With the Libertarian candidate's permission, here is Eric Schansberg's unedited response to my post on Sunday, Indiana's 9th district contest: A million miles on a set of retreads? Are you kidding?
---
In a word: an eloquent beat-down of Sodrel; "palpable resignation" in choosing Hill; and considerable respect with disagreement on some issues for me.
Thanks for your kind words!
Thoughts on two of the labels you used...
You refer to my "fundamentalist religious orientation". As an aside: is this a good time for a reference to "choice" vs. "was I born that way"? ;-) In any case, I'd be more careful throwing around a label like that.
First, it's not true about me in general terms. Anyone who knows me in terms of my theology and Christian walk would be hard-pressed to make that pejorative stick.
Second, you connect my fundamentalism to my views on abortion. Again, I'd take care with that assertion as well-- if one's views are based on a bizarre view of a sacred text (the Constitution) and decades-old science (on when life begins).
More broadly, and I don't know you well enough to say this about you, but many in your crowd suffer from various forms of fundamentalism with respect to the State, Nature, and so on.
And then there's the term "progressive". You might want to check the Progressive Handbook on this. But I don't think you're allowed to claim the label when you publicly support a candidate who does nothing substantive to get us out of Iraq, says nothing about the 15.3% tax on every dollar earned by the working poor, nothing about the negative rate-of-return on Social Security for African-Americans, and so on. I'll admit that Hill seems quite strong on keeping our kids away from porn and supporting our veterans. But that hardly seems like enough for a "progressive" to actively promote the status quo.
Instead of progressive, I think you mean "pragmatist". Of course, I need voters to be more principled. And with Hill cruising to victory with a 11-15% lead, nose-holders in both parties now have an option which would allow them to sleep better at night.
I'd love to win. That said, assuming a second-tier miracle is not in the offing, reaching 10% is within reach. (We were at 7% in the last poll.) Reaching double-digits would hopefully lead to a national discussion of third-party candidates (including various types of "progressives")-- something all of us, presumably, want to see.
Don't waste your vote this time. Vote Schansberg for Congress on November 4th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
sorry Eric, but I agree with Roger's religious/christian fundamentalist label he has correctly tagged you with. You cite scripture in your book regarding a christian's call to political activity, you publicly endorse intelligent design over evolution and debated Dr. Kyle Forinash on that very topic at IU Southeast, where I might add he totally debunked the intelligent design lunancy and you support overturning Roe v Wade on religious beliefs.
If the shoe fits , must be your foot. So rather than put your foot in your mouth and trying to pretend to be something youre not, just own up to your real agenda which is a christian political agenda and not really a Libertarian party agenda.
If citing Scripture and connecting it to political activity is evidence of fundamentalism, then you've cast a very wide net indeed-- including Obama, Jill Long-Thompson, and so on.
I endorse the continued study of intelligent design over the prohibitively exclusive claims of Evolution. That said, I acknowledge the power of (micro) evolution and the potential for (macro) Evolution to explain, some day, much of what we see in terms of the development of life. If you're read anything from ID'ers, it is clear that this is not a religious claim.
In my response/posting, I said that I support the overturning of Roe v. Wade because of science and a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. Again, no religion required.
If the shoe fits, I'd be glad to wear it. In the meantime, quit trying to jam it on there.
Actually, it looks like the fundie label fits you far better: in addition to whatever religious views you may have about ecology, you've displayed here: 1.) an astounding allergy to Scripture; 2.) a full embrace of Evolution as a comprehensive "explanation" for the development of life; and 3.) some flat-earth-like views on science as it pertains to the beginning of human life.
Meet you at the shoe store? ;-)
Eric,
I'm curious as to how you see earning the requisite 10% of the vote in Indiana's 9th district being parlayed into a national conversation about third party candidates, particularly of the progressive variety.
I understand the desire and the state-level impact of the 10%. What I question, I suppose, is whether the 9th district race would receive that much attention in a year when the mainstreamers don't seem to be battling for an unclear majority or if a 3% Libertarian gain in what's already viewed as a very conservative state would pique the nation's curiosity as some sort of cultural shift.
Bluegill, good question.
I'm not sure that 10% would lead to that discussion (or perhaps even more exotic topics like electoral reform), but I think it's likely. Double-digits would be somewhere between rare and historic. (The candidate who ran before me average 1.5% or so. We moved up to 4.5% in 2006 and are looking for more this year.) I certainly hope so, but to your point, I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.
Let's put it this way: I think the probability that one's vote for me will get me to 10% and lead to that sort of discussion is far higher than the probability that one's vote will decide the election between Sodrel and Hill.
The word "fundamentalist" originated from the publication of pamphlets on the Fundamentals of (theologically) conservative Evangelical Christianity, circa 1910. Of course, the word "fundamentalist" is somewhat pejorative these days, but it refers to those who believe in certain doctrines, particularly inerrancy of the Bible. Eric is a member of Southeast Christian Church, which teaches the doctrine of "verbal plenary inspiration," meaning that the entire Bible is word-for-word inspired by God. Eric will correct me, but I would expect him to also believe in the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, the virgin birth, the existence of Satan and demons, and in the reality of Hell as an eternal state of punishment (or at least an eternal state of separation from God). If you use the label "fundamentalist" to refer to this package of beliefs, Eric is a fundamentalist. But of course, if you use the word "fundamentalist" to refer to a proponent of a rigidly intolerant religious agenda, this describes Eric rather poorly.
