Comments:Gov. Bobby Jindal supports creationism as part of ‘the very best science’

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


The 'Face the Nation' quote has been selectively edited to misrepresent the Governor's words[edit]

He never called creationism the 'best science.' Here is the actual extract. Please correct this.

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.


If the takes the Bible literally, he might want to reconsider Exodus 31:15:

Quote

For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

Appearing on a Sunday morning talk show for political campaigning could reasonably be construed as working on the sabbath. --+Deprifry+ 17:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? He might be McCain's running mate? I think that would be the best thing to happen to the democratic party since watergate. I think I'll cross my fingers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.198.105 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Great![edit]

Please, please get this guy on the McCain ticket and let every scientist in the country denounce his views on teaching ID in science classes.

These retards don't have a clue about science and probably majored in embroidery, or some such middle-ages pursuit. Why he's even a state governor with views like this is beyond me. There certainly is debate in the scientific community about the mechanics of evolution, but there is no controversy in stating that it is how we came to be from a planet where single-cell organisms were the only form of life.

If this buffoon gets his way the international reputation of American education will go down the toilet because students have been taught that "if you don't understand, God must've done it". --Brian McNeil / talk 18:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design and creationism[edit]

I was sorry to see that the writer of this article does not know the difference between intelligent design (ID) and creationism. They are not the same. It is possible to hold one view and not the other.

Also, the writer turns this article into a polemic to expound his own views about evolution vs. creationism and ID. Frankly, the whole thing is anything but objective.

--Kenneth Ryland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvryland (talkcontribs) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. There is next to no difference. Creationism is "God made it all at once" (or in six days). ID is "God has been fiddling with things forever to get where we are today". Both are religious viewpoints that have no place in a science class.
Cquote1.svg "Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest." — Émile Zola Cquote2.svg

--Brian McNeil / talk 19:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Religious/scientific viewpoints aside, he has a point about the article being a little biased. Is all that background information on some unrelated court case necessary for comprehending the article? ~Planoneck~ 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not American but I'm sure there is some sort of thing in the US constitution that says to religion and state separate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.152.103 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In a perfect world, the above statement would be correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.7.229 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Creationism belittles God[edit]

A creator that uses evolution, deserves far more respect and adoration than a creator who runs around tightening every nut and bolt of biology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.9 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a semi-religious view that I can respect. Personally I do not believe in a god or other supreme being, but if you're going to it certainly is more awe-inspiring to think they set it all up at the beginning and had worked out that the rules they wrote into the universe would lead to intelligent life. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Jindal is currently considered a possible Vice President candidate for John McCain's U.S. Presidential campaign."

That just about says it all, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.99.206.251 (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

i really hope people dont judge native louisianians by the way bobby jindal acts he isnt the sharpest tack in the box. he is a disapointment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.185.51.245 (talkcontribs)

this page seriously needs updated.

An embarrassment to republicans and government employees everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.191.187 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Mr Jindal's views lie far outs..."[edit]

Mr Jindal's views lie far outside the accepted scientific views on evolution. Intelligent Design and creationism are associated with pseudoscience(National Center for Science Education, American Association for the Advancement of Science, national Academy, and the 75 Nobel laureate signatories to the recent letter to the Louisiana legislature (2012) urging that body to revoke its 2008 law allowing the teaching of creationism in public schools. Creationism is not a belief in a creator, nor is Intelligent Design. They are fraudulent, pseudoscientific meta physical religious concepts masquerading as science. Science deals with natural laws and supernatural events or magic do not fit the definition of science. Mr Jindal is a hoaxster. William Fraser Oil and Gas Geoscientists Dallas Texas —38.114.105.228 (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)