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

Skip to comments.

Dover, PA Evolution Trial [daily thread for 07 Oct]
York Daily Record ^ | 07 October 2005 | Staff

Posted on 10/07/2005 7:23:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

To keep this all in one daily thread, here are links to two articles in the York Daily Record (with excerpts from each), which has been doing a great job of reporting on the trial:

Forrest cross-examination a rambling wonder.

About the time that Richard Thompson, head law guy at the Thomas More center and chief defender of the Dover Area School Board, started his third year of cross-examination of philosopher Barbara Forrest, it was easy to imagine that at that moment, everyone in the courtroom, including Forrest, who doesn’t believe in God, was violating the separation of church and court by appealing to God for it to please, Lord, just stop.

It wouldn’t have been so bad if there was a point to the ceaseless stream of questions from Thompson designed to elicit Lord knows what. He’d ask her the same question 18 different times, expecting, I guess, a different answer at some point. And he never got it.

Thompson, who said he’s a former prosecutor, should have known better. Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and expert on the history of the intelligent design creationist movement, was a lot smarter than, say, some poor, dumb criminal defendant.

Here is a summation of Forrest’s testimony: She examined the history of the intelligent design movement and concluded that it’s simply another name for creationism. And what led her to that conclusion? The movement leader’s own words. They started out with a religious proposition and sought to clothe it in science. The result was similar to putting a suit on your dog.

[anip]

Thompson was in the midst of asking Forrest whether she had heard a bunch of things that some people had said to indicate, well, to indicate whether she’d heard a bunch of things that some people had said, I guess, when the topic came up.

Thompson asked whether she had ever heard a statement by some guy — frankly, this one caught me off-guard and I didn’t catch the guy’s name — who said that belief in evolution can be used to justify “cross-species sex.”

This came on the same day that Thompson grilled Forrest about her opposition to the so-called Santorum amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act that seemed to encourage, sort of, the teaching of intelligent design. Our U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is a friend of the intelligent design people.

He also has a strange obsession with bestiality, commenting that court decisions that uphold the right to privacy would lead to — naturally, and you know you were thinking it — man-on-dog sex.

Dover science teachers testified that they fought references to intelligent design.

Defense attorney Richard Thompson [he represents the school board] said differing opinions on whether teachers and administration worked in cooperation to create the Dover Area School District’s statement on intelligent design comes down to perspective.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dover; evolution; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-456 next last
To: donh

Oh I see, that is good, now I am a proboble supporter of ebonics, how about uber-ebonics, I like that better. I don't think you really understand which ideas of civilization are really better than others...Free scientific inquiry is the best idea, Darwin can be scrutinized, it doesn't matter if it is religious people that are doing the questioning. It doesn't matter how many bad anaolgies you and others use to change the subject or to feebly denigrate those that disagree with you, the civilized idea that took years to develop is free inquiry and freedom of expression and speech. You and others are the thug at the classroom door. Please move.


51 posted on 10/07/2005 11:35:23 AM PDT by ronnieb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Only the Master knows for sure.


52 posted on 10/07/2005 11:35:23 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
Not to make too fine a point of it, but the classroom teachers are the plaintiffs here, and the thugs at the door are the defendants.
53 posted on 10/07/2005 11:38:34 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: bobbdobbs

Your novel interpretation of the constitution is not shared by everyone, sorry. The constitution allowed exactly that and more at its inception, therefore it didn't express what you seem to think it did. Also, in spite of your uninformed characterization of ID as religion, it is not. You either say that because you are repeating what you've heard, or you are intentionally misinforming. ID proposed the idea that evolution as presented by Darwin does not answer all the questions. There are many like me that are not reliegious and are not creationists that are not threatened by discussion of that possibility.


54 posted on 10/07/2005 11:40:52 AM PDT by ronnieb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
That response can stand on it's pompous silly self! I will say that Science in this and many cases is not a house undivided nor is it a house untainted with the stench of politics.

Which, while true, does not, discredit sciences major findings to a significant degree, nor serve as a means of qualifying laypersons to decide what is taught in a science classroom, any more than a group of grammar teachers arguing descriptive vs. prescriptive dictionaries qualifies the illeterate to teach english.

Your irrelevant analogies notwithstanding, ID wether there are the dreaded Creatists in their midsts or not, deserves airing.

It gets them periodically, along with hundreds of other ideas that may or may not pan out eventually. Way more than they deserve, in fact, usually. There are many scientists that have expressed opinions and hopes about ID explaining anomolies we currently can't explain. But no one outside the creationists and their gullible audience mistakes this for science on the level of Darwinian evolutionary theory, any more than they mistake SETI for mainline astronomy.

As I said before, free inquiry means exactly that(on a turtle) people are not disqualified by their religion.

Free inquiry does not mean laypersons get to decide what is in science textbooks. Unlike the case when Galileo was jailed and Bruno was burned, when the shoe was on the other foot, no IDist is being prosecuted for their beliefs--they are running around loose, sharing their opinions quite broadly, in case you haven't noticed.

Those of you that think so, can find yourselves being prominently featured in all kinds of history books throughou time( a hint...your not the fairy...your the Gremlin!)

This is an argument based on a picture of scientific behavior straight out of a Fu Machu comic. ID is not being rejected by science because it might be true, many scientists think it might be true, it is being rejected because, true of false, it clearly isn't remotely a science. It hasn't done its homework, and it brings no compelling positive forensic evidence to the table; as anyone not have a science-conspiracy snit can easily observe.

55 posted on 10/07/2005 11:41:44 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: js1138

More bad and pointless analogies...


56 posted on 10/07/2005 11:42:14 AM PDT by ronnieb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

Comment #57 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry

Woo Hoo!


58 posted on 10/07/2005 11:45:00 AM PDT by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
You and others are the thug at the classroom door. Please move.

Our side doesn't have a history of burning its scientific opponents at the stake.

59 posted on 10/07/2005 11:45:47 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
I am forced to consider the possibility that the IDiot's Counsel might have been bribed or planted by Darwin Central.

Darwin Central sees all, knows all, and controls all.

On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry

60 posted on 10/07/2005 11:48:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

pasta be upon him


61 posted on 10/07/2005 11:52:25 AM PDT by King Prout (19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
Free scientific inquiry is the best idea, Darwin can be scrutinized, it doesn't matter if it is religious people that are doing the questioning.

Well of course it can. However, if you want to use the color of law to pursuade children that the questioning of science by religeous people on overt or covert religeous grounds is science, than you are committing fraud, and the civilization conspiracy will eventually track you to ground--as is occuring in the courtroom this thread is dedicated to.

62 posted on 10/07/2005 11:52:30 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

To: donh

"Our side doesn't have a history of burning its scientific opponents at the stake"

Oh Yes You Do! those that do the burning are alway full of themselves...so convinced of their superior humanity, and the lack of it in the burnee! That pretty much describes the views of the religion haters around here.


64 posted on 10/07/2005 12:01:55 PM PDT by ronnieb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.

You've given up debating creationists entirely, then?

65 posted on 10/07/2005 12:04:15 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: bobbdobbs
the remedy for "the people" is to amend the Constitution to allow a state religion.

Technically, it should take the form of a partial repeal of the 14th Amendment, so that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the states. It didn't, originally, but was interpreted to apply to the states via the court-created doctrine of Incorporation.

66 posted on 10/07/2005 12:05:17 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You've given up debating creationists entirely, then?

You've cracked the code.

67 posted on 10/07/2005 12:06:43 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
Free scientific inquiry is the best idea, Darwin can be scrutinized, it doesn't matter if it is religious people that are doing the questioning. It doesn't matter how many bad anaolgies you and others use to change the subject or to feebly denigrate those that disagree with you, the civilized idea that took years to develop is free inquiry and freedom of expression and speech.

