[rdb3]

But over the past decade or more a new generation of critics has emerged with a softer, more roundabout approach that they hope can pass constitutional muster.

---

Ha! We Bible believers are sneaky, aren't we?

Real men don't whine.

[muawiyah]

So the New York Times crowd thinks the Creationists are sneaking something past them.

Could be.

Lots of things get slipped by the NYT by many people every day.

[Outraged]

Classic myopic projectionism, emblematic of the power of secular humanism to collapse on itself with its symptomatic hypocrisy..."Silly fascists, moral relativity is for genocidal maniacs." {/Trix wabbit}

[rhtwngwarrior]

and that a book on intelligent design was available for interested students, who were, of course, encouraged to keep an open mind. That policy, which is being challenged in the courts,

Figures that they want to avoid the truth of the Bible with their self-admitted 'theories.'

[judywillow]

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

That's still the wrong warning. The one they need would look more like this:

Warning: Parents and students should understand that the motives of the people pushing evolutionism in public schools are somewhat questionable:

[gobucks]

Although the board clearly thought this was a reasonable compromise, and many readers might think it unexceptional, it is actually an insidious effort to undermine the science curriculum. The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography.

Pornography? Who on this sweet earth would make such an insidious connection?

(Better yet, why on earth would the NY Times even wish to introduce such a connection?)

Talk about planting false notions!! Certainly not all the folks on this Ga. School Evolution thread who have the movie Dr. Strangelove memorized!

JFK, I figured that you were struggling about what you are supposed to be thinking about today - we insidious creatures don't think very well as I'm told, but hey!, we need to stick together. Thus, my thoughtful, sensitive, compassionate ping - don't let it spoil your breakfast!

Hmmmmm. I have a deep suspicion regarding what websites these NY Slimes editorial writers visit to get their ideas.

[L.N. Smithee]

That said, in districts where evolution is a burning issue, there ought to be some place in school where the religious and cultural criticisms of evolution can be discussed, perhaps in a comparative religion class or a history or current events course.

Of all the sentences in this editorial that drip with disingenuousness, this tops them all. This statement ranks up there with Bill Clinton saying "Nobody said it was supposed to go on forever" about affirmative action. I cannot believe that people who equate the Dover sticker with a warning about pornography are serious about endorsing any public school forum that might possibly result in a victory of religious rhetoric over secular curricula.

I don't have any references to prove it, but I would be willing to bet that the Times opposed laws that would allow a minute of silence at the beginning of the school day in lieu of mandatory classroom prayer on the notion that voluntary private prayers in class could lead to discrimination against those children who did not use the time to pray.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have" and says it is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. -New York Times editorial

First, here is my understanding of the truth.

There is an underlying physical reality in which first there was no life, then there was life, and different plants and animals, including humans, appeared. Clearly something was happening. The known facts are compelling, but it is a complex field. And there is a deep problem with objectifying humanity.

The reputation of scientific consensus, like the MainStream Media, is in crisis and getting worse. Both institutions have work to do to reestablish credibility.

[samtheman]

Indeed, the interpretations taught in history, economics, sociology, political science, literature and other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology.

Indeed. In fact, the interpretations of how gravity works over distance are "less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology". (Gravity is mediated by the postulated, but undiscovered, graviton.)

If we're talking about the very origin of life itself, that first set of one-celled critters in the sea, then yes, there is still some mystery.

But if we're talking about how those critters went on to grow shells, fins, feet and finances, then sorry, folks: case closed.

[Smartaleck]

"Real men don't whine."

Which begs the question, why all the whinning about the "theory" of evolution?

[marty60]

Well at least the Slimes admitted they think Christians are "INSIDIOUS"

[OldFriend]

I hate to quote Pat Buchanan in any context but he did have the best line I have ever heard on the subject of evolution.

He turned to the other panelist and said.....if you want to believe your ancestors were monkeys that's alright with me.

[Jim Noble]

I don't do crevo threads.

But note the status the NYT gives "evolution" - a fortress, something concrete and formidable, unmoveable even, capable of being "attacked".

It's an hypothesis. There is data that tends to support it, and data that tends to call it into question.

It's perfect for teaching the scientific method-there's nothing better that middle schoolers and HS students can grasp for the purpose.

But for the NYT, and far, far too many scientists, it has achieved Holy Grail status, so that teaching the data that tends to undermine the hypothesis is a revolutionary act.

It's pathetic.

Back to politics, have fun, y'all.

[AmericanChef]

-The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography.-

Pronography provided by the NYT, perhaps?

[curiosity]

No, advocates of junk science are sneaky.

Most Christians accept both the Bible and the scientific FACT of evolution.

[The SISU kid]

Hey Long Cut, over here, More "Fun with the Fundies"

8^)

[Junior]

How's about this one?

[norton]

Why the hell are these prople so terrified???

[CAPS turned off due to modesty]

[cynicom]

The day that the Slimes and their fellow traveling atheists offer an "overwhelming scientific consensus" as to how matter created itself from nothing, will be a long time in coming.

[JCEccles]

The third sentence, urging that evolution be studied carefully and critically, seems like a fine idea. The only problem is, it singles out evolution as the only subject so shaky it needs critical judgment.

Evolution's proponents created the problem by using the courts to accord a scientific theory the status of secular religion that no one is allowed to question in the public schools. Other subjects may be freely and vigorously debated. Only evolution is singled out for enforced, blind secular worship.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

These'll help.