Candidates for Ohio Governor speak about religion

[Bill McBlueState]

The Columbus Dispatch interviewed the major candidates for governor of Ohio about their religion and the role of faith in public policy. I personally think the only good government is a secular government, but this piece presents the opinions of a politically liberal Christian and a politically conservative Christian in a handy chart form. If we're going to have Christianity in our politics, I'd prefer Strickland's brand to Blackwell's.

http://www.ohioelects.com/governor/?story=dispatch/2006/07/23/20060723-B1-00.html

[trotsky]

1. Blackwell's column just makes me want to go

:puke:

This in particular:
I believe in intelligent (sic) design, and I believe that it should be taught in public schools as an elective.

Excuse me, but WTF is there to "teach" about "intelligent" design? The very nature of the "theory" is to quash all discussion. "Goddidit, end of story." Just how do you stretch that out into its own class???

[Bill McBlueState]

2. I've got a good lab activity for intelligent design

The assignment would look something like this:

"Visit a local nursing home. Interview three of the residents about their physical condition. After the interviews, make a list of ten things that go wrong with the human body as it ages. Then, explain what the intelligent designer might have been thinking when he fouled things up so badly. Bonus points for explaining why the designer wasted his time giving everyone an appendix."

[sgxnk]

4. intelligent design is anti-science DAMNIT

intelligent design is (barely) metaphysics

it most certainly is NOT science.

it is not even "anti-science" so much as NOT science

the idea that ID is any sort of "scientific alternative" to evolution is LAUGHABLE

evolution is CONSENSUS SCIENCE. it is a scientific theory, and it is the consensus theory. that does NOT mean it is NECESSARILY correct, but *i* believe it is (that's my opinion). but it is the best theory we have, it is the consensus view, and it is SCIENCE

ID is not the "other side": of the debate.

the "other side" would be a competing scientific theory. ID is *not* a scientific theory. it is not an alternate theory, since it is not a THEORY in the scientific sense. it is hogwash, at least as far as the science goes

20 years from now, the scientific method may develop a completely radical new paradigm. paradigm shifts DO happen in science. see: copernican revolution. but that shift will be based on SCIENTIFIC THEORY not "Intelligent Design"

people who say (see: kansas) that we need to teach 'both sides of the debate" are deluding themselves and creating an incredible disservice to the students.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I'd take Strickland's views any day. Blackwell is being 'coy' and not

answering the questions in the same way he does when speaking directly to RW audiences.

[sutz12]

5. "the non-believer has a right to be wrong"

Now isn't that sweet?