register |  login
› LONGMONT
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
Blog
Blog Entry 1 of 208 The Subversive Liberal
"If by a "liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "liberal." – President John F. Kennedy...................... Some people find me and that sentiment subversive. I'm here to set the record straight and offer the real typical liberal point of view. Some call it subversive, I call it patriotic.

Blog Url: http://denver.yourhub.com/~BingVanGorden

Darwin is as Darwin does...
Contributed by: Bing Van Gorden   on 3/28/2007

Local soon to be retired teacher wants to write books on creationism and the "dangers of Darwinism." I am so happy he's retiring from teaching. The guy has the good sense not to use his position as a teacher to poison the minds of his students with religious dogma and leaps of faith. He doesn't openly challenge the theory of evolution in his class room and kudos to him for having the sense not to. Let me interject here, I am all for questioning what is comfortably assumed as fact. I applaud challenging the status quo and poking a the establishment with a sharp stick. I do. But just because one does, as is the case with this teacher of science, doesn't make their argument valid or reasonable. The theory of evolution is based on reasoning, rationalization and scientific observation. The idea or notion or whatever it's referred to as Creationism is based solely on faith. Faith on the Holy Bible. A book written by men. Edited, transcribed and reconfigured by men and faith that it is the word of God. Public schools are not designed or instituted to impede thought by accepting blindly on faith. Science builds on evidence, theories change when necessary as evidenced is weighed. Scientists can admit they are wrong. All one has to do is prove it with hard evidence. At the very least this teacher is waiting to peddle his clap trap to an eager crowd of zealots who think Anne Coulter is a good read and Rush Limbaugh can be trusted.




SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above blog



Current Rating
Based on 3 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the blog

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

< BACK | NEXT >
Showing 1-10 of 14 comments
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 2/16/2008 @ 7:56:56 PM
(Not Rated)
It reads, laws of nature and nature's god. That comment would be heresy to many practitioners of Christianity today. And your assertion about being free not to practice is a flawed argument. Habeas corpus is not granted by the Constitution, the Constitution simply forbids denying it to anyone else. Religious freedom, of course, requires the right to not believe. Here's the first example of you putting words in my mouth too. You inferred that I stated that science was unquestionable and I did not. I so hope you check back on this thread.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 3/30/2007 @ 8:43:11 PM
(Not Rated)
Dec. of Independence has "God" in the first sentence. And the 1st Amdmnt doesn't just say "shall make no law regarding it". It says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" about religion, not speech. It basically says you're free to engage in religion, any religion - but we won't force one on you. If you want to nitpick it, nowhere does it say you are free to NOT practice religion. The "establishment" part was so there wouldn't be an organized govt religion, like the Church of England. Free speech comes next (which allows insulting religion, oddly enough). I don't doubt there are plenty of people that have been turned off by religious extremists or bad experiences. But there are also athiestic zealots. I don't like either extreme forcing their views onto me. Which is how this topic started - I dont think this teacher was forcing his beliefs on anyone. I don't know him, but I have friends that have kids in his class, they haven't reported this, and I've asked.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 3/30/2007 @ 7:56:39 PM
(Not Rated)
Hi Brian, I'm reminded of Richard Dawkins comment that we are all atheistic towards all kinds of other people's gods. We just take it one god further.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 3/30/2007 @ 6:24:33 PM
(Not Rated)
Thanks for checking back in Chris, No I don't think science is the end all be all. Science can't explain everything and if it did there would be no room for imagination. I have increasingly become anti-religous because I have observed the terrible things religioin can do and my own personal experience. I fully support this gentleman's rights. I'm merely exercising mine in rebuttal. I assume you refer to the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Creator is used, but you won't find God and religion is mentioned in the 1st Amendment but only to establish that the government make no law regarding it. The vast majority of this country also has credit card debt, that doesn't make it desirable. ;^} I dig the Beatles too.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 3/30/2007 @ 5:27:40 PM
(Not Rated)
So science is unquestionable? I question organized religion plenty, but calling science the final word is ludicrous. I see how they nail weather predictions, hurricane season warnings, the next ice age, harmful pesticides, etc. Far from perfect. Impressive most of the time, yes, but lets not go overboard. Playing devils advocate, what you consider whimsical, offensive, detrimental - a vast majority of people in this country are religious in one form or another. Not to mention this countries 3 main documents have God, Creator, or religion as part of their wording. If you really believe in populism, you should be behind this guys First Amendment rights regardless if you agree or not with his 'beliefs'. Or is this selective? Beatles rule, btw.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 3/30/2007 @ 5:00:31 PM
(Not Rated)
Chris, I'll answer each of your questions. I'm happy he's retiring because I think people who abandon reason for blind faith are undesirable. I qualified my kudos to him in my original post. Question the status quo but make sense when you do. I never said he should be fired. This doesn't have anything to do with simply not agreeing with his position. Everyone's argument is as valid as can be backed up with reason. I don't care if some people resorted to name calling. I try not to but I can't speak for anyone else but myself. That being said, I've found, it's people of faith that are quickest to resort to name calling and bigotry anyway. The "assumptions" he's questioning are scientific. He offers nothing but whimsical dreams rooted in the Holy Bible to question it. I find that offensive and detrimental to society as a whole.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 3/29/2007 @ 6:12:24 PM
(Not Rated)
I'm working on this story from the angle of the limits of the First Amendment in how it relates to speech, religion...and libel. Why are you "so happy he's retiring", yet you give him kudos for having the sense not to "poison" young minds? Would you rather he did? Also, how much do you applaud challenging the status quo, but when he does, he should be fired? Does this only apply if you agree with a position? Who says anyones argument is valid? As far as reasonable, point me to this guys detractors who haven't resorted to name calling, including viscous attacks on his family. For what? Questioning assumptions?
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 3/29/2007 @ 4:56:33 PM
(Not Rated)
Thanks Jamie!
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Jamie VanEaton
posted on 3/29/2007 @ 4:53:29 PM
Rated Blog Entry
Welcome to yourhub. :) I don't argue politics with neighbors (not since the great Texas incident of 2002), but it's nice to meet you.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: delete this
posted on 3/29/2007 @ 3:21:30 PM
Rated Blog Entry
I dont frequent fox's site much anymore, it becomes VERY frustrating. There's not alot of political going on at YourHub, the bloggers are real good people, very nice. Unlike the other.!
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-10 of 14 comments
< BACK | NEXT >
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Bing Van Gorden

Longmont , CO

Bing Van Gorden has posted 208 blog entries and 985 comments since joining on 3/28/2007. Bing Van Gorden 's average blog rating is 3.47.
BLOG ENTRY RSS FEEDS
SAVE AND SHARE THIS ITEM

BLOG LIST
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is  register,  then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyonewhat events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos