Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

August 15, 2005

Commentaries

John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer
Evolution: Debate it

...the Kansas policy would require students to learn not only the full scientific case for contemporary evolutionary theory, called "neo-Darwinism," but also the current criticisms of the theory as they appear in scientific literature. The Kansas policy would not require, or prohibit, discussing the theory of "intelligent design," which has been so much in the news since President Bush spoke about it earlier this month....

...we think there is a way to teach evolution that advances science education, fosters civil discourse and also respects public opinion. We encourage teachers to present the case for Darwin's theory of evolution as Darwin himself did: as a credible, but contestable, argument. Rather than teaching evolution as an incontrovertible "truth," teachers should present the arguments for modern neo-Darwinism and encourage students to evaluate these arguments critically. In short, students should learn the scientific arguments for, and against, contemporary evolutionary theory....

As John Scopes said, “If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought. ... I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory.”


Barbara Simpson
Dumb schools

The reality is, life is tough. Regardless of the touchy-feely sentiments that just thinking good thoughts and intending to do good will get you thru, it doesn't work that way. People not equipped to face the cruel realities and deal with the consequences of their decisions, will be beaten down and hurt. It goes with the territory of living. We're all subject to it regardless of what we wish it would be, regardless of how much money we have or where we live.

The schools used to take those realities into consideration. Now? Forget it. What's being done in the schools to our children is far removed from teaching them and equipping them to face life.

What's being perpetuated on our kids is a giant fraud and we're paying for it both in real tax dollars, real dollars from our wallets, and real misery for our children and our families.


J.C. Watts
Is there any Bush nominee liberals wouldn't oppose?

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy said on a radio call-in show he would not vote to confirm Roberts for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court judge does not proclaim his support for the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling. Leahy suggested that Roberts should answer questions about previous Supreme Court decisions when the judge appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation hearings.

Democrats also expect Roberts to telegraph how he would vote on issues that are not even before the court yet, and may never be.

Fascinating, considering that these same Democrats gave now-Justice Ginsburg a pass on those very prognostications when she sat before the Judiciary Committee several years ago. Surely, they wouldn't have been so deferential had Bush nominated her....

The Democrat leadership and the angry left want to legislate from the bench. They have had a tough time winning at the ballot box, so they are determined to make policy through the courts. It is their strategy to gain power by tenure by placing judges in lifetime terms, and legislating through the judicial branch.


Vincent Fiore
Cindy Sheehan, Go Home

Billed as the “Peace mom” by CNN, Cindy Sheehan has stirred the restless pens of the media and ignited a Bush-bashing feeding frenzy.

Cindy Sheehan, who camps out in a ditch outside of Crawford, Texas, awaits the president to come and speak to her. Her comments and questions, which make for effective media theatre, also make for standard radical anti-war verbiage.

Cindy Sheehan has taken her talking points from sources such as Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and obscure organizations like the Hip Hop Caucus. Indeed, Sheehan herself is a founder of the left-wing Gold Star Families for Peace, a web site that features article by her and others with such grandiose titles as "Lie of Historic Proportions....

In 1993, another dead soldier’s family member openly protested a president’s handling of America’s armed forces, and the misuse of them. I refer to Vietnam veteran James H. Smith, whose son, Ranger Jamie Smith, was killed in action as part of operation Task Force Ranger in Somalia in 1993.

James H. Smith met with President Clinton, and testified before Congress in regard to the misuse of the armed services by Clinton and the subsequent slaughter of 18 Rangers. Little was heard about this parent’s outrage over his son’s needless death.

The media chose to ignore the objections of James H. Smith.

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 15, 2005 11:53 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1857

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.