Aug 242005
 

CNN Larry King Live
Intelligent Design in American Classrooms?
Aired August 23, 2005 – 21:00 ET
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/23/lkl.01.html

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/262

Download and see the video of Larry King (CNN) with fellow Jay Richards. August 23, 2005 in
Windows Media (Big file: 52.3MB, optimized for broadband)

Jay Richards declared:

“…what the Senate did and Senator Brownback described is they encouraged what we call teach the controversy at Discovery Institute, and that just means teach the controversy over Darwin’s theory of evolution specifically, the evidence for and against it, but don’t require teaching intelligent design. We think that should be allowed, and we understand that’s what the president said. Yes, these topics ought to be allowed, but remember, the president also said it wasn’t the job of the federal government to dictate curricula to local school districts, and we agree with him on that as well… It’s a debate about the evidence of science and its proper interpretation and that’s a legitimately public debate… We do agree with both the president and the Senate and the Congress as a whole, that where controversial theories are taught like biological evolution, that is Darwin’s theory of evolution, that the full range of evidence ought to be discussed; the strongest evidence for it and against it… teachers should be free to talk about it. That is, free without being harassed by the ACLU, but it shouldn’t be required. It shouldn’t be imposed from the top down. I fully agree with the senator on that point… so far as I can tell, no one has explicitly disagreed with that uncontroversial point, that the strongest evidence for and against it ought to be taught in the public school science classroom.”

//////////////////

Bill O’Reilly
Factor Follow Up Segment
August 24, 2005.
Life after “Intelligent Design”
Guest: Dr. Richard Sternberg, editor, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

We’ll talk with a man who has come under fire for saying that “Intelligent Design” should be taken seriously as scientific theory.

To see Richard von Sternberg’s case, go to:

http://teleological.org/?p=64

Salvador Cordova at ARN declared:

“Sternberg’s appearance on O’Reilly was only a few minutes. His answers were clear and dispassionate.

O’Reilly had to add a lot of drama. Sternberg said that the initial reaction was “tepid” until the NCSE got involved and started work in conjuction with the Smithsonian Institution in a concerted campaign for his ouster.

Sternberg was very mild mannered, but it was O’Reilly who got everything going. O’Reilly labeled the campaign against Intelligent Design by the SI and NCSE as “fascist“. Holy smokes, he called them fascists!”

See this O’Reilly’s transcript, watch the video of Sternberg’s interview:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166831,00.html

Click here to see more details on Richard von Sternberg’s history.

And here to follow some other comments.

 Posted by at 8:09 pm

  One Response to “Intelligent Design on Cable: Larry King and Bill O’Reilly”

  1. Barbara Forrest’s attack on ID in Creationism’s Trojan Horse is center around the idea of guilt by association. It might be interesting to follow her logic here and apply it to her belief system. She is an atheistic secular humanist by her definition of MN&PN. Using her logic of connecting YEC to ID, it seems reasonable to draw a connection between what Barbara Forrest believe and what atheists like Paul Kurtz believe.
    Humanist Manifesto II

    we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

    This is not a criticism of Forrest or Kurtz’s belief. I am just trying to point out with this dogmatic commitment to their atheistic belief. It is not surprising that they are unable to see the distinction between ID and Creationism.

    What else do humanists believe? The Secular Humanist Prospect: In Historical Perspective

    The third factor that emerged to challenge freethought and the secular movement was the near-total collapse of Marxism. For a good part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Marxist-humanist ideals had influenced intellectuals; with Marxism’s eclipse, anticlericalism and indeed any open criticism of religion have all but disappeared.

    So for the secular humanist Marxism is good because it was anticlerical. Marxism also brought us communism and totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and Mao’s China, where the belief of those who disagree with them are evil. Evil must be eradicated to the tune of 61 million in the Soviet and 35 Million in China. What is the purpose of this contrast? It illustrate the extreme in the mindset of a secular humanist like Barbara Forrest and Paul Kurtz that although Marxism brought about the murder of over 96 million people, it is a good thing because it is anticlerical. Now put this back in light of their opposition to ID, Barbara Forrest is merely defending her Atheism’s Trojan Horse. Forrest has no interest in science, she is dogmatically defending her Atheistic religion.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.