The trouble with Darwin (Bush's I.D. comments changed Australia's Educational Landscape)

The brawl between evolutionists and religious neo-conservatives over how life began is coming down to the survival of the slickest.

For about 150 years Charles Darwin's evolution theory has held sway. But a new American theory, intelligent design, is getting a lot of press as scientists and intellectuals rush to the barricades to dismiss intelligent design as little else than "creationism" rebadged.

Already a DVD featuring American scientists claiming intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and life has become Australia's biggest-selling religious video and intelligent design is starting to permeate school courses.

Next year, hundreds of Catholic schools in the dioceses of Sydney, Wollongong, Lismore and Armidale will use new religious education textbooks that discuss intelligent design. At Dural, year 9 and 10 students at Pacific Hills Christian School have begun learning about intelligent design in science classes.

The chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty, says it is inevitable other schools will follow suit. Until last month, few Australians had heard of it. But debate broke out internationally on August 1 when the US President, George Bush, told reporters he supported combining lessons on evolution with discussion of intelligent design. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," Bush said.

Last month, the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson, gave intelligent design ministerial imprimatur, telling the National Press Club he thought parents and schools ought to have the opportunity - if they wished - for students to be exposed to intelligent design and taught about it.

But his interest had been pricked by a parliamentary visit on June 20 by Bill Hodgson, head of the Sydney-based campus Crusade for Christ, who left a copy of a DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life with Nelson.

The DVD featured a US mathematician, William Dembski, and other leading American intelligent design proponents claiming the complexity of biological systems is proof of an organising intelligence.

"ID is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence," Dembski said.

The DVD is distributed in Australia by a Melbourne-based Christian group, Focus on the Family. Its executive director, Colin Bunnett, says until Nelson's comments only 1000 copies had been sold over four years. "But it's taken off. We've sold thousands in the last few weeks," he says.

The intelligent design debate has more resonance in the US, partly because teaching about the beginning of life is problematic. A Harris poll in June found that 55 per cent of American adults support teaching evolution, creationism, and intelligent design in public schools yet many who favour a literal interpretation of the Bible found it difficult to accept Darwin's The Origin of Species.

One teacher, John Scopes, was convicted for violating a Tennessee ban on teaching evolution in 1925's famous "monkey trial". It was not isolated legislation. In 1968, when the US Supreme Court struck down similar laws, some states began pushing the teaching of "creationism" alongside evolution.

In Australia, the issue has been less hard-edged. The last tussle was in 1978 when Queensland's Bjelke-Petersen government bowed to creationists' opposition to social science courses. Of late, leading scientists have rebuffed intelligent design. The Nobel Prize-winning scientist Peter Doherty says it has no place in a science curriculum and the physicist Paul Davies rejects it as creationism in disguise.

Dembski, an associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University in Texas, the world's largest Baptist university, said it should be taught with evolution in schools but not be mandated.

"Evolutionary theory and intelligent design both have a scientific core: the question whether certain material mechanisms are able to propel an evolutionary process and the question whether certain patterns in nature signify intelligence are both squarely scientific questions," Dembski says. "Nevertheless, they have profound philosophical and religious implications."

" Note what dominion was given to the 6th day creation of men.

What follows is the forming/creation of THE Adam, is completely different that what is described about in the 6th day creation."

Yes I am well aware o the inaccuracies of the Genesis story. Was this supposed to support your case?

"Has nothing to do with my wishes, I do not overlook what appears to be contradictions, that you personally claim as bad plot device."

No, you just make up stuff to cover up the inaccuracy of Genesis. It says that the flood covered the whole Earth and that all men were destroyed except Noah and his Family. The whole point of the Flood story was the very end, when God makes a covenant with Noah and his family. If these other people who also survived the flood in other parts of the world (these made up people from your imagination) were around, they would NOT have anything to do with the Covenant.

"HA Mary had to come from somebody. I do not need show you anything, all that comes from your silly mind is mockery, had you read for yourself you would indeed find Mary's lineage does in fact trace back to Noah. The Heavenly Father needed no flesh man to bring forth His Only Begotten Son."