Concerning ID, I have read books by ID proponents, probably 7 or 8 books. They of course make a show of phrasing their arguments without referring to religious doctrines or scriptures; they of course assert that ID is a scientific not a religious theory. No doubt these authors are sincere in believing that ID is a scientific not religious theory. But it is also clear that ID is being heavily promoted for religious and political purposes. An outstanding book that details who is promoting ID and why is Creationism's Trojan Horse: the Wedge of Intelligent Design by Forrest and Gross (Oxford University Press, 2004). This book also gives a convincing sketch as to why ID is not science (or, at the least, is very bad science). The thing to bear in mind is this: ID people and creationists frequently assert that "evolution [the standard neo-Darwinian synthesis] is a theory in crisis." This is entirely untrue—anyone familiar with the current state of biology knows that evolution is a vigorous and robust theory that is as strong as it ever has been.
stick to what you know Eric (economics), its not science as Dr. Forinash so obviously proved in your forum. You can call your campaign for congress what you want but I smell a right wing christian agenda at work here and according to one of your Libertarian comrades at Harvest Homecoming, the reason you run as a Libertarian is because your christian approach is even too radical for the republican primary voters.
would you like some socks to go with those shoes?
Thanks, William, for your comments. Yes, I am fundie in the early 20th century sense. But as you note, the term's use has changed. In terms of doctrine, that set of beliefs is held by those who are fundies (in the sense meant by EW, I think) and "evangelicals" (although this term has flowered and fractured in the past two decades)-- a large and diverse group of believers.
I don't think Evolution is a theory in crisis. It's doing just fine-- and plugging along nicely. But at present, it does not come anywhere near to providing a comprehensive explanation for the development of life. The only crisis would be caused by people over-selling Evolution and then having to sell it short when people realize its limitations.
again Eric, you have 0 knowledge of science and evolution, good thing the biology professors at IUS dont teach economics that would be just as disasterous as you trying to espouse knowledge of evolutionary biology
A little more about evolution — the one aspect of the development of life that biology lacks an adequate theory for is the origin of the first single-celled organisms. Mainstream biologists believe that it's only a matter of time before an adequate theory appears; molecular biology is a very young enterprise.
But from that point forth, the theory of evolution is extremely robust. The evidence for descent with modification from a single, common ancestor is overwhelming. The phenomonon of convergent evolution—multiple solutions to the same problem—is a particularly convincing bit of evidence for evolution. For example: eyes evolved several times, taking rather different forms, in the molluscs, the arthropods, and in the vertebrates. Powered flight evolved at least five times: Insects, pterosaurs (pterodactyls), dinosaurs (birds), and two different lineages of mammals (bats and fruit bats).
The real problem with evolution is that it is being attacked by persons who are not motivated by science but instead by religion. Something similar occurs with homosexuality: There is a concerted effort to convince the public that homosexuality is learned or chosen, and that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. This goes against the scientific consensus as represented by the major relevant scientific and medical organizations. But my point is that the effort to challenge the science on homosexuality is not motivated by science, it is motivated by religion.
William, thanks. Unfortunately, EW will not listen to your comments because you are neither an evolutionary biologist nor a psychologist (as far as I know).
I don't know the scientific criteria for a "robust theory". All I know is that micro-evolution is a powerful mechanism and macro-evolution is a great story that provides a significant degree of explanation (but far from complete) for the development of life. That limitation should neither be feared or ignored (by one type of fundie) nor used to trash evolution or Evolution (by another type of fundie).
Well, Eric, you'll have to call me an evolutionary fundamentalist, too. Biologists make no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution—those terms were introduced by creationists. And evolution is far more than a "great story"; it is a testable theory that has passed many tests.
But I remain an Episcopalian. While evolution is not compatible with a literal reading of Genesis, evolution is compatible with a creator God and Christian theology. I might recommend two books that explain this: In Search of Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller, and The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief by Francis Collins. Miller is a prominent biologist who is Roman Catholic; Francis Collins is a leading geneticist who is an Evangelical Christian.
I don't see you as a fundie by the definition I laid out. How do you think you qualify?
I said that evolution was a robust theory, a powerful mechanism, AND a great story (vs. a comprehensive explanation). I don't intend anything pejorative by "story", but I think that's accurate.
I agree that evolution is compatible with creation and the existence of God. To note, He could have used evolution to accomplish 27% or 99.5% of what we see today. Can science speak to the missing percentage at all?
It's true I'm not a fundamentalist towards evolution in the way Richard Dawkins is; he views evolution as the only source of meaning, the only explanation for life. He is of course an atheist.
It's not completely clear where science leaves off and God begins. My conception is that the science itself is an expression of God, who created a rational and intelligible universe. If there were any direct interventions by God, we will probably never know (those interventions will be undetectable by our science; they'll look like random chance). Except, again, the universe itself is founded on elegant laws that make organic chemistry and life possible. Now this God might either be the God of deism, uninterested in individual human lives, or the God of religions such as Christianity or Judaism, who is active in peoples' lives—but here we cross beyond the bounds of science into faith.
I'd just like to say that I've appreciated the discussion between Eric and William.
Good stuff, guys.
Good stuff...thanks!
If science is an expression of God-- and if God wants to be known-- then it seems somewhat probable that we might be able to detect Him in nature and through science.
Post a Comment