Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Intelligent design' theory threatens science classrooms
Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | 11/22/2002 | ALAN I. LESHNER

Posted on 06/22/2003 5:29:39 PM PDT by Aric2000

In Cobb County, Ga., controversy erupted this spring when school board officials decided to affix "disclaimer stickers" to science textbooks, alerting students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."

The stickers were the Cobb County District School Board's response to intelligent design theory, which holds that the complexity of DNA and the diversity of life forms on our planet and beyond can be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent. The ID movement -- reminiscent of creationism but more nuanced and harder to label -- has been quietly gaining momentum in a number of states for several years, especially Georgia and Ohio.

Stickers on textbooks are only the latest evidence of the ID movement's successes to date, though Cobb County officials did soften their position somewhat in September following a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. In a subsequent policy statement, officials said the biological theory of evolution is a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other, religious teachings.

Surely, few would begrudge ID advocates their views or the right to discuss the concept as part of religious studies. At issue, rather, is whether ID theory, so far unproven by scientific facts, should be served to students on the same platter with the well-supported theory of evolution.

How the Cobb County episode will affect science students remains uncertain since, as the National Center for Science Education noted, the amended policy statement included "mixed signals."

But it's clear that the ID movement is quickly emerging as one of the more significant threats to U.S. science education, fueled by a sophisticated marketing campaign based on a three-pronged penetration of the scientific community, educators and the general public.

In Ohio, the state's education board on Oct. 14 passed a unanimous though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But the board's ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."

Undaunted by tens of thousands of e-mails it has already received on the topic, the state's education board is now gamely inviting further public comment through November. In December, Ohio's Board of Education will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels.

Meanwhile, ID theorists reportedly have been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey and other states as well as Ohio and Georgia.

What do scientists think of all this? We have great problems with the claim that ID is a scientific theory or a science-based alternative to evolutionary theory. We don't question its religious or philosophical underpinnings. That's not our business. But there is no scientific evidence underlying ID theory.

No relevant research has been done; no papers have been published in scientific journals. Because it has no science base, we believe that ID theory should be excluded from science curricula in schools.

In fact, the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest general scientific society in the world, passed a resolution this month urging policy-makers to keep intelligent design theory out of U.S. science classrooms.

Noting that the United States has promised to "leave no child behind," the AAAS Board found that intelligent design theory -- if presented within science courses as factually based -- is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and undermine the integrity of U.S. science education. At a time when standards-based learning and performance assessments are paramount, children would be better served by keeping scientific information separate from religious concepts.

Certainly, American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints and the scientific community is no exception. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, science and conceptual belief systems should not be co-mingled, as ID proponents have repeatedly proposed.

The ID argument that random mutations in nature and natural selection, for example, are too complex for scientific explanation is an interesting -- and for some, highly compelling -- philosophical or theological concept. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution, and it isn't based on science. In sum, there's no data to back it up, and no way of scientifically testing the validity of the ideas proposed by ID advocates.

The quality of U.S. science education is at stake here. We live in an era when science and technology are central to every issue facing our society -- individual and national security, health care, economic prosperity, employment opportunities.

Children who lack an appropriate grounding in science and mathematics, and who can't discriminate what is and isn't evidence, are doomed to lag behind their well-educated counterparts. America's science classrooms are certainly no place to mix church and state.

Alan I. Leshner is CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science; www.aaas.org


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,201-1,219 next last
Couldn't find this when I did a search, and thought that I would post it, I have been saying this for a long time, yet ID'rs are clueless for some reason.

Oh well, Scientists agree with ME, ID is NOT science.

1 posted on 06/22/2003 5:29:39 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; balrog666; Dimensio; Junior; jennyp; Ichneumon; RadioAstronomer; ...
OK guys, let the fun begin...
2 posted on 06/22/2003 5:32:02 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Why do you fear alternative theories?

Real science, doesn't.
3 posted on 06/22/2003 5:33:35 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Oh boy! Our very own Taliban in the making. I can't wait until they tell me the earth is really flat and the center of the Universe.
4 posted on 06/22/2003 5:38:04 PM PDT by Arkie2 (It's a literary fact that the number of words wriiten will grow exponentially to fill the space avai)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALS
What do scientists think of all this? We have great problems with the claim that ID is a scientific theory or a science-based alternative to evolutionary theory. We don't question its religious or philosophical underpinnings. That's not our business. But there is no scientific evidence underlying ID theory.

No relevant research has been done; no papers have been published in scientific journals. Because it has no science base, we believe that ID theory should be excluded from science curricula in schools.



Read ALS, the problem will soon be clear, but I see that you did NOT read it, just spouting off again.

Oh well, why am I NOT surprised.
5 posted on 06/22/2003 5:40:45 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arkie2
Yep, science should be taught in the science class, NOT religious dogma.
6 posted on 06/22/2003 5:42:00 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Evolutionary theory is well-supported by scientific evidence (data). Any alternative to any theory must, to exist as credible to science, have data to support it. ID theory has no scientific data to support it.
7 posted on 06/22/2003 5:48:06 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ALS
I'm sure that extraterrestrials from Beta Centauri were responsible for life on earth. They've told me so. Do I get to teach that in classrooms?
8 posted on 06/22/2003 5:50:25 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"evolution is a theory, not a fact ....

So is Gravity, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Chaos, ....

So9

9 posted on 06/22/2003 5:50:34 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"we"

You keep spewing like you're a scientist.
You aren't, so get off that rag mop pony.

You fear alternative theories. Evolutionists don't even like scientific criticism of evolution taught in schools, eventhough the criticism is brought forth by fellow scientists.

If your crap theory is so true, what's to fear?

Let the total evidence be the judge. If we wanted totalitarinism to reign free in our schools we'd all be voting for Swillary in 2004.
10 posted on 06/22/2003 5:51:56 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
"I'm sure that extraterrestrials from Beta Centauri were responsible for life on earth. They've told me so. Do I get to teach that in classrooms?"

You'll need permission from the eloons first.
11 posted on 06/22/2003 5:52:43 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
"ID theory has no scientific data to support it"

Merely an opinion, and a narrow minded one at that.

Worry about proving evolution before you worry about something you admittingly know nothing of.
12 posted on 06/22/2003 5:54:03 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"But the board's ruling ... suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

Nice of them to tell scientists how to do their jobs.

13 posted on 06/22/2003 5:54:21 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
I don't believe Intelligent Design is a provible theory. However, it does bring up legitimate questions, those mentioned in Darwin's Black Box, which should be addressed in the context of evolutionary theory.
14 posted on 06/22/2003 5:54:42 PM PDT by johnwayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Alan I. Leshner is CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science; www.aaas.org


Tell that to him... HE wrote the article, I just posted it.

What? You think I wrote this article or something?

Talk about desperate....
15 posted on 06/22/2003 5:55:38 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Aric2000
The desparation is shown by the fact you felt a need to post it.

Again, what do you fear?
17 posted on 06/22/2003 5:56:29 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ALS
If your crap theory is so true, what's to fear? Let the total evidence be the judge.

No problem. Just get your alternatives through peer review before mandating that they be taught in class. We have to have some standards for education, you know.

18 posted on 06/22/2003 5:56:39 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
I agree. If I want religious dogma, I'll go to bible class. If I want science, I'll attend my lectures. And never the twain shall meet.
19 posted on 06/22/2003 5:57:06 PM PDT by Beaker (Toto! Have you been chewing on my slippers again?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lilDuce
EXACTLY!!!
20 posted on 06/22/2003 5:57:10 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Not sure about the others but I'm pretty sure gravity is a fact.

Relativity is theory, chaos theory is well, theory. Quantum mechnics . . .is largely theory.

Evolution is very much theory.

21 posted on 06/22/2003 5:57:19 PM PDT by BenLurkin (Socialism is slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Yep, science should be taught in the science class, NOT religious dogma.

Unfortunately evolution doesn't even qualify as a true science.

A definition of science given by the Oxford Dictionary is:
"A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain."

Evolution fails to meet the criteria of being a true science.
Evolution has never been observed by anyone... and evolutionist themselves admit no transitional forms have been observed in the fossil record.
Evolution has never been demonstrated in a laboratory.

Though it is rather funny that all these supposedly "highly educated" men would spend so much time trying to cause something to "evolve" and create even the most basic form of life..JUST to prove to us that it *took no higher intelligence to create life.

22 posted on 06/22/2003 5:58:58 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ALS
I fear that religious dogma will be taught as science and the next generation will be clueless of the difference.

Kinda like you...
23 posted on 06/22/2003 5:59:19 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Theory versus fact designation is an arbitrary assessment. In the extreme, everything is a theory, including your perception of reality. In the less extreme, things that are overwhelmingly convincing are considered "facts." IUt is sort of a fool's errand to argue about what is fact and what is theory.
24 posted on 06/22/2003 5:59:57 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ALS
At least be honest ALS. ID "Theory" is just backdoor christianity. It wasn't like 5 people came together, realized a truth, and it became ID. The Universe may be intelligently designed. It needs to be scientifically investigated dispassionately first, not taught in the school rooms.

