All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
November 15, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
One of the great things about the nomination of Samuel Alito is that you will begin to see a debate over the Constitution in this country.
Most Americans don't know what's in it, or they have a mistaken view because they have listened to liberal commentators and liberal politicians for so many years saying that certain things are in the Constitution or our constitutional rights.
First of all, the body of the Constitution itself generally is not controversial.
It's when you get into the amendments, in particular the firsthand, the Bill of Rights, where the great debates in our time really begin.
Most Americans, I think, believe the Constitution says there will be a separation of church and state in our country.
Everybody thinks that's in the Constitution.
It's not in there.
It is not in there.
The Constitution says nothing about a separation of church and state.
This is how it has been interpreted by some, but the language is not there.
So for all of you, every time you hear that someone wants to put up a Christmas tree or have a manger display in front of a school's operation of church and state, it is not there.
What is in the First Amendment to the Constitution is language that says the government shall not establish a religion.
And that it shall not prevent the free exercise of religion.
That's what it says.
The founders did not want what they faced in England, where there was a state church, the church of England, and they felt as though they did not have the freedom to practice their own religion.
They never intended to have this be a society in which religion is shoved out of every aspect of American life, and it's not what the Constitution says.
But it does become the excuse when people go on in the separation of church and state nonsense, it becomes the excuse for all sorts of stupid decisions.
Now there's a case I want to share with the audience here.
It comes from my own state of Wisconsin.
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, public university, about 10,000 students.
State school.
One of the RAs in one of the dorms, and an RA, when I was in college, the RA was the guy that said turn the music down.
I don't recall him doing much of anything else, but the RA is the student that's kind of in charge of a section of the dorm.
Some dorms are in cubes where there's three or four or five different areas on each floor.
Other dorms have big long floors and have one RA who works one end of the floor, the other RA works the other end of the floor.
RA is short for resident assisted.
In exchange for kind of running these sections of the dorms, they get usually free room, sometimes free room and board, sometimes they'll get a stipend on top of the ability to live in the dormitory for free.
And they will do things like if there is a problem with some of the students to tell them to shut up if they're making too much noise.
They will try to maintain order.
If students need help on things, they'll go to them as opposed to having to go to the full-time manager of the residence hall.
That's what RAs do.
This case involves an RA at UW Auclair, Wisconsin Eau Claire, named Lance Steiger.
He's a Christian.
And what he was doing last school year was two or three times a week, he'd have a small group of his friends gather in his dorm room and they would discuss the Bible.
You might call it formal Bible study, as I understand it, it was more like an open discussion of, okay, let's talk about this passage.
What does it mean?
This is something that millions of Christians in this country do every day.
He was doing it in his dorm room.
The University of Wisconsin Eau Claire told him he can't do it in his dorm room.
They said you can't do this in a dorm room because you are an employee of us.
You're not like another student sitting in his or her dorm room.
You're one of our employees.
You're on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
If a student needs assistance with something, they may not be willing to come into your room because they would feel uncomfortable because you're talking about The Bible.
I'm not making this up.
This is what they told him.
They told him that he can't in his dorm room be involved in a Bible study, saying that he is actually an employee of the university.
Well, it's true he is an employee of the university in the broad sense, they do give him compensation, but the dorm room is his home.
They're telling him he can't study the Bible in his own dorm room.
So he said, Fine, I'll take my group of friends and we'll go somewhere else in the dorm.
So they went into the basement of the dormitory and they held their Bible study in a room that was in the basement.
They told him he can't do it there either.
They said, look, you're in the dorm.
You're one of the people responsible for the dorm.
You may be needed at some point in the dorm.
We don't want to have a situation in which some student who may not be a Christian is uncomfortable approaching you because they see you studying the Bible.
And since you're a student and since you're an employee of the university, you just can't do this anywhere on campus.
So what this student is faced with, if he wants to discuss the Bible with other people, he literally has to leave the grounds of the entire university campus.
They said that's okay.
If you're off campus, you can engage in Bible study because if you're off campus, no student would be seeking assistance from you for some situation involving the dorm.
Now let's deal with this from a common sense perspective.
I would think they would want the RA to be on campus and in the dorm.
They're making him leave the campus where he isn't going to be able to be of assistance to anyone if somebody does have a problem.
If somebody's hot plate is overheated or there's some other issue in the dorm, and that's the kind of thing that RAs deal with, if he's off campus, he can't deal with it at all.
But let's deal with the logic that they establish here.
They're saying that he is engaging in an organized religious activity simply for studying the Bible in his room.
Now they've been under a fair amount of fire in Wisconsin for this, as you might guess, but they are not backing down.
Story came to light several weeks ago.
They aren't backing down.
University of Wisconsin Eau Claire is sticking by its guns.
They are now saying, in a clarification of their policy, well, it isn't just the Bible study.
We don't want any of our RAs involved in any kind of advocacy on anything.
We don't want them to be engaged in any kind of political organizing.
We don't want five or six Democrats getting together and plotting a political campaign in a dorm room.
In front of them is an RA, it's going to be involved in anything now.
Which of course they're just making up as they're going along.
Anyone who has any experience with college is aware that what young people do in the dorm room, other than mess around and get in trouble or study, is they talk about things.
It's when you're coming of age.
You talk about politics, you talk about the war, you talk about life, you talk about the opposite sex.
You do those things.
It's natural.
So they're making this up as they go along and they're saying, well, now we aren't going to allow you to engage in anything that might be advocacy so long as you're a student, which they have to come up with because they haven't figured out how to explain a decision that says a young man can't discuss the Bible in his own dorm room with another student.
As for their contention that somebody would be made to feel uncomfortable if they came in while this group was studying the Bible.
I uh I lived in a dormitory for one year of my life.
If I wanted to knock on the RA's door, there was literally nothing that would bother me.
What?
Someone's going to be bothered because they're in there.
We've got a problem in the bathroom.
We've got a problem with this.
Oh, can't come in.
He and his friends are talking about the Bible.
It's absurd.
It's absurd.
But it's what happens when you have a society that is treating now religion, particularly Christian religion, as something that you just can't do.
You just can't do it.
And we're looking for all sorts of new excuses.
You know, they go after high school football Coaches who try to lead prayers before games.
You can't do that.
There may be an atheistic student.
You can't say the Pledge of Allegiance in school.
The words under God are in there.
Now, on his own time, at the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, they are telling a resident assistant that he can't study the Bible.
Now there's an irony here.
They actually have a theology course at that university.
What would they do if the professor assigned an assignment that required reading the Bible?
I think this RA wouldn't be able to do it.
He'd have to leave campus in order to study because God forbid you can't engage in Bible study.
One other point.
What do you think their reaction would have been if this student, and by the way, his name is Lance Steiger, and gotta love Lance here because he's not taking this quietly.
He is contacted a national uh lawyer's group that stands up for the rights of Christians.
What if Lance was not a Christian?
What if every day Lance kneeled down for thirty minutes on his prayer rug?
He's a Muslim.
Do you think for an instant they would have told a Muslim RA that he can't kneel on his prayer rug and pray to Wallah?
There's no way they would have done that.
It's only Christianity that attracts this kind of a response.
It's the only religion in which you see this kind of reaction occurring.
Now, as I said, this story broke several weeks ago.
My guess is that 99% of you have never heard about it.
The national media doesn't pick up on it.
No one in the mainstream media has an interest in it.
No one touches it.
It just kind of happens.
And I'm telling you, were it not for the Internet or Talk Radio, this story would never get out.
Now I don't want to make this my own crusade, although I've talked about it on my show in Milwaukee.
I do think this government-funded institution, the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, does need to give some get some heat for a decision that is just stupid.
Let him get a couple of friends together two or three times a week and talk about the Bible in his dorm room.
They're not harming anyone.
And it would be nice if someone in a position of responsibility at that university got this decision changed.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
Mark Belling's sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I've been sharing with the audience a story from the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, where a resident assistant, student who lives in the dorm, R.A. is being told he cannot anywhere in the dormitory have a Bible study with any other students.
Can't read the Bible, can't discuss the Bible, can't be involved in any kind of religious activity now that they've gotten heat for it.
They say, Well, we won't let them do any political activities in his dorm room either.
Which would seem to me to be a violation of about nine of his constitutional rights to the very city involved, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, Marshall, Marshall, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
Uh yes, I'm a I'm a student at UW O'Claire, a non-traditional one.
Um I took the religious.
Does that mean you're a conservative one?
What do you mean, non-traditional?
It means you're an older, you're an older guy.
I'm an older guy, so you know it's kind of fun to mix up culture with the young and the new, so I have a little bit more political perspective on what's going on.
But the religious studies on cl on on campus is a great class.
A lot of the kids like it because it gives them the cultural diversity, also the foreign culture, plus the college credits.
So people just flock to those classes and and they really do like them.
So they actually like the religious studies course.
I mean, the great this position that they're taking is so ludicrous.
They have, as you indicate, a religious studies program, an academic program, religious studies.
I imagine you study Christianity and Judaism and every other religion that's out there, including us.
They've got everyone, but not Christianity, I don't think.
I'm looking at the roster right now, and it's not listed.
Well, that wouldn't surprise me.
Let's pretend that one doesn't exist.
So you can study about religion, but in this case, if this student was actually studying a book of religion, somehow he's violating the rules.
Well, what if as part of his study he was reading the Quran as part of his work in his religious studies class.
Would he then be in violation?
You ask these questions because there is no real response to it.
What you have here is a couple of bureaucrats who get their back up because some kid is a Christian and dares to actually be a little be open about his Christianity, which rubs some people the wrong way, but it doesn't reflect anything that has to do with anybody else in the culture, and it's just stupid.
But we have seen this be done again and again and again in this name of separation of church and state, which doesn't exist.
Thank you for the call, Marshall.
Appreciate it.
Let's go to Palm Beach, Florida.
Rick, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, it's Rick Schaefer.
Forgive me.
Uh, just was wondering, you know, on what tenet to the justices base their uh right to abortion.
Well, with regard to the Supreme Court, yes.
Well, they cite the privacy clause.
Correct.
And they claimed.
In making the statement.
Well, well, that that's the whole point.
Whenever you do something that's stupid in the name of some sort of right that does not exist, you end up in conflict with some other right.
And that's what you see happening here.
Now, the case that is going on in Eau Claire, I think is one of the most extreme cases of a violation of an individual's religious liberty.
First of all, the student presumably does have some ability to have a private life.
The student presumably has the right to have a religion.
In order to have a religion, you have to at some point have some sort of thoughts about your religion.
In his case, he's daring to speak about those thoughts to other people, and for that they're telling him that he can't do that.
Well, there's no sense associated with it.
There's just no sense at all.
Now, I don't know if anything's going to come of this policy.
As I said, they have been sticking by it for a long, long time.
This has been going on, this story's been going on about four or five weeks.
They've gotten a fair amount of ridicule in Wisconsin.
The uh largest daily newspaper in the state, which is a liberal paper, has condemned them, but they haven't backed down yet, and I don't really don't know if they're going to do so.
Thanks for the call, Rick.
I do appreciate it.
We have an update on uh John Danforth.
Remember him?
Former senator from Missouri, he's also an episcopal priest.
He is writing a book on religion and politics.
It's going to apparently be written from the liberal perspective.
It's called Faith and Politics.
It's supposed to be published next year.
According to a press release, issued by the publisher, which is Viking.
Dan Forth, a former ambassador of the United Nations, says he believes the political influence of evangelical Christians is hurting the Republican Party and dividing the country.
Well, that's why this story is news, and that's why this is out there.
If you are an evangelical Christian, you are the subject of ridicule.
You're called intolerant, you're called divisive, you're called a hater.
You are constantly being forced to defend the views that you have.
But you tell me who's being intolerant.
Is it evangelical Christians who are intolerant?
Or is it all the people who can't stand the fact that they are evangelical Christians?
As for Dan Forth's argument that they're somehow hurting the Republican Party, every evangelical I have ever met votes.
And they all vote for Republicans.
They are the most loyal base of voters that are out there.
And they often have to vote for Republicans that don't agree with them on a lot of social issues.
But now we're told that they're bad for the Republican Party as well.
What you're going to end up doing is just chase them out of the political process as they become more and more alienated by the whole apparatus of government if government keeps telling them there's something wrong with them for believing the way they believe.
Cell phone in Springfield, Massachusetts.
Ray, Ray, you're on EIB.
How are you doing?
Thanks for very much.
Thank you.
I'm wanting to know what happened to the second pat the second half of that phrase about Congress shall uh uh not in I can't remember it right now.
Prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Yeah, that part is just ignored.
It's a two-clause statement.
It says the Congress shall not make a law establishing a religion.
Now that has been used by many liberal legal minds to argue that you can't have any connection between government and religion because that's somehow establishing a religion, which of course is Not what the founders intended, and it's not what it says.
But the second clause is Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.
Yet we are restricting individuals from being able to exercise their religion all over the place.
In the case that I'm describing here at the university in Wisconsin, you have a student who is in a dorm room, which obviously is a government building, and he is a resident assistant who is always on call, so presumably he would be functioning as a technically a government employee when he's reading his Bible.
They take this to ridiculous extremes by somehow suggesting that he's violating the Constitution if he reads the Bible while he's in his room, which I think is just silly.
By the way, it's a adopt a soldier week on the Rush Limbaugh program.
The program's being inaugurated this week.
If you're an active duty member of the military, go to Rush Limbaugh.com, sign up, and we're going to try to match you up with a listener who's going to buy you a discounted subscription to Rush 24-7, including the Limbaugh Letter.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Now I was making fun of myself earlier in the program for how wild my segues are that I'll go from one unrelated subject to another.
This one actually is planned out.
Because what I'm going to talk about here seems like a religious topic or a topic that has something to do with religion, but I assure you it does not.
It does not.
And I'm going to try real hard to explain myself here.
This is not about religion.
It is not going to be about religion.
Yet the entire debate on this subject has had religious overtones to it.
I'm going to talk about two words that are just mortifying the scientific community.
Intelligent design.
What intelligence design is is a theory.
That's all it is.
It's a theory that says the world was created by someone or something or some being.
Doesn't say anything else.
There are a growing number of academics, they're still in the rank minority, but a growing number of them who want to present this theory in the course of education as a potential explanation as to how we got here and everything else got here.
They are facing tremendous opposition.
In fact, uh, there was a school board election somewhere, I think it was in Kansas earlier.
There's either Kansas or Pennsylvania, but it might have been Oregon, Hawaii, or Fluid, I don't know where, in which some school board members who had brought in a curriculum that included intelligent design were voted out by the uh by the voters.
Everyone thinks that intelligence intelligent design means that you got a bunch of Christians saying that God created the universe and we've only been around for 4,000 years, that on day one he did this, and on day two he did that.
It isn't that limiting.
Intelligent design merely says that without regard to your religious beliefs, without regard to anything that you believe now, that the world that we live in was likely created.
I bring it up because I believe this.
I believe this.
I do not believe that all of a sudden something happened and then the world evolved and the next thing you know, you've got all these organisms running around.
You have human beings.
You have all these different animal species.
You have tiny, minute, one-celled creatures.
You've got all these plant species.
Then you have this entire huge vast universe with no other seeming life anywhere on it, but here on planet Earth, you've got all this stuff going on.
That we now are doing things that just seem to be unfathomable.
We've got high definition TV for crying out loud.
We've got the internet, we've got all sorts of things.
This didn't just happen, I don't think.
Look how interdependent everything is with one another.
If just one thing goes wrong, our entire ecosystem gets thrown off.
Look at all the people that are yakking about global warming.
Well, the fact of the matter is that if you look at every other planet in our solar system, they're not ha habitable or compatible with life.
It's too cold or it's too hot, or it's too This or it's too that, or they don't have the any oxygen, or they don't have any of this and they don't have any of that, then there's the rest of the universe out there.
Do I think that we had a big bang or some other force that was created that unleashed energy and resulted in over tens of millions, no billions of years, tiny cells evolving and somehow surviving, and some of them turned into earthworms and others of them turned into people?
I mean, you can believe that.
You can believe that evolution explains everything, but the one thing evolution doesn't explain is how it started.
It doesn't tell us how it started.
No one has offered up an explanation that proves how not only the world we live in, but everything started.
The alternative theory is that there is a being.
You can call that being God, or you can say gods.
You can call it a deity.
But something with intelligence had to create this.
Because there's no way you could just come up with it on its own.
If there was a big bang, what banged?
Where was whatever banged?
If there was this giant explosion that created the entire universe, where'd it come from?
I've never had a sufficient explanation for it, and you may need to rely upon faith to have it.
Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible believe in the in the theory of creation.
They believe that God created heaven and earth and the universe and so on.
You don't have to believe that, though, to buy into this concept of intelligent design.
You don't have to be a Christian, you don't have to be a Jew.
You can be an atheist.
You can believe that at one point there was some sort of creator or creative force that did this, but isn't here anymore.
I simply can't accept that it just happened.
It's too complicated, it's too convoluted to just happen.
Man takes in oxygen and breathes out carbon dioxide.
Plants take in carbon dioxide.
What?
We just got lucky that it worked out that way?
No, it seems to me that there had to be a some sort of creation somehow that allowed for that to happen.
Now you can disagree with that.
But I think that the notion of presenting this in schools as a possible explanation, not you don't get up there and say this is what it was, there was a creator, because no one really knows.
It's beyond human comprehension.
It ought to be able to be presented as a theory because it is at least as credible as believing that you had this explosion that created tiny little cells that evolved into all sorts of different directions and gave us the world that we lived in today.
I think that that is at least as implausible as believing that there was somehow a creator or creators.
To Bridget in Cincinnati, Ohio, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Ah, yes.
I just wanted to point out along with your intelligence design discussion that Darwin, you know, who everyone always quotes as being, oh, well, he's uh, you know, starter of evolution.
He was actually a faithful Christian and believed that God started the world, but that he just continued it through evolution.
Yeah, I mean, clearly there is evolution going on.
We see people evolving all the time, we see animal species evolving all the time.
That is clearly going on.
The question here though is the great mystery of human ex there are two great mysteries of human existence.
What happens after we die and how did we get here in the first place?
And faith may come into it at some point, but in understanding how it all started and how we got here, it does seem to me that there had to be a plan.
How else did it all that did it all work this way?
I don't think it could just happen.
And I think that the notion that there was a creator should be presented as a legitimate scientific theory rather than to be looked upon as one more raving from the religious nuts, which it isn't.
I believe that you can buy into this concept without being religious at all.
It's merely the best explanation that you can come up with as to how it all happened.
And I don't think that it ought to be put upon put out there as a religious belief because I don't think that it is.
Yet that's how it has been characterized.
Thank you for the call, Bridget.
Let's go to Atlanta and John.
John, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, you're doing a great job.
I appreciate the show.
Um the thing that I wanted to discuss is you know, here in Atlanta, we had a situation where our um state superintendent um had gotten in trouble because she was wanting to put at least a disclaimer in the book to say that you know there could there is or evidence of something other than evolution.
You know, it didn't come out in any did not have any uh religious overtone to it at all.
But the point that I wanted to make is the fact that you you have pointed out earlier, you must believe in the big thing because there's no way scientific way to prove that.
I have you must have faith in that.
So, evolution, uh intelligent design, creation under God.
Any theory that you want to use, you must have faith.
You it is a religion, it doesn't matter what you want to call it, the thing that we have is.
I agree with you.
There is no real way to prove how we got here.
So any belief system that you have is going to be something that may be premised on faith.
What I'm discussing with regard to uh intelligent design is merely a theory.
I happen to buy into it because nothing else to me makes any sense.
I'm an analytical person, I want to understand things.
So I believe there had I believe there had to be a creator.
I can reverse this and look at the end of the world.
I imagine you could make the scientific argument that after we die we go nowhere, right?
You could make that.
Try to prove it.
You can't prove it.
Just as you can't prove that there is any kind of an afterlife.
You cannot prove that either.
Yet we don't see this determination on the part of educators to try to insist that there either is or is not an afterlife.
Well, the same should be true about how the world got here in the first place, and we should not rule out the notion of presenting a theory that says there had to be a creator because the world is too complex to have just happened.
The problem is the educators want to silence us and say that you know our religion or our belief.
The problem is that they are also preaching a religion and teaching and using our tax dollars to teach a religion.
It just had to be the religion of evolution because you must be able to do that.
And your point is that you have to take the notion that something happened to create the world without anyone doing anything.
That is based on as blind to faith as anyone who believes in creationism or anything else.
Now, the Christian teaching on creationism is very, very specific.
There was God, God's son is Jesus Christ, God created the universe.
Intelligence design is way broader than that.
It simply accommodates any notion that there was someone or something or some being that started all of this and had a plan.
How else did it work out that way?
Aren't we lucky that we're just far enough away from the sun to be warm enough to be able to live here on earth, but not so warm that we're all burned up?
It was that luck or was there a plan?
I think the likelihood is that there had to be a plan.
Otherwise, the entire world is simply one big giant stroke of luck.
I don't buy that.
It doesn't make as much sense to me as the alter alternative theory.
But that alternative theory is the only one that's ever presented in schools, and any suggestion that you open your mind to something else is just rejected.
Shut up.
Well, you're a religious knot.
You can't think about that.
You can't talk about that.
You're presenting religion.
There is as much harassment toward the individuals who believe in this notion of intelligent design or a creation as there was to Galileo and Copernicus when they suggested that the earth was not the center of the either the universe or the solar system.
There's just a shutdown.
You can't think that way.
You can't open your mind to this.
You can't even explore the possibility.
That is not only wrong, I think it's preventing us from actually coming to a better understanding of how we got here in the first place.
Thanks for the call, John.
I appreciate it.
My name is Mark Belling, and I am proselytizing.
No, I'm not proselytizing.
I am hosting the Rush Limbaugh program today.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a page one story on the subject I'm discussing here, intelligent design, and they focus on a professor of molecular biology at Iowa State University.
His name is Thomas Ingerbitson.
And he has an ingenious way of presenting this.
He's a believer in intelligent design.
He has his students take a mouse trap.
And he tells them, take apart just one part of the mouse trap.
Take the spring out, or you can take the hammer out, or take the holding bar out.
After you take out the one part, see if the trap will spring.
And of course it does not.
So as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, he said, Is the mouse trap therefore irreducibly complex?
Students say yes.
Inger Bretsen then says that the mouse trap can be our model for everything else.
He says, like a mouse trap.
Living cells, every cell that exists on this planet, is irreducibly complex.
No cell can fulfill its function without all of its parts.
Hence, they could not have evolved bit by bit through natural selection, but had to have been devised by a creator.
Makes sense to me.
Chicago, Carl, Carl, you're on Rush's program with Mark Belling.
Mark, how are you today?
I'm great, thank you.
Terrific.
Mark, question that I would pose to anybody, and it could be sensed as rhetorical, but I don't think it is.
I have identical twin boys.
When my wife gave birth to those two children, she asked her doctor.
How?
Why?
Well, the how was, well, somewhere in the first 21 days of conception, the eggs split.
Why?
No scientific explanation.
None.
None exists.
It just happens.
But no earthly reason as to why it happens, just that it does.
You know, isn't it convenient that the bee exists to what do they do?
Pollinate the flowers?
Isn't that just an amazing coincidence?
Isn't it amazing that in the animal kingdom, there seems to be another animal out there that the larger animal can eat to be able to survive?
That just happened.
There are all of these things that, if they did just happen, are the most incredible stroke of luck that allow the world to continue in the fashion that it is.
Well, you know, we need to consume water.
We're pretty lucky that there's a lot of water here on this planet.
I don't think that you can just say, well, it just happened and rule out any other explanation.
And that's what people who present creationism or intelligent design as religion or crackpotism.
What they're doing, they're saying that you can't consider any other theory, even if other theories may make more sense than saying that we came literally out of nowhere, not even out of thin air, out of nothing, and then created this incredibly complex planet that we live on.
Whereas every other planet that we've ever found not only isn't complex, but has nothing going on and has no form of life at all.
To Akron and Rob, Rob, you're on EIB.
Yes, hey, great job filling in for us.
You have to fill.
Thank you.
Uh, I just wanted to say uh I am Republican.
Uh I'm 31 years old.
Um a lot of people ask me why I'm Republican.
I have uh a lot of liberal social views.
Uh, I do happen to be a uh evolutionist, and I wanted to throw out the idea of you to you of intelligent design by accident.
Have you heard of this before?
What do you mean?
Uh this is something that I uh pretty much uh believe in.
I came up with this on my own.
Oh, okay.
You came up with us, you came up with this on your own.
Everybody comes up with what they want to.
What I am suggesting is that an alternative theory other than that we just happened is something that we should not rule out educationally or scientifically.
Whenever someone presents the notion that there is a greater being or a being that had the ability to create the world that we live in, it is being described as a religious belief.
I don't think that it should be looked at as a religious belief.
I think it should be looked at as an a logical explanation as to how it possibly could have happened, and it shouldn't be shutted aside by a bigoted scientific community that wants to present only one view, a view that doesn't make, to me at least, very much sense.
Boston and Neil, Neil, you're on Rush's program with Mark.
Oh, no time for Neil right now.
Take a quick break.
My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I really didn't intend for this to be a religious discussion.
What it is is a question of public policy as to whether or not this theory of evolution ought to be the only thing that is ever presented in a school because some scientist believes that it's the proper way of viewing how we got here and where we're going.
I think that there are other ways to look at it.
I can prove that evolution, survival of the fittest, can't be the explanation for everything.
If we're to buy into survival of the fittest, that only the strong survive, how could France still be here?
They'd never be here.
Mark Belling sitting in for rush.
▲
Export Selection