Free scientific inquiry is, I will agree, the bedrock of Western civilization.

Problem is, free scientific inquiry has nothing to do with ID. Free scientific inquiry reveals ID to be worthless, with zero scientific value. It's just not worth discussing on scientific terms.

Proponents of ID, having lost the battle of free scientific inquiry, have taken to lies and deception to advance their agenda. They cannot support ID in scientific terms, so they resort to fraud. They have lied about their true motives, as has already been shown in this trial. Their dishonesty reveals how they really feel about your "free scientific inquiry."

The notion that evolution cannot be scrutinized is a creationist lie. Evolution is constantly scrutinized. It is constantly tested. Every new piece of evidence has the potential to refute evolution, but every new piece of evidence only reaffirms evolution's position as the only theory to actually address the evidence.

Free scientific inquiry is the best support that evolution could ever ask for, because for two hundred years free scientific inquiry has provided volumes of evidence to support it.

You and others are the thug at the classroom door. Please move.

One whose cloaked agenda relies upon deception has no claim to the classroom, period. We will not yield to lies.

68 posted on 10/07/2005 12:07:12 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
That pretty much describes the views of the religion haters around here.

It's funny, but the people defending ID have sworn under oath that it has nothing to do with religion. So how can making fun of them be religion bashing?

69 posted on 10/07/2005 12:08:19 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: donh

Your entire response is based on a falsehood. This argument is not laymen against scientists. It is scientists against scientists. The Intelligent Design idea was formulted initially by scientists that find Darwin lacking. Creationists joined in and they are free to do so, but they are not the source of the debate. Sorry, either you are misinformed or you intetionally misinform, one is forgiveable the other is not. The fu manchu thing doesn't flow it's just more bad prose. Having said all that creationsists have rights, equal rights. You and other do not have the right to burn them at the stake so to speak, to order them away. We went through all that centuries ago.


70 posted on 10/07/2005 12:08:31 PM PDT by ronnieb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
ID proposed the idea that evolution as presented by Darwin does not answer all the questions.

Are you standing by that as your impression of the complete definition of ID?

71 posted on 10/07/2005 12:09:59 PM PDT by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry

"man-on-dog sex."

You guys are behind the times. About 6 months ago they arrested a woman in Grand Junction, CO (IIRC) for , well doing it with Rover. The only thing the stories didn't mention was whether the dog was smiling.


72 posted on 10/07/2005 12:12:01 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

You can't wear stripes with plaid?? I'd better go and change my shirt.


73 posted on 10/07/2005 12:17:03 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
The Intelligent Design idea was formulted initially by scientists that find Darwin lacking. Creationists joined in and they are free to do so, but they are not the source of the debate.

Name a scientist behind ID who is not primarily motivated by religion.

74 posted on 10/07/2005 12:18:53 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: js1138

That is funny! when you open your mouth and you bash religious people...than you bashed religious people. Very Clintonesque...religous bigotry in this country masks itself as, shall we say a highly evolved and nuanced point of view. The idea, by the way, not that it matters, that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion is true. True...sorry


75 posted on 10/07/2005 12:18:55 PM PDT by ronnieb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
You can't wear stripes with plaid??

It's perfectly acceptable, but only if you live in Cleveland.

76 posted on 10/07/2005 12:20:29 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: highball
The notion that evolution cannot be scrutinized is a creationist lie. Evolution is constantly scrutinized. It is constantly tested. Every new piece of evidence has the potential to refute evolution, but every new piece of evidence only reaffirms evolution's position as the only theory to actually address the evidence.

The lack of evidence is actual evidence. In the case of evolution, the lack of a fossil record of transitional forms is actual evidence that transitional forms did not and do not exist.

Which life-forms, that exist today, do you think are transitional? Why is a transitional form, simply not a life-form? Why do evolutionists even have to bother creating the fiction of transitional forms?

The obvious reason is that without the propaganda of the existence of transitional life-forms, no reasonable person would believe in evolution.

77 posted on 10/07/2005 12:20:48 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
The idea, by the way, not that it matters, that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion is true. True...sorry

Then if I say that the designer of life must have been a psychopathic sadist, I am merey commenting on the moral characteristics of space aliens, right? I cannot possibly be bashing religion.

78 posted on 10/07/2005 12:21:34 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Name a scientist behind ID who is not primarily motivated by religion.

Behe is the obvious answer.

79 posted on 10/07/2005 12:22:02 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Gotta live up to my tagline.


80 posted on 10/07/2005 12:22:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Maybe that's why the bears give me such a wide bearth.


81 posted on 10/07/2005 12:23:57 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: King Prout; PatrickHenry
that I am forced to consider the possibility that the IDiot's Counsel might have been bribed or planted by Darwin Central.

To quote the late great politician's politician, "Francis Urquhart" (known to his friends as "FU"), "You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment."

82 posted on 10/07/2005 12:31:09 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Which life-forms, that exist today, do you think are transitional

All of them, except the ones that will go extinct within the next million years or so.

There are literally thousands of known transtional fossils, and anyone who denies their existence is either a liar or incredibly ignorant.

83 posted on 10/07/2005 12:32:24 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Ah...than you admit there are scientists behind the debate. Then you expose yourself by the question as one who has misrepresented the debate. Thank you! Now you want me to name them and than you want to quibble over what is in their mind. What IS their REAL motive. Spare me. If you know anything about Intelligent Design, (which you don't) than you know it was furthered initially by many scientists, that initially tongue in cheek described themselves as being from the Church of the Big Bang...The debate has been sidetracked a bit by the fact that the creationists, for obvious reasons joined with them, but it is not about religion. AS far as naming names, look them up yourself...


84 posted on 10/07/2005 12:37:25 PM PDT by ronnieb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Here's my personal list of some examples of currently living transitional species, although what their descendants will look like in 5 million years is anyone's guess: Among mammals we have the walrus, seal, otter, etc. Others: walking catfish, penguin, and ostrich. But this is conjecture. The simple fact is that you don't know what's transitional until you see a big segment of the continuum.
85 posted on 10/07/2005 12:40:04 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb; bobbdobbs; PatrickHenry
Also, in spite of your uninformed characterization of ID as religion, it is not.

Read and weep:

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," William Dembski, one of the movement's chief proponents, said in a 1999 interview in Touchstone, a Christian magazine that Forrest cited in her testimony.
[emphasis added]
source: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/88606/

What was that you were saying about being "uninformed..."?

86 posted on 10/07/2005 12:42:42 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
The lack of evidence is actual evidence. In the case of evolution, the lack of a fossil record of transitional forms is actual evidence that transitional forms did not and do not exist.

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm

Which life-forms, that exist today, do you think are transitional?

All of them, including humans.

Why is a transitional form, simply not a life-form?

Because all life continues to be affected by changes in allele frequency and random genetic mutation. Any undesirable resultant trait changes this causes are weeded out through natural selection, while beneficial ones are kept due to their contribution to the increased reproductive success of the heritable code of that species.

Why do evolutionists even have to bother creating the fiction of transitional forms?

They don't. All evidence points to transitional forms being fact, not fiction.

The obvious reason is that without the propaganda of the existence of transitional life-forms, no reasonable person would believe in evolution.

Does this mean, conversely, that without the propaganda denying transitional life-forms no reasonable person would disbelieve evolution?

87 posted on 10/07/2005 12:45:49 PM PDT by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Behe is the obvious answer.

Mike Gene as well. IDthink.net

88 posted on 10/07/2005 12:49:42 PM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Read and weep

The Grand Master read and laughed -- something he rarely does, considering his awesome responsibilities. You may affix the oak leaf cluster to your Order of Uranus.

On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry

89 posted on 10/07/2005 12:57:40 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Demski is not Intelligent Design, and it is not him, just as Darwin is not Evolution. Though that analogy gives Demski way too much credit. By throwing that silly quote at me, you show yourself as one being unable to understand the actual debate itself(uninformed) There are others here that claim religion has never been mentioned,(so how could youy bash it) you guys have to get your act together.


90 posted on 10/07/2005 1:00:01 PM PDT by ronnieb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
You may affix the oak leaf cluster to your Order of Uranus.

I stand humble and in awe in his Emmense Shadow.....

91 posted on 10/07/2005 1:01:38 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," William Dembski, one of the movement's chief proponents, said in a 1999 interview in Touchstone, a Christian magazine that Forrest cited in her testimony.
[emphasis added]
source: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/88606/
92 posted on 10/07/2005 1:04:32 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Read and Laugh...is the case fellas.


93 posted on 10/07/2005 1:04:43 PM PDT by ronnieb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Transition from what to what?


94 posted on 10/07/2005 1:10:17 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
The lack of evidence is actual evidence. In the case of evolution, the lack of a fossil record of transitional forms is actual evidence that transitional forms did not and do not exist.

First of all, lack of evidence for a thing's existence does not equal evidence that said thing never existed. That's just nonsense.

Second, the fossil record does contain evidence of transitional forms. Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. Hylonomus is a transitional form. There are others - a simple Google search will bring up dozens more, if you're at all interested in seeing the evidence.

While it is true that the fossil record does not show every single transitional form, it is a falsehood to claim that the fossil record lacks transitional forms entirely.

Which life-forms, that exist today, do you think are transitional?

How about whales? They have vestigal leg bones. There are species of cave salamanders with regressed eyes that lack the apparatus to see. Pythons and boa constrictors have vestigal pelvic bones. How's that for starters?

95 posted on 10/07/2005 1:12:35 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo; connectthedots
Michael J. Behe

Methodological naturalism proves at last nothing more than an artificial restriction on thought, and it will eventually pass. Despite would-be gatekeepers like Pennock, the argument for design is gaining strength with the advance of science and for a simple reason once described by the physicist Percy Bridgman: "The scientific method, as far as it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's mind, no holds barred."

No holds barred, even though that may force us to conclude that the universe reveals, in its intelligent design, traces of its intelligent designer.

Who does he suggest is the intelligent designer of the universe? Behe is arguing the same line as Denton, namely fine tuning or the anthropic principle. Both Behe and Denton have retreated to the mainstream position on common descent and the age of the universe. What they have left is the anthropic principle.

I have nothing against the anthropic principle, other than it's complete lack of usefulness in the conduct of science. It is a quasi-religious concept in that it assumes the physical constants are what they are by design. Other than being useless it is harmless.

96 posted on 10/07/2005 1:13:27 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ronnieb
Ah...than you admit there are scientists behind the debate.

I don't care if there are scientists backing ID. They have to be right, or at least interesting to merit attention. The ID scientists are not even wrong.

97 posted on 10/07/2005 1:19:00 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The vitriol directed towards those who profess fatih of any kind is very concerning. Post 10 is a good example.

The vitriol in this post appeared to be directed at people empty-headed enough to buy into the "evolution promotes every sort of immorality known to man" mindset, not against faith in general. Many of the scientifically literate people who post here (and accept the evidence that supports evolution) are also people of faith.

98 posted on 10/07/2005 1:25:31 PM PDT by Quark2005 (Where's the science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Interesting, you send it again, convinced of its meaning...hmm okay, sad to say, but if the quote meant what you seem to think it means(it doesn't), it does not characterize or define the Intelligent Design debate, it being the thoughts of one man. As I pointed out to you before. I feel bad you guys are high fivin each other, when I am actually embarrassed for you.


99 posted on 10/07/2005 1:27:42 PM PDT by ronnieb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

I thought this thread was about ID, not religion. Why don't the ID advocates explain themselves to these people?


100 posted on 10/07/2005 1:28:21 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-456 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