Bobby Jindal — He’s Back!


It’s been a long time since we wrote about the former governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, also known as Bobby Jindal, the Exorcist. As you may recall, Jindal’s creationist gyrations made him our sixth Buffoon Award Winner.

In 2008 when he was governor, the Louisiana legislature — controlled by Democrats at the time — almost unanimously passed the Louisiana Science Education Act (the LSEA), which was based on the Discovery Institute’s anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationism Academic Freedom Act. Jindal, although he had been a biology major in college, enthusiastically signed it.

The Louisiana creationist popped today at the web site of National Review as the author this bizarre essay: Learning with, and from, people who don’t agree with you is a vital part of college life. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

While seemingly obsessed with promoting diversity based on gender, orientation, ethnicity, and (belatedly) class, the liberal establishment is far less concerned with ideological diversity. Liberals routinely deny or dismiss as irrelevant the underrepresentation of conservatives in the media, Hollywood, and higher education. My goal is not affirmative action for conservatives in these professions (along with quotas for liberals in the hierarchy of the military, financial institutions, and churches). However, I do believe the current imbalance is bad for universities, liberal students, and conservatives.

Not very controversial — so far. Then he says:

Back when the academy did not automatically suspect the writings of all dead European white men, students learned from the great liberal thinker John Stuart Mill about the importance of free debate and the marketplace of ideas. Trying to persuade others of our core beliefs is good for them, but also good for us. Being exposed to different ideas and first principles, articulated by their most coherent and articulate adherents, is one of the great benefits of going to college.

Still nothing to get excited about. He continues:

For today’s students, who come to campus already believing in inherent bias, systemic racism, gender fluidity, and the need for drastic government action to mitigate global warming, I would argue they are better served by being forced to consider the world from the perspective of smart professors and students who disagree with them.

Okay, now the fun begins. He tells us:

I would make the same point about conservative students who believe in free markets, Western civilization, and intelligent design, but I don’t suspect most professors need encouragement to challenge these views!

Think about that, dear reader. Jindal speaks of conservative students “who believe in free markets, Western civilization, and intelligent design.” What a discordant collection of concepts! Your Curmudgeon has no problem with free markets and Western civilization — indeed, we strongly advocate those Enlightenment concepts — but how does a goof-ball idea like intelligent design fit in with those?

What could be more unlike free markets, or unguided biological evolution, than a supposedly all-powerful intelligent designer? We’ve written about this before — see Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand and Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection, and also Evolution: the Biosphere and the Shopping Mall. Such posts always upset a few of our readers, but we’re used to that.

We’ll leave Jindal here. Although his essay goes on and on, he doesn’t say anything else that interests us. We’re not surprised to see that he’s still a creationist.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Bobby Jindal — He’s Back!

  1. According to Jindal, there aren’t any professors who can teach intelligent design. According to Klinghoffer and others, there are a growing number of professors who want to teach intelligent design, but are being censored or afraid for their livelihood.

    Like intelligent design itself, it doesn’t quite add up.

  2. Old Earth Creationists never die–but alas! Neither do they ever fade away…

    But take heart! Some of us cling, with messianic fervour, to our ardent hope for The Second Coming of Casey!

  3. Whether it is because no one can teach us about ID or because no one is willing, there is no example of the teaching of ID.
    No example of an alternative explanation of a phenomenon of life – ID rather than evolution.

  4. Whether it is because no one can teach us about ID or because no one is willing, there is no example of the teaching of ID.

    There is no theory of “intelligent design” creationism. No metrics, no measurements, no definitions; just a bunch of disjointed, meaningless bafflegab. Thus, there can be no evidence for “intelligent design” creationism – evidence for what.

    Personally, I think we should teach the Introduction to Framastatics and Advanced Framastatics. No one listens to me.

  5. Michael Fugate

    ID wants a return to a pre-enlightenment worldview. They start with the premise that a god is the creator and sustainer of the universe and therefore any study of the natural world is a study of this god’s attributes. This is how Aquinas envisioned the universe; he thought that a god existed, therefore everything that exists is a product of this god. Paley, on the other hand, argued from nature to god, Aquinas argued from god to nature. Neither has anything to do with science.

  6. “What could be more unlike free markets, or unguided biological evolution, than a supposedly all-powerful intelligent designer?”
    Social democracy and IDiocy. I challenge you to find one social democrat IDiot. However plenty IDiots support free market Sensuous Curmudgeon style (which is not the same as Adam Smith style, no matter how eager he is to pretend so).

    “Smith did not favor as hands-off an approach as some of his self-proclaimed followers do today—he believed that states could and should re-distribute wealth to some degree, and defend the poor and disadvantaged against those who wield power over them in the private sector.”
    Of course when it comes to worshipiing The Invisible Hand our dear SC prefers to apply creationist methodology – especially point 4.

  7. mnb0 boldly says: ” I challenge you to find one social democrat IDiot.”

    How about William Jennings Bryan.

  8. mnbo, seriously, you’ve never met a social democrat creationist/IDiot? Come to Chicago and I’ll introduce you to thousands of them. The idea that only republicans/conservatives are creationists is absurd. Do you think that most of the people that voted for Doug Jones(D) Alabama were atheists, less religious or more scientifically literate then their neighbors?

  9. No Curmudgeon, you do not, I hope, “believe in free markets [and] Western civilization”. You are convinced of their merits, which is a very different thing (I leave aside for the moment such things as the need to curb monopoly power, the free market’s inability to cope with externalities unless government intervenes, and the fact that Western civilisation includes many things, including Nazism). Similarly, I do not “believe in” evolution and neither do you; you recognised as true on the basis of the evidence.

  10. Quite right, Paul Braterman. Based on the observable performance of all alternatives, I have confidence in the free market (of course with laws to deal with abuses) and in Western Civilization.

    On the other hand, we disagree about Nazism. It was an aberration that occurred in the West, but it clearly conflicts with Western values.

  11. Our Curmudgeon claims

    Nazism…was an aberration that occurred in the West, but it clearly conflicts with Western values.

    You’re risking your good points by invoking that woolly phrase, Western values, which is as amorphous and ill-defined as the concept of a true Scotsman. Which ‘values’, and when? The history of Western ‘civilisation’ (and the scare quotes are appropriate) encompasses a huge range: dictatorial absolutism, Athenian direct democracy, Spartan militarism, Roman imperialism, Christian feudalism, hypernationalism, mercantile aggressiveness, Genevan theocracy, collectivisation, racism, individualism, corporatism &c &c.

    It’s as useless a term as Judeo-Christian values, which can be taken to mean anything from ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ to ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ and ‘Sell all you have and give to the poor.’ In other words: just so much waffle, the meaning of which varies too much from speaker to speaker to have any use whatsoever.

    What do you mean by ‘Western Values’?

  12. Megalonyx, whose comment inexplicably ended up in the trash, asks:

    What do you mean by ‘Western Values’?

    A good question, but it could consume days of discussion. I’ll just stick with the Enlightenment.

  13. Even that is tricky. Was Robespierre an apostle of Enlightenment?

  14. You guys are demonstrating that philosophy is less precise than science. That’s certainly true.