Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Presidential Politics on Uncommon Descent

Categories
Adminstrative
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Many of you are wondering why the UD adminstration decided to take an aggressive stand promoting the McCain/Palin presidential ticket.

There are two reasons.

The first is that both Senator McCain and Governor Palin are on record supporting “teach the controversy”. Senator Obama is on the record against it. Our goal is not to vanquish the Darwinian narrative by legal chicanery. That’s a tactic our opponents employ. Our goal is to let young people in public schools hear both sides of the argument in a religiously neutral manner and thus stop the early indoctrination into the Darwinian narrative by presenting it in a vacuum devoid of criticism or alternative hypotheses.

The second reason is that our opponents in the academic halls of science are working very hard to promote the candidate sympathetic with their views and denigrate those who are not. We’ve simply decided that in this case our best interest lies in engaging the Darwinian science lobby under the rules of engagement they themselves have established.

Go McCain Palin in 2008!

Comments
Presidential politics, the culture war, and the debate over intelligent are not isolated issues. The Obama/Biden ticket supports the culture of death and promotes Darwinism. The McCain/Palin ticket supports the sacredness of life and promotes intelligent design. Does anyone notice a pattern here?StephenB
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
BarryA #10, I wholeheartedly agree with you!bFast
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
For those interested. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/24/mccain-suspends-campaign-to-help-with-bailout/PannenbergOmega
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Let's be honest here folks. Senators Obama and Biden are probably not friends of ID. In fact, I think I even remember Biden defending "Science" during the Democratic primary television debates. I applaud and strongly support the pro McCain stance of this website.PannenbergOmega
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Beancan5000 writes: “It is like the issue of abortion: a sinful, foolish. immoral woman thinks it is just fine to dispose of her (inconvenient) child. You cure such thinking not by banning abortion (she is going to do it regardless) but by preaching to her Christ crucified.” Piffle. Let’s substitute a couple of words and see how the argument stands up. “It is like the issue of murder: a sinful, foolish. immoral man thinks it is just fine to kill his business partner who caught him embezzling from the company. You cure such thinking not by banning murder (he is going to do it regardless) but by preaching to him Christ crucified.” But Barry, everyone knows “you can’t legislate morality.” Double piffle. File that little canard with all the other things that “everyone knows” that are in fact not true. Not only can we legislate morality, but we can indeed legislate little else. Think of a criminal law that is not based on morality. Murder: Nope, thou shalt not kill Theft: Nope, thou shalt not steal Rape: Nope, do unto others as you would have them do unto you I could go on and on. The fact of the matter is that morality is primary; law is derivative. At its core law is nothing more than the expression of a society’s collective morality. But you know what I mean; you can’t make someone moral by passing a law. So? Here I will let Martin Luther King speak: “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.” Yes, we should preach Christ crucified. I am not denying that. But if I hear one more person say “you can’t legislate morality” I am not sure I will be able to control my gag reflex. So, for the sake of logic, for the sake of common sense, for the sake of the rug on my floor, enough with that trope.BarryA
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
For what it may count, I don't like very much when discussions here become too political, and certainly a strong committment of the blog in a presidential campaign is definitely political. I really respect the decisions of those who manage the blog, but I am convinced that ID can have a strong appeal on any kind of people, and so there is no reason to discourage those who have different political opinions, or religious opinions, or moral opinions, and so on. ID is a very strong scientific and cognitive advancement for human culture, and as such it cannot be monopolized by any political or religious or philosophical group. It is scientific truth, and it is for all who are open enough to understand it and embrace it. But this is a blog, and a blog is made of people, and so again I respect the freedom of choice of those who have the responsibility to manage it, even when I don't agree.gpuccio
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
I like the pro-Palin material and I think McCain is a far better candidate than Obama. I think Obama's positions should be exposed and that he should be shown for what he is. But I don't think that should be done here. These are obviously personal opinions, however. I am on the other side when it comes to other non-science issues being discussed here (Darwin and eugenics, for example).Charlie
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Not sure I support the idea of this blog taking a stance in the presidential campaign...
I second that. And beancan5000, I completely agree with you. This isn't my blog, so I can't tell Bill and DS what to do. Maybe this blog wants to court only Republicans for ID...that is their freedom. I just know that it excludes a lot of people, making the tent a lot smaller.Atom
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
The two reasons listed seem a bit contradictory. One the one hand there is a desire not to sink to the level of ID opponents. "Our goal is not to vanquish the Darwinian narrative by legal chicanery. That’s a tactic our opponents employ." On the other hand there is an intention to use the same tactics against ID opponents that they use against us. "our best interest lies in engaging the Darwinian science lobby under the rules of engagement they themselves have established" It almost seems as if you are trying to fight dirty and take the high road at the same time. I think you should stick to the high road, stick to the science, and try to stay as politically neutral as possible. As a ID supporter who has liberal leanings I find the increasing conservative, right-wing tone of this blog a bit disturbing. It is often argued that ID transcends religion. It is said that even some atheists support ID. My question is, does ID transcend politics? Can I vote for Obama and still support ID?acorbit
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Aligning this site with McCain only serves to exclude the curious minority who come here to find out what ID is all about I agree Rowan. This site should be about science, not politics. The majority of people vote for the candidate best able to express their worldview. The rest vote by appearances, charisma, or whimsy. Probably very few vote based upon what is read on a website. And who are these people running for office? They are all wealthy. Most of them are lawyers. The "common man" junk they spout is pure bovine fecal matter coated in powdered sugar against a backdrop of candy canes, bon-bons, and rainbows for maximum distraction and allure. This is why a church should never promote a particular political candidate: someone seeking God will feel excluded, will go away and look elsewhere else or give up. Or they'll think it's a shell game of shuffling and scamming for money, posturing for recognition which is what politicians do. If your mind is right in the first place you will know the correct side of the fence to be on concerning morality, economics, and so forth. It is like the issue of abortion: a sinful, foolish. immoral woman thinks it is just fine to dispose of her (inconvenient) child. You cure such thinking not by banning abortion (she is going to do it regardless) but by preaching to her Christ crucified. Should she respond, the spiritual darkness she walks in will be replaced by light. Her eyes will be opened by the Holy Spirit concerning right & wrong. She won't have to go to any website to figure out where to cast her vote.beancan5000
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
I see nothing wrong with promoting a candidate who will support a view that is an entire website's raison d'etre. I am certain that at the Darwinian sites, there are Obama ads as well, and as far as I know, this site is not listed as a 501-3c tax exempt entity, nor a religious entity, so the site is certainly free to promote who/whatever it wishes.pvoce
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
A good reason to vote McCain, but aren't you in danger of playing into the hands of those who say that ID is just another front of the Christian / Republican right? I would suspect that the majority of this site's readership were always going to be voting for McCain. Aligning this site with McCain only serves to exclude the curious minority who come here to find out what ID is all about, only to see political endorsements, and every other stereotype of the political right alive and well (anti-global warming etc).Rowan
September 24, 2008
September
09
Sep
24
24
2008
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
"The first is that both Senator McCain and Governor Palin are on record supporting “teach the controversy”. Senator Obama is on the record against it." "The second reason is that our opponents in the academic halls of science are working very hard to promote the candidate sympathetic with their views and denigrate those who are not." That's it???? What about the fact that Obama's healthcare plan is going to put us in the same scenario as what the former soviet union was in when it didn't include the word "former?" http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9335 What about his total complete denial for the surge's progress in Iraq? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12838.html What about his piss-poor absolute retardation for an idea that we should tax oil companies to "punish" them for what he calls "windfall profits," when he has never defined that term, and when oil companies only make a 10% profit margin, not to mention the fact that the government makes nearly 65 billion off of Exxon's oil in taxes; 20 billion more then the net profit of Exxon. Yes folks, if anyone makes a "windfall" then it's the government, and that "windfall" would increase if Obama set up his tax plan: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121780636275808495.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks What about the fact that he feels you can simply sprinkle another 19 billion dollars on a failed education system and expect the problems to go away? http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/on-obama-why-the-democratic-candidate-is-wrong-to-blindly-throw-money-into-schools/ The list goes on.....F2XL
September 23, 2008
September
09
Sep
23
23
2008
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply