Skip to comments.Dover, PA Evolution Trial [daily thread for 07 Oct]
Posted on 10/07/2005 7:23:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
I'm expecting the post-modernist, politically correct theory of the spontaneous, holistic, biocosism. (That sentence drove the spell-checker crazy.)
How about 'The Immaculate Biospectrum'?
Uh huh. This theory finds many strong proponents amongst those who think eubonics, spanglish, and pigeon ought to be taught as an acceptable alternative to autocratic, elitist english spelling and grammar.
I'd suggest that at the heart of the civilization conspiracy is the notion that some ideas are better than others, and therefore, deserve primacy of consideration, and in that regard, the democratic spirit does not outrank scientific, or most any other form, of intellectual achievement.
No, they would have to rely on the "argument from consequences." For example they could argue that Darwinism leads to people wearing stripes with plaid.
they could just have a little meeting, come up with a new and snazzy name for creationism/intelligent design, and spend the next few years lying about how it isn't about creationism, intelligent design, or religion, and we can all go through this again, and again, and again...
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. Your irrelevant analogies notwithstanding, ID wether there are the dreaded Creatists in their midsts or not, deserves airing. As I said before, free inquiry means exactly that(on a turtle) people are not disqualified by their religion. 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!)
Are you related to Richard Thompson, by any chance?
this cross examination is so absurd, so perfect an exemplar (even... charicature?) of the extreme edge of ID lunacy, that I am forced to consider the possibility that the IDiot's Counsel might have been bribed or planted by Darwin Central.
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.
Only the Master knows for sure.
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.
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.
More bad and pointless analogies...
Our side doesn't have a history of burning its scientific opponents at the stake.
Darwin Central sees all, knows all, and controls all.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
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.