The Bobcat Nation

God vs. Science
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly


God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

While speaking to some Texas reporters, President Bush opined that he believes public schools should expose students to both evolution and the so-called intelligent design belief concerning creation.

Intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution and that a higher power might be involved. Evolution, put forth by Charles Darwin (search), says that life organisms developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature.

Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it occurred, involved a higher power. What on earth is wrong with that?

It would be wrong to teach Genesis (search) in a science class. That's for a theology course. But it is equally wrong to ignore the fact that evolution is not a universal belief. Just state the facts, whether it be science or any other subject.

Now President Bush told the reporters that he favored an exposition of intelligent design so, "people can understand what the debate is about". It seems logical to me. But a Knight-Ridder reporter named Ron Hutchinson spun it this way.

"Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools."

Well, I didn't hear anything about equal standing for the president. Of course, the reporter spun the story that way to make it seem like Mr. Bush is a fanatic under the spell of religious zealots. That's what some in the press do all day long.

This isn't a complicated matter. Public schools have an obligation to present all subjects in perspective. Again, "Talking Points" isn't advocating Adam and Eve in the science lab. But if you're going to discuss the biological procedure of abortion, for example, you have a responsibility to tell students that half the country feels it's morally wrong. Right? The same thing with evolution. Of course it's accepted science. It should be taught as such. But there's no downside to mentioning that many people of faith believe a creator was involved in the process.

Are the public schools in this country champions of free discourse or not? The president is right.

And that's "The Memo."

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

I want to thank The St. Paul Pioneer Press in Minnesota for publishing an honest article about the problems over at Air America. Very few newspapers will print the truth about the situation. And reporter Beth Gillen did a great job.

We have posted the piece on billoreilly.com if you are interested, and I guarantee you will not find it ridiculous. All right?

Bill is failing to distinguish between science and philosophy (science doesn't involve "beliefs," for one, despite rhetoric from creationists to the contrary about evolution), and the reasons the scientific groups are opposed to giving equal treatment to "intelligent design" in a science classroom setting, and is trying to suggest that even discussing the idea is being protested. Which, of course, it is not.

Theoretical conversation after evolution is discussed in class one day.

Student: Mr. Smith, you've explained how species evolved over time along a seemingly random pattern with lots of failures and very few successes, but ultimately ending up with adaptations that suited their environment. Is it possible that a super intelligent being has been micromanaging this process the entire time?

Teacher: Yes, it's possible. And with that expansive lesson, you have each earned a PhD in the study of "Intelligent Design" theory.

O'Reilly also gets bonus points for level of hyperbole utilized in working the word "fascism" into his screed. Good stuff.

But his message is nothing new, and as usual, he's just doing his job.

I see Bush came out in favor of preaching intelligent design in public schools recently, even though his staff is now trying to backtrack away from the statement. That's just great -- something else for our European friends to make fun of us for. Sometimes I dread my weekly call with our European operations folks -- they have way too much fun at my expense.

Now that’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one…calling that “theory” “Intelligent Design”… and it isn’t even a real theory… like BAC said’ it’s more of a philosophy.

aw, this was to get Brad and el gato to spar, may be HC93 as well. i just enjoy reading the way they respond to each other. any Bill post is primarily designed to instigate debate with Brad.

-rebecca

The strange this is, I used to enjoy watching Bill back when he first started. Unfortunately, he soon figured out that the way to high ratings was to be shrill, arrogant, and often just ignoring or avoiding rationale thought and discussions. He knows his demographic, and he feeds them what they want to hear, regardless of probably knowing that he is ignoring the larger parts of the issue.

Like I said, he's just doing his job, and actually doing it well ... I just wish there weren't enough people lapping up the one-sided discussions to make his job necessary.

I grew up thinking that the Democrats were the party of emotional arguments and that the Republicans had the high ground because their arguments were based in learned thoughts (example: Republican fiscal responsiblity/economic theories as compared to my perceptions that Dems just wanted to spend tax money to feel good about helping people).

I still feel the same way about learned discourse as opposed to emotional arguments ... however, it appears that most of the emotional arguments are coming from the spin machines on the right these days, and the left is often taking the less emotionally-charged, but more reasoned positions.

I want both sides to fight their positions based on reasoned thought, and then I would never have anything to gripe about, and a lot of good stuff to think about instead.

briannell wrote:aw, this was to get Brad and el gato to spar, may be HC93 as well.

Aww, shucks...all you had to do was ask.

I think we covered the subject pretty well in the Intelligent Design thread (the thread can be surfed to via this link.)

briannell wrote:aw, this was to get Brad and el gato to spar, may be HC93 as well. i just enjoy reading the way they respond to each other. any Bill post is primarily designed to instigate debate with Brad.

-rebecca

It warms my heart to know that SOMEONE out there is at least getting a little entertainment out of our debates, brad, OOPS, BAC!

thanks HC93, didn't know about the link, i'll check it out.

actaually it's funny, i'm so tempted to invite Brad to dinner next time I'm in CA, we're only what 45 minutes east of SF? don't know what the traffic has been like lately and by BART it's a really quick trip, just to see him debate Marc (brother) over dinner. call it cheap amusement. we're damn good cooks in my family, and we haven't had a good round about since daddy has been back into CICU. would be good, no need to hold back since marc is a lawyer. bible thumper, former Pres. for future rep. lawyers out of UCLA, anti-gay rights, pushes sexism in that he doesn't feel women should work outside the home once they've become mothers, and that men who want that are simply too lazy to work hard and support them. plus he was former Army JAG, so that adds military aspects to any debate. see if it's a good one (and since daddy can't) we can hook him up at Oakhurst for golf with one of the Docs that's our neighbors.

good for BAC to up his circle of friends to include movers and shakers. besides aren't you a CPA? neighbor owns big CPA firm in Walnut Creek, nice guy, if you aren't offended by Mormons.

-rebecca

-side note- don't worry about BAC getting "beat up" too bad, with mom being from MT, she ALWAYS sticks up for those "local" boys.

Rebecca,

It doesn't really sound like there is a lot of room for debate with someone with the views that you described. It sounds like his views are set in stone and based on faith, and you just can't debate faith in some religion/philosophy. You either have it or you don't.

Absolutely no problem with Mormons -- they are almost always very pleasant people. I just don't generally have a lot in common with them socially.

That being said, drop me a line when you are back in the neighborhood.

Brad

Brad -

oh, Marc is good fun, and he'd be pleasant. just having some fun with you. But he is a lawyer, so yeah he's always up for a good debate.

what's your position on golf? I think that nice thoracic surgeon still lives down the street and is a Oakhurst member. daddy can't do much these days, just came back out of John Muir again, but most of the Dept. Heads at Muir live around us. what's this with Docs and golf? nice little town Clayton is, we even have a pumpkin farm for a neighbor, but most the area is Big, over priced homes, and of course Oakhurst Country Club.

anyway, mom always loves to feed a crowd, and I know Brian has a trip to Walnut Creek in Oct., he could always use the escape from the family, and Walnut Creek has a good microbrew place. don't worry, mom stocks up on good wines

anyway, we'll see, your girlfriend might be up to doubling, and grandparents are built in babysitters

-rebecca

Golf = good (although I'm not particulary good and way out of practice)
Microbrew places = very good

Let me know if you end up making plans to come down. I have a fairly full October (parents are in town for awhile, and there are some football game trips in there as well), but maybe we can get lucky on the timing.

cool.

black diamond in Walnut Creek is a place we've been told is great for food and microbrews. but, happy to come into the city, that's always fun to do, and haven't been childless in SF for years!

i'll let you know.

Another O'Reilly gem -- attacking liberal talk outlets for their viciousness and how they are full of "character assassins." How wonderfully ironic for him to be saying such things.

The truth is, he just hates Franken because Franken gets under his skin so easily by pointing out O'Reilly's many, many easy to spot credibility issues. The two have been fueding for a long time, so this is totally a gloating moment for Bill. Fox is definitely better financed than the shoestring startup Air America operation (which I am sure will finding funding and survive -- it's growing quite quickly).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164709,00.html

It would be nice if both the left (Air America) and the right (Bill and friends) would both drop the propoganda and nasty rhetoric and actually talk intelligently about issues and ideas, but we Americans like our news-tainment in easy to comprehend and shrill bite size pieces. After all, if there isn't a good team and a bad team, and instead are wide spectrums of ideas, how will we know if we're cheering for a winning team? Discussing the gray areas of truth isn't nearly as interesting as calling someone else names.

[quote="Bay Area Cat"] and the left is often taking the less emotionally-charged, but more reasoned positions.quote]

Do you mean reasoned positions like searching little children and grandparents at airprots rather that offend a man of Arabian background, even though no grandmother or small child has ever successfully high-jacked a plain, or maybe you were talking about reasoned emotionally neutral liberals like Ward Churchill

(Sorry BAC I know I'm a few posts behind but was gone all morning.)

Ponycat wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote: and the left is often taking the less emotionally-charged, but more reasoned positions.quote]

Do you mean reasoned positions like searching little children and grandparents at airprots rather that offend a man of Arabian background, even though no grandmother or small child has ever successfully high-jacked a plain, or maybe you were talking about reasoned emotionally neutral liberals like Ward Churchill

(Sorry BAC I know I'm a few posts behind but was gone all morning.)

I agree that the left isn't exempt from making emotional arguments that don't make sense to me as well. I guess my point is that it used to be exclusively (in my worldview of my youth) the Dems who were making those kinds of arguments. Now I see the the Reps doing it as well, and have actually overtaken the Dems in recent years.

I break with the ACLU position (since that seems to keep coming up whenever I post on a topic as supporting their mission has somehow tagged me as one who agrees with every position they take) on racial profiling, as it sounds like you do as well. I think it is a reasonable inconvenience for people to put up with when balanced against terrorist attacks. It's unfortunate that it should come to that, but in those rare situations where people are in a position to do a lot of damage in a nonessential function (blowing up a plane while flying), I think it's reasonable to use some degree of judgment when allocating scarce resources to assure safety.

Speaking of Churchill, did you catch it when Maher had him on face to face with one of the guys whose brothers died in the WTC? It was pretty intense in a really awkward way.

I think Churchhill is just a shameless self-promoter who knows how to get attention (by saying things that are indefensible). He has some good points under the surface, but he chooses to run with his sensational material and stick with it because it gets better media attention.

The dead guy's brother very diplomatically and respectfully (and logically as opposed to emotionally) schooled him on Maher's show. It was nice to see.

I missed that but would have really liked to have seen it. Has anyone ever actually found his so-called Native American Ancestry?

BTW I just brought up Churchill because he was the most wacko liberall I could think of. Overkill I guess on trying to get the debate fired up, I guess.