentences.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Michael, but I think it is important not to let Creationists frame the debate. When you accuse them of bringing of mixing spirtual beliefs and science, the debate turns into God vs. Evolution. I think it is important to emphasize that Evolution is just as compatible with a belief in God or Intelligent Designs as the notion that life all at once through divine intervention 5,000 years ago.
The real problem that many Creationists have with Evolution and other scientific theories is not that they are incompatible with God, but that they are incompatible with their literal reading of how Creation occurred in the Bible. At the same time, they realize their arguments won’t sell as well in the public forum if they are based solely on incompatibiities between Evolution and certain lines of text in Genesis. That as why they like to frame the debate as one of Intelligent Design or God vs. Evolution. I think its important not to let them do this.
LikeLike
I agree completely, Steve. I am pretty harsh on this issue because people are trying to introduce their spiritual beliefs into science. That is a no-no. The two are separate and, I believe, not in conflict. When Bush says stupid stuff like this he is giving weight to people who would replace science books with the Bible, in essence, and I can’t sit by and watch that happen.
LikeLike
The logical fallacy in the argument of most people who espouse intelligent design is that this concept and evolution are somehow mutually exclusive. The truth is that one has nothing to do with the other. It is entirely possible some creator implemented evolution by “design”. Science simply doesn’t address this question. Neither does it deny that an intelligent designer exists. Nothing in science, evolution included, is incompatile with the idea that man and the universe were developed by design.
LikeLike