This equal time argument is a joke. Unless you propose that we give equal time to flat earthers every time a math class discusses the circumfrence of the globe.

If somebody proposed that the universe is chaotic, and eratic because God does exist, he just isn't a very talented designer, but he is a semi competent nincompoop, would you like that to be given "equal time" in schools?

You are a literalist christian. Bully for you. Until God allows himself to be proven scientifically, you can discuss him at church, at home, with friends, but not as the teacher of a science course at a public school.

25 posted on 06/22/2003 6:00:30 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Some people used to believe that the world was created by Eagle, Hummingbird and Coyote. Will that be part of the curriculum?

Didn't think so.

The problem with ID is it does not follow the rules of science. There is no possible evidence which would disuade its followers. Their faith tells them that ID is so, and that's that.

That is fine but it is not science, and no amount of wishing will make it so.
26 posted on 06/22/2003 6:00:59 PM PDT by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The scientific term "theory" does not equal the word "theory" in common use. You would do well to learn the difference.
27 posted on 06/22/2003 6:01:30 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Evolution has never been observed by anyone... and evolutionist themselves admit no transitional forms have been observed in the fossil record.
Evolution has never been demonstrated in a laboratory.

Sorry, ALL of those statements are FALSE!!!
28 posted on 06/22/2003 6:01:35 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
What standards? To teach one theory and not allow for any criticism of disputing evidence or any alternative explanations?

By that standard science would never be.

I sure hope you aren't going to claim that evolution THEORY is flawless.
29 posted on 06/22/2003 6:02:52 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Not sure about the others but I'm pretty sure gravity is a fact.

Which "Gravity" would that be?
Classical Newtonian Gravity (with its known errors at all extremes)?
General Theory of Relativity Gravity, (with its problems in the subatomic area)?
Quantum Gravity, (with its inaplicability to the macro world)?

So9

30 posted on 06/22/2003 6:04:41 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
More sceintific research calls the theory of evolution into question;

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50:22-29)

31 posted on 06/22/2003 6:04:52 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"I fear that religious dogma will be taught as science and the next generation will be clueless of the difference."

===================



'Intelligent Design' vs. Evolution


Bob Reeves
Lincoln Journal Star [Nebraska]
January 24, 2003
Original Article

When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in 1859, most scientists were skeptical and said the theory lacked sufficient evidence.

Now, nearly 150 years later, the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for life's diversity.

Nevertheless, a small contingent of scientists is pushing for an alternative. They call it "intelligent design." And just as the early evolutionists, their theory has met with widespread skepticism.

On Sunday, Paul Nelson, a philosopher of science from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and a leading proponent of intelligent design, appeared in a debate sponsored by the Center for the Advancement of Rational Solutions.

His opponent was Massimo Pigliucci, an evolutionary biologist from the University of Tennessee. More than 150 people braved snowy streets to attend the event in the sanctuary of Saint Paul United Methodist Church, 1144 M St.

Unlike religious creationists, scientists who theorize about intelligent design do not use the Bible or faith-based arguments to support their case. Instead, they try to show that intelligent design offers the best explanation of the empirical evidence,Nelson said.

He noted the complex protein molecules in intestinal bacteria and the wide difference in structures of various sea creatures as examples of phenomena he believes could better be explained as the result of intelligent design than evolution.

By refusing to consider evidence for intelligent design, scientists are limiting their knowledge, Nelson said. "Even if I were an atheist but a curious human being I would want that tool in my arsenal."

Pigliucci argued that the concept of intelligent design "is founded on an argument from ignorance." Proponents of the theory say, "I cannot explain x, therefore x must have been intelligently designed," he said.

He noted that scientists were not opposed to considering intelligent design, for example, when seeking evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence by monitoring radio signals from outer space. But scientists reject "supernatural" explanations based on intelligence that has no natural explanation, he said.

The theory of evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life or how the entire universe came to exist, Pigliucci said. Instead, it confines itself to the development of living organisms.

"We don't know how life originated," he said. "The only conclusion I can draw from that is that we don't know."

After nearly an hour of debate, the two took questions from the audience. One former biology teacher said he could see no evidence that different species of plants and animals were the result of evolution.

Nelson said he disagreed with those who pressure schools to teach intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution. Once the theory gains acceptance by scientists, he said, it will be taught.

One questioner said 90 percent of parents wanted creationism taught in schools, yet "evolutionary atheists," who make up about 5 percent of the U.S. population, have a "stranglehold on public education."

In response Pigliucci noted that very few people were brain surgeons, yet would trust one if they needed surgery. He added that as "a professional evolutionary biologist" he is qualified to teach the subject.

Asked how much he knew about religion, Pigliucci replied, "Nothing. That's why I'm not teaching it."

Reach Bob Reeves at 473-7212 or breeves@journalstar.com.


Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle dealing with national and international affairs. The Institute is dedicated to exploring and promoting public policies that advance representative democracy, free enterprise and individual liberty. For more information visit Discovery's website at http://www.discovery.org.

Please report any errors to webmaster@discovery.org



32 posted on 06/22/2003 6:04:56 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Great, then get some scientific evidence, get it published in scientific journals, have it peer reviewed, and we'll look at it, but SKIP all of that and then go straight to the public with a bunch of CLAIMS is NOT science.
33 posted on 06/22/2003 6:05:45 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Gaps in the fossil record call evolution into question;

The evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson has conceded, that the gaps are a universal phenomenon: "...every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Major Features of Evolution, 1953 p. 360)

34 posted on 06/22/2003 6:05:51 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Where's the transitional forms that evolution claims?

"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)

This, of course, is exactly what creationists would expect to find.

35 posted on 06/22/2003 6:07:03 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"The problem with ID evolunacy is it does not follow the rules of science."
36 posted on 06/22/2003 6:08:00 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
You still fret more about what someone else thinks or believes instead of proving your crap theory.

Sounds like the typical sourpuss busybody..
37 posted on 06/22/2003 6:09:00 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000

"That the Earth is round is a theory, not a fact,
you might equally believe that the Earth is flat"

38 posted on 06/22/2003 6:09:00 PM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Evolution is a religion.
39 posted on 06/22/2003 6:09:15 PM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALS
By stating that, it is obvious that you are CLUELESS as to what the rules of science are.
40 posted on 06/22/2003 6:09:50 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
A growing number of evolutionists question whether the fossil record provides any real evidence of the transformation of one organism into another.

Evolutionist Steven M. Stanley concluded that: "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979 p. 39)

41 posted on 06/22/2003 6:10:03 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
I favor teaching creationism in schools, but only if they also teach alchemy instead of chemisty and stork theroy instead of sex ed.

As a parent I am disgusted that the science of alchemy has been forced out of schools by chemisty weilding terrorists and that hedonistic perverts desire to keep the truth about human reproduction from youth!

Without the stork humans would go extinct!

42 posted on 06/22/2003 6:10:35 PM PDT by ContentiousObjector (Eagles may soar, but pigs don't get sucked into jet engines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
43 posted on 06/22/2003 6:10:43 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (How long will it be before the anti-rationalists destroy the thread?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
And look at that a 50 year old quote, time for you to come up to date.

There are MILLIONS MORE fossils now, and the transitionals, oh, my goodness, are THERE!!!

What a concept....
44 posted on 06/22/2003 6:11:50 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ALS
"The problem with ID evolunacy is it does not follow the rules of science."

Exactly. It doesn't qualify as a real science.

As an ex-evolutionist I can tell you that as far as I'm concerned evolution is one of the dumbest theories I have ever believed...an absurd hoax.

45 posted on 06/22/2003 6:13:54 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Junior
>>>The scientific term "theory" does not equal the word "theory" in common use.

Lol. Is the same true for the word "fact?"
46 posted on 06/22/2003 6:14:02 PM PDT by Steel Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"By stating that, it is obvious that you are CLUELESS as to what the rules of science are."

This evo mantra simply doesn't work. Especially since you apply that to anyone that doesn't believe in your personal religion.
47 posted on 06/22/2003 6:14:34 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
"As an ex-evolutionist I can tell you that as far as I'm concerned evolution is one of the dumbest theories I have ever believed...an absurd hoax."

care to explain to us why?
48 posted on 06/22/2003 6:15:30 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.conservababes.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine; Junior; jlogajan
If I drop my pencil it will fall to the floor. That is a fact. How gravity works is still a theory.

The human body can be studied factually and healed through an application of that factual study. How we came to be humans is either a matter of theory or faith, or both.

"Intelligent deisgn" is probably no more or less fanciful a theory than is the theory of evolution.

49 posted on 06/22/2003 6:15:47 PM PDT by BenLurkin (Socialism is slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
I enjoyed it when CNN reported that chimps are people.
50 posted on 06/22/2003 6:15:56 PM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,201-1,219 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson