John McCain Supports Teaching Intelligent Design

_{February 8, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A commenter on my previous article asked whether John McCain supports intelligent design or not. After a quick google I can happily say the answer is yes.

McCain sounds like presidential hopeful
By C.J. Karamargin
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 08.24.2005

As the Gallup Poll noted, McCain has a generally consistent conservative voting record but forged a national reputation after a series of notable breaks with fellow Republicans.
On Tuesday, though, he sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools and Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who has come to personify the anti-war movement.
McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes “all points of view” should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.

I wonder what Barack Hussein Obama has to say about Intelligent Design. Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Comments

Larry Ben Stein wasn't taking roll. He was asking for an answer to a question from the class. Ferris Bueller was always able to answer questions so when no hands came up from a plea to "anyone" he asked Bueller specifically and because it was "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" there was no response from Bueller either. Surprised that no answer came even from Bueller led to some other kid explaining in comic detail how he knew Ferris was out sick that day. DaveScot_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

BTW, the Arizona Daily Star article is pretty old, too -- 08-24-05.Larry Fafarman_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

OOPS -- Sorry. That was last year.Larry Fafarman_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

Back on topic -- John McCain will be a keynote speaker for the Discovery Institute on Feb. 23.Larry Fafarman_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

DaveScot said,
I wonder what Barack Hussein Obama has to say about Intelligent Design. Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Will someone please explain to me the meaning of the expression "Bueller?"? The expression apparently comes from the movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," where a teacher -- played by Ben Stein -- was calling roll and said "Bueller?" and when there was no response, repeated "Bueller?" This happens all the time in calling rolls. I fail to see the significance here.Larry Fafarman_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Gods Ipod http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5528537.html Ron Paul doesn't share your optimism about Ron Paul's prospects of becoming the republican candidate for president.DaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

larrynormanfan: "Romney, on the other hand … ugh. I just don’t believe a thing he says. Romney’s pro-life stance, like his anti gay-marriage stance, is directly in proportion to his Presidential ambitions. It is, I am convinced, utterly hollow — which is why all the Republican candidates, whatever their other differences, were united in their contempt for Romney." You make a good point, and I did wonder about it. I guess I believed that he would carry the pro-life flag even if he is a late convert. I agree that Huckabee has compassion, but it always seems to manifest itself in the form of big government entitlement programs. From what I gather from your posts, that doesn't bother you quite as much as it does me. I am all for the government helping the "truly needy," but my perception is that Huckabee sets the bar way too low for that. It's a judgment call I'll grant you.StephenB_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I see your point. I like Huckabee -- who talks about the poor more than the other Republicans, and who has genuine compassion. I might vote for him if he were the nominee. Romney, on the other hand ... ugh. I just don't believe a thing he says. Romney's pro-life stance, like his anti gay-marriage stance, is directly in proportion to his Presidential ambitions. It is, I am convinced, utterly hollow -- which is why all the Republican candidates, whatever their other differences, were united in their contempt for Romney.larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

StephenB, if embryonic stem cell research is “non-negotiable” for Christians, as you said, are you planning to vote for McCain, who supports such research? And if you do, can I question your faith as you questioned mine? That's a fair question. As far as the primaries are concerned, I will only vote for a fully pro-life candidate, and McCain doesn't qualify for the reason you have allueded to. Now that Romney is out, I can now only vote for Huckabee or Paul, which means I will opt for Paul. If, in the general election, I must choose between McCain or Hillary/Obama, both of whom support partial birth abortion, then I might consider McCain as the lesser of two evils. The reason for that is not because embryonic stem cell research is any less evil than abortion, but because the aggressive supporter of abortion is likely to appoint someone of the same mindset to the Supreme Court. Although I care about foreign policy, capital punishment, war, poverty, and all other social and political issues, basic life issues trump them all, as I believe they must for a Christian.StephenB_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

jerry, I'll not continue this conversation, since your mind is clearly made up. Feel free to read the appropriate chapter in Michael Lind's book, where the argument is made at length with all the figures on display. I will say that your old girlfriend's father has an understanding of the Northern migration that can charitably be described as insane. I'd also note this sentence of your own description:
As a kid I lived in the Philadelphia area and witnessed the mass turnover of white families to black families in the city.
That is (cough cough) not the way I'd desscribe it.larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

larrynormanfan, There is so much nonsense in what you post that it boggles the mind. I will start with an anecdote about the Great Society. In the 1950's and early 1960's there was a mass movement of blacks from the South to the northern cities generally controlled by Democrat political machines. As a kid I lived in the Philadelphia area and witnessed the mass turnover of white families to black families in the city. Several years later I dated a girl whose father was part of the Philadelphia Democratic party machine. He explained why the Democrats invited this mass migration because they believed they would vote Democratic and keep them in power for a long time. But there was a problem, the blacks didn't have jobs and they had to get them money so they could live. But people balked at paying families with a husband in it and would not give the same assistance as was provided to single mothers. So the black community in these large northern cities learned quickly to get rid of the husband to get the payments and what you see today is the result of this process accelerated by the War on Poverty. This man was a good man and he thought what was happening was worthwhile even if many whites had to lose their homes in the city. The blacks would be treated better than in the South and Democratic policies were much better than the what the Republicans offered. But there was those unintended consequences. I am sure you can point to some success stories but I would hardly point to childless black women as your icon of success. I noticed you did not mention males. Where are they in this pattern? How has their lack of success affected the illegitimacy problem? Also the success of the black middle class women might be ascribed to conservative economic principles which has caused the GDP to rise dramatically in the last 25 years. Generally there are more jobs now than people to fill them which is why we have an illegal immigration problem. "black acceptance of unwed mothers (good!)" I have a hard time seeing what the comment "good" means. Any acceptance of unwed mothers is negative and may be a driving factor for their problems. A child of an unwed mother starts life with 2 strikes. But maybe this is liberal gobbledegook that washes away all the problems. Hey, unwed mothers are just fine. We have to rethink our cultural biases. Meanwhile the child suffers from this nonsense and liberals will not criticize because they need the votes and it seems from your comment that liberals approve of unwed mothers. Hey, it is diversity and by definition good. Who needs fathers. "What’s the likelihood that a black woman will have an illegitimate child,” and saying it’s not that different, " I defy you to show that. I am not denying your claim about many black women not having children today but comparing the present to a period when there were few black illegitimate children it has got to be nonsense. It is also meaningless to the black kid who is born which is the issue at hand and not that some black women are not having children. 18,000 illegitimate births a year to 120,000 a year to 400,000 a year and all this because some black women are not having kids. Talk about mind boggling reasoning. It is a complete non sequitur. But again what ever makes you feel better. So pull the lever for the liberal candidate of your choice and consign these kids to another generation of misery.jerry_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

jerry,one more time: on average, black women had many more children in 1940 than they do now. That skews the data. The relevant numbers have gone up, I agree, but not as much as the raw ratio (absent other data) suggests. We're looking at it differently: you're asking "what's the likelihood that a black child will be born to an unwed mother?," and saying that's skyrocketed. OK. I'm asking "What's the likelihood that a black woman will have an illegitimate child," and saying it's not that different, because while poor women (of all ethnicities) continue to have illegitimate children (sometimes more than one) at high rates, middle class black women are much less likely to have any children at all. More black women are middle class now -- thanks to the very social programs you disparage! -- and their rates of childbirth have plummeted. Meanwhiile, those who remain in poverty continue to have high rates of illegitimacy. Other confounding factors might include black acceptance of unwed mothers (good!), rates driven down by abortion in white communities (bad!), etc. You see it's not me who's not looking at the data. It's you who's going off on social programs based on a single ambiguous and complicated statistic. I'm asking for more data, while you're ready to blame the Great Society. But we haven't even begun to get into causes. Alas,the world is more complicated than your theories suggest. But "I'm only visiting this planet."larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

earth to larrynormanfan on whatever planet you are hiding, I find your responses similar to what we get with Darwinists who defend at all cost their beliefs despite the evidence and the logic against it. It is an interesting phenomena. Not that the two topics are related but that the response pattern seems to be the same. The actual numbers for black out of wedlock births do not lie and are the result of liberal policies that have destroyed much of the black community no matter how you express it. That cannot hide behind some nebulous fertility rate argument. I am using US government figures for births and for unmarried mother figures. For the latter, there does not seem to be as precise tabular data as for births. Some of the statistics for births go as far back as 1935 by race. The illegitimate birth rate by race for that far back probably exists some place but so far I have not found it on the internet that I have seen. What exists is that illegitimacy rates were very low in 1940. The percentage of illegitimate births were 3.8% and that rate is over 8 times higher today, around 32%. The 70% statistic for blacks has been fairly consistent for the last 10 years for unmarried childbirths. Back in 1935-1940 when the AFDC was inaugurated it was probably around 5-10 % given the 3.8% rate for total births. Yes the fertility rate has gone down amongst all groups. Maybe you heard of something called birth control and its unfortunate extreme called abortion championed by the liberal left that has affected the fertility rate. However, I fail to see what this means when we have absolute numbers of births. A big "So What." Like it means anything. I love your spin on this. Illegitimate children go from around 18,000-36,000 (about 5-10% of black births) in 1940 to 120,000 (about 20% of black births) in 1960 to 400,000 (70% of black births) in the last 10 years. And this is due to fertility rates changing. Give me a break. These are absolute numbers as well as percent of births. It's liberal programs that did this pure and simple and however you want to spin this, any child who does not live with his birth parents is at a disadvantage on the whole. Obviously there are exceptions but the evidence is there; children who live with their birth parents in general do better. Children who live with no father do a lot worse, especially boys. Liberal policies have screwed lots of children in our society and elsewhere in the world in its quest for a heaven on earth society and as a result they have created quite a hell wherever their policies are implemented. Spin it how you like so it will make you feel better but the kids in the black community who are the recipients of liberal policies are paying the price big time. The only thing the liberals care about is that the black community continues to vote for them. Liberals are a cynical bunch. Keep the faith.jerry_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB, if embryonic stem cell research is "non-negotiable" for Christians, as you said, are you planning to vote for McCain, who supports such research? And if you do, can I question your faith as you questioned mine? In case you forgot, here what you said to me:
Are you sure you are really a Christian?
Yes.larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

jerry, I submitted a response but it did not appear. I tried to submit it again and I got a message that it was a duplicate message. Oh well: I should have saved it first. In any event, the data are more complex than you suggest. Even the data you cite (from where?) show a decline in actual birth rates relative to population. The simple ratio of illegitimate to total births means next to nothing without the rate of births (say, per 1000 girls) in the population as a whole. Also, you'd want to look at the number of times individuals have more than one child. What would be best is to look at ratios and rates among poor teenagers in different races, where illegitimacy is concentrated. (Obviously the greater poverty in the African-American population is linked to illegitimacy -- but so is higher illegitimacy among poor whites and Hispanics.) I'll grant that illegitimacy has risen some, but not nearly as much as you suggest. Because -- again -- the simple illegitimate/total birth ratio means nothing on its own.larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

DaveScot And what are our chances of a brokered convention? Until Romney dropped out it was guaranteed, that's WHY he dropped out. They know a brokered convention will likely hand a win to Paul. Last night Paul won Washington by a landslide. Ignore what's in the media, it's not true. The campaign knows the number of our delegates, and we have by far the majority. We also came 2nd in another state. Huckabee is doing better, Paul is doing better, Romney's move is backfiring. Please go and vote for Ron Paul in your primary/caucus. We CAN do this... There is a clear strategy at work here designed to beat them at their own game.Gods iPod_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

