Monday, January 30, 2006

More on Kansas Split

It appears in Kansas at a recent meeting the more conservative group got their way on a party platform. The Wichita Eagle calls Andy Wollen the leader of the moderates, and states he is like former Senator Bob Dole. Senator Dole..a moderate!?

"This bunch is 100 percent extreme conservatives," said Andy Wollen, chairman of the Kansas Traditional Republican Majority, which says it represents the legacies of former President Dwight Eisenhower and former Sens. Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum
The Kansas House Speaker seems to an open guy andd had this to say-
At the urging of House Speaker Doug Mays, R-Topeka, party officials adopted a plank embracing the wide range of political views within the party.

33 Comments:

At 1/30/2006 12:47:00 PM, Blogger Amanda said...

I finally happened upon a pro-conservative site. Thank God!

 
At 1/30/2006 12:52:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

In Kansas, they teach intelligent design in schools.

'Nuff said.

 
At 1/30/2006 12:57:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

Other then the creationist part, what about the platform do you consider not standard mainstream Republican positions? This does not look like it's much different from the national Republican platform. It's pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, and pro-school choice.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:01:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Intelligent Design was something the two factions didnt disagree on..and neither do I.

I support it 100%, and get infuriated when liberal lefties try to push their views on me, without telling the entire story.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:04:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Well then, without mincing words, TC, you are an idiot.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:16:00 PM, Blogger Virginia Centrist said...

TC:

1. I support the teaeching intelligent design. School can be boring for some students, and a little comedy in the classrooms could liven things up and really get the blood flowing.

2. Bob Dole might have a reputation as a conservative, but he's an old school Republican - he was known as a big compromiser. Very reasonable guy.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:17:00 PM, Blogger Virginia Centrist said...

I also support spelling classes.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:25:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

According to Newt, Bob Dole was the tax collector for the welfare state.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:36:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I supoort spwelling claces two

 
At 1/30/2006 01:43:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

I'm glad to see the Group A conservative Republicans won on the platform in Kansas.

As to Mr. Dole, he was most definitely a Republican, but not a conservative in the Reagan mold. Check your history. The differences between these two is well chronicled in the history of Republican politics, and is also why Dole was doomed as a candidate in 1996.

Finally, if you think Intelligent Design is laughable, you only need to look to Evolution as it is taught in schools today as a "fact" of human origin to get more of a laugh. It is poor science at best and outright forced propaganda at worst.

Intelligent Design deserves to be taught as a theory in the schools as much as Evolution does. I love how you people preach diversity until something you disagree with comes along. The death of quality in our public schools is directly linked to the kind of closed-minded political correctness you are all helping to continue.

 
At 1/30/2006 01:52:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

We don't preach diversity in terms of teaching fact and teaching falshoods. Only fact belongs in our schools.

ID is a religious theory masquerading as science, and only religious zealots see it differently.

 
At 1/30/2006 02:10:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Willis,

You prove my point about the problems in our public schools. Evolution is a Scientific Theory, not a Fact. By your own statement then, you should be against Evolution being taught in schools.

I am not against teaching Evolution in schools as it is a valid THEORY. Even the most religious of private schools teach evolution as scientific theory. Intelligent Design uses different scientific approaches to its THEORY, but it is no less of a scientific theory.

Have you ever read "Inherit the Wind"? You people opposed to Intelligent Design have alot in common with Matthew Harrison Brady.

 
At 1/30/2006 02:16:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Intelligent Design is not testable. It is not a theory. It isn't even science. What it is, is religion masquerading as science.

You are correct, that evolution is a theory. So is gravity. So is magnetism. So is electricity. Evolution is as much fact as any of these other things. It is testable, and has been tested repeatedly, and has been observed over short time scales.

Show me ONE TIME where intelligent design was tested.

 
At 1/30/2006 02:17:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

Scientific theories are descriptions of the natural world. Intelligent Design involves metaphysical ideas, and as such, falls outside of the bounds of science.

 
At 1/30/2006 02:18:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

I'm agreeing with Willis. This may be a sign of the end of the world. :)

 
At 1/30/2006 03:02:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Willis,

While evolution within species is and has been tested, evolution between species and connected between humans and other lower forms of life as our origin is not proven by any test. It is therefore a theory at best. Electricity, magnetism, etc. are all completely tested and proven.

The theory that higher forms of life might exist in the universe is far from metaphysics. Otherwise we would have to say our own existence is a metaphysical question compared to lower forms of life. It is completely logical to theorize that there could be a higher form of life that could have had impact on our own development as a species.

 
At 1/30/2006 03:23:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

(link)

This guy is a believer, but he recognizes that the fossil record is too convincing to be denied.

Evolution has been confirmed by test after test, and human evolution is shown well by these two charts. What are those skulls from, if not from our evolutionary ancestors??

Rtwng, of course it is "completely logical to theorize that there could be a higher form of life", but THEORIZING IS NOT SCIENCE!!!

Science is testable. Intelligent Design is not testable, and therefore, is not science.

 
At 1/30/2006 03:30:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

In science, there is nothing "better" then a theory. Theories do not graduate to "fact". When the word "fact" is used in science, it refers to data. For instance if you have a bone, you can measure its length, weight it, and otherwise examine it, and so generate data, i. e. facts.

In science, a new idea is first a hypothesis, which is a provisional idea based limited observation and testing of data. If a hypothesis holds up against extensive testing, it becomes a theory. If a theory holds up against even more extensive testing, it is still a theory. A theory is a very well supported idea.

In non-scientific conversation, the words "theory" and "fact" have somewhat different meanings. I think this is a cause of some confusion. In scientific discussions we should stick to scientific definitions.

There are some theories that are so well supported that they are not seriously contested in the scientific community. For example, the theory that the Earth is round is not seriously contested. Darwinian evolution, including between species, including humans, is another theory that is not seriously contested. There is no competing theory. There used to be competing theories, like Lamarckian evolution, but they have fallen by the wayside with testing.

Saying "God did it" is not a testable hypothesis and so falls outside of the realm of science.

 
At 1/30/2006 04:42:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Gentlemen,

My point is that Evolution is far from being tested in that it is not repeatable. It is a theory based on fossil records. My only point is it is far from complete, and the way it is taught in schools today is at best poor science and at worst propeganda.

As to those who support evolution from a theological perspective, I have no problems with that. It is worth discussing, and I don't consider those who believe it to be heretics in any way.

We may have quibbling about what can be considered "science" because of ways you can test it. However, and I am not saying "intelligent design" by any means says "God did it", and there are methods to investigate this. To so narrowly define science to me suggests a clode-mindedness that is not beneficial to the education of our children.

 
At 1/30/2006 05:05:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Have you heard of the scientific method, rtwng??

You create a hypothesis, and then you test it.

ID could be classified as a hypothesis. To be science, however, it needs to be TESTED.

It cannot be tested, and as such, it is theological in nature and not scientific.

You have demonstrated here a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, and is not. It's unfortunate that you were not taught better when you were growing up. This is why we need to teach children today correctly, so they don't grow up to "think" like you.

 
At 1/30/2006 05:06:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Plus rtwng, answer my question: those skulls I showed you, what are they from, if not our evolutionary ancestors??

 
At 1/30/2006 05:11:00 PM, Anonymous Freddie said...

The fossil record is very extensive, but that is not the only evidence. There is also genetic evidence and physiological evidence.

With evolution, you can make predictions, and then repeatedly test them, by digging up fossil and other means.

In "Intelligent Design" if the investigator cannot come up with an natural explanation for a phenomena, he attributes it to a higher, unseen intelligence. In other words, he says "God did it."

Science is what it is. It is only the study of the natural world. I am not narrowly defining it, I have giving the standard definition. If you want to study the metaphysical world, go elsewhere. I would suggest reading St. Thomas Aquinas.

 
At 1/30/2006 06:28:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

I don't know what those skulls were Willis. Neither does anyone else with any specificity. I wasn't there when they died, were you? I recently heard on the news where we are closer in DNA to dogs than monkeys. Does that prove your ancestor was a Cocker Spaniel?

And why all this connection to "God did it"? I have not once said that is a reason for ID. For all I know evolution is correct and perhaps God did that too? I am not making that assumption.

Is statistical analysis not part of science? Is that not an evidence to show that the liklihood is higher that we were designed and not randomly achieved? I am not an expert on evolution or ID, but I can say this, to ban ID from discussions of human origin when we discuss evolution as a "fact" on that same subject in those classes is to me closed-minded. There is still too much uncertainty in the evidence for evoutionary transitional forms for me to give it that high a mark.

 
At 1/30/2006 06:50:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

rtwng: I will adresss your response point by point.

First, I highly doubt that we are closer in DNA to dogs than we are to chimpanzees. Get a source to back it up if you think that.

Second, we are talking about "God did it" because that is what ID is!! ID is the belief that the world is as it is because an intelligent being designed it that way.

Third, it is a pity that you don't understand ID or evolution enough to debate their merits (according to you), but somehow you do know that ID should be taught in schools.

How do you know this?? I'd like an explanation as to how, since you are a self-admitted novice as to both evolution and ID, that you "know" that ID should be taught in schools. That is completely ridiculous.

If you don't know enough about ID or evolution to debate their merits intelligently, then how can you possibly know whether they belong in science class??

You have tacitly admitted that intelligent design is not science, yet you continue to insist that it belongs in science class. Why??? If it is not science (because you have admitted that ID is not testable, and therefore, it is not science, by definition) then it does not belong in science class. Period.

Should we discuss god when students learn about Einstein's theory of relativity?? Should we discuss god when they learn about gravity?? Should we discuss god when they learn about black holes, comets, nebulas, and other areas of space that we don't fully understand yet??

In the future, I would suggest that if you don't fully understand something, to hold off on judging it.

 
At 1/30/2006 07:16:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Also rtwng, since you cannot explain how those fossilized skulls came to exist, let me tell you this.

Evolution offers an explanation for how those skulls came to exist. Intelligent Design does not.

Anyone with common sense can see a clear, gradual change over time from our earliest fossilized findings to our modern homo sapiens self.

 
At 1/30/2006 07:25:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Willis, Willis, Willis,

Do you hold a PHD in biology? Anthropology? Physics? If not, by your own conclusion, as a "novice" you had better not discuss these issues either. In fact I doubt even people who hold those degrees "fully understand" these concepts. To do so is to imply you know "everything". Quite an arrogant assumption.

I have not once attributed ID to "God" that would be a religious discussion. You have been doing this not I. Your attributing "intelligent beings" as "God" makes me wonder what your thought process is about "intelligence". Am I to suppose that you believe we are all Gods, just of differing degree on our measure of intelligence, or just that humankind in fact is not "intelligent" and only God is.

I was not implying that the report on DNA links to Dogs and Monkeys (not Chimpanzees, I hope of course you don't think they are the same) was true. I was only using it as an anecdotal reference that if true might lead you to that conclusion were you to agree with earlier statements about DNA similarities being evidence for evolution.

Finally, I have never said that I was an expert nor a novice on any of these topics. However, I know enough about both to make an informed decision that ID as "pure" science or not should not be excluded in conversations in science class about the origins of the universe or humankind. There are many thoughtful scientists on both sides of the issue and in the interest of a well-rounded conversation, it should be included. As it is now, kids are taught we randomly evolved from lower forms of life, and this is taught as fact. I disagree as there are plenty of holes in the evolutionary chain that cry against this. And I agree, Evolution is a theory in the formal sense, but in practicality in our schools it is not stressed that this is not a known fact.

 
At 1/30/2006 07:54:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Just answer this:

How is ID testable??

If you cannot answer that question, then ID does not belong in science class, because it is not science.

 
At 1/30/2006 08:15:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Also rtwng:

350 scientists have gone on record supporting intelligent design.

Over 1,000,000 scientists have gone on record condemning it.

There aren't "many thoughtful scientists on both sides of the issue", because there aren't both sides. There is no alternative to evolution; ID is a religious belief.

 
At 1/30/2006 09:24:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Willis,

This will be my last post on this thread.

If there are 350, that is alot of people. Obviously there is an argument here that cannot be just brushed away as the thoughts of a single loon.

At one point in time the "scientists" of the day almost unananimously thought the earth was flat. Today almost no one does. ID if given the opportunity to be investigated, might prove true.

Testing: Have you checked with the 350 scientists you mention? I bet they believe it is testable. If nothing else, I believe the statistical evidence is a test to show the liklihood of random chance resulting in our existence vs. an intelligent design. In fact that intelligence if it exists might even have used the evolutionary process. I do not know. I admit, this is just speculation on my part, but it is a possibility. In the end I am not arguing for the removal of evolution from the schools, only a more truthful depiction of evolution as it relates to the origin of us all. That no one knows the real answer, and the admission that there are other possible reasons, including ID.

 
At 1/30/2006 10:28:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Your argument, that a statistical test to show that our evolving is unlikely, has been made by ID proponents. Fact is, though, that that is a test that shows that our evolution might have been unlikely; it is not a test that can prove or disprove intelligent design.

Also, I cannot check with those 350 scientists, since NOT ONE scientific paper in support of intelligent design has ever been published in any peer reviewed journal, anywhere in the world.

You will find, if you do the research like I have, that every argument that ID proponents give is, in fact, an argument against the likelihood of evolution. They cannot offer scientific arguments in favor of intelligent design because, as I've stated many times, INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT TESTABLE.

In the end, intelligent design is a political movement, and not a scientific one.

We can be open with children and tell them that we don't know everything, without pushing religious material camouflaged as science into science classes.

 
At 1/30/2006 11:37:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

And Evolution as the origin of species is not a "political movement"? Please, it is more than political. It is religious in itself.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0510180279oct18,1,540345.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Sounded pretty reasonable to me, even if it doesn't fit your narrow terms. I don't see the harm in discussing it in schools as a theory. That's it...

 
At 1/31/2006 12:23:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

I can't read that link, it goes off the page.

How is evolution a political movement or a religion?? Evolution is a scientific theory, it can't be equated with religious beliefs, which have no evidence to back them up. You seem to be confused.

Again, rtwng, for ID to even be a theory, it needs to be testable.

I've asked you numerous times to explain to me how ID is testable, and each time you have failed to answer the question. If you have any brains at all, you should understand that for something to be in the scientific realm, it needs to be testable, to confirm or deny its validity.

But you don't seem to care about things like that. You are pushing a political and religious agenda, and aren't actually interested in teaching kids actual science.

Politics before children?? You desperately need to re-examine your priorities.

 
At 3/02/2006 08:40:00 PM, Anonymous KS Cons. said...

Perhaps you should know, we do not teach ID in schools in KS. The State School Board recently passed their standards which allowed for the questioning of evolution. In otherwords, giving teachers the jurisdiction over their own curriculum to inject popular criticism where desired.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home