Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Doubting Darwin
Newsweek via MSNBC.com ^ | 2/7/05 | Jerry Adler

Posted on 01/30/2005 9:56:02 PM PST by freespirited

Ironically, this battle was touched off when Cobb County bought new textbooks that actually covered evolution, after years in which the subject was largely ignored. The same kinds of struggles are cropping up in towns in Wisconsin, Arkansas and elsewhere, as school boards try to implement state curriculum standards mandated by Congress. All sides are keeping a close eye on Ohio, which last year adopted standards including an incendiary phrase about "critically analyz[ing] aspects of evolutionary theory." Kansas, which in the November election handed the anti-evolution forces a 6-4 majority on the state school board, is due to review its standards in February; five years ago, the state was widely ridiculed for eliminating evolution from the required curriculum entirely. The only thing lacking for a full-scale culture war is involvement by the national conservative movement, which has treated it as a local issue. That could change, though. Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who wrote an op-ed article supporting the Dover School Board, says he regards evolution as one of the "big social issues of our time," along with abortion and gay marriage. . . . .

Soon thereafter, I.D. burst into public awareness with the publication of "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson, a Berkeley law professor who underwent a midlife conversion to evangelical Christianity. As a scientific theory, I.D. is making only slow progress in overcoming evolution's 150-year head start. . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: charlesdarwin; crevolist; evolution; intelligentdesign; neocreationism; neodarwinism; publicschools
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last
I think the following excerpt from the article cannot be emphasized enough:

the Vatican has said it finds no conflict between Christian faith and evolution. Neither does Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Institute at the National Institutes of Health and an outspoken evangelical. He wrote recently of his view that God, "who created the universe, chose the remarkable mechanism of evolution to create plants and animals of all sorts." It may require some metaphysical juggling, but if more people could take that view, there would be fewer conflicts like the one in Dover.

1 posted on 01/30/2005 9:56:02 PM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Evolution is a fraud. Certain proteins are expressed in the developmental stages of human embryos (or any animal). These proteins induce the formation of organs. However, if these proteins are continually expressed, cells will become cancerous. I would like for the evolutionists to explain how THAT process "evolved". If evolution is "fact", then the embryo would initially ONLY produce these signaling proteins. Therefore, you could NEVER evolve because all forms of life would become extinct due to the constant upregulation of these proteins (cancer). They would NEVER have the chance to "evolve" and put the 'brakes' on these proteins after initial development (as they currently do). Also, if evolution is "fact" then how did Insulin and Insulin Receptors "evolve"? EVERYONE NEEDS INSULIN!! Was the insulin produced first with nowhere to bind? Was the IR produced first? The insulin signaling pathway (shown below) is too complex and too well organized to have just "evolved".




This is just one example....think of the many, many, many other receptors in the human body as well.....how did they "evolve"? Any way you boil it down, signaling pathways in the human body are too complex to be explained by a stupid and outmoded theory such as evolution. The belief in evolution is in reality it's own religion, many use it to explain that there is no god. I'm not particularly religious, I definitely believe in God but don't accept Creationism in a literal sense. I sure as hell know that evolution is a fraud. I know the history behind the Scopes Monkey trial, the ACLU and how they used it to push evolution into the classroom around the early twenties. The founder of the ACLU stated that America would never knowingly allow socialism to take over. The ACLU needs to be locked up in Guantanamo bay with their terrorist brethren.
2 posted on 01/30/2005 10:04:15 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite (Douche-ocrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

This is a case of a lie that's so weak it's surrounded by a bodyguard of other lies: the stuff passed off as evidence. The fraud is circling the drain.


3 posted on 01/30/2005 10:16:35 PM PST by 185JHP ( "The thing thou purposest shall come to pass: And over all thy ways the light shall shine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Unfortunately the Vatican is behind the power curve on this one. The reality of the situation is that if evolution occurred as humanists today contend that the entire story of Genesis is a complete and utter fraud.

A theory in which millions of years of death and change led to the ascent of man is mutually exclusive with a document which states unequivocally that death did not exist prior to Cain murdering his brother.

The weakest of all philosophical and theological viewpoints is born out of attempting a merger of the two.


4 posted on 01/30/2005 10:21:13 PM PST by Old_Mil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

I suggest we agree to disagree.

Also, may I ask that you refrain from suggesting that evolution is my religion? It is not my religion. It is separate from it.


5 posted on 01/30/2005 10:26:37 PM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP

It really is scary as to the amount of lies that are told in our education system and reinforced by the media.

They lie about McCarthy.

They lie about Hitler, he was a socialist...but he is passed off as a "Right Wing Nazi".

They lie about "separation of church and state".

They lie about Vietnam.


I could go on and on.....


6 posted on 01/30/2005 10:28:08 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite (Douche-ocrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

The two are inseperable. If you prefer, you could substitute the word "worldview" for "religion"; then it might make more sense.


7 posted on 01/30/2005 10:35:19 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Ping


8 posted on 01/30/2005 10:37:51 PM PST by sgent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Okay, I'm open-minded on it, but I would like someone to please explain how the Cambrian Explosion occurred in the context of evolution.
9 posted on 01/30/2005 10:38:08 PM PST by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

They are witting or unwitting workers for the king of lies. And unless they get straightened out before they die, they'll pay an unthinkable price...


10 posted on 01/30/2005 10:41:12 PM PST by 185JHP ( "The thing thou purposest shall come to pass: And over all thy ways the light shall shine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Malesherbes

Basically the Cambrian Explosion wasn't the explosion of life forms as once believed.

See http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm


11 posted on 01/30/2005 10:55:42 PM PST by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
The weakest of all philosophical and theological viewpoints is born out of attempting a merger of the two.

Brilliant! Someone gets it!

There are basically four attempts at reconcilliation:

The Ideal View. Genesis 1 is merely a poetic description of the creative acts of God. This has its forerunner in the allegorical interpretations of Genesis 1 or Philo, Origen, and Augustine. The "days" are seen perspectively and not chronologically. A corollary is Kurtz's visionary theory, which sees Genesis 1 as a backward-looking prophecy.

The Restitution View. This draws a radical divide between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, placing all events and phenomena taught by geology in between. The six-day "restitution" begins in verse 3, wherein God makes the earth inhabitable for man.

The Concordistic View. The days are lengthened, but their chronological order is maintained. Many well-respected natural scientists of their day, including Cuvier, embraced this view.

The Literal-Historical View. The results of geology are to be found partly in the six days, and partly in cataclysmic events thereafter. The flood and the Ice Age are intimately intertwined.


12 posted on 01/30/2005 10:59:56 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I'm gonna put my two cents in:

Darwinism is a theory. As a theory it can be proven or rejected or modified as evidence comes in. All part of the scientific process. Everything is on the table and open for discussion.

Intelligent design is not a theory. It's a belief. And as a firmly held belief it's not on the table for discussion, modification or adoption of additional evidence.

You can attack someone's scientific theory and there's no hard feelings in the scientific community (usually). If you attack someone's belief, then you're in for trouble.

It seems to me, that's the core of the problem...


13 posted on 01/30/2005 11:02:46 PM PST by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
Unfortunately the Vatican is behind the power curve on this one. The reality of the situation is that if evolution occurred as humanists today contend that the entire story of Genesis is a complete and utter fraud.

A theory in which millions of years of death and change led to the ascent of man is mutually exclusive with a document which states unequivocally that death did not exist prior to Cain murdering his brother.

Yes, and Jesus conquered death by being a sinless sacrifice. The wolf and the lamb will feed together, lions eating straw, no more eating each other, when we get back to the original creation.

Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

I agree with you, except for the fact that God dealt out the first sacrificial death on an animal to provide the skins that covered Adam and Eve. Then of course, probably following Adams example, Abel sacrificed one of his flock as an offering to the Lord. The first murder recorded was Cain's murder of Abel.

P.S. Scripturally, plants wither, but don't die. Blood is required for life and death.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.

14 posted on 01/30/2005 11:03:56 PM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Meant to ping you to #14 above.


15 posted on 01/30/2005 11:07:03 PM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Malesherbes
Okay, I'm open-minded on it, but I would like someone to please explain how the Cambrian Explosion occurred in the context of evolution.

And how do you explain how the Cambrian Explosion occured in the last 6,000 years? In fact, since Darwin's time earlier complex fossels have been found from the Vendian period.

16 posted on 01/30/2005 11:13:14 PM PST by MRMEAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
There is a third theory that really should be given consideration:

SD or Stupid Design

Given the poor engineering of the human body and it's vulnerabilities to disease and malfunction, it must be concluded that the creator is a poor engineer.
17 posted on 01/31/2005 12:06:20 AM PST by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

There are a few additional quotes from the bible that are also important:

Deuteronomy 23:1

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

2 Kings 6:29 (King James Version)

29 So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.

Song of Solomon 5:4 (King James Version)

4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

These are important passages we should all take to heart.


18 posted on 01/31/2005 12:17:00 AM PST by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
What was your purpose in pasting a few contextually dependant verses into a post?

Why do you consider those verses particularly important (motivating your post) and do you know their historical and theological context?

19 posted on 01/31/2005 12:37:32 AM PST by Old Landmarks (No fear of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
What was your purpose in pasting a few contextually dependent verses into a post?

Deuteronomy 23:1 is obviously not context dependent. The context of the others does not affect their meaning. But hey, if you think it does, more power to you.

Why do you consider those verses particularly important (motivating your post) and do you know their historical and theological context?

God tells me all his verses are important and eternally true. Historical context doesn't change their truth.

As for their theological context, the bible itself is their theological context. I don't trust the "theological interpretations" of man.

Prove me wrong.

20 posted on 01/31/2005 1:02:07 AM PST by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
I am not sure you answered my questions.

Prove you wrong? Wrong about what? I can only guess what you are trying to say, please tell me more.

Do you mean prove you wrong in your apparent statement that the context of a verse does not matter as long as it is in the Bible? (and that is context enough)?

Are you saying that the context of a verse does not matter?

I agree that the Bible is truth, but if you do not allow the Bible to interpret itself by the context the Bible itself gives you, you may be missing the truth.

21 posted on 01/31/2005 2:03:23 AM PST by Old Landmarks (No fear of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 230 names. See list's description at my homepage. FReepmail to be added/dropped.

22 posted on 01/31/2005 3:52:10 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
the Vatican has said it finds no conflict between Christian faith and evolution. Neither does Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Institute at the National Institutes of Health and an outspoken evangelical. He wrote recently of his view that God, "who created the universe, chose the remarkable mechanism of evolution to create plants and animals of all sorts." It may require some metaphysical juggling, but if more people could take that view, there would be fewer conflicts like the one in Dover.

Anyone can claim to be an outspoken evangelical, but Collins is obviously a theistic evolutionist, which is a rejection of the Scriptural view of creation. As to the Vatican's view on evolution the following article by Jack Cashill should shed some light on that:

Why Kansas Catholics Opposed The Teaching of Evolution By Jack Cashill, Ph.D.

Time after time at the now famous Topeka hearings on Kansas state science standards, the so-called "science educators" would cite Pope John Paul II to support their evolutionary position. And time after time, nearly apoplectic, the Catholic representatives at the hearings would just about jump out of their chairs.

Willfully or otherwise, the science educators misconstrued the Pope's position. This disturbed the Catholics at Topeka to be sure, but it did not surprise them. What has surprised them, shocked them really, are the dismissive editorials by their fellow Catholics who understand the Pope's position only superficially and who understand the science educators' not at all.

For the record, Pope John Paul II and the U.S. Bishops have no objection to certain theories of evolution as long as they allow for God's creation of the world and the special creation of man. This is a shrewd posture on the part of the Pope as it allows for the Church to adapt to new scientific discoveries without a challenge to the faith.

Unfortunately, the Church's position does not wash with evolutionary biologists of any repute or ambition. They may avoid conflict with the Vatican by either ignoring or misquoting the Pope, but in fact, Catholic teaching is antithetical to their own, and they know it. A little background here is in order. In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species. This elegant and timely work made two basic claims: One is that living things experience what Darwin called "variations" or what we call "mutations"--genetic changes that occur randomly. The second is that a process he called "natural selection" preserves favorable variations and rejects harmful ones.

The best evidence Darwin could cite for this theory was the breeding of domestic animals. These obvious changes within a species--called microevolution--no one could deny then, and no one denies today, certainly not the Church, nor the much maligned Kansas Board of Education.

The question Darwin had to ask himself--the tough question--was whether this theory could account for macroevolution, the presumed bridge from one species to another and the mechanism he thought responsible for the vast diversity of life.

Darwin and his philosophical heirs answer an unequivocal "Yes." Richard Dawkins, today's most influential evolutionist, describes natural selection as "a blind, unconscious, automatic process" that is "the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life."

That's a quote. The explanation. All life. What room does that leave for, well, say, God? Not much.

"In the evolutionary pattern of thought," said Julian Huxley on the occasion of the Darwin Centennial in 1959, "there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created. It evolved."

No need. No room. And Huxley's sentiment is the rule, not the exception. The renowned biologist Stephen Jay Gould praises Darwinism as "a rigidly materialistic and basically atheistic version of evolution." Darwin made it possible," boasts Richard Dawkins, "to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

These are their own words. As to the inescapable ramifications of Darwinism, distinguished Cornell University Professor Will Provine, evolutionary biologist and neo-Darwinian, happily cites the impossibility of either free will or life after death.

The larger philosophy is often called naturalism, nature is all that there is; or materialism, matter is all that there is. In its most extreme forms, scientific naturalism provided a rationale for the terror of Nazi eugenics and the tyranny of communism. Wrote Marx to Engels of Darwin's The Origin of Species, "This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."

Pope John Paul II has preached often against materialism and specifically so in an evolutionary context. Aware of this, the Catholics at the Topeka hearings objected not only to the undeniable connection between today's science establishment and the eugenics movement, but also to the implicit materialism of the proposed science standards themselves.

For all its harsh consequences, materialism would present a real challenge to the faith only if its own particular creation myth, Darwinism, was irrefutable. But Darwinism is hardly that. There is, after all, no evidence of existing transitional species as Darwin presumed there ought to be. None. There's no hard evidence of the same in the fossil record. Most species haven't changed at all. The major animal groups did not emerge gradually as Darwin predicted, but they exploded on to the scene. Nor did they die out gradually as Darwin said they would. Those that vanished, vanished in a geological heartbeat.

It gets worse. In one of his bolder moments, Darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin knew nothing of the electron microscope and cellular biology. His champion, Richard Dawkins, knows a lot. As Dawkins notes, the nucleus of each cell contains more information than all 30 volumes of the encyclopedia Brittanica put together, complex, specific and perfectly ordered.

Richard Dawkins imagines the cell as a Xerox machine, capable, he says, "of copying its own blueprints," but "not capable of springing spontaneously into existence." So picture Dawkins on the brink of infinity, pumping what Darwin called "secretions" from his barely evolved brain, trying desperately to figure how this this wonderfully complex machine came to be. His best guess? No joke: "sheer, unadulterated, miraculous luck." It must have slopped itself together, he surmises, from some imagined chemical soup.

Luck indeed, it's a task scientists have never been able to duplicate in the lab. Not to be outdone, Nobel laureate Frances Crick argues that these first primitive life forms might have come to earth, hang on, in a spaceship sent by a dying alien civilization.

In truth, neither Dawkins nor Crick have a clue where these first cells came from. Neither do their peers. Indeed, when biochemist Michael Behe searched the scientific journals looking for a Darwinian explanation, he found instead "an eerie and complete silence."

Said Darwin , "I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent." One wonders how he would feel about utterly whimsical "additions" like spaceships or luck.

Still, America's public school teachers can present this goofiness in class as science but can not even address the rational possibility of a willful, intelligent creation of life. And the editorialists, even the Catholic ones, cheer on this kind of teaching, fearing to be cast among the anti-Darwinian few whom Dawkins calls the "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Ironically, the loud, spiteful resistance from the establishment bodes well for the future. It is a sign not of confidence but of confusion. It may even portend a genuine shift in the paradigm.

Richard Dawkins himself admits that "the beauty and elegance of biological design" gives us "the illusion of design and planning." But trapped by a lifetime of scornful pride and self-congratulation, he will abandon his weary materialism no more eagerly than the Soviets abandoned theirs.

The very Catholic (9 children) Michael Behe is not so trapped. "Over the past four decades," he writes in the ground breaking book, Darwin's Black Box, "modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell." "The result," he adds, "is a loud, piercing cry of DESIGN." In Behe's opinion, this observation is "as momentous as the observation that the earth goes round the sun."

Try as they might, the science establishment and their friends in the media cannot suppress this kind of news forever.

Jack Cashill, Ph.D., has written and produced an hour long documentary, The Triumph of Design and The Demise of Darwin, in collaboration with Phillip Johnson. Jack is a Fullbright scholar and a regional Emmy Award winner. See Jack Cashill News: America's Conservative Information Resource.

23 posted on 01/31/2005 4:00:50 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

The Branding of a Heretic
Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?


BY DAVID KLINGHOFFER
Friday, January 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

The question of whether Intelligent Design (ID) may be presented to public-school students alongside neo-Darwinian evolution has roiled parents and teachers in various communities lately. Whether ID may be presented to adult scientific professionals is another question altogether but also controversial. It is now roiling the government-supported Smithsonian Institution, where one scientist has had his career all but ruined over it.

The scientist is Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue included typical articles on taxonomical topics--e.g., on a new species of hermit crab. It also included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

The piece happened to be the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms--such as the miniature machines and complex circuits within cells--are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

Mr. Sternberg's editorship has since expired, as it was scheduled to anyway, but his future as a researcher is in jeopardy--and that he had not planned on at all. He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned. He now rests his hope for vindication on his complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs. A museum spokesman confirms that the OSC is investigating. Says Mr. Sternberg: "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

The offending review-essay was written by Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism--mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. Mr. Meyer gathers the threads of their comments to make his own case. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.

Whatever the article's ultimate merits--beyond the judgment of a layman--it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues--the museum's No. 2 senior scientist--denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage."

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. . . . He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; . . . he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?' " The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

In October, as the OSC complaint recounts, Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs. Mr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution. "I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Mr. Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out." Neither Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues returned repeated phone messages asking for their version of events.

Mr. Sternberg begged a friendly curator for alternative research space, and he still works at the museum. But many colleagues now ignore him when he greets them in the hall, and his office sits empty as "unclaimed space." Old colleagues at other institutions now refuse to work with him on publication projects, citing the Meyer episode. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

It may or may not be, but surely the matter can be debated on scientific grounds, responded to with argument instead of invective and stigma. Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

According to the OSC complaint, one museum specialist chided him by saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated person and you have dragged down the Proceedings because of your religiously motivated agenda." Definitely not, says Mr. Sternberg. He is a Catholic who attends Mass but notes: "I would call myself a believer with a lot of questions, about everything. I'm in the postmodern predicament."

Intelligent Design, in any event, is hardly a made-to-order prop for any particular religion. When the British atheist philosopher Antony Flew made news this winter by declaring that he had become a deist--a believer in an unbiblical "god of the philosophers" who takes no notice of our lives--he pointed to the plausibility of ID theory.

Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches--like the National Museum of Natural History.

Mr. Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish Forward, is the author of "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus," to be published by Doubleday in March.
24 posted on 01/31/2005 4:25:05 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
The Restitution View. This draws a radical divide between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3, placing all events and phenomea taught by geology in between. The six-day restitution" begins in verse 3, wherein God makes the earth inhabitable for man.

Not to be nitpicky, but the restitution view (aka gap theory) actually puts the gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, not Gen 1:2 and Gen 1:3.

25 posted on 01/31/2005 4:47:37 AM PST by bigLusr (Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
...it must be concluded that the creator is a poor engineer.

Why run a sewer through a recreational area?

26 posted on 01/31/2005 6:21:41 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Soon thereafter, I.D. burst into public awareness with the publication of "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson, a Berkeley law professor who underwent a midlife conversion to evangelical Christianity. As a scientific theory, I.D. is making only slow progress in overcoming evolution's 150-year head start. . . .

This sums it all up.The objectives are: 1) to attack and discredit a scientific theory (evolution) and, if necessary, attack and discredit science in general (by calling it a religion); 2) forcefully promote the teaching of a specific religious belief (ID/Creationism).

On the one hand attack science (or a scientific theory) as invalid and equivalent to a religion to justify the teaching of an alternative religious belief. On the other hand, try to make a religious belief look like science to justify teaching it in a science class.

27 posted on 01/31/2005 6:50:48 AM PST by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


28 posted on 01/31/2005 7:37:22 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

Excluding stuff that is flagrantly off the wall, this is one of the most biased articles I have ever read. Obviously you want to believe this, so let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.


29 posted on 01/31/2005 7:49:26 AM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

If you are interested, you can find the entire saga here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000484.html

It will give you a much better perspective on what really happened.


30 posted on 01/31/2005 7:53:15 AM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Excluding stuff that is flagrantly off the wall, this is one of the most biased articles I have ever read. Obviously you want to believe this, so let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

You want to leave it at that after trashing an article. Yes, I know how opened minded the Darwinists are when educating our children, NOT. Here is an article which exposes their biased religion.

A Reality Check from Oz

In 1995, the official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind."

How do they know the process was unsupervised?

How do they know the process was mindless?

How do they know the process was purposeless?

Their statements are problematic in that they are unscientific. It cannot be proven that evolutionary processes are "purposeless" or that humans were "not in mind." Science cannot demonstrate these assumptions either way ... and that's the problem with their position. They become proponents of a religion of atheism; I say religion because their conclusion is NOT science, it is faith ... just as much as OUR conclusion is faith. Clearly, their definition is diametrically opposed to any concept of a personal creator being involved in the evolutionary process.

To be fair, as was reported by Brendan Sweetman, Ph.D. in a letter to The Kansas City Star August 21, NABT removed the language after it was pointed out by the philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, and the theologian Huston Smith, that their guideline was really an implied atheism and went beyond what the scientific evidence for the theory could show. However, the concept of natural selection (absent a creator) remains the central tenant of evolution as taught in the classrooms. The definition of natural selection includes unsupervised, mindless and purposeless. Clearly, in defining evolution they have left the world of science and entered the world of philosophy and theology, and established atheism (a religion) in our classrooms.

A 1991 Gallup Poll found that 87% of the public believes in God. According to the poll, of the 87% who believe in God, 44% accept the Creation model, and 43% the theistic evolution model. This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms. Teaching intelligent design differs from literal Biblical creationism in that it is silent regarding who the designer might be, when the designing took place, how it was done or for what purpose. It simply purposes that life was designed.

We can only speculate as to why two young men at Columbine High School gave up all hope and went on a rampage. Do you think that maybe they were taught their world is mindless, purposeless and unsupervised?
31 posted on 01/31/2005 8:22:10 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
As a scientific theory, I.D. is making only slow progress in overcoming evolution's 150-year head start. . . .

Perhaps it's making slow progress because there's no evidence in favor of it. ID proponents can only point to their claimed doubt of Evolution which gives them their faith that there must be a God.

There is no positive evidence for ID, only disputed evidence against Evolution.

Any positive evidence in favor of ID would be evidence of God. And I doubt that He want's us to actually build that "God-o-meter" so we can read His presence in the laboratory. There would be no need for faith if we had such a thing.

32 posted on 01/31/2005 8:23:12 AM PST by narby (Every time you have to take a flu shot proves Evolution all over again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
Any way you boil it down, signaling pathways in the human body are too complex to be explained by a stupid and outmoded theory such as evolution.

I love the way you've selectively chosen to believe certain things claimed by science, but rejected others such as Evolution.

I suppose consistency isn't your strong suit.

33 posted on 01/31/2005 8:25:22 AM PST by narby (Every time you have to take a flu shot proves Evolution all over again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
Unfortunately the Vatican is behind the power curve on this one. The reality of the situation is that if evolution occurred as humanists today contend that the entire story of Genesis is a complete and utter fraud.

The Vatican is wisely hedging their bets. Since they've lost every other battle with science (Copernicus, Galeleo, etc.), it's a wise move. It's too bad today's Evangelicals have tied their faith to creationism, because they will lose too.

God created the world, and He gave us the Bible. The world contains massive evidence for Evolution, even despite the creationist naysayers.

So either 1) God "lied" to us when He created the world by salting it with an incredible amount of evidence for Evolution. Or 2) some minority of Evangelical Christians are mis-interpreting a few hundred words in Genesis.

Since it's very hard to get a perfect picture from mere words, I prefer to interpret the world created by God, when the question is about that world itself (how the species were created).

God does not lie, either in His creation, or His word. It takes a human to interpret one or the other of them wrong. There is no conflict between science and Genesis, only humans who refuse to admit they are wrong.

34 posted on 01/31/2005 8:33:29 AM PST by narby (Every time you have to take a flu shot proves Evolution all over again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e; Old Landmarks
Let me jump in here

I think mc's point is that once you start litterally interpreting every single verse in the Bible, you've then got to swallow every one of them.

Genesis cannot be litteral, because it conflicts with itself in the two different creation stories of Gen 1:1 vs Gen 2:4.

Gen 2:4 is a bit more subtle and has been wrongly interpreted as being a summary of the creation in Gen 1:1. But the story beginning at Gen 2:4 contains sequences ("B" had not happened because "A" had not). Therefore it is an independent creation story with sequences, that unfortunatly do not agree with the sequences in Gen 1:1.

And we get into the unexplained things in Genesis, such as why there were "days" before there was a sun, and where the did light come from before the sun, moon, or stars were created? Where did the other people come from? Yes, convoluted explanations can be concocted to explain these discrepancies, but once you demonstrate you're willing to convolute the words in Genesis, then why not allow for Evolution as well?

Bottom line, Genesis is not litteral. The evidence in Gods creation points heavily to Evolution, and I do not believe God lies in His creation. Evolution does not negate any other meaning the Bible, so why fight it?

This creationism fight is damaging for believers, and damaging for religious conservatives, which have much more important things to do. This is why I believe these stories are being written, in a continuing attempt to hang the albatross of creationism around the neck of George Bush and conservative Republicans. We must reject it.

35 posted on 01/31/2005 8:53:58 AM PST by narby (Every time you have to take a flu shot proves Evolution all over again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

Are you prepared to give some context to those passages, for I have a couple of passages that may interest you.

Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Luk 10:37 ... Go, and do thou likewise.


36 posted on 01/31/2005 9:11:31 AM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
Unfortunately the Vatican is behind the power curve on this one. The reality of the situation is that if evolution occurred as humanists today contend that the entire story of Genesis is a complete and utter fraud.

Nonsense. It would mean Genesis uses metaphorical and allegorical language, common to ancient peoples, to express basic divine truths. There is no evidence the book was meant to be taken literally.

Besides, evolution is not the only science that makes a literal reading of Genesis untenable. To believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, you'd have to chuck out geology. To believe that night and day preceeded the creation of the sun, you'd have to chuck out astronomy. And where exactly is the canopy of water in the heavens? How come we haven't found it yet?

A theory in which millions of years of death and change led to the ascent of man is mutually exclusive with a document which states unequivocally that death did not exist prior to Cain murdering his brother.

Nowhere does the Bible say there was no animal death before Cain's murder. Romans 5 speaks only of HUMAN death. Accepting evolution only requires accepting pre-human ANIMAL death.

The weakest of all philosophical and theological viewpoints is born out of attempting a merger of the two.

The weakest of all philosophical and theological viewpoints is born out of taking literally an obviously poetic and allegorical text whose literal reading is not only contradicted by mountains of readily observable, empirical data, but in fact contradicts itself.

37 posted on 01/31/2005 10:01:58 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
Just because charaltan biologists like Dawkins claim evolution leaves no room for God does not make it so. When they make statements like these, they are leaving science and venturing into metaphysics, which is outside their area of expertise. Hence their opinion on such matters carries no more weight than that of a philosopher pontificating on biology.
38 posted on 01/31/2005 10:10:36 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Nonsense. It would mean Genesis uses metaphorical and allegorical language, common to ancient peoples, to express basic divine truths. There is no evidence the book was meant to be taken literally.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

I have more trouble than you doubting Jesus' knowledge of creation events. He made a statement that is quite literal.

Scripture is always the best commentary on scripture.

39 posted on 01/31/2005 10:12:59 AM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
I have more trouble than you doubting Jesus' knowledge of creation events. He made a statement that is quite literal.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how Jesus's statement in any way implies Genesis 1 must be taken literally. Can you elaborate please?

40 posted on 01/31/2005 10:17:24 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Just because there will be no animal death after the coming of the kingdom does not mean there was no struggle or animal death before the fall.

I have yet to see a single Biblical passage that denies animal death before the fall. And no, Romans 5 does not cut it, as St. Paul is clearly speaking of human death and not animal death.

41 posted on 01/31/2005 10:31:32 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Nowhere does the Bible say there was no animal death before Cain's murder. Romans 5 speaks only of HUMAN death. Accepting evolution only requires accepting pre-human ANIMAL death.

Here are some scriptures that might help (Taken from another thread and slightly edited).

Death is fundamental to the Gospel's efficacy. If sin didn't bring on death, there was no need for Christ to literally conquer death through His physical resurrection. The entire Jewish sacrificial system that was a typology of Jesus Christ, required shedding of blood for the covering of sin. Read Leviticus if you aren't to sure about this doctrine.

God's first act after pronouncing the curse for Adam's sin was to sacrifice an animal (the first animal death was skins to cover Adam and Eve's sin).

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Death was not part of the original creation. Getting back to the original creation.

Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Jesus Christ shed His sinless blood and therefore gave up his life unto death, because He is God, He was able to take up His life again from the dead so that, like Him, we can have eternal life.

As Paul clearly states, Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, overcame the penalty of death brought on by Adam's sin. If evolution was true, Jesus Christ would have had no reason to resurrect Himself because He could have become a spirit being and went straight to heaven.

Sin brought death into the world, and death needed conquering by the shedding of sinless blood. Jesus Christ allowed His life's blood to pour out for us. He had the power to lay down His life for His friends.

On death, shed blood and sin:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Luk 24:39-40
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them [his] hands and [his] feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Adam's sin cursed the entire universe.

Rom 8:21-22
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Jhn 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (emphasis added in scripture text)

Talk about a central theme, WOW!

42 posted on 01/31/2005 10:39:06 AM PST by bondserv (Sincerity with God is the most powerful instigator for change! [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Bot, there is a lot of anti-evolution stuff coming out lately. Reminds me of all the anti-dan rather stuff coming out after he showed the forged documents.

