Iowa/Vander Plaats update

Posted 26 October 2006 by Tara Smith

I mentioned the situation with Lieutenant Governor candidate Bob Vander Plaats and his support of intelligent design last week (posts here and here). A group of us have put together an editorial discussing Vander Plaats' position and why it matters to Iowa voters (letter and signatories can be found here at the Iowa Citizens for Science site). Yesterday, a columnist for the Des Moines register also wrote up the story, and our response to it: (Continued at Aetiology).

8 Comments

J-Dog · 26 October 2006

From the Des Moines Register story:

"But the academics are right to sound the alarm on this one. When a candidate for the state's second-ranking job advocates subverting the Constitution, it does not inspire faith."

Good ending!

lamuella · 26 October 2006

From the story:

"Intelligent design is the belief that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by God or some other unnamed agent."

It sounds like they've got it. They understand that it's a theistic trojan horse.

Sir_Toejam · 26 October 2006

this rang a few bells in my head:

Though the letter is billed as a community response that doesn't represent the university, a preponderance of signers have the letters Ph.D. beside their names.

so... people with PhD's aren't part of the community?

the pro from dover · 26 October 2006

I think this sounds better: Intelligent Design is the belief that hideous deadly infectious disease causing organisms are so complex that they must have been created by God.....so you better vote Republican.

Jason Spaceman · 27 October 2006

Intelligent Divide:

INTELLIGENT DIVIDE -- Republican candidate for governor Jim Nussle and his running mate, Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats, disagree on whether intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in Iowa's science classrooms. Earlier this month, according to the Ames Tribune, Vander Plaats told a group of Iowa State University students that the two theories should get equal classroom time. "I think from an educator's point of view, I want to give the theories that have creditability weight in the classroom," Vander Plaats said during a question and answer session with students, according to the Oct. 12 Tribune article. "There are some credible evidences on both sides, I think from an educator point of view as well as a full discourse to the students of 'Here's how people believe the world came to be.' "I don't see where that can hurt." But on Wednesday Nussle broke with his running mate. "While I believe and I have taught my children that we are all God's creations, I do not believe intelligent design should be taught in our public schools," Nussle said in a statement issued by his campaign.

Frank J · 27 October 2006

I'd love to hear Nussle say, "Bob, no one who knows what they are talking about uses the word 'evidences'."

Frank J · 27 October 2006

I'd love to hear Nussle say, "Bob, no one who knows what they are talking about uses the word 'evidences'."

Glen Davidson · 27 October 2006

From the story: "Intelligent design is the belief that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by God or some other unnamed agent." It sounds like they've got it. They understand that it's a theistic trojan horse.

I'm most impressed with the IDists' extreme open-mindedness at the present time. Rather than saying that their God created organisms, they say that it might be God, or some entity which is not God/Yahweh, but has the creative attributes (or non-attributes, depending on theology/philosophy) of God. To be sure, it is all only theology, yet they have come so far in their theology that one must be impressed. No longer the insistence that only God/Yahweh could create life and whose ways and means are inscrutable, they apparently are willing to accept that any other God might have exactly the same modus operandi, thus Zeus, Shiva, or Raven might be the god responsible for all life. They do slip somewhat, no doubt owing to their lack of knowledge of life and evolution. Hence some do say that aliens might be responsible, even though life is lacking in the rational design, novelty, and "borrowing" of good ideas that known intelligences utilize for creation. No, it has to be a god whose ways, means, and aims are unknown who might oddly ape the expectations of evolution. As long as they're willing to include "the Good", "the One", Jupiter, Saturn, and the other pagan gods in their "creation theory", good for them. Just so long as they keep it out of the science classes. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm