Tag Archives: Louisiana

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is running for President

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

If you don’t know who Bobby Jindal is, just know that I have been following his career since the year 2002. I have always consider him to be the Savior of the Republican party, and told all my Indian friends that he would be President one day. You can read his biography here.

Life News has the story about his Wednesday announcement.

Excerpt:

In January, for the fifth year in a row, Louisiana was declared the most pro-life state in the nation by American’s United for Life (AUL).

[…]During Jindal’s time in office he’s signed countless pieces of pro-life legislation as well as limited Obamacare by prohibiting the coverage of elective abortion in health care plans.

The pro-life legislation Jindal’s signed include everything from bills that ban abortion at 20-weeks and stop coerced abortions— to legislation that requires abortion facilities to provide ultrasounds prior to an abortion and ensures that medical professionals don’t have to participate in abortion.

In 2014, Jindal signed Louisiana Right to Life’s flagship legislation, the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act (HB 388), which could close three of the five abortion clinics in the state. HB 388 requires that abortion providers have admitting privileges within 30 miles of a local hospital; clarifies that informed consent protections apply to both surgical abortion, as well as to RU-486 chemical abortions; and that facilities that perform more than five abortions maintain proper licensing. After the passage of the HB 388 through the Louisiana Legislation, Gov. Jindal said, “This bill will give women the health and safety protections they deserve.”

Earlier this year, The Washington Times reported that Jindal blasted U.S. House Republicans after they pulled a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. He said, “The American people elected a Republican majority to support the pro-life movement and champion conservative principles. I hope they reconsider.”

In January, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, which serves under Jindal’s administration, announced that they are blocking abortions at an abortion facility Planned Parenthood is building in New Orleans. Originally, their facility was supposed to open by the end of 2014; however, due to opposition from pro-life Louisianans, including Louisiana Right to Life, the Jindal administration and the Archdiocese of New Orleans, their efforts have been stalled.

The Executive Director of Louisiana Right to Life, Benjamin Clapper, told the Washington Post more about Jindal’s commitment to protecting unborn life. He said, “He’s not just been pro-life behind closed doors. He’s also been proudly pro-life across our state.” American’s United for Life also told the Post that during Jindal’s time in office, Louisiana has been the most pro-life it has ever been.

Remarkably, Jindal has always been completely honest about his pro-life views.

In 2003, he said, “In my first race in 2003, at one of my first fundraisers, my first question was from a fairly liberal woman who asked me my position on abortion. I told her I was pro-life. I remember thinking I was going to have to return all the money I had raised! But amazingly, she became a financial supporter despite our differences over abortion. It turns out she already knew I was pro-life; she just wanted to see if I would be honest about my position or if I would waffle in order to get her money.”

According to the National Right to Life Committee, Jindal had a 100-percent voting record during three years as member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Additionally, Louisiana Right to Life has honored Gov. Jindal on numerous occasions for his pro-life stand in the Pelican State. In January, as Jindal left the stage after speaking at their annual pro-life rally Clapper said, “Bobby Jindal is the most pro-life governor in the history of Louisiana.”

Bobby Jindal is very good on defending natural marriage, as well. On fiscal and foreign policy, he is absolutely perfect.

In his announcement video below, he mentions some of his other accomplishments as governor of Louisiana – anti-corruption measures, school choice programs, cutting government waste, cutting taxes, and more… everything you could want as a conservative. I don’t really care at all what candidates promise, or how I feel when they speak. I don’t care which candidate is anointed by Fox News, Wall Street, or the Republican Party. I just want to see the past achievements of the candidates. That’s how we ought to make this hiring decision – show me the numbers.

The transcript is here, and pay attention to this part about religious liberty, which is my top concern:

I know that some believe that I talk too much about my faith. But I will not be silenced in order to meet their expectations of political correctness.

They don’t accept the idea that you can be both intellectual and Christian. They can’t fathom the notion that you can be both smart and conservative. But, they need to get out more. There’s a big country out here with millions of Americans who believe in God and are not ashamed to say so.

I would be wary of a president who didn’t seek wisdom from the Almighty. I don’t know about you, but I’ve met many very smart people who lack wisdom. Yet Christianity is under assault today in America. But the liberals have forgotten their history. Religious liberty is not some quaint notion from the past. It is fundamental to our freedom. That’s why it is protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution. I’m going to say this slowly so that even Hillary Clinton can understand it. America did not create religious liberty, religious liberty created the United States of America.

[…]As Republicans, we’ve already tried to appease the Left, to make the media like us better, to talk in politically correct language, to hide some of our beliefs by calling them distractions. We’ve tried to mask our conservative ideals, and we have failed.

Every Republican will say they are for school choice, shrinking government, cutting the government workforce, and getting rid of Common Core. But talk is cheap. Talk is just talk. I haven’t just talked about doing these things, I’ve actually done these things.

Every Republican will say they will fight to protect the unborn, repeal Obamacare, secure the border, and destroy ISIS. I won’t simply talk about these things, I will do these things.

If I could say one thing to my opponents in the Democrat Party and the left-wing media, I would say that. If you’re an evangelical Christian, you won’t find a better champion than Jindal. Other people talk the talk, but Jindal walks the walk. Bobby Jindal has no filter. He tells you exactly what he thinks, and he does exactly what he says. And when he is finishing doing it, he will not apologize for it.

Watch the speech. Read the transcript.

UPDATE: My Twitter friend Rachel Alexander has an article on Jindal on The Stream.

Zack Kopplin debates Casey Luskin on science education

Two Rams butting heads: may the best ram win!
Two Rams butting heads: may the best ram win!

The Michael Medved show is a national radio show broadcast out of Seattle, Washington. According to Talkers magazine, he has the fifth largest radio audience.

The MP3 file is available for download. (38 minutes)

The description is:

On this episode of ID the Future, the Medved Show hosts the CSC’s Casey Luskin and student Zack Kopplin, a leading activist in the effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. Luskin and Kopplin debate the implications of the Louisiana law for science education standards and whether or not the law promotes the teaching of creationism.

Topics:

  • Medved: Should teachers be forced to teach creationism in public schools?
  • Luskin: The Discovery Institute has never advocated that creationism be taught in public schools
  • Medved: Does the Louisiana law mandate that creationism be taught in public schools
  • Kopplin: Yes, the bill does because Bobby Jindal said that the bill teaches creationism
  • Luskin: (Reads the actual text of the law) the law EXPLICITLY STATES that teaching creationism is forbidden
  • Luskin: Governor Jindal is misinformed about the law, but if you look at the law it says NO CREATIONISM
  • Kopplin: I don’t care about what the law actually says, I’ll just repeat that Bobby Jindal thinks it’s creationism
  • Kopplin: Thirty years ago, there was an attempt to mandate creationism, therefore this law is doing the same thing
  • Medved: Are there any complaints that creationism is being taught in any schools after this law has been passed
  • Kopplin: No, I don’t know of any, but that’s not because there are none! Maybe there are some that I haven’t heard about yet
  • Medved: If you are taught something that you think is stupid, then is that automatically a violation of your rights?
  • Kopplin: Because you cannot allow the progress of science to call the religion of naturalism into question
  • Luskin: About that Jindal quote – he was talking about what he wanted to pass, not the law that actually passed
  • Luskin: (reads the text of the law again) The law explicitly says that teaching creationism in the classroom is prohibited
  • Luskin: Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism starts with the Bible. Intelligent Design starts with science
  • Luskin: The law only supports teaching both sides of things that are already in the curriculum
  • Luskin: ID is not already in the curriculum, therefore, the law does not allow it to be discussed
  • Medved: Take Stephen C. Meyer’s book on the origin of life, could that be used in the classroom?
  • Kopplin: I am not very familiar with Meyer’s book, but if it is critical of Darwinism and naturalism, then it should not be taught. I don’t need to read it before I can censor it
  • Luskin: Meyer’s book advocates for ID, so it should not be taught in science classrooms
  • Luskin: non-ID science papers that are critical of Darwinism should be allowed in science classroom so students get both sides
  • Medved: Consider this brand new Oxford University Press book that is critical of Darwinian mechanisms, authored by Masatoshi Nei who is at Penn State University professor (written up on Evolution News)
  • Medved: Should this research critical of Darwinism be allowed in science classrooms?
  • Kopplin: I don’t know if this book should be allowed in science classrooms
  • Kopplin: I already know without reading anything though that there will never be evidence that supports intelligent design
  • Kopplin: There is no evidence against Darwinism and there is no controversy and there is no disagreement among scientists
  • Luskin: There are hundreds of papers in mainstream science peer-reviewed publications critical of Darwinism
  • Luskin: (lists a stack of papers critical of core tenets of Darwinian theory from respect science journals in the last few years)
  • Luskin: Masatoshi Nei recently posted a comment critical of the usefulness of the mutation-selection mechanism
  • Luskin: The real issue is whether students are allowed to hear mainstream scientific criticisms of Darwinism in the science classroom
  • Medved: Is it OK for a teacher to admit that on a specific issue in science, that there is no credible naturalistic explanation?
  • Kopplin: I am a history major, so I don’t want to comment on whether it is OK to admit that naturalism doesn’t explain everything
  • Luskin: A Harvard chemist says that the origin of life is an open issue in this peer-reviewed journal article
  • Luskin: Teachers should be allowed to say that there is no accepted naturalistic explanation for the origin of life
  • Luskin: teachers should NOT be teaching religion, or creationism, or even intelligent design in science classrooms
  • Luskin: but teachers should be allowed to say what the Harvard chemist said in that peer-reviewed article in the science classroom
  • Kopplin: there was a creationist woman who sat next to the Discovery Institute person when the law was being debated
  • Kopplin: so based on that there is a scary hidden creationist agenda behind the law which is not reflected in the actual text law
  • Luskin: Um, that woman has no connection to the Discovery Institute
  • Luskin: seating arrangement at the hearings were pre-determined, not selected by those in attendance
  • Luskin: what about people who are pushing Darwinism, who are anti-religious atheists and humanists? should they be disqualified?
  • Luskin: we should not discredit the arguments of either side based on speculations about their motives – what counts is the evidence
  • Kopplin: but I have a letter signed by lots of Nobel-prize winning scientists that opposes the Louisiana science education law
  • Luskin: but that letter never actually quotes from the law, it is critiquing views that have nothing to do with the actual law
  • Medved: Summarize your views
  • Kopplin: Criticism of Darwinism and naturalism using mainstream scientific evidence SHOULD NOT be allowed in the science classroom
  • Luskin: Criticism of Darwinism and naturalism using mainstream scientific evidence SHOULD be allowed in the science classroom

And there is a period of questions from the callers.

This episode features a debate, so it is not to be missed. it is always a good idea to hear both sides. Unfortunately, ID people are the only ones who think that both sides should be heard.

I subscribe to the ID the Future podcast, and I really recommend that you do as well!

For the fifth year in a row, Bobby Jindal’s state of Louisiana declared “most pro-life”

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Here’s my other “first pick” in the GOP primary.

Life News reports:

In January, for the fifth year in a row, Louisiana was declared the most pro-life state in the nation by American’s United for Life (AUL). Since pro-life Governor Bobby Jindal has been in office for the past six years, it would be fair to say his leadership, at least in part, has created a more pro-life Louisiana.

After AUL made their announcement, Jindal said, “Louisiana was named the most pro-life state for the fifth year in a row. In Louisiana, we promote a culture of life and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us.”

During Jindal’s time in office he’s signed countless pieces of pro-life legislation as well as limited Obamacare by prohibiting the coverage of elective abortion in health care plans. This is exactly why many pro-life advocates and Republican voters would be thrilled if Jindal ran for president in 2016. In the Decatur Daily, journalist Cal Thomas reported that Jindal said he’d decide in “two to three months” whether to run for president.

The pro-life legislation Jindal’s signed include everything from bills that ban abortion at 20-weeks and stop coerced abortions— to legislation that requires abortion facilities to provide ultrasounds prior to an abortion and ensures that medical professionals don’t have to participate in abortion.

In 2014, Jindal signed Louisiana Right to Life’s flagship legislation, the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act (HB 388), which could close three of the five abortion clinics in the state. HB 388 requires that abortion providers have admitting privileges within 30 miles of a local hospital; clarifies that informed consent protections apply to both surgical abortion, as well as to RU-486 chemical abortions; and that facilities that perform more than five abortions maintain proper licensing. After the passage of the HB 388 through the Louisiana Legislation, Gov. Jindal said, “This bill will give women the health and safety protections they deserve.”

Earlier this year, The Washington Times reported that Jindal blasted U.S. House Republicans after they pulled a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. He said, “The American people elected a Republican majority to support the pro-life movement and champion conservative principles. I hope they reconsider.”

In January, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, which serves under Jindal’s administration, announced that they are blocking abortions at an abortion facility Planned Parenthood is building in New Orleans. Originally, their facility was supposed to open by the end of 2014; however, due to opposition from pro-life Louisianans, including Louisiana Right to Life, the Jindal administration and the Archdiocese of New Orleans, their efforts have been stalled.

The Executive Director of Louisiana Right to Life, Benjamin Clapper, told the Washington Post more about Jindal’s commitment to protecting unborn life. He said, “He’s not just been pro-life behind closed doors. He’s also been proudly pro-life across our state.” American’s United for Life also told the Post that during Jindal’s time in office, Louisiana has been the most pro-life it has ever been.

Remarkably, Jindal has always been completely honest about his pro-life views.

In 2003, he said, “In my first race in 2003, at one of my first fundraisers, my first question was from a fairly liberal woman who asked me my position on abortion. I told her I was pro-life. I remember thinking I was going to have to return all the money I had raised! But amazingly, she became a financial supporter despite our differences over abortion. It turns out she already knew I was pro-life; she just wanted to see if I would be honest about my position or if I would waffle in order to get her money.”

According to the National Right to Life Committee, Jindal had a 100-percent voting record during three years as member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Additionally, Louisiana Right to Life has honored Gov. Jindal on numerous occasions for his pro-life stand in the Pelican State. In January, as Jindal left the stage after speaking at their annual pro-life rally Clapper said, “Bobby Jindal is the most pro-life governor in the history of Louisiana.”

My other “first pick” Scott Walker is now leading his competitors by 14% in the latest Iowa poll. He has 24% of the votes.

If I were going to compare the two of them, I would say that Walker is pro-life, was leader of a pro-life club in college, got some pro-life laws passed, and that those pro-life laws definitely reduced the number of abortions in his state. However, I think his focus is on taking on the big groups on the left like the public sector unions, the welfare collectors, the secular leftists at the public universities who go after conservatives. Walker is in a blue state, so he basically runs as a fiscal conservative, and then when he wins, which he always does, he brings his social conservatism with him, and does the best he can. But he wins because he is 1) a fighter and 2) competent at all things fiscal. The knock on Walker right now is his immigration plan – he is very vague about what he would do, and conservatives want to know where he stands.

Jindal is different. Not only is he better educated than Walker (Rhodes scholar at Oxford), but he is a policy expert in education and health care policy. He is also very outspoken on foreign policy and social issues. I think his ability to stick to his convictions no matter what is the same as Walker, but he is much more open about his full range of views, instead of just presenting himself as a policy expert and a guy who can get the job done. Jindal is heavily into consumer-driven health care and school choice. The knock on Jindal right now is his budget deficit and high disapproval rating in his home state – he hasn’t gotten together the fiscal record right now to stack up against Scott Walker. For a man like Bobby Jindal, though, every crisis is an opportunity. This is his chance to define himself by cutting spending and waste.

We should know by the end of February what Governor Jindal intends to do to close that $1.6 billion shortfall.

Governor Bobby Jindal’s fight to give poor, minority children quality education

Here’s an update on the Democrat war on vouchers in Louisiana, posted by governor Bobby Jindal in the left-leaning Washington Post. In it, he explains how is trying to reform education in his home state of Louisiana, and how the federal government is trying to stop him for doing that.

Excerpt:

We all know the harsh cycle of poverty that exists in the United States and that a disproportionate share of those in poverty are minorities. Studies of health-care outcomes, incarceration levels and economic opportunity all show that education is key to improving quality of life.

Millions of single parents in this country work two jobs to make ends meet, hoping that their children won’t have the same struggles. Hope is their only option because they live in neighborhoods with chronically failing public schools and lack the means to move to better school districts or to send their children to private schools.

Obama and Holder think this should continue to be the reality. In Louisiana, we think the opposite is true. We believe every child deserves the opportunity to get a great education.

That’s why we started a school choice program in 2008 in New Orleans and expanded it statewide in 2012. Low-income families with children in schools graded C, D or F by the state are eligible to apply for a scholarship and send their children to schools of their choice.

The program works. From 2011 to 2013, students who had been trapped in failing schools and now attend scholarship schools showed improvement on literacy and math tests. The share of students performing at grade level rose 7 percent, state data show, even though in 2013, 60 percent of students taking the test had been in their new schools for only eight months. More than 90 percent of parents of students participating in the program reported satisfaction with their children’s schools.

This opportunity is perhaps these children’s best chance to escape the cycle of poverty. No one in their right mind could argue that the Justice Department’s efforts to block the scholarship program will help these kids. This can only be an attempt to curry favor with the government unions that provide financial largess and political power.

President Obama should do the right thing and order the Justice Department to drop the lawsuit. Not because I am asking, but because the parents and children in the scholarship program deserve an opportunity. For generations, the government has forced these families to hope for the best from failing schools. Shame on all of us for standing by and watching generations of children stay in failing schools that may have led them to lives of poverty.

We in Louisiana are rejecting the status quo because we believe every child should have the opportunity to succeed. A scholarship program is not a silver bullet for student success. Maybe a student will perform well in a traditional public school, or a charter school, or a virtual school, but the point is that parents should be able to decide, not bureaucrats in Baton Rouge or Washington.

If the president and the attorney general believe their path is right, I invite them to come to Louisiana and look these parents and children in the eyes and explain why they believe every child shouldn’t have a fair shake.

If the administration does not drop this lawsuit, we will fight every step of the way until the children prevail. Giving every child — no matter race or income — the opportunity to get a great education is a moral imperative.

You might remember that the Obama administration previously went after the D.C. voucher program, which was also for helping poor, minority students.  Why are the Democrats doing this? The answer is simple. Come election time, the Democrats rely heavily on the fundraising and activism of the teacher unions. The teacher unions have more money if they have more children trapped in their failing public schools. Therefore, Obama has every incentive to make sure that no child is allowed to leave a failing school. He needs the help of the teacher unions at election time more than he needs to help children who cannot even vote. That’s what is really going on here. Bobby Jindal would love to have the support of teacher unions, but given the choice between helping the unions and helping the children, he’s choosing the children.

The main point here is that the politicians who talk the most about spending more money on education may not be thinking about what is best for children at all. They might be thinking about paying their union supporters more, so that they will do more at election time. An alternative to just giving more money to the unions would be Jindal’s plan of giving money directly to parents and letting parents choose. Parents might not be as politically connected as teacher unions, but if your goal is to help children get an education, then maybe unions and elections don’t matter as much.

Related posts

Zack Kopplin debates Casey Luskin on the Louisiana Science Education Act on the Michael Medved show

The Michael Medved show is a national radio show broadcast out of Seattle, Washington. According to Talkers magazine, he has the fifth largest radio audience. He has a regular weekly segment on science and culture featuring  scholars from the Discovery Institute.

Here is the seventh segment from this past week, courtesy of the Intelligent Design: The Future podcast.

The MP3 file is available for download. (38 minutes)

The description is:

On this episode of ID the Future, the Medved Show hosts the CSC’s Casey Luskin and student Zack Kopplin, a leading activist in the effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. Luskin and Kopplin debate the implications of the Louisiana law for science education standards and whether or not the law promotes the teaching of creationism.

Each week, leading fellows from Discovery Institute will join Michael Medved to talk about the intersection of science and culture. Listen in live online or on your local Medved station, or stay tuned at ID the Future for the weekly podcast.

Topics: (I tried harder to get Kopplin’s statements right than with Dan Barker last week, because Kopplin isn’t as much a jerk as Barker)

  • Medved: Should teachers be forced to teach creationism in public schools?
  • Luskin: The Discovery Institute has never advocated that creationism be taught in public schools
  • Medved: Does the Louisiana law mandate that creationism be taught in public schools
  • Kopplin: Yes, the bill does because Bobby Jindal said that the bill teaches creationism
  • Luskin: (Reads the actual text of the law) the law EXPLICITLY STATES that teaching creationism is forbidden
  • Luskin: Governor Jindal is misinfored about the law, but if you look at the law it says NO CREATIONISM
  • Kopplin: I don’t care about what the law actually says, I’ll just repeat that Bobby Jindal thinks it’s creationism
  • Kopplin: Thirty years ago, there was an attempt to mandate creationism, therefore this law is doing the same thing
  • Medved: Are there any complaints that creationism is being taught in any schools after this law has been passed
  • Kopplin: No, I don’t know of any, but that’s not because there are none! Maybe there are some that I haven’t heard about yet
  • Medved: If you are taught something that you think is stupid, then is that automatically a violation of your rights?
  • Kopplin: Because you cannot allow the progress of science to call the religion of naturalism into question
  • Luskin: About that Jindal quote – he was talking about what he wanted to pass, not the law that actually passed
  • Luskin: (reads the text of the law again) The law explicitly says that teachign creationism in the classroom is prohibited
  • Luskin: Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism starts with the Bible. Intelligent Design starts with science
  • Luskin: The law only supports teaching both sides of things that are already in the curriculum
  • Luskin: ID is not already in the curriculum, therefore, the law does not allow it to be discussed
  • Medved: Take Stephen C. Meyer’s book on the origin of life, could that be used in the classroom?
  • Kopplin: I am not very familiar with Meyer’s book, but if it is critical of Darwinism and naturalism, then it should not be taught. I don’t need to read it before I can censor it
  • Luskin: Meyer’s book advocates for ID, so it should not be taught in science classrooms
  • Luskin: non-ID science papers that are critical of Darwinism should be allowed in science classroom so students get both sides
  • Medved: Consider this brand new Oxford University Press book that is critical of Darwinian mechanisms, authored by Masatoshi Nei who is at Penn State University professor (written up on Evolution News)
  • Medved: Should this research critical of Darwinism be allowed in science classrooms?
  • Kopplin: I don’t know if this book should be allowed in science classrooms
  • Kopplin: I already know without reading anything though that there will never be evidence that supports intelligent design
  • Kopplin: There is no evidence against Darwinism and there is no controversy and there is no disagreement among scientists
  • Luskin: There are hundreds of papers in mainstream science peer-reviewed publications critical of Darwinism
  • Luskin: (lists a stack of papers critical of core tenets of Darwinian theory from respect science journals in the last few years)
  • Luskin: Masatoshi Nei recently posted a comment critical of the usefulness of the mutation-selection mechanism
  • Luskin: The real issue is whether students are allowed to hear mainstream scientific criticisms of Darwinism in the science classroom
  • Medved: Is it OK for a teacher to admit that on a specific issue in science, that there is no credible naturalistic explanation?
  • Kopplin: I am a history major, so I don’t want to comment on whether it is OK to admit that naturalism doesn’t explain everything
  • Luskin: A Harvard chemist says that the origin of life is an open issue in this peer-reviewed journal article
  • Luskin: Teachers should be allowed to say that there is no accepted naturalistic explanation for the origin of life
  • Luskin: teachers should NOT be teaching religion, or creationism, or even intelligent design in science classrooms
  • Luskin: but teachers should be allowed to say what the Harvard chemist said in that peer-reviewed article in the science classroom
  • Kopplin: there was a creationist woman who sat next to the Discovery Institute person when the law was being debated
  • Kopplin: so based on that there is a scary hidden creationist agenda behind the law which is not reflected in the actual text law
  • Luskin: Um, that woman has no connection to the Discovery Institute
  • Luskin: seating arrangement at the hearings were pre-determined, not selected by those in attendance
  • Luskin: what about people who are pushing Darwinism, who are anti-religious atheists and humanists? should they be disqualified?
  • Luskin: we should not discredit the arguments of either side based on speculations about their motives – what counts is the evidence
  • Kopplin: but I have a letter signed by lots of Nobel-prize winning scientists that opposes the Lousiana science education law
  • Luskin: but that letter never actually quotes from the law, it is critiquing views that have nothing to do with the actual law
  • Medved: Summarize your views
  • Kopplin: Criticism of Darwinism and naturalism using mainstream scientific evidence SHOULD NOT be allowed in the science classroom
  • Liskin: Criticism of Darwinism and naturalism using mainstream scientific evidence SHOULD be allowed in the science classroom

And there is a period of questions from the callers.

This episode features a debate, so it is not to be missed. it is always a good idea to hear both sides. Unfortunately, ID people are the only ones who think that both sides should be heard.

I subscribe to the ID the Future podcast, and I really recommend that you do as well!

Previous entries