And it is about bloody time... 8^>

The internet is having as much impact on the free flow of ideas and criticisms as the printing press did. That is a good thing.

Once both sides are exposed in the light of day, it is amazing how fast "controversial" subjects can become much less controversial.

Is the authenticity of dan rathers documents still very controversial to reasonable men? 8^>


43 posted on 01/31/2005 10:43:52 AM PST by RobRoy (I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

SHUT UP YOU STUPID CREATIONIST!






</sarcasm>


44 posted on 01/31/2005 10:45:25 AM PST by RobRoy (I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Death is fundamental to the Gospel's efficacy. If sin didn't bring on death, there was no need for Christ to literally conquer death through His physical resurrection.

Yes, human death is key to the Gospel. I see nothing in the Bible that indicates animal death plays the same role.

God's first act after pronouncing the curse for Adam's sin was to sacrifice an animal (the first animal death was skins to cover Adam and Eve's sin).

The text does not say it was a sacrifice, and it does not say it was the first animal death. You are adding to the Word of God.

Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Isaiah is speaking of the state of the affairs after the coming of God's Kingdom at the end of time. Nothing in the text indicates this was the order of things before the Fall.

As Paul clearly states, Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, overcame the penalty of death brought on by Adam's sin.

Right, Adam's sin caused HUMAN death, and Christ conquered it. St. Paul says nothing about animal death.

If evolution was true, Jesus Christ would have had no reason to resurrect Himself because He could have become a spirit being and went straight to heaven.

I don't follow your logic. Please elaborate. I don't see how evolution negates the effects of human sin and the need for Christ to sacrifice himself to remove that sin.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Yes, Adam would not have died had he not sinned. What does this have to do with animal death?

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Luk 24:39-40 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them [his] hands and [his] feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

I don't see what any of the passages above have to do with animal death before the fall. Please elaborate.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Yes, sin caused human death. I don't see what this has to do with animal death, for the fifth time.

Adam's sin cursed the entire universe. Rom 8:21-22 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

I don't see any mention of animal death. Sure, creation groans because of Adam's sin, but nothing in the text suggests groaning=animal death. You're adding to the Word of God again.

Jhn 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (emphasis added in scripture text)

Yes, this is one of my favorite passages as well, but what exactly does it have to do with evolution or animal death?

45 posted on 01/31/2005 10:59:06 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
[ Given the poor engineering of the human body and it's vulnerabilities to disease and malfunction, it must be concluded that the creator is a poor engineer. ]

-OR- that inbreeding resulted in the devolution of the human genome.. to what it is now.. with further devolution as a work in process. One thing is certain the third human on earth came from the first two.. and there is much evidence they were trolls(the first two).. with evidence of; What we know of human history..

46 posted on 01/31/2005 11:26:28 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been ok'ed by me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
Also, if evolution is "fact" then how did Insulin and Insulin Receptors "evolve"? EVERYONE NEEDS INSULIN!! Was the insulin produced first with nowhere to bind? Was the IR produced first? The insulin signaling pathway (shown below) is too complex and too well organized to have just "evolved".

I'm curious: Is this insulin pathway argument yours, or did you get it from somewhere else?

47 posted on 01/31/2005 1:13:53 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Professional NT Services by Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JmyBryan

Nice link.

I bet no one reads it.


48 posted on 01/31/2005 1:13:57 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: narby
...once you demonstrate you're willing to convolute the words in Genesis...

No, you can't jump in; Oh, you already have.

I know what he was saying; I just wanted to know if he knew the context of those verses...he didn't know...and you can pull verses out of a skeptic's book and pretend you have labored long and hard to dig them out yourself.

I am amazed that in one long breath you convolute the creation story (any child can get it)and then accuse others of convoluting.

Are there some things figurative in the Bible? Sure, but every time it disagrees with popular opinion does not mean you can slap a figurative label on it. That is quite convoluted.

The Hebrews had it long before you and they easily understood Gen. 1 and Gen 2 to be obvious compliments of one another.

I have read the 'skeptic' books, they never give the Bible the benefit of a doubt; their doubt.

49 posted on 01/31/2005 2:51:26 PM PST by Old Landmarks (No fear of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I already adressed my criticism of Neo-Darwinism. Take a look at this link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1328556/posts?page=194#194


50 posted on 01/31/2005 3:07:00 PM PST by nasamn777 (The emperor wears no clothes -- I am sorry to tell you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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