DaveScot This also is the exact thinking they want you to have. A vote anyone but the person you believe is the best CHOICE, not the best CHANCES OF WINNING, is a wasted vote. All we need right now is a brokered convention. If we get a brokered convention, Ron Paul WILL win the nomination. Just watch and see. All this voting is mostly just straw polls. Ron Paul has the delegates in place, they will be at the convention, they will have to vote for the person they were first bound to, and then they are free to vote as they wish. Almost all of Romney's delegates will be voting Ron Paul first time too. Sorry, but this is no Ross Perot moment. This is a perfect storm!Gods iPod_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

jerry, you make my point for me:
The number of Black children has remained roughly the same since 1960, about 600,000 a year (low of 507,000 in 1974 and high of 684,000 in 1990). The number of illegitimate children has risen from about 120, 000 a year to 400,000 a year. That is your statistical artifact.
Assuming these numbers are correct, what do they show? The black population in 1960 was about 19 million. In 1990 it was about 30 million (see this link), for an increase of 58%. Yet at the same time the total number of black children (by your numbers) rose only 35%. Now, the total number of illegitimate children increases, yes, as does the ratio (percent born out of wedlock). But at the same time, the birth rate for black women goes down. For teenage black women, it goes down radically, from about 160 per 1000 women in 1950 to less than 50 per 1000 women in 1990 (this is from Charles Murray's The Underclass Revisited, in case you're wondering) To talk about this sensibly you have to look at the same population (in terms of age, poverty, etc.) and you have to look at the birth rate, not just the illegitimacy ratio. jerry, you're pretty smart. Didn't you ever learn how people use statistics to lie?larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Extenting my point on @45: If we live in a reasonably sane society, I would probahly not have to point out that gay marriage would also qualify as a "non-negotiable" for Christians.StephenB_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

larrynormanfan, All I can say is to repeat "what utter nonsense." 6% to 25% to 70% is an artifact? The number of Black children has remained roughly the same since 1960, about 600,000 a year (low of 507,000 in 1974 and high of 684,000 in 1990). The number of illegitimate children has risen from about 120, 000 a year to 400,000 a year. That is your statistical artifact. The same programs that have destroyed the Black communities are at work in the white communities and Hispanic communities as well as well as in Western Europe. If you are any example of liberal thinking then I completely understand why we have so many problems. The inability to face the facts and take responsibility for one's destructive behavior seems to be the chief characteristic of liberal thinking.jerry_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

-----larrynormanfan: "If I vote Democratic, StephenB thinks I can’t be a Christian. And he’s not the only one. Perhaps best not to vote at all." LF: I would not presume to say that one cannot be a legitimate Christian and be a democrat. All I am saying is that, for a Christian, there must be some non-negotiables. That would include abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, or any kind of life-science technology that depends on killing innocent life---basic right to life issues. That's a pretty short list. Sure, I agree with Jerry about the economic impact of liberal politics on the black family. But I wouldn't dare suggest that one cannot be a legitimate Christian and disagree with us. The same thing applies to Iraq war. There are standards for a "just war," to be sure, but it is often debatable whether a given war meets those standards. All these things are debatable within the Christian framework. What I am suggesting is that not all issues are on the same moral plane. Our job, it seems to me, is to recognize which issues cannot be compromised under any circumstances and then act on those convictions. I don't think my list of non-negotiables is arbitrary. It is consistent with "the natural moral law," a concept that has been all too often ignored.StephenB_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

jerry, here's the quick version. If middle class black women in general have far fewer babies, and more black women move into the middle class, then the illegitimacy rate will rise radically even if the rate in the (largely impoverished) subpopulation stays the same. Fact: black families are on the whole much smaller now than they were fifty years ago. So if the birth rate goes radically down, but the rate of out of wedlock births in the at-risk subpopulation stays the same, the "illegitimacy rate" when calculated as a percent of total births is an artifact of that decline.larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

larrynormanfan, What utter nonsense. Is the 70% figure wrong? Is the 6% figure wrong? Statistical artifact? Hide in your drivel. It seems to make you feel better but it solves no real world problems.jerry_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

jerry, you are repeating a canard about black illegitimacy that has been discredited. This "rise" in illegitimacy was first touted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and later by Charles Murray (of The Bell Curve infamy). But it is largely a statistical artifact due to a decline in birth rates among married upwardly mobile black women, not an increase among unmarried black women. If you look at the rate among poor teenagers (of whatever race), you'll find that it's been pretty steady over time. See Michael Lind's Up from Conservatism (1996).larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

larrynormanfan, you said "I’m a liberal on issues of poverty and economic policy. " In 1933 the illegitimacy rate in Black families was about 6 % and the "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" was inaugurated by liberals and by the 1960's illegitimacy rate among Blacks was in the high 20%. Then the Great Society program was introduced by liberals and by the late 1980's the rate was close to 70% where it essentially stands today. These liberal "do gooder" programs essentially destroyed much of the Black community and led to a sub culture that had no role for the adult Black man. So if you want to understand conservative positions it is in reaction to the extremely negative results of liberal programs not just in poor communities but everywhere they tread. And you will have to pardon the conservatives who get very annoyed at liberals who look down their noses at others who do not agree with idealistic positions that have produced one disaster after the other. You can sing your Larry Norman lyrics but are they reality or just a fantasy builder to back your destructive political views.jerry_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

FtK, sometimes I too consider not voting for president. If I vote Democratic, StephenB thinks I can't be a Christian. And he's not the only one. Perhaps best not to vote at all. As usual, Larry Norman says it better than me (from his 1973 song "The Great American Novel"):
the politicians all make speeches while the news men all take note and they exagerate the issues as they shove them down our throats is it really up to them whether this country sinks or floats well i wonder who would lead us if none of us would vote
larrynormanfan_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Gods iPod I actually like Ron Paul quite a lot and would vote for him if I thought he had a reasonable chance of winning. Libertarians don't win many elections so the usual result of voting for one is you've split the conservative vote and thus made it more likely a liberal candidate will win. Bill Clinton would never have been elected if Ross Perot hadn't been there as a "spoiler" siphoning off conservative votes from George H.W. Bush. You don't want something like that to happen again do you?DaveScot_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

FtK - this is EXACTLY what they wanted... Ron Paul has a 20 year voting record following the Constitution. All Congress voting records are public. Google it. I dare you to find one time where he has flip flopped or pandered to people. You won't find it. His record is impeccable. I think you can trust him. Oh, and may I should share MY interview with Ron Paul's wife, Carol, himself, and 2 of the 18 grandkids. Take a listen: http://godsipod.com/podcast_res/israel_anderson/audio/IA_080202.mp3Gods iPod_{February 9, 2008
February
02
Feb
9
09
2008
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

Aaron It's urban legend that the U.S. is falling behind in science literacy. It's based on science questionaires which include questions about evolution. A large percentage of Americans don't believe humans descended from non-human animals so they don't get the answer to the evolution questions "correct". Americans score as well or better than non-Americans in all other categories of science questions. Be that as it may, what difference does it make how much rocket science a plumber knows? If you care to actually find out what American science education produces then look to what America produces. Are our factories, aircraft, communications, military hardware, exploratory spacecraft, telescopes, medical technologies, or anything you care to name inferior to what comes out of some other nation? If not then why do you think there's a problem? But for the sake of argument let's run with your correlation equals causation fallacy. The U.S. has more disbelievers in Darwnian evolution than any other industrial nation. Yet we don't steal technological secrets from China, they steal ours. We put a man on the moon 40 years ago. No other country has even 40 years later. We have stealth aircraft, more Nobel prizes, we put the global positioning system up, our particle accelerators are as good as any others, and pretty much in general in any category of science and engineering the U.S. is producing more and better than any other country. So you see, if correlation equals causation, then disbelief in mud to man evolution makes for better scientists and engineers, not worse ones. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. DaveScot_{February 9, 2008
February
02
Feb
9
09
2008
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

I'm not voting for a Presidential candidate. I think they all suck, they say whatever they think you want to hear, and a person would have to be brain dead to trust *anyone* in the political arena or the media. Too cynical?? I think not...FtK_{February 9, 2008
February
02
Feb
9
09
2008
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply