For as long as this blog has been around, Bobby Jindal has been a source of controversy in the comment threads. Should South Asian Americans support him because he is an undisputedly intelligent politician and desi like us, or is it okay to turn our backs on him because we fundamentally disagree with his policies and the type of America that he represents? Both answers are of course correct, depending upon what matters most to you as an individual voter.
When the media reports on a political stories there is nothing they enjoy more than a stark contrast between two people or viewpoints. That is one of the reasons that the Obama-McCain race is generating such excitement this year. Almost everyone (except maybe Nader supporters) believes that Obama and McCain have a very divergent vision for the next four year. Because of a law working its way through the Louisiana legislative process right now, the next few weeks will also provide us with an incisive look into the mind and soul of Bobby Jindal. Will he govern according to his religious beliefs or according to accepted scientifc fact? Whether or not he is chosen as McCain’s running mate this year, one thing seems clear: eventually he will be on a national ticket.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Sunday that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal “would be far and away the best candidate” to appear on the Republican presidential ticket with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
Gingrich, who appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” heaped praise upon the former congressman, saying that he is a “spectacular” governor and predicted that Jindal would be a presidential candidate in the future. [Link]
<
p>
As the New York Times reported two weeks ago, there is a proposed law working its way through the Louisiana legislature right now that is going to stick with Jindal, for better or for worse, for a very long time.
In the Legislature, the climate for a conservative Christian agenda is warmer than in years. Some of that agenda, including a school voucher program for New Orleans that Mr. Jindal calls a “scholarship plan,” is being pushed vigorously by the governor. On other parts, like a bill favored by Christian conservatives that opponents say is a stalking horse for teaching creationism, Mr. Jindal has been well in the background, though legislators say they think the governor would sign it, as he has raised doubts about evolution. [Link]
<
p>The Louisiana Science and Education Act is nothing but a thinly-veiled attempt to allow the arguments of Creationism to be taught in Louisiana schools alongside evolution. This in a state that already has some of the worst school systems in the country.
<
p>Every lawmaker in Louisiana knows that Jindal supports Creationist ideas. The problem he has is trying to sign these proposals into law in Louisiana without seriously hurting his national appeal among Independents. He is navigating this issue in two specific ways. First, he is studiously avoiding the spotlight when he can:
Still, for a governor whose campaign in 2003 ran radio advertisements extolling the Ten Commandments and attacking liberals, the approach has been studiously low-key and nonideological. Mr. Jindal himself has been nearly invisible at the Capitol, lawmakers and Louisiana reporters say.
Hot-button terms and issues are avoided. Cloning will not get state financing but also will not be criminalized, and Mr. Jindal is nowhere to be seen on the Louisiana Science Education Act, which promotes “open and objective discussion” in the schools of “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”
A hearing for the bill last week was packed with Christian advocates — it has already passed the State Senate unanimously — and it was proposed to its legislative sponsor by a Louisiana Family Forum member. Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and a critic of the bill, testified that it was “designed to permit teaching intelligent design creationism in Louisiana public schools,” though there was no mention of creationism or intelligent design in the bill. [Link]
The second strategy Jindal is using is to cleverly manipulate the public’s understanding of the law. A perfect example is this interview he gave on CBS’ Face the Nation
this past Sunday. Unless you are well-versed in the manipulation tactics used by Intelligent Designers, whose “educational approach” was soundly thrashed in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, you might think he is making a perfectly reasonable argument in favor of science here:
REID: Let me make a sharp turn here to a different issue, an issue that has raised some controversy. Now, you were a biology major in college. I think you had a double major. But you were a biology major, and you support the teaching of intelligent design in schools. Do you have doubts about the theory of evolution?Gov. JINDAL: A couple of things. One, I don’t think this is something the federal or state government should be imposing its views on local school districts. You know, as a conservative I think government that’s closest to the people governs best. I think local school boards should be in a position of deciding the curricula and also deciding what students should be learning. Secondly, I don’t think students learn by us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some only want to teach evolution. I think both views are wrong, as a parent.
<
p>REID: But how about you personally? Where do you stand personally on the issue?
<
p>Gov. JINDAL: As a parent, when my kids go to schools, when they go to public schools, I want them to be presented with the best thinking. I want them to be able to make decisions for themselves. I want them to see the best data. I personally think that the life, human life and the world we live in wasn’t created accidentally. I do think that there’s a creator. I’m a Christian. I do think that God played a role in creating not only earth, but mankind. Now, the way that he did it, I’d certainly want my kids to be exposed to the very best science. I don’t want them to be–I don’t want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from them because of political correctness. The way we’re going to have smart, intelligent kids is exposing them to the very best science and let them not only decide, but also let them contribute to that body of knowledge. That’s what makes the scientific process so exciting. You get to go there and find facts and data and test what’s come before you and challenge those theories.
This is the new “strategy” that has been adopted by ID-ers. They want to say that putting creationist ideas next evolution and letting kids decide is a better way to do science. You notice how he uses the phrase “facts or theories or explanations withheld?” This is pure manipulation. He is frightening people into thinking that education is being denied to their children. In fact, there are no facts or even theories associated with ID/Creationist ideas. Knowing that their strategy won’t work if they single out evolution alone, the ID/Creationists needed to find another scientific theory to lump together with evolution so that they could say, “see we aren’t just picking on evolution.” Global warming provided the perfect second issue (another wedge issue). NPR’s Science Friday last Friday did a great job of deconstructing the manipulating tactics being used by the Intelligent Design community. Bobby Jindal is following the script laid out for him perfectly. You have to admit he speaks well.
In a letter last week to Louisiana Speaker of the House Jim Tucker, the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s CEO and the publisher of Science magazine Alan I. Leshner wrote of the “Louisiana Science Education Act”:
The bill implies that particular theories are controversial among scientists, including evolution. But there is virtually no controversy about evolution among the overwhelming majority of researchers. The science of evolution underpins all of modern biology and is supported by tens of thousands of scientific studies in fields that include cosmology, geology, paleontology, genetics and other biological specialties. It informs scientific research in a broad range of fields such as agriculture and medicine, work that has an important impact on our everyday lives.
Backers of the bill, including the Louisiana Family Forum and the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, are longtime supporters of attempts to teach creationism or intelligent design as science. The judicial courts have ruled that both of these are religious concepts that do not belong in public school science classrooms. In fact, it was Louisiana’s own “creation science” law that the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1987. [Link]
<
p>Much of the press and blogosphere think they discovered that Jindal once performed an exorcism this week. In fact, Manish reported it here almost four years ago as further evidence of Jindal’s extreme religious views.
<
p>My cousin Manan also forwarded me this article today, a long interview of Jindal in Details magazine. In it they re-cap his entire history and explain how he became a conservative Christian in the first place. Reading it will provide good context in which to evaluate his current support of Creationism is classrooms.
So as we wait to see if McCain taps Jindal we have to figure out which Jindal we’d get. The articulate and intelligent and accomplished Jindal or the one that would advocate exorcising our educational system of reason.
Not comforting enough. What should people do when they are confronted with a paradox known as Francis Collins?
Sorry, wrong person, wrong reference. I am trying to remember (and find refrences on) the NIH scientist who is spearheading the ID movement.
100 · Bollyhood said
see #90
fantastic , I love your blog !
I am trying to remember (and find refrences on) the NIH scientist who is spearheading the ID movement.
the main scientist (the only one) in the ID movement is michael behe. ID is different than creationists as a while. most of the other people in ID are philosophers and historians and what not.
Hmm, this is the first time I have ever lost a comment on SM, so here I go again.
razib – I agree, but, I was trying to make a different point. ‘Elites’ don’t base everything on cold hard reason, you know? Just because you have a PhD in, I dunno, something about roundworms or Derrida doesn’t mean you can organize your staff well or run your department with a profit, or hire the right person for the right job. ‘Elites’ can tend to be overconfident.
Meena, your point is well taken, and I would tend to agree about the facts part of it, but I still think it’s better to have a process where the people, the taxpayers, have a say in what their children learn. Schools are not non-ideological places, despite facts. What history do you teach your children? Should they learn the facts of the birds and the bees at school, or at home? Should they say the pledge of allegiance to the flag? So, it’s easy to say facts, but, much harder to do in practice. The general default rule is then, ‘let the people decide’.
95 · portmanteau said
port, the crux of his constitutional argument is that since the vast majority of universities are secular, the G.I. Bill was not fundamentally advancing the interests of religion. but religious (especially catholic) schools would become the chief beneficiaries of a voucher program.
to me this doesnt make a difference. its like the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of results. as long as the program is religious-neutral, let the chips fall where they may. there’s absolutely nothing stopping secularists from starting their own schools, so they shouldn’t whine about their rights being violated…especially when religious people are currently forced to fund their kids secular education.
this is not an abstract question for the sake of arguements here, Razib. I am asking because i want to know how to avoid or put to rest well-meaning but irritating attempts at reconciling the two by some people i have to work with sometimes. I’d rather actually just read C.S.Lewis and appreciate all his aesthetics and spiritual journey than worry about something that hardly threatens my self-awareness.
100 · Bollyhood said
wrong dude. when we libertarians smoke up we go all the way…totally baked.
Just because you have a PhD in, I dunno, something about roundworms or Derrida doesn’t mean you can organize your staff well or run your department with a profit, or hire the right person for the right job. ‘Elites’ can tend to be overconfident.
well yeah, that’s why i said scientists outside of discipline are nearly as bad as lay people. on this specific question though the consensus of the elite within the discipline is pretty standard. most of the other elites go along with biologists because they respect the system where different elites scratch-each-other’s-back. there are other systems out there (look at the veto powers that the clerical caste has in saudi arabia or iran), but they don’t seem to work as well in forwarding a liberal society. and also i said, science is a noisy process. over the short term there’s a lot of non-rational and non-empirical determinants…but over the long term nature renders its verdict (e.g., look at the acceptance of the big bang despite scientific resistance because of the perception that it was too congenial with theism).
based on what i know, francis collins (who was indeed at nih) is not making an anti-evolution argument. i have not read his book, only heard him talk, but he does not talk about evolution as a guided process the way id’ers claim. his story is more that the conditions on earth were uniquely suited to life, and that wasn’t an accident, and that humans, while evolved from apes, are unique in some ways and points to our notions of morality as evidence
clown “scientists” pushing id: michael behe (biochemist) and william dembski (mathematician).
bollyhood aka vyasa, don’t know why atheists are half baked. i try to be fully baked – i use the best weed.
I am asking because i want to know how to avoid or put to rest well-meaning but irritating attempts at reconciling the two by some people i have to work with sometimes.
? you mean dissuade them from theistic evolution? that’s a philosophical, not a scientific debate. good luck 🙂 i don’t think that it’s a worthwhile investment of cognitive cycles myself.
102 · Manju said
Yeah right, so because “you don’t see many universities teaching this” in the non-libertarian educational system that exists today, you presume that things would be the same in a true libertarian system?? So again, how the hell did you manage to find that a rational position?
“bollyhood aka vyasa”
ah, thanks! the troll evolves….
112 · Bollyhood said
i said see #90, not #84.
Oh, I get what you were saying now, razib. yeah, look, the creationists and IDers obviously don’t have the data for their side, so, they are doing an end-run and trying to ram their stuff through. Like I said, if they think the science of evolution is bunk, they ought to be able to prove it. they can’t, so they are throwing a tantrum.
*The only reason for the bolding is to make it easier to follow the different conversations going on here – it’s not, like, the equivalent of all caps where I’m mad or something 🙂
110 · destructionist said
shit, should’ve known…but the pot affected my judgement. better put on my bullet proof vest. btw, Brahmans are very, very bad. callous too.
MD, if bobby does sincerely believe in creationism i would be worried; it’s a really deviant belief to hold for a hypereducated catholic with a background in biology. the fact that he is religious isn’t as deviant, i don’t think that he’s right, but to a great extent adhering to a religion is a normal thing for many in the elite. to some extent even many in the elite would grant the possibility of the efficacy of exorcisms, though i assume that most elites would assume that the power of the spirit was more manifest during the period of ‘acts.’ being a sincere and convinced creationist is weird and would make me skeptical of his ability to affect proper judgment.
OTOH, i think bobby’s mercenary espousal of creationism should also be disqualifying from national office. not because i oppose mercenary espousals; that’s just politics. rather, i think it sends the wrong signal culturally. it’s totally fine that 50% of the population accept creationism, just so long as they don’t think they can be relevant at the highest level of discourse.
7 · razib said
Yes indeed, when it comes to spineless desis with science degrees pandering to the American right-wing, you should know of what you speak 🙂
Okay, so after my badmouthing wikis I looked up Michael Behe’s wikipeida article.
How the heck to you design experiments around a concept like irreducible complexity? Well, I suppose I don’t know the science of evolution well enough, but, seriously, is irreducible complexity just a fancy way of saying, hey, life is too complicated to be explained by science so God must have done it? (And I say that as an agnostic).
i mean dissuade them from just talking to me 🙂
Yeah, but Razib–you have to pander to the masses on something(s), right? Is this one that particularly objectionable, as opposed to, say, claiming to be anti-free trade? This particular pro-intelligent design view of Jindal’s is just so silly that it doesn’t offend me in the least–he’s practically wearing it on his sleeve that he’s pandering!! How much more transparent would he have to be? Let the baby have its bottle, I say. 😉
114 · Manju said
What in #90 changes the point you made that you presume things regarding race would remain the same in a libertarian educational system based on your observations of the current educational system? Do you really think that the current educational system is libertarian? If not then you dont a rational point do you?
I’m less worried about it, razib, although I respect the objections and completely understand them. I think the proof is how he will govern the rest of his term, at least, that’s the proof I’m interested in. People are wierd. They are idiosyncratic, believe all kinds of crazy things, even the most rational. Didn’t this blog have an article about Barack and the good luck symbols he carries? Look, I know carrying a good luck penny is waaaaay different from believing in creationism, but, I still think it could be a cultural ‘relic’ of his particular experience. Weird, odd, strange, and I don’t get it, but, I don’t think it’s a disqualifier for me. I get it if it is for you, though.
106 · Manju said
i wasn’t talking about rights violations. i just believe that a lot of negative externalities emanate from pervasive science-deficient parochial education at the primary level. can the state legitimately use that argument against vouchers? that was my question. the gi bill funds education for adults — who are welcome to pick their poison. but the state can behave differently wrt kids. for instance, the state interferes with religious preferences of parents citing best interests of the child when they transfuse a kid with blood/blood products even though her family are Jehovah’s witnesses. the adult jehovah’s witness may refuse the transfusion and the state may not interfere. this example is not an exact parallel, because science education is not as critical an interest as life itself. secondly, the jw example does not have negative externalities, as the ones posed by a significant number of scientifically illiterate youth. but certainly, one could say overall welfare (including the child’s) could be reduced by vouchers that advance religious interests. i think it is easier to let the chips fall where they may when we’re talking about subsidizing education for deserving adults.
How the heck to you design experiments around a concept like irreducible complexity? Well, I suppose I don’t know the science of evolution well enough, but, seriously, is irreducible complexity just a fancy way of saying, hey, life is too complicated to be explained by science so God must have done it? (And I say that as an agnostic).
john derbyshire asked behe at a conference what experiment he would recommend a student in terms of exploring irreducible complexity. behe said he would recommend nothing, there’s nothing you could do in the laboratory to confirm or reject it. IOW, it’s a tautological concept; it’s true cuz it’s true.
Yeah, but Razib–you have to pander to the masses on something(s), right? Is this one that particularly objectionable, as opposed to, say, claiming to be anti-free trade? This particular pro-intelligent design view of Jindal’s is just so silly that it doesn’t offend me in the least–he’s practically wearing it on his sleeve that he’s pandering!! How much more transparent would he have to be? Let the baby have its bottle, I say. 😉
this is a good point. i support the economic consensus on free trade, and i think there’s an argument to be made that the democratic pandering on this issue, and bait & switch, is the same genre (they use it to get votes, but in general once in power just push ahead with free trade). that being said,
1) i would argue that the economic consensus does not have as high a probability as evolution of being correct, and that the consensus is somewhat weaker
2) economic truths are generally modulated by definition by nuances and normative considerations (e.g., how does free trade change the distribution of wealth within the united states, so that even if the area under the utility distribution increases perhaps most of the gain would be to those in the top 25% in income, etc.)
all that being said, my two reasons for being skeptical of bobby’s national prospects do hold for free trade as well. the main difference i would hold though is that trade does not make everyone equally rich in the united states; it results in more dislocation for particular sectors and more marginal returns for others. there’s pretty self-interested reasons why someone like me would support free trade, i might have a different rational interest if i was a steel worker. OTOH, evolution is equally true for everyone and isn’t modulated by normative considerations. it’s true, that’s all.
Look, I know carrying a good luck penny is waaaaay different from believing in creationism, but, I still think it could be a cultural ‘relic’ of his particular experience. Weird, odd, strange, and I don’t get it, but, I don’t think it’s a disqualifier for me. I get it if it is for you, though.
well, but the strange thing is that bobby wasn’t raised a creationist (hindus tend not to be, muslims tend to be). and he didn’t convert to a creationist religious tradition. so perhaps its just his cultural southernness.
parochial education at the primary level
let’s just be clear about this: catholics have no necessary problem with evolution. and my friends taught at catholic schools tell me that evolution was taught. ironically, this is not always true at public schools because of the power of community pressure. my high school biology teacher avoided evolution because he didn’t want to be inundated with complaints from parents and argumentative heckles from particular students. he was said he told me that he had to turn biology into stamp collecting, but the last time he tried to talk in detail about evolution all his marginal time got sucked up by meetings with parents and complaints from the administration that he was causing them problems.
rob, re: free trade, my own impression (you probably know a i read a lot of economic history) is that most economists would claim that comparative advantage would result in greater wealth for the world, as a whole. but…it might not necessarily entail greater wealth for the median american worker. so that’s what i mean when i say normative considerations are important; most economists aren’t too attached to the nation-state, but most people care a lot more about their citizens than half-starving peasants in the third world. that’s not something to be proud of, but that’s also a fundamental reality of political life in any nation.
122 · Bollyhood said
there’s nothing in the current educational system that prevents the racist community from imposing racial eugenics, yet they don’t. i mean, theoretically there is the equal protection clause, but as far as i know there’s been no such cases in the courts. so why would a voucher program result in racist schools?
our higher-education system is more libertarin than our primary education system, ie more private schools. but yet not many racists schools excpet perhaps bob jones and a handful of ethnic-power people in the po-mo depts.
a pure libertarian system, as opposed to a voucher system, would probably be less racist since you need $$ to start a private school. thus you have a wall of elites protecting us form the masses. they’re less likey to teach racial eugenics.
i was one of they few who thought the nation was ready for a black prez, so i have my finger on the pulse of our racial zeitgeist
even if they did set up a racist school. so what? its a free counry., let the chips fall where they may. look where all that control by the state got india, prema. a failed state, as you constantly inform us…until of course us free-marketers invaded to save they day.
manju, dancing with the trollz dangerous…. 😉
This intelligent design stuff is class politics at bottom, right? The lower classes want some sort of “recognition” by getting (one of their) arbitrary views “represented.” I can’t imagine what the alternative explanation for all this carrying-on would be. It’s kind of like how that populist politician William Jennings Bryan was on the wrong side at the Scopes Monkey trial! Somehow creationism is tied into “populism”/lower-class political movements in the US. Weird. But, I think the extreme level of scorn heaped on creationism (as opposed to just ignoring it–I mean, who really cares whether there’s a one-day unit on creationism in public schools in Louisiana. I’d definitely vote “no,” but frankly I barely care and probably wouldn’t bother to turn out to vote!!) is also about class–it’s a way to look down on the lowers in a way that’s meant to indicate you’re upper. So, the whole thing is really about class in the US.
So, the whole thing is really about class in the US.
well, not the whole thing, but yeah, i think you’re right. if you want to go back to the roots i think it has to do with opposition to the german tradition of literary criticism eliciting a fundamentalist anti-modernist reaction in the early 20th century. at that point conservative protestantism and anti-evolutionism became functionally integrated. it’s important to note that in the 1930s most BYU freshmen were believers in evolution, but not so by the 1970s. i think this has to do with mormon shift in identification with conservative protestant politics.
outside of the USA there is very little correlation between politics and creationism.
124 · portmanteau said
well then why stop at just preventing vouchers? why not go all the way and shut down the catholic schools and force parents to send their kids to public schools? 2 issues:
132 · Manju said
depends what you mean by the state. the people, their legislators can make such arguments, and school vouchers will be fought there. the question is should they be fought in the couts, where an elite group overturns the will of the people. i say no. like moornam, don’t see a constitutional issue here. so what’s the big deal.
110 · destructionist said
Because they look out at the world of matter-energy and presume that’s all that exists. Thats only the half of it. And the lesser half at that. Who is witnessing all this? Certainly not insentient matter. There is a subjective reality that transcends the material tamasha.
There is a subjective reality that transcends the material tamasha – bollyhood
I think a libertarian gets that, and would like to be able to be left alone to ponder that subjective reality in peace, with as little interference as possible. People confuse libertarianism, I think, with materialism when really what most libertarians are saying is that they don’t want the state to dictate ‘the good’. It’s up to the person to decide what ‘the good’ is.
Oops, misread atheist as libertarian, bollyhood. Don’t know how I did that! SORRY 🙂
Well, I’m an agnostic, so…..
126 · razib said
as long as school funding is linked to certain curricular requirements or achievement levels, the government might well fund parochial education (as a parallel: to avoid being fleeced by new educational institutions that opened up to take advantage of the gi bill windfall, the govt imposed accreditation requirements for institutions that wished to receive gi bill funding). so vouchers are ok, as long as schools met the supreme court test described in #63. if you want public money, you confirm to legislated standards. if not, an institution should raise its own money. plenty of universities do this for federally prohibited biological research (thanks to the rabidly religious).
in general, though, as some some people upthread mentioned, the way overtly religious education is kept in check is through employment requirements (that includes the government). economic mobility is choked for those without a particular educational profile. if you have zealots for parents, then you are likely going to be at margins of political and social life. unless you grow up to be a televangelical or jesus makes you the president. so yeah, one unit of biology class doesn’t matter much as far as the average kid is concerned, but you just need one crazy, canny kid to pick up exactly the wrong sort of thing at biology class. and then watch out as they become governors, presidents, and supreme court justices.
rob, @113, i’m cracking up at the thought of you pooh-poohing “carryings-on” of the riffraff. brushing away the imaginary flecks of dust on your lapel, as you turn up your nose at the unwashed.
134 · Bollyhood said
i agree, you do sound pretty baked.
this is an interesting thread b/c the arguments against vouchers go well beyond vouchers, and are really classic conservative arguments against liberal democracy: if we allow the masses freedom of choice, they may choose the wrong thing. or even the classic liberal conundrum, what if the people choose to limit choice, or suppress minorities. they are serious arguments.
America is increasingly alone in resolving these paradoxes by defaulting on freedom of choice. the first amendment is the American value, as the rest of the world is increasingly fearful of letting freedom run its course and letting the chips simply fall where they may. especially the canadians.
Port, truth be told, I’m a bit uncomfortable with the out-and-out bashing of the creationists–yes, they’re silly and wrong, but it’s best understood as a lower-class movement attempting to get a bit–a tad, a slice, a shred–of affirmation from the upper classes. Like I said upthread, give the baby its bottle. I.e., why care so much (b/c it’s the truth, man!)–is it really so necessary to pound them back into the dirt?!
Jindal vs. Obama ’12. i said it first.
Yeah, I think he’d be better off not going down with the McCain ship this year, and using this attention to position himself for ’12. With the Dems controlling Congress and the Presidency, the country should be ready for a change by then! 😉
i thought that the peta thread devolved into nonsense over the veggie or not discussion, but now i’ve heard it all. some hard righters clamor for the relativism of teaching id in school under the garb of free speech, and others claim that it furthers the dream of a classless society. hilarious.
Who argued that? I was pointing out that the issue is, at base, about class. I didn’t and don’t advocate a classless society. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
128 · Manju said
The educational system does not exist in a vacuum. This is not a libertarian society. A racist school like that would not be tolerated by the american culture of today. But it would be in your libertarian fantasy. There are plenty of racial supremacists in America. Just ask Razib, he has earned some notoriety for himself by pandering to their fantasies of racial and cultural supremacy.
Another clueless presumption. What makes you have such blind faith in the wisdom and decency of elites? Certainly not a reading of history or current affairs. Elites are quite likely to compete with each other in the manipulation of the masses. Racism as an ideology has been used by many “elites” in recent history. With bloody consequences. Get in touch with reality.
You may be happy living in a culture where you can be demeaned because of your race but there are far more humans in the world who would not be.
But you seem to have blind faith that the “elite” in a libertarian society will protect you from the masses. Who is this elite exactly and why is your trust in this elite so much more rational than trusting the state?
No, irony is the new black, you are getting it wrong. There is no clamoring going on – who here is a proponent of ID?
Also, what’s hilarious is that you misunderstand rob’s point. He’s saying some people view themselves as upmarket because they believe in evolution (believe being the key word because how many people really understand the scientific arguments for evolutionary theory?) Party affiliation is sometimes about class identification.
59 · razib said
Apparently yes from your incessant mindless garbage posts.
Creationism/ID is not science, i.e. does not provide any testable hypotheses. Therefore, it has no place in science curricula. Simple as that. Whether people in a school district want it to be taught or not, or whether it constitutes “exposing kids to diverse opinions” is irrelevant. If Jindal wants his kids to learn alternative, non-scientific accounts of evolution he should look at non-science avenues to do so. Any number of Sunday Schools will oblige.
As someone mentioned upthread, it is indeed a free marketplace of ideas. All libertarians should encourage creationist parents/creationists/IDers to start their own schools, where altenative truth claims about evolution will be taught. Let them have their kids enroll at these schools if they want “diverse opinions”.
Science curricula, especially in public schools (separation of church and state and all that), cannot be “open-minded” about untestable/false claims.
140 · rob said
right, but i doubt creationism in the US maps on exactly to class. like PBR consumption doesn’t necessarily imply that you’re poor; you might be a hipster. unless you’re saying endorsing creationism is actually a symbolic way to identify ‘lower’ class.
145 · Bollyhood said
so you conceede it would not be tolerated today? that was my whole point to begin with. and if its not tolerated today, why would it suddenly be under a more liberal school system?