I know you feel you never need to show evidence, but your feelings are not relevant here. The Bible, despite what some apologists try to claim, doesn't give Mary's genealogy. Both New Testament genealogical versions (Matthew and Luke) are explicitly about Joseph. Problem is, he had nothing to do with Jesus' conception. You said,

" Noah was the continuation of the SEED LINE to CHRIST"

But your additions to Genesis leave open the possibility that Noah was not in the seed line to Christ. Mary might have been one of the descendent's of the people you made up who you claim also survived the Flood. Also, the *SEED* could not have been passed on from the woman's side anyway; it was believed in Jesus' time that only the male produced *seed*.

"What follows is the forming/creation of THE Adam, is completely different that what is described about in the 6th day creation."

Yes I am well aware o the inaccuracies of the Genesis story. Was this supposed to support your case?"

HA... you do not know enough to claim inaccuracies, that is what the rest of the Bible is about, explaining what your silly mind calls inaccuracies.

"No, you just make up stuff to cover up the inaccuracy of Genesis. It says that the flood covered the whole Earth and that all men were destroyed except Noah and his Family. The whole point of the Flood story was the very end, when God makes a covenant with Noah and his family. If these other people who also survived the flood in other parts of the world (these made up people from your imagination) were around, they would NOT have anything to do with the Covenant."

Somebody told you a hummer. Since the story is about THE Adam his generations and those that his generations came into contact with through the birth of Christ, why would anyone else be under the COVENANT? You an evolutionists want to tell me I make up stuff. HA HA HA HA

"I know you feel you never need to show evidence, but your feelings are not relevant here. The Bible, despite what some apologists try to claim, doesn't give Mary's genealogy. Both New Testament genealogical versions (Matthew and Luke) are explicitly about Joseph. Problem is, he had nothing to do with Jesus' conception. You said,"

WRONG!!!! We are told in LUKE that Elizabeth who was the wife of a priest, was related to Mary. Now to be a priest one had to be a Levi and could only marry another Levi, that says that Mary's was at least partially from the tribe of LEVI on her mother's side. Mary's father was from the tribe of Judah. Mary came from the tribe of Judah and Levi, which is EVIDENCE of her linage to Noah and Adam for that matter.

"But your additions to Genesis leave open the possibility that Noah was not in the seed line to Christ. Mary might have been one of the descendent's of the people you made up who you claim also survived the Flood. Also, the *SEED* could not have been passed on from the woman's side anyway; it was believed in Jesus' time that only the male produced *seed*."

I did not add anything to Genesis evolutionists, talk about adding things, you follow another whole religion.

Well now you missed a scripture in Genesis if you think that I am making up about the woman's seed. Genesis 3:15

"HA... you do not know enough to claim inaccuracies, that is what the rest of the Bible is about, explaining what your silly mind calls inaccuracies."

They are very different accounts, as you already admitted. They cannot both be true. Your silly mind not withstanding.

"Somebody told you a hummer. Since the story is about THE Adam his generations and those that his generations came into contact with through the birth of Christ, why would anyone else be under the COVENANT? You an evolutionists want to tell me I make up stuff. HA HA HA HA
"

The Bible doesn't mention any other people. You can't just pull stuff from yer, um, posterior just to fill in Genesis' inaccuracies. If you want to write your own version of Genesis, feel free. Just don't claim it was in the Bible.

"Now to be a priest one had to be a Levi and could only marry another Levi, that says that Mary's was at least partially from the tribe of LEVI on her mother's side. Mary's father was from the tribe of Judah. Mary came from the tribe of Judah and Levi, which is EVIDENCE of her linage to Noah and Adam for that matter."

Or she could be descended from the people you made up before. The imaginary people who were not part of the Covenant. It's so easy for you, you can just make it up as you go.

" I did not add anything to Genesis"

Except your ignoring the fact it says worldwide flood, and your invention of people who survived the Flood along with Noah, in complete disregard for what Genesis says. other than that, you're right. :)

"They are very different accounts, as you already admitted. They cannot both be true. Your silly mind not withstanding."

We are told in two different places about what would happen to those who added and take away from the Word of GOD. Guess you could say they sealed their own fate. I am told out of the recordings of the mouth of Christ let no man (physical or spiritual) deceive me. So considering that would be the attempt DECEPTION I took the time to give a closer look.

One also cannot ignore that Isaiah which Christ quoted said it is not given for all to understand, that is their protection. That being the case, explains full well the "traditions" of man.

NOT my job to unseal what God has sealed. However, it is the evidence that is sealed into my mind that gives me the ability to call evolution a LIE.

"The Bible doesn't mention any other people. You can't just pull stuff from yer, um, posterior just to fill in Genesis' inaccuracies. If you want to write your own version of Genesis, feel free. Just don't claim it was in the Bible."

The biology/DNA does in fact prove there was more than one race that was created in which the Heavenly Father said was GOOD. Only man tries and play primo selection of the different races, sure is not of God. Why isn't cain listed as one of Adam's generations? Where did cain go to find a woman? Oh there are other peoples listed as one traces the footsteps of the generations of The Adam.

"Or she could be descended from the people you made up before. The imaginary people who were not part of the Covenant. It's so easy for you, you can just make it up as you go."

Well now if Christ was to come from the root of Jesse out of King David, logic tells that Mary would have had to have been from at least part of the lineage. What we are told, since Christ was to be the King of Kings and the High Priest, doesn't take a rocket scientists to connect the dots.

"Except your ignoring the fact it says worldwide flood, and your invention of people who survived the Flood along with Noah, in complete disregard for what Genesis says. other than that, you're right. :) "

I do not IGNORE, I take allllllll that is given and based upon the ALLLLLLLLLL given in my limited understand what is now this day as evidence for what was said. I really thought that was a requirement of logic, guess not, guess the evolutionists mind really isn't about logic but rejecting the Heavenly Father and promoting another way.

Now when Christ says that it will be again as it was in the days of Noe, (Noah) do you think He was pointing to another worldwide flood? Would not be possible now considering that Covenant. So that places parameters about what it is that one is to look this day about what the flood was about.

Now considering what old Darwin found on his travels maybe he uncovered a "bottleneck" and sought to use this as his evidence that the Bible was not true.... Now who would then be leading Darwin, surely wasn't the Heavenly Father, now was it. Maybe because the creationists have allowed the traditions of man to decide their doctrine, it was most fitting to allow another way become the doctrine of the establishment.

No where in the WHOLE of God's Word, when men/women were following HIS instruction did God allow another way to take precedence, that should be a signal to the creationists they are NOT following what is actually written.

" We are told in two different places about what would happen to those who added and take away from the Word of GOD."

Then why did you choose to invent people other than Noah and his family as having survived the Flood? That is an addition to Genesis.

"One also cannot ignore that Isaiah which Christ quoted said it is not given for all to understand, that is their protection. That being the case, explains full well the "traditions" of man."

This is nonsense. It's the same as, *I can't answer your questions, so I will just say that you are not supposed to understand."

"However, it is the evidence that is sealed into my mind that gives me the ability to call evolution a LIE."

Your Mind, your feelings, your emotions, are not evidence. Or an argument. Lots of people think their subjective mental states have a better *reality* than objective evidence. A good number of them are in mental institutions.
Why should anybody take YOUR feelings as evidence over the evidence of their own eyes?

" The biology/DNA does in fact prove there was more than one race that was created in which the Heavenly Father said was GOOD."

Actually, biology has shown that the category of *race* has no scientific meaning with humans. The usual separations we make (white, black, Asian, and so on...) are very superficial. Other *races* could just as easily be formed using other traits other than skin color. Races based on blood markers can be made; these show a great deal of overlap with the races we are familiar with. DNA shows we are all descended from a common ancestor.

"Only man tries and play primo selection of the different races, sure is not of God. "

I have no idea what this means; please explain more plainly.

"Why isn't Cain listed as one of Adam's generations? Where did Cain go to find a woman? Oh there are other peoples listed as one traces the footsteps of the generations of The Adam "

Just because Genesis makes a mistake, doesn't mean you can just invent other people to fill in Genesis' errors. If these other people were also created apart from Adam, then they wouldn't have eaten of the forbidden fruit and would not have sinned. Adam and Eve's sin would not be theirs. They would be Unfallen children of God. Unless you wish to write a *Fall* story for them too, just like you added to Genesis and created other people surviving with Noah and his family. Maybe you can get your version of Genesis published.

"I do not IGNORE, I take allllllll that is given and based upon the ALLLLLLLLLL given in my limited understand what is now this day as evidence for what was said. I really thought that was a requirement of logic, guess not, guess the evolutionists mind really isn't about logic but rejecting the Heavenly Father and promoting another way."

Logic is not making stuff up to fill in the gaps. You made stuff up.

"Now considering what old Darwin found on his travels maybe he uncovered a "bottleneck" and sought to use this as his evidence that the Bible was not true...."

Um, do you even KNOW what a genetic bottleneck is? It has nothing to do with Darwin. And btw, Darwin didn't set out to prove the Bible was not true. That's your invention (you're very creative, I'll give you that)

"Now who would then be leading Darwin, surely wasn't the Heavenly Father, now was it. "

It was the physical evidence that led Darwin. Something you are woefully ignorant of.

Clearly everyone wants to ride science's coattails.

The Biblical truth that I believe precedes modern science by millenia, js. You can't have ancient truths trying to 'ride the coattails' of an academic trend in its infancy.

Another interesting phenomenon is the common practice on these threads of insulting evolution by claiming it is faith based, while others on the same thread are claiming ID is respectable because it is scientific.

There is no inconsistency here, js. ID IS science (though denied by evolutionist zealots), so there is no need to have to defend its legitimacy, except to those who have some personal need to deny new research.

And it isn't even debateable that it takes great faith to believe in evolution. If you look at the intricacy of the universe, and the human body and see them as products of random evolution, you have enormous faith in 'randomness.' If you believe that human creativity and thought just evolved over time without a higher intelligence's directing it, you have great faith in the impossible.

I have said it before. There is no shame in your having faith.......the pity is in what you have chosen to put your faith in.

Creationists have nothing but feelings to back their claims. The evidence has left them long in the dust for over 150 years.

If evolutionary science were indeed fact, then 150 years after it was first introduced, there wouldn't be a legitimate scientific argument against it, as there is now. Scientific principles that are true, are proven to be true and not questioned 150 years later, even if there is initial resistance to them. Evolution is still questioned because of its dubious origins and unprovable claims.

And please, don't confuse faith with 'feelings.' If you know any Scripture, you know that faith is not just a matter of the heart, but a matter of the mind.

Romans 12:2 - Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

And we are also told in Scripture that the mind of the unbeliever is clouded.......2 Corinthians 4:4 - The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

The Psalmist clearly places great importance on thought.......Psalm 26:2 - Test me, O LORD, and try me, examine my heart and my mind;....... and Jesus has also commanded us to use our minds in our faith.........Matthew 22:37 - Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

This is not about feelings, Carolina. This is about thought, and logic, the search for truth, and the understanding that we cannot accept blindly what the voices of this age throw at us. Rejecting evolution for me, is the result of intellectual growth (when I was younger and more gullible, I believed it, at least in part).

There may be Creationists out there who go by their personal feelings, but they are not being faithful to Scripture nor do they understand who God is.

(Incidentally, I had a very conservative education all the way through. The only liberals teachers/profs I had were in history, and even by high school I knew that they were wrong..... My biology prof taught us of the wonders of God's creation.......he was a brilliant scientist, and a man of great faith).

btw, I slept very well, thank you. :) Isaiah 26:3 - "You will keep him (or her) in perfect peace, whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in You."

"If evolutionary science were indeed fact, then 150 years after it was first introduced, there wouldn't be a legitimate scientific argument against it, as there is now."

There isn't. There is no legitimate scientific argument against evolution that hasn't been overthrown. The debate is between scientists and people who don't want to do science (creationists).

"Scientific principles that are true, are proven to be true and not questioned 150 years later, even if there is initial resistance to them. Evolution is still questioned because of its dubious origins and unprovable claims."

As I know you have been told this numerous times, no theories in science are ever proved. I take it you either can't read or are intentionally deceptive. Evolution doesn't need to be *proved*, just as The Theory of Relativity doesn't need to be proved (and can't be). All it needs is for the evidence to support it which it does, overwhelmingly. Creationism in all of its forms (YEC, ID) does not have evidence to support it; the evidence that does exist is against it. There is no logical reason to be concerned with theories that have only negative evidence as support. Whatever the merits of ID, it has no place in a science classroom.

"And please, don't confuse faith with 'feelings.' If you know any Scripture, you know that faith is not just a matter of the heart, but a matter of the mind."

Feelings exist in the Mind. Just because something is of the Mind, does not mean it is logical or that it based on evidence. Faith is not evidence; it is belief without evidence. It is subjectivism.

"This is not about feelings, Carolina. This is about thought, and logic, the search for truth, and the understanding that we cannot accept blindly what the voices of this age throw at us."

It is exactly about feelings. There is no mention of logic in any of the quotes you provided. It says to reject the *pattern of this world* for subjective feelings. There IS mention of illogic though,

"Romans 12:2 - Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

This is a call for subjective mysticism over objective evidence. Only when you throw off this world (reality) for some inner subjective reality can you discover God's will. It is a call for the death of reason.

Then why did you choose to invent people other than Noah and his family as having survived the Flood? That is an addition to Genesis.

I did not invent anything.... Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the Ark, two and two of ALL FLESH, wherein is the breath of life.

This breath of life is SOUL, the very same word use to described what it was that made The Adam a living being, a SOUL, which evolutionists ignore.

This is nonsense. It's the same as, *I can't answer your questions, so I will just say that you are not supposed to understand."

I did not pen it only know that it was Written Matthew 13:14-15 comes from Isaiah 6:9-10. Reason why no man/woman can have authority to 'damn' another to .ell.

"Your Mind, your feelings, your emotions, are not evidence. Or an argument. Lots of people think their subjective mental states have a better *reality* than objective evidence. A good number of them are in mental institutions.
Why should anybody take YOUR feelings as evidence over the evidence of their own eyes?"

I have not told you what you must believe, you are telling me that I must believe evolution. The WORD stands all on its own with our without me, it is not about what I believe it is what is Written.

Depending upon who is in the position of deciding sanity and insanity are the guard rails of institutions, and you are sure sounding a whole lot like the religionists who declared any and all who fell out of their grace be removed via the acceptable method of the day.

"Actually, biology has shown that the category of *race* has no scientific meaning with humans. The usual separations we make (white, black, Asian, and so on...) are very superficial. Other *races* could just as easily be formed using other traits other than skin color. Races based on blood markers can be made; these show a great deal of overlap with the races we are familiar with. DNA shows we are all descended from a common ancestor."

Well considering that we are alll made in the same form, in the same "IMAGE", and it is characteristics that are gleaned from tiny swabs of DNA that are identifiers, I would say you are not being quite truthful in your attempts to describe what DNA tells.

God said what he formed and created was GOOD, man especially via old Darwin called it survival of the fittest. Anybody with half a brain, considering who old Darwin was and where he came from cannot ignore what is at base of his theorizing about who was most "fit".

"Just because Genesis makes a mistake, doesn't mean you can just invent other people to fill in Genesis' errors. If these other people were also created apart from Adam, then they wouldn't have eaten of the forbidden fruit and would not have sinned. Adam and Eve's sin would not be theirs. They would be Unfallen children of God. Unless you wish to write a *Fall* story for them too, just like you added to Genesis and created other people surviving with Noah and his family. Maybe you can get your version of Genesis published."

Yes and it is written that not all shall have understanding, for their own protection. I made up nobody, read directly what is Written, added nothing, took nothing away and never even got the the parts and places where the words use have different meanings in the original.

"Logic is not making stuff up to fill in the gaps. You made stuff up."

PROVE IT, find yourself one who can actually read what was written in the original Hebrew writing and have him/her tell you what is actually written in Genesis, and by the way, their mouth to mouth traditions do not fit with what is written. Then come back and tell me I made anything up.

"It was the physical evidence that led Darwin. Something you are woefully ignorant of."

Oh you mean an island I will now call "bottleneck" isle.

"I did not invent anything"

Yes you did. You made up the extra people who you claim also survived the Flood with Noah and his family. I think you should name your new book *Genesis- The Untold Story*

"This breath of life is SOUL, the very same word use to described what it was that made The Adam a living being, a SOUL, which evolutionists ignore."

That's nice but it doesn't speak to why you decided to add to Genesis with new people. BTW, science ignores the soul because there is no way to test for or against it. Science (and evolution) does NOT say that souls don't exist. It just says there is no known soul-test, no way to observe a soul.

" I have not told you what you must believe, you are telling me that I must believe evolution."

We are both trying to convince the other they are right. I am using evidence and logic, you are using your feelings and a very hit or miss reading of the Bible (when you don't invent people in it).

"Depending upon who is in the position of deciding sanity and insanity are the guard rails of institutions, and you are sure sounding a whole lot like the religionists who declared any and all who fell out of their grace be removed via the acceptable method of the day."

No I am not. I am defending the use of reason against mystical subjectivism. You claim that evolution is a lie and evolutionists are trying to overthrow God but all you have as evidence is your feelings and your very subjective interpretation of the Bible. I never said you were insane.

"Well considering that we are alll made in the same form, in the same "IMAGE", and it is characteristics that are gleaned from tiny swabs of DNA that are identifiers, I would say you are not being quite truthful in your attempts to describe what DNA tells."

I am quite sure I was being truthful, but you seem to have no idea what I meant. You were calling for a separate creation for different races, and I was showing that what we consider races is arbitrary from a biological standpoint. You can pick a number of different traits as the basis for a race and they will all be different, though there will be overlaps with what we call race from skin color. As people intermix more and more, these distinctions will just disappear.

"God said what he formed and created was GOOD, man especially via old Darwin called it survival of the fittest. Anybody with half a brain, considering who old Darwin was and where he came from cannot ignore what is at base of his theorizing about who was most "fit"."

*Old Darwin* considered those organisms which survive long enough to reproduce offspring the *most fit*; nothing more, nothing less. You are letting your feelings distort your judgment. He had no ulterior motives.

" Yes and it is written that not all shall have understanding, for their own protection."

Again, when you have no answer to a question, you just throw a *Well, you weren't supposed to know anyway* at me. Did you ever think it may have been YOU who lacks the understanding?

"I made up nobody, read directly what is Written, added nothing, took nothing away and never even got the the parts and places where the words use have different meanings in the original."

Except for the people you made up, and your ignoring the fact that Genesis says the whole earth was covered and only Noah and his family survived. Other than that... :)

"PROVE IT, find yourself one who can actually read what was written in the original Hebrew writing and have him/her tell you what is actually written in Genesis, and by the way, their mouth to mouth traditions do not fit with what is written. Then come back and tell me I made anything up."

So you are admitting you have no idea what Genesis really said. Very interesting.

" Oh you mean an island I will now call "bottleneck" isle."

LOL You are showing once again you had no clue what a genetic bottleneck is. It has nothing to do with an island. Nor does it have anything to do with Darwin. It is a fact of genetics. If you start a population with only 2 individuals (2 of each kind) that is called a bottleneck (it doesn't have to be just 2, it can be dozens even). There isn't enough genetic diversity in such a tiny population to overcome the crippling affects of inbreeding that would occur. There is no way that the life we see on earth could have sprung from just two of each kind. They would have died out long ago. *Bottleneck isle* lol

"You are not rejecting me, sir."

I am rejecting your argument.

"You are rejecting the God who created you, and His word."

Very presumptuous of you.

"And ironically, we are all dependent on Him for our (limited) ability to reason. The only understanding we have of His universe is His gift to us, and yet some of us choose to use that gift to reject Him with."

We are attempting to understand the world we live in. The only way to do that is to use rational, objective means; to use our reason. I do not reject God's gift (the universe); I accept it for what it is. Creationists have abandoned that world for mystical subjectivism. THAT is an insult to God.

"Be careful of arrogance that depends on human frailty and flawed reasoning as its source,..."

That's why I steer clear of Creationism and instead embrace the awe that results from the regularity of the universe. Scientific investigation is a search for the WORD.

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.