Posted on 05/07/2007 11:10:42 PM PDT by TitansAFC
The Brody File is at it again. Another little scoop. According to an interview Mitt Romney did with The Boston Globe in December of 2005, the former Governor of Massachusetts said he was against the teaching of intelligence design in public schools. There are quite a few Evangelicals who believe the exact opposite; that intelligent design should indeed be taught in public schools alongside Evolution.
The quote comes from an article by Frank Phillips who was writing about how Romney felt the Boston media was distorting his views. During the article, Romney defends himself, saying he is not moving to the right just for future political purposes. And he gives intelligent design as proof positive. Here's part of the article:
"Governor Mitt Romney said yesterday that reports he has shifted to the political right to attract Republican primary voters are Boston media distortions, and emphasized that his positions are considered moderate on the national scene. In a wide-ranging interview with the Globe a week after announcing he will not seek reelection, Romney insisted he has remained consistent throughout his tenure in the corner office, adhering to positions he staked out in his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. The governor also pledged that any presidential ambitions he harbors will not dictate his agenda on Beacon Hill. "As I bring forward issues, it is clear that this is not something I am using for my reelection campaign," Romney said. "The Legislature can look at them with a nonpolitical light." Romney contended that political considerations are not the major factor behind his positions. For example, he said yesterday, he opposes the teaching of intelligent design in science classes in public schools, a stance at odds with some conservative voters. He said he arrived at that position without consulting his national political adviser, Michael Murphy."
Read the rest of the article here. The last thing Romney needs is another reason for Evangelicals not to vote for him. His Mormonism is an issue for some. His past flip flops give some pause. Now, past statements against teaching intelligent design in public school. That may play well in a General Election but to put it in football terms, Mitt Romney needs to get out of the first rounds of the playoffs before he competes in the SuperBowl. The first round of the playoffs are the GOP Primaries. Evangelicals will play a key role, especially in the South. Romney wants to be the candidate for Evangelicals. John McCain and Giuliani less so because they've been painted as either a maverick or moderate. So that's why issues like this can hurt Romney more.
So does Romney still believe that intelligent design should not be taught in public schools? I plan to ask his campaign. Check back here. Remember, this is not so much a debate about Intelligent Design. This is about whether an issue like this would give Evvangelicals a little more pause about Romney? President Bush thinks Intelligent Design should be taught.
They just don’t want to give up their monopoly on the issue. Heaven forbid that the TAXPAYERS actually have a say in what their taxes are being used for in the education of THEIR own children.
I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative and be so in favor of federal government control of education.
A point in his favor.
This is one of the best treatsies I have ever read against secular humanism. It supports your quote that all things denote there is a God.
[Anti-Christ named Korihor] 17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.
[Prophet] 44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of aall these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...
Which has zero to do with science.
At the time that was said, slaves were not “men” and were certainly not “equal.” Ditto females.
Science classes are supposed to teach what scientists think jst as math classes teach what mathemeticians think.
Religion comes from the home.
Eventually, slaves were freed, at great cost, and women gained their franchise. IOW, practice caught up with overriding principle.
If you think science classes are only teaching science in today’s America, and not a world view that is hostile to Christianity and the founding principles, you’re either deluded or dishonest. One or the other.
At the time of writing, slaves were not in the group of “all men” and neither were females. Later changes are all very well, but don’t quoite something that does not apply.
I teach science, specifically biology at the college level. You may accuse me of anything you like, but you have not yet said that I do not teach what scientists think.
My father was a man of deep faith. He never challenged what was taught in science classes because for him it was an act of faith to believe what the Bible said. I respect that.
I do not respect silly word games and asking that science teachers (Episcopalian, Jewish, Baptist, Hindu, etc.) address one specific sub-section of Christian belief.
I especially don’t want schools getting involved in how I teach religion to my kids and grandkids. Don’t trust them that much and don’t know why you do.
Yeah, I know, I know, those terrible white guys. /s
I teach science, specifically biology at the college level. You may accuse me of anything you like, but you have not yet said that I do not teach what scientists think.
You need to be clearer. Perhaps you could get a colleague who specializes in English to assist you.
My father was a man of deep faith. He never challenged what was taught in science classes because for him it was an act of faith to believe what the Bible said. I respect that.
Perhaps he should have. Maybe we wouldn't be in the fix we're in now.
I do not respect silly word games and asking that science teachers (Episcopalian, Jewish, Baptist, Hindu, etc.) address one specific sub-section of Christian belief.
My controversy is with the vast number of "science" teachers who are not teaching science, they are teaching a form of godless humanism that has nothing to do with provable science.
I especially don’t want schools getting involved in how I teach religion to my kids and grandkids. Don’t trust them that much and don’t know why you do.
I don't trust them at all. The government schools are dinosaurs, ones which deserve to become extinct, for a number of very good reasons. One of the primary ones is that they are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the anti-God, anti-American Left.
Science is incompatible with pseudo-science. It is a base-level fallacy to teach matters having to do with theology and ontology and call it a "science of evolution." Science can handle the taxonomy involved and some (not nearly all) of the process. Science doesn't do Darwinism, however.
But, to very essentially disagree with what you have just written: to teach extant and culturally accepted opinions about origins, however, is to properly teach -- and if one is to learn in school, one should not have to learn only from the set {everything but matters having to do with God and His Son}.
Since there is more to life and to knowledge which is critical to understand than what may be gathered in the realm of science (to say nothing of calling philosophical constructs "science") there is more than science that should be taught.
>At the time of writing, slaves were not in the group of “all men” and neither were females. Later changes are all very well, but don’t quoite something that does not apply.<<
>Yeah, I know, I know, those terrible white guys. /s<
Irrelevant and incorrect.
~~~~~~
>>I teach science, specifically biology at the college level. You may accuse me of anything you like, but you have not yet said that I do not teach what scientists think.
>You need to be clearer. Perhaps you could get a colleague who specializes in English to assist you.<
And, perhaps, you have reading comprehension problems when you find the text is hard to refute.
Here, I’ll make it easier. I’ll use simple declarative sentences:
I teach science.
I teach biology at the college level.
You may accuse me of anything you like.
You have not said that I teach anything besides what scientists think.
~~~~~~~~
>>My father was a man of deep faith. He never challenged what was taught in science classes because for him it was an act of faith to believe what the Bible said. I respect that.<<
Perhaps he should have. Maybe we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in now.<
You could not be more wrong. He was a shining example of Faith. He could easily tell the difference between what scientists think and God.
~~~~~~~~~~
>>I do not respect silly word games and asking that science teachers (Episcopalian, Jewish, Baptist, Hindu, etc.) address one specific sub-section of Christian belief.<<
>My controversy is with the vast number of “science” teachers who are not teaching science, they are teaching a form of godless humanism that has nothing to do with provable science.<
Quote something.
~~~~~~~~~~
>>I especially don’t want schools getting involved in how I teach religion to my kids and grandkids. Don’t trust them that much and don’t
know why you do.<<
>I don’t trust them at all. The government schools are dinosaurs, ones which deserve to become extinct, for a number of very good reasons. One of the primary ones is that they are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the anti-God, anti-American Left.<
And these are the people you want to have teaching creationism? Or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
So?
No. I don't want godless athiests, or teachers of humanism under the guise of science, anywhere near my children.
I’d note that this article doesn’t suggest that Romney’s opposed to states or localities having the OPTION to teach intelligent design in public schools. Which is, as we know, the only relevant thing in a fairly federalist educational system. It sounds like Romney wouldn’t prefer teaching ID in public schools if he were, say, a governor or a mayor. But we have no idea about whether or not he think it ought to allowable. And that currently is a question the Supreme Court’s going to have to re-examine if we want progress on the issue.
Do you have kids in the public schools?
If so, take them out since you cannot require that all teachers be of your denomination.
If not, you have no problem and no argument.
You mean, theory supported by 500 years of data?
Finally!
Somebody had to actually debate the ISSUE at hand if I waited long enough. Instead, I got the “burn the ID/Creationists at the stake” crowd rounding up the lynch mobs. That wasn’t the point at hand.
The point at hand was that I would like to know if Mitt Romney would be an advocate of banning, or any legislation banning, the teaching of ID/Creationism/Evolution/Whateverism period. As a CONSERVATIVE, I believe in local control over education, and I believe that it is the CONSERVATIVE position that if a local school board/whatever board wished to teach Evolution exclusively in their schools, it is their right to decide. If a school board in say, Kansas, wishes to also address the theory of ID/Creationism/Whatever else in their classrooms, it is their right to do so.
THAT’S my issue at hand, and I would like to know where Mitt Romney stands, exactly, as clearly as can be stated.
I don’t care if you believe the Earth was created in six days, or 4.5 billion years ago, or if bees are the descendants of ants, or if they were uniquely created. I was talking about the relevant political issues this raises.
SHEEEEESH!
Go swat a mosquito.
Monopoly is an excellent term to describe the education system, it is 'holy' owned by the fittest crowd and they get their take first out of the taxpayer pie. This global warming hoax gets preached out of the same secular primer.
The Bible is thousands of years old and nowhere in it does it say how old this earth is. In fact what it describes are events that happened multiples of millions of years ago. Peter a New Testament writer says there are three different heaven/earth ages. The Bible even describes the system of TOE teaching if one can read with understanding.
His flip-flop on ethanol made me angry, but I am enough of a realist to realize that he needs to win Iowa.
But he had better stick to his guns on keeping creationist pseudosciece out of science class. If he flip-flops on this, he will completely lose my respect, and my support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.