An interesting exchange between moderator Wolf Blitzer and Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, from a recent debate.
BLITZER: Let's give you a chance to respond to some of the things she said because in a television appearance back in 1998 on Bill Maher's show you said evolution is a myth. Do you believe evolution is a myth?
O'DONNELL: I believe that the local -- I was talking about what a local school taught and that should be taught -- that should be decided on the local community. But please let me respond to what he just said.
BLITZER: We'll let you respond but answer the question. Do you believe evolution is a myth?
O'DONNELL: Local schools should make that decision. I made that remark based on --
BLITZER: What do you believe?
O'DONNELL: What I believe is irrelevant.
BLITZER: Why is it irrelevant?
O'DONNELL: Because what I would support ...
BLITZER: Voters want to know.
O'DONNELL: What I will support in Washington, D.C. is the ability for the local school system to decide what is taught in their classrooms and what I was talking about on that show was a classroom that was not allowed to teach creationism as an equal theory as evolution. That is against their constitutional rights and that is an overreaching arm of the government.
It's interesting that she felt she had to back off from her anti-evolution views. Of course, that's in Delaware, but I'll take it!
- Log in to post comments
Yeah, that Wolf Blitzer is a scary dude. Better back off. You don't want to try and bullshit him :)
"That is against their constitutional rights" -separation of church and state, remember that part of the constitution?
"not allowed to teach creationism as an equal theory as evolution"
It was a science class. The thing about science is, not all theories are created equal. Once something is disproved, like aether, or the need for Zeus to intervene to create animals and plants, it goes out the window.
--- --- ---
(OT) -Jason, remind me to send you the surreal novel "Towing Jehowah". There are apparently still some christians out there who believe in God having a corporeal, humanoid body, and the book takes this belief to its logical conclusion.
I would say she didn't back off. She refused to admit it, that's all. In fact, she went further.
She said she believes that the constitution permits creationism to be taught in the science classes of public schools. It seems to me that that beleif is a more of a disqualification for office than her personal beleif that creationism is true.
The really scary thing here is that she thinks that the results of scientific investigation differ depending upon which locality you find yourself.
Clearly her theory is that Earth may be flat in DC and an oblate spheroid in Nebraska; that gravity may be dramatically different or even non-existent in the Pacific as compared with the Atlantic, that Earth orbits the sun in the Ukraine, but the sun orbits Earth in Israel, and so on....
Spot on. She didn't back off - she skipped and avoided answering the question, but hinted at an ominous idea: that local school boards should (in her opinion) be able to define what does and what does not qualify as science content worthy of being taught in the classroom.
She's not alone in this, but the point needs to be stressed whenever a candidate pops it out. These people could not care less about quality education, only about getting their view back into the classroom.
In her own words: "What I believe is irrelevant."
She dodged the question. Blitzer should have followed up by asking, "So you don't think there are any national or universal standards for truth which we should use?"
She obviously couldn't answer "I don't", so she would either be speechless, or, if clever, would say something like, "Until people can agree, the best compromise is to decide that at the local level." Then, Blitzer could go for the kill with: "Should the standards in a science classroom be based on science?".
Of course, this last question would get Blitzer's Neutral Journalist license revoked. The god Thoth weighed dead souls against the Feather of Truth, but today's journalists must balance truth against the Feather of Neutrality.
I agree with the other comments. Avoiding the question isn't equivalent to backing off. Just from that brief quote, the take-away is that she's a deluded creationist who is anti-science when it comes to evolution.
Didnt the interview confirm that she doesnt believe in evolution and hence the avoiding of the question?
Perhaps “back off&rdquo was the wrong choice of words. I meant simply that she did not feel she could just come right out and say that she believed evolution was a myth. She didn't give a straight answer to the question, but instead transitioned into a point about local control for education.
Well I do believe that things were better when local communities were in control of local communities rather than the feds. It works out better this way. Of course liberals dislike the idea becuase they cannot indoctrinate their radical idelas into children this way. It's a good thing they aren't allowed to teach Sunday School.
What they teach our children about gayism, evolution, global warming (scam) is all ok. When Sunday morning comes and thos children come into the classroom, we can discuss what they learned at school the past week and why it is wrong. We'll just un-indoctrinate liberalism through Sunday School and other church programs. Thank God for home school.
Can I be the first to call "Poe" on Created Person #10? I mean, really, "gayism."
"...liberals dislike the idea [of local communities controlling what is taught in science classes] becuase [sic] they cannot indoctrinate their radical idelas into children this way."
No, they dislike the idea because they don't want the members of ignorant communities to be able to shackle that ignorance onto innocent children by denying them full exposure to mainstream science unblemished by long discredited ideas. No radical ideas necessary.
The disturbing idea about O'Donnell and her ilk is that they do not want a free exchange of ideas; instead, the want to power to shove their particular dogma down everyone's throat.
The local school board idea worked out very well in Texas where a school board elected to teach from a text that advances right wing lunacy about American history. The text left out Thomas Jefferson completely, and replaced that part of history with text that teaches English Calvanism.
Few seem to want to say that O'Donnell and the rest do not want freedom for American students; they want propaganda to justify a rewrite of history that distorts its lessons. O'Donnell's statement about liberals is projection, not a factual account of improper influence.
her "evolution is a myth" comment is rather strange, she claims to be a devout Catholic, the Catholic Church has no problems with evolution (evolution is taught in Catholic Universities), she is wierd!
As noted above(richCares no 14), the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution. So, Ms O'Donnell is at one with most of the religious folk in the USA in that she actually knows very little about her own faith.
Why anyone would expect her to know anything about anything escapes me. I read the transcript of the debate, and she does not give the impression of someone who understands the issues.
She studiously avoided taking a firm position on anything where there is evidence. She sprouts generalities, which are mostly fact-free claptrap. Her views on evolution are laughable. And if her ideas(?) about local school boards being able to legislate about what constitutes science were put into effect, the decline of the US educational system would accelerate sharply.
The good news is that she is trailing the Democrat candidate - Mr Coons - by double digits. Ultimately, it is in the hands of the voters of Delaware.
The Catholic Church as a very big problem in the fact of evolution, whether they recognize it or not. Catholic dogma is founded on original sin. The faithful must believe that there were two actual persons, man and woman, who sinned against god, and who are the actual ancesters of all of mankind. In other words, Catholics must believe in a human genetic bottleneck of two.
Actually the Catholic church has some quite serious issues with evolution, specifically regarding the evolution of humans.
O'DONNELL: What I will support in Washington, D.C. is the ability for the local school system to decide what is taught in their classrooms and what I was talking about on that show was a classroom that was not allowed to teach creationism as an equal theory as evolution. That is against their constitutional rights and that is an overreaching arm of the government.
And the next line wasn't this?
BLITZER: You're aware, of course, that five years ago when a local school board in Dover, Pennsylvania required that creationism -- oops, I mean intelligent design -- be taught as an alternative theory to evolution, local parents sued the school district for violating THEIR constitutional rights? And you know the parents won? And all the creationist school board members got thrown out of office in the next election?
"Well I do believe that things were better when local communities were in control of local communities rather than the feds. It works out better this way."
It was certainly easier to lynch folks back then, wasn't it? Ah, the good old days, when we (y'know, real people) could tell colored folks to get on the back of the bus and not worry about the Feds coming in.
"Of course liberals dislike the idea becuase they cannot indoctrinate their radical idelas into children this way. It's a good thing they aren't allowed to teach Sunday School."
You do realize that roughly half of Christians in the US consider themselves liberal? By 'radical ideals' I suppose you mean morality based on how we treat other people, rather than an arbitrary list of sexual obsessions and abuse passed on from one dysfunctional generation to the next.
("Thank you Daddy, for not hitting me again! I don't know what I did, but I'm sure I deserved it!")
("Thank you God, for not torturing me for eternity! I don't know what I did, but I'm sure I deserved it!")
"What they teach our children about gayism, evolution, global warming (scam) is all ok."
I have no idea what you mean by 'gayism'. The radical notion that gays are human, perhaps?
Evolutionary science and mainstream climatology are science: testable models that work, which explain mountains of verifiable evidence from multiple fields of science. Reality. I remember a song from childhood: "This world is not my home, I'm just a passin' thru; my treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue" If you were sane you would realize how profoundly *sad this is.
"When Sunday morning comes and thos children come into the classroom, we can discuss what they learned at school the past week and why it is wrong. We'll just un-indoctrinate liberalism through Sunday School and other church programs."
A lot of them are killing time until their sentence is up. I left an insular church-based community like yours 45 years ago and I've been happier, healthier, and free. I'd sleep late on Sunday mornings but I have too much to do.
"Thank God for home school."
It gives me little pleasure to know that your kids and grandkids may see the end of the world - but there won't be any Jesus to come pick them up. They, like my grandkids, are innocent of your crimes against knowledge and civilization. But they will suffer the consequences.
Sigh. I still talk like an apocolyptic-believin' back woods hick, don't I?
Excuse me if this is not the "correct" blog but am I the only person watching the debate who heard candidate O'Donnell make the comment that the United Sates was fighting Russia in the 70's and 80's. I believe there is ample evidence to support claims that the CIA was aiding Osama Bin Laden but as far I I know, we were never at war with Russia.
So, just how big or small is a local community? If you don't like the one you are in, do you start your own? I wonder if these people really understand where their thinking would take us as a society.
Better for whom? It's all good if you're a part of the majority. Not so good if you're not. See: tyranny of the majority.
Don't try to pretend that you don't like indoctrination; you just don't like it when others do it. Speaking of which...
The requirement for Sunday School teaching is political affiliation? You've gotta be a Poe.
We've heard that 'local control' dodge before. I wish journalists would get smart and follow it up with the obvious question: do you think local government should be allowed to choose to teach creationism?
as far I I know, we were never at war with Russia
Just guessing but probably a reference to the cold war?
Tom "So, just how big or small is a local community? If you don't like the one you are in, do you start your own? I wonder if these people really understand where their thinking would take us as a society."
Naw. Just two communities: The Christian Right and, outside the wall, Everybody Else. The only amusing sight in that potential future will be watching the various brands of American Christianity teaming up to purge True America⢠of heresy ("First, they came for the Mormonsâ¦"), which I assume will start the first time a Protestant's son comes home from his [local schoolboard] run school and says "Daddy, today we got to pray to the Saints and to Mary! And, also, the Apochryphal books are great! Yay! Te Ãgitur, clementÃssime Pater, per Jesum Christum FÃlium tuum Dóminum nostrum súpplices rogámus ac pétimus uti accépta hábeas, et benedÃcas..."
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!
the WORLD TRADE CENTER PROPHECY - THE DANCE OF DEATH
youtube.com/watch?v=X0Hez25fFrg
the ungrateful bastards full of hubris...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
a bullet for your head, traitor
And finally, the *only* man in Minnesota who says there is no God has suddenly become an arbiter on mental health...
unfacts.org/factsforum/viewtopic.php?t=4080
COME SEE A PHOTO OF MABUS AND AN EXPLANATION OF IT!
Am I the only(No 20), Ms O'Donnell, in the debate, in her own inimitable way, said "Well, if you remember, when we were fighting the Soviets over there in Afghanistan in the '80s and '90s, we did not finish the job". I think she means that happy time when the USA, using Saudi money, nominally "black" weapons and the more religiously fundamental parts of the Mujahadin, was fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan.
And oh boy, was that not one fine example of a boomerang policy?
Hello bernard olarak I have been working fine. Great content of your posted article. Waiting for a hope of new work.
And yet her anti-reality views are still as uncompromised as ever.
Seriously -- "I think it's a violation of constitutional rights not to allow public schools to teach a particular religion to students?" Yikes.
Really, though, all of this is simply a "wedge" strategy on the part of O'Donnell to accomplish her real goal -- teaching of witchcraft in the public schools.
They're anarchists.
Not libertarians.
Not "tea partiers" (whatever that means).
Anarchists.
They're against government on principle.
Anarchists.
Except when they want to be able to tell you what to do...like regulate your sexual activities and criminalize your sexual preferences.
An anarchistic nanny state. That's what they want.
O'Donnell citing the First Amendment, interesting, since she doesnt literally know the first thing about it, She doesnt even know what it says about the making laws wrt respect and establishment of religion:
http://videosift.com/video/Christine-O-Donnell-is-Unaware-of-the-1st-Am…
God's story
God created 432 trillion humans and 60 trillion stars (or star-like heavenly bodies) over 40 million billion years ago. The goal of the creation was to achieve higher harmony.
To achieve Trinity (as mentioned by Jesus), God and all other gods (except eleven gods mentioned below) were born into this Earth for many times. They did not go about telling people they were gods. Many times they themselves did not know they were gods on Earth.
God spent trillions of years for achieving Trinity. About 30 years ago, Trinity was achieved. So, the Heaven has been full of joy. With Trinity, God's punishments are much swifter than before. Another benefit of Trinity is that human sins can be seen by sinners and others in public places rather than hidden from the public. Before Trinity, sins were often covered up in public places.
People cannot distinguish God (the Creator of Heaven and this physical universe) from the Father of the Creator. In the past when I said God , I sometimes actually meant the Father of God, for the latter was never mentioned in history. Both God and His Father are great. The Father of God has eleven companions who has never been born to any physical world. They are never mentioned in history.
Humans do not know the Father of God when we are awake. But when are asleep, we go to Heaven every night and we know Him. We simply forget what we know in our sleep, just as we forget our lives in Heaven (before we were born). Trust me, every devil knows who is the Father of God.
When we go to sleep every night, we go to Heaven to drink energy
provided by God. That's the normal condition, but some people go to their friends in hell and drink the energy of God in hell. All humans, no matter in hell or on heaven or in this universe, need the energy of God every so often. This point is obvious to every person in hell or on Heaven. But many people there, as on Earth, are still ungrateful to God most of the time.
The souls of other animals do not need to go back to Heaven to drink God's energy. That's why other animals are more alert in sleep than humans in sleep. That's why humans die within 7 to 8 days if they do not go back to Heaven/Hell to drink God's energy in 7 or 8 days. That's why we feel energetic in the morning even though we may not yet have breakfast in the morning.
Um...what?
In other news, Jason you may have to revise your "I'll take it!" stance as it appears that in the Widener law school debate, she pretty explicitly defends christian exceptionalism (i.e. 'the constitution does not include any separation of church and state') and the right to teach creationism.
ANSWER THE QUESTION
Who hasn't refrained from expressing a curiosity for fear of being seen as stupid, ignorant or uninformed and what did we hear next from a teacher, parent or other adult? There is no such thing as a stupid question. The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked.
OK so the question has been asked.
Now it's up to us rational adults to take the matter seriously, as a teacher would have to in a class room.
If a grade school student posed an unusual question would mockery and laughter be a sufficient response? No,it would not.No matter how comical a question may seem, in the classroom it is not appropriate for a teacher to snicker and mock the curious student. Instead the teacher is called to look beyond the innocence that often accompanies the so called "stupid question" and get into the mind of the asker.
A good teacher would ask himself, What was the student getting at? What is the root of her curiosity? So as both teachers of the world and students of life, let's go by the premise that we've all been taught, that there are no stupid questions and answer the question. "If evolution exists then why don't we see "evolving" creatures all around us in the present day."
Well? Where are they? Where are the half monkey half man beings? And for that matter what about evolving sloths, kangaroos and ducks, where are their sentient counterparts? We are assuming that evolution is a natural and spontaneous process by which one non sentient creature over time becomes a completely different and sentient version of itself. OK we'll go with that, we'll take it as fact, so how did it happen? When that first prehistoric monkey or group of monkeys began to show signs of change. What was it that caused the process to happen among them. What was the instigator. And why was the process specific to the particular primate and not marsupials or reptiles, why didn't the evolution from non sentient into sentient beings occur among other orders of life and why would it not continue throughout time.Where did the instigator or causal factor of evolution go? Why did the process of evolution cease abruptly. Why do we not see examples of this naturally occurring spontaneous process happening around us today.
Some have answered by saying that evolution is a slow process, one that takes place gradually over so many years that it is undetectable.So, does that mean that evolution is still occurring, all the more reason for us to be able to see half man half ape like creatures in various stages of evolution.Since we do not,does that imply that evolution is a completed process.Would we characterize evolution as a natural scientific phenomenon or occurrence that took place at one time but does not exist any longer?
Like evolution, erosion is a natural occurrence that changes the formation of matter from one configuration to another,over time. Dry land becomes a roaring river a flat plane becomes a deep canyon,a wide beach becomes a steep cliff and we see ongoing examples of this process in varying stages all around us in the present day every where we turn. We see trickling streams and raging rivers both old and new in various transitional stages.
Adaptation is another natural process involving change.We see it when one group of animals of one species migrates in search of food or a better climate and over time changes in ways that make the group better suited to the new environment. Like erosion we see examples of adaptation repeatedly in nature. Why then do we no longer see ongoing examples of the evolutionary process and why was that process limited in time and species? Why did it happen one day that a monkey began to change, not a duck or a cow or a lemur. why did that monkey continue to evolve in body and mind to become a thinking, reasoning, rationalizing creature, capable of feeling, building, creating and destroying and why did it stop? Why was evolution an isolated and finite process when other natural processes of change are not. Where did it come from and why did it end? I'm not trying to be smug, argumentative or sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious, so will some one please answer the question.
Is Skepticism a cult? It appears to be so. Will it evolve into an intelligent life form? I think not. Closed circuts usualy stagnate and devolve into a sum that is lesser than its parts. Not that the parts were much to begin with. Usually scared puppies that need to huddle together and hurl insults at the world so they can feel good about themselves. The problem is, the puppies do not grow into dogs. they remain puppies. Just as scared and as frightened as when they 1st banned together. They only let other scarred little puppies in. Confident and strong puppies are not allowed in because then the scarred little puppies will see themselves how they really are. Scarred little puppies. Keep the strong ones out and then make up lies about them so they do not seem so strong anymore. That's how scarred little puppies fool themselves into thinking they are strong too. Yes, Skepticism and has all the ingredients required to form a cult. Truth be told.
So as both teachers of the world and students of life, let's go by the premise that we've all been taught, that there are no stupid questions and answer the question. "If evolution exists then why don't we see "evolving" creatures all around us in the present day."
Well? Where are they? Where are the half monkey half man beings?
First answer to your question: individuals don't evolve. Individuals have children that are slightly different from them. Not all of these children have the same number of kids. So the total population changes over time based on which variations of us survive to have the most kids. A more technical way of putting this is 'change in allele frequency in a population.' That's evolution.
Second answer to your question: yours is an incredibly misinformed view of evolution. Whomever or whatever sources taught you to expect half-monkey beings is incredibly ignorant about biology. Don't trust them, they are leading you astray.
That is not what "we" assume. I can only commend you for having the sense to post that nonsense anonymously, thus avoiding justified ridicule.
What a model of intelligence and literacy. Perhaps if you would put it in all upper case, it would be given the reception it deserves.
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!
let them eat their own sh*t!
the WORLD TRADE CENTER PROPHECY - THE DANCE OF DEATH
youtube.com/watch?v=X0Hez25fFrg
the ungrateful bastards full of hubris...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
a bullet for your head, traitor
And finally, the *only* man in Minnesota who says there is no God has suddenly become an arbiter on mental health...
unfacts.org/factsforum/viewtopic.php?t=4080
COME SEE A PHOTO OF MABUS AND AN EXPLANATION OF IT!
Re Anonymous @ #33
Oddly enough, when looking at the fossil record, we do see now extinct animals that have both hominid and ape features. For example, Australopithecus Afarensis looked much like and ape from the waist up but looked much like a hominid from the waist down.
@pough:
You said "The requirement for Sunday School teaching is political affiliation? You've gotta be a Poe."
It is not a requirement, but often politics and government does come up in Sunday School lessons even in the younger classes. When I was in the 13-15 year old class, out teacher would often talk about abortion, Bill Clinton, global governance, etc. It was part of the lesson. Yes evolution came up as well. Don't feed me that church state seperation crap either. We are free sovereign citizens and we'll discuss religion and politics wherever and whenever we please. Only libs believe tin the myth of seperation of churhc and state anyway. Another topic that is discussed many times at church as well.
Don't feed me that church state seperation crap either. We are free sovereign citizens and we'll discuss religion and politics wherever and whenever we please.
So I assume other folk have the right to teach their religion to your kids? Wiccans and satanists? Or is this right only reserved for christians?
Let me suggest an alternative: people who are employed by government and paid by your tax dollars and my tax dollars cannot - on the job - favor one religion over another or over no religion. Because if they do, its guaranteed to be unfair to some of us tax payers. How does that sound?
Only libs believe tin the myth of seperation of churhc and state anyway.
I direct you to the very conservative Sensuous Curmudgeon who blogs frequently - some would say obsessively - about how creationism should be kept out of schools.
Well if King Curmudgeon says so, it's good enough for me.
I say social justice, economic justice,global warming (hoax), evolution, etc. should be kept out of the churches. Agreed? Those are STATE issues and any pastor/staff paid by congregation dollars cannot favor state belief over biblical belief. It is unfair to congregational offering bearers.
Go ahead and keep your little leftits anti-God views of America and we'll keep our pro-God American views. How does that sound?
"I say social justice, economic justice,global warming (hoax), evolution, etc. should be kept out of the churches. Agreed?"
I'd agree if any secularist had ever tried to do that, but I did like your dodging of this question: "So I assume other folk have the right to teach their religion to your kids? Wiccans and satanists? Or is this right only reserved for christians?"...
Interesting too, that you phrased that last part in this manner: "views of America" and "American views". That's not quite equal is it?