'Intelligent design' theory threatens science classrooms

Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | 11/22/2002 | ALAN I. LESHNER

[ALS]

It's a cartoon. getta grip

No one here has said anything about going to hell except you.

You bring your presuppositions with you. Which is no small wonder, since you believe in evolution. A crap theory that requires many such suppositions.

[goodseedhomeschool]

Again I say :).... AMEN!

[rwfromkansas]

I do not believe in evolution and I completely agree with this:

"Natural selection has been observed again and again in flora and fauna, where certain traits that were successful in one environment, became a liability in a changed environment, and the plants/animals that had those characteristics died or were eaten before they matured to have offspring; the ones without the liable characteristic survied and had offspring, whose liklihood of inheriting that characteristic was greater."

Why? It doesn't offer any evidence for a change from one species to another, just adaptation and natural selection. Obviously both of these occur.

[ALS]

The public skrewl system has become a recruiting ground for socialism, atheism, evolutionism, homosexuality, and the like.

This is why the heathen doth rage. Not because of a "science" issue.

[Jorge]

"But I will never go back to believing evolution again. It is an extremely embarrassing page in my life."

Well, since I won't ever go back to being a creationist again, I suppose it all balances out, doesn't it?

No..actually it depends on which proves to be the truth in the end.

I won't have to stand before God knowing that I believed and perpetuated a fraud designed to deny creation and smear God's word as a lie.

No..it definitely will not all be the same in the end.

[Derrald]

"I found it to be an excellent argument for ID."

Hey, this penny has copper-like qualities. I bet you think that's an excellent argument for ID. re-iteration: no one listens to a drone.

[goodseedhomeschool]

I know. I pray for the eyes to be opened in the public schools, but I know that the Deweyites will never stand for anything but their own religion to be in control. I pray though, every day.

[Rudder]

First you say:
No, it is not. It has years of propaganda and indoctrination behind it, but little (if any) reliable "proof." Even the pro-evos on this board often concede this dark little secret. The strongest support for evolution is a pre-existing rejection of God. Since there is no God, it must have happened somehow. There is no proof in the fossil record, there is no proof in nature.

Then later you say:
Where is the "support" (note I did not use the word "proof")?

You know...you lost me with this. You just aren't keeping your thoughts together tonight, denying what you said in print is an impossible position to defend.

As for your request for the "support" of the theory of evolution here goes: Origin of the Species: Darwin, C.

Hey, it's a beginning of a long journey of what will be reading 144 years' of accumulated data which support the theory of evolution. Sorry, I don't have the time or space to put it all here in front of you.

[Quix]

No relevant research has been done; no papers have been published in scientific journals.

Oh, really? Hogwash. Ahhhhh "relevant" according to YOUR definitions! I C.

"scientific journals" according to your criteria that journals are only scientific IF they meet your political criteria of refusing to publish anything against your DOCTRINES OF FAITH regardless of the supporting evidence.

I haven't been following this all that closely the last several years. But as best as I can recall--there have been at least a few if not several atheist and agnostic scientists of common credentials who have published in standard journals in support of such a theory. Some have postulated something akin to or called PANSPERMIA such as seeding from meteorites or some such--but hey--it's in the ball park.

Oh, that's right--if it's not YOUR DOCTRINE OF FAITH, it doesn't get published as the INQUISITIONAL PEER REVIEW boards make sure that heretics and their beliefs are frozen out of the discussion and certainly out of the "kosher" media.

And you call this scientific.

It's a wonder you aren't calling Shrillery Hellery queen.

[ALS]

The penny is designed.

Maybe you should try something like, lizards evolved wings because the butterflies they chased could fly and they couldn't.

[rwfromkansas]

Not necessarily. Why isn't it possible that other things evolved later, but we had clotting from the beginning?

I am not an evolutionist, but that is something that could be a logical explanation from their side.

HOWEVER, it would be interesting to have them explain how blood began.

[Rudder]

Two men are standing and looking out at the grand canyon. The evolutionist says, "wow look at that, and to think it was formed over millions of years". The creationist says, "wow, look at what God did in 40 days". The Bible was the basis for the creationists bias and the books of Charlie Lyell and Darwin was the bias for the evolutionists bias. The questions is, Who is right?

I don't for sure but my bias says they both are.

[RadioAstronomer]

The speed of light is slowing down.

Actually we have defined an exact (fixed) value for the speed of light in a vacuum: 299,792,458 meters per second. By definition, the speed of light "c" is a constant.

[Aric2000]

Atheist?

Not another one of you, "if you actually understand evolution is the BEST scientific theory to explain the evidence, then you must be an atheist" types.

Oh please, go get a clue.

[Derrald]

So the image of God scaring an atheist along with the caption that some don't get it until it's too late does not invoke any images of god's wrath or hell?

then it must invoke images of fluffy kittens! Watch as I apply the logic of "There's no such thing as implication!" to everything!

Look at the man walking on the sidewalk! "Hello, man on the sidewalk! You are the reason our world is going to explode into a ball of fire ignited by evil!"

[Man on the sidewalk: Are you saying I'm evil?!

Me: Of course not!

Ahhhh, the security of saying things indirectly, then being able to defend myself with "I never said that which I directly implied!"

And I though evolution was supposed to be based on screwy logic.

[goodseedhomeschool]

Both? I don't follow??

[Aric2000]

Sorry Timmy, but he has made me go search for his sources MORE then once, and when I complained he told me to quit whining.

What's good for the goose....

[Jorge]

"Evolution has never been observed by anyone..."

Natural selection & microevolution certainly have been observed in process. The evidence of macroevolution may also be observed throughout the paleontological record. The fundamental components of evolution may be observed via the sciences of genetics & ecology, in tandem.

None of these even come close to evolution itself actually being observed by anyone.

"and evolutionist themselves admit no transitional forms have been observed in the fossil record."

Absolutely false.

Unless you are prepared to prove that all the quotes presented from evolutionists who admit no transitional forms have been observed in the fossil record...are fraudulant..then you are in no position to deny them.

[ALS]

It's not "the best". It's just "the best" you choose to believe.

[ApesForEvolution]

Lots of bad things will happen to future generations. How many more generations satan's lease affects, I don't know (I doubt too many with a 7 year peace plan looming in the ME).

What's most important is that they know what Jesus did, what He *IS* doing and what He is going to do.

And, the devil and his minions will fight tooth and nail as they see their end coming; some will see the light, others will 'crucify Jesus' - but, we know how it ends.