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

Skip to comments.

Federal lawsuit could follow board vote [Evolution in Kansas & Dover]
Lawrence Journal-World [Kansas] ^ | 08 November 2005 | Joel Mathis

Posted on 11/08/2005 4:17:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry

For the past six weeks, the debate over evolution and intelligent design has played out in a Pennsylvania courtroom.

Today, Kansas gets the national spotlight back — and with it, the possibility of a federal lawsuit here.

“What’s going on in Kansas,” said Kenneth Miller, a Brown University biologist, “is much more radical and much more dangerous to science education” than the contested decision in Dover, Pa., to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” in public school science classes.

Intelligent design speculates that the world is too complex to have evolved without the help of an unknown designer — an alien, perhaps, or God. Such teachings in public schools, the ACLU says, violate constitutional restrictions on the separation of church and state.

“Absolutely, absolutely,” said T. Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, when asked if the new science standards Kansas is expected to adopt today could be vulnerable to litigation.

An official with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which helped defend the Dover school board, said Kansas should be able to avoid legal scrutiny. Casey Luskin said the standards here critique evolution, but they don’t promote intelligent design.

“It’s definitely a different issue in Kansas” than in Pennsylvania, Luskin said.

‘More radical’

It’s a different battle, perhaps, but definitely the same war. Many of the participants in the Pennsylvania trial are veterans of the Kansas evolution debates, and are keeping a close eye on today’s meeting of the Kansas Board of Education.

Miller, for example, testified in the Pennsylvania trial against intelligent design. He came to Kansas in 2000 to campaign against conservative school board members the last time the evolution debate flared up here.

The new Kansas standards literally change the definition of science, he said, so that natural explanations aren’t necessary to explain natural phenomena. That opens the door, he said, for astrology to be taught in public school classrooms.

“Is this what proponents on the Kansas Board of Education have in mind?” Miller asked.

Michael Behe, a Lehigh University scientist, wrote “Darwin’s Black Box” — a touchstone text of the intelligent design movement. He testified in Pennsylvania, and before the Kansas Board of Education when it held hearings on the science standards.

“I think having students hear criticisms of any theory is a great idea,” Behe said. “I think in one respect, it’ll mean it’s permissible to question evolution. For odd historical reasons, questioning evolution has been put off-limits. If Kansas can do it, it can be done elsewhere.”

More evolution?

Luskin agreed.

“In contrast to what everybody has said, Kansas students will hear more about evolution and not less about evolution,” he said. “This is a victory for people who want students to learn critical thinking skills in science.”

But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life. The “handful” who don’t, he said, have resorted to making their case through politics instead of through traditional scientific methods.

Do we teach both sides of the controversy on astrology in science class? Do we teach both sides of phrenology?” Gunn said. “This is not a scientific controversy, it’s a political controversy.”

Testimony in the Pennsylvania trial wrapped up on Friday. A ruling in that case is expected in January.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationisminadress; crevolist; dover; goddoodit; kansas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-560 next last
This article neatly ties the madness of the Dover trial together with the madness in Kansas.

Link, from the article above, to the Kansas School Board, and predictions of how they're expected to vote on re-defining science to include creationism (and probably also voodoo): Kansas School Board.

1 posted on 11/08/2005 4:17:18 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 310 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
Check out The List-O-Links. Special links to assist beginners:
But it's "just a theory" and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 11/08/2005 4:18:46 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It still looks like Kansas


3 posted on 11/08/2005 4:27:21 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
“I think having students hear criticisms of any theory is a great idea,”

I can hardly wait to hear all there alternatives to physics, astronomy, flight, gravity and all the other scientific theories out there. Airplanes fly because angels lift them? The sun does, in fact, revolve around the earth as related in Joshua? Items fall to the ground because the earth sucks? The possibilities are endless and should go a long way towards injecting a level of humor back into science classes.

4 posted on 11/08/2005 4:28:01 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I can understand the ACLU (Anti-American Communist Libertine Union) backing evolutionism. What I CAN'T understand is anybody who'd call himself a republican or a conservative believing in such a thing.


5 posted on 11/08/2005 4:36:00 AM PST by anthraciterabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I wonder if Kansas may be a lost cause?

Mostly pretty rural and hard to get the word out about what's really going on.


6 posted on 11/08/2005 4:36:02 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anthraciterabbit
What I CAN'T understand is anybody who'd call himself a republican or a conservative believing in such a thing.

That is because you obviously do not know the meaning of being a republican or a conservative. I also doubt that you know much about evolution, since you refer to it as a belief.

7 posted on 11/08/2005 4:41:12 AM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer
1. I'm still not clear on what is the difference is between SETI's search for intelligence communications, which in their mind would prove other beings exists out there and Behe's concept of intelligence and complexity proving a designer here on earth.

2. I am reading everywhere now that Darwin's concepts are an adequate explanation for the origin of life, NOT just its evolved present state. That's new isn't it? Patrick Henry, we've talked about this before and you said, if I remember correctly, that Darwin explains the descent of the species not the origin of life.
For example, from this article: "But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life."
So which is it?

3. What I object to in the persuit of science is the notion that we can explain it all without the need for a Creator. How do we keep science from encroaching into an area that it has no business? You can say that science evolution doesn't speak to the non-existence of a Creator, but very often that is what is being implied and conveyed via the theories(and rabidly atheist teachers). Often evolution is taught with a vengeance toward God, is my point. Are there any curbs in place for that excess?

Some morning thoughts. Unfortunately I cannot sit at my keyboard all day and jabber back and forth. I have to check in as able. So bear with me.

8 posted on 11/08/2005 4:43:29 AM PST by ThirstyMan (hysteria: the elixir of the Left that trumps all reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You have GOT to be kidding.

Here's some science for you, friend. I happened to be listening to talk radio on the way to work yesterday. There was a molecular biologist talking about so-called 'random evolution,' with regard to a single-celled organism.

He said that the odds of that organism evolving randomly were calculated to be 10 to the fifty thousandth power, which is basically an unfathomable number, which validates what I suspected since the first time I heard it...Darwin was the first person to push junk science.

If you can argue that any other scientific theory is in dispute to that extent, other theories should be included. I thought that was the PURPOSE of science.

9 posted on 11/08/2005 4:46:08 AM PST by ModernDayCato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato

Actually, most science isn't conducted on talk radio.


10 posted on 11/08/2005 4:47:52 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: anthraciterabbit
"What I CAN'T understand is anybody who'd call himself a republican or a conservative believing in such a thing."

Because we value objective knowledge and have not abandoned our minds to either right or left wing anti-science post-modernism. I have a hard time understanding how a Conservative could believe in creationism/ID. We're supposed to be the rational ones.

11 posted on 11/08/2005 4:49:30 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
If Kansas redefines science, and uses that to 'teach the controversy', will they be required to teach all the 'controversies'? Or can they legally just pick one 'controversy'?

Imagine if this change brings some other fringe groups out of the woodwork to file suits in Kansas to get 'their side' of some alleged science 'controversy' taught alongside whatever in science classes.

I can't think of an example, but there must be some groups out there with some wacko theories and the means to bring a law suit.
12 posted on 11/08/2005 4:49:58 AM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
Here's some science for you, friend. I happened to be listening to talk radio on the way to work yesterday.

This is a recurring theme. A while back we had an astounding scientific revelation about honeybees with ESP that was sourced to the Today Show.

13 posted on 11/08/2005 4:50:59 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
"There was a molecular biologist talking about so-called 'random evolution,' with regard to a single-celled organism."

Your source is an idiot. Evolution is not concerned with the origins of life. Also, there is no way to calculate odds for the formation of life (abiogenesis). It's impossible when you have no clue as to what the pathways are. Anybody feeding you odds is pulling them out of their butt.

"If you can argue that any other scientific theory is in dispute to that extent, other theories should be included. I thought that was the PURPOSE of science."

There are no other scientific theories dealing with the variation and origin of species.
14 posted on 11/08/2005 4:53:41 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
I wonder if Kansas may be a lost cause?

If they keep electing school board members who insist on spending their education dollars in the courtroom instead of the classroom the entire education system in Kansas is a lost cause. Science class is not the only part of the curriculum that is at stake. Everybody loses (except for the lawyers) if the creationist/ID/alien/whatever agenda forces the school system to hemorrhage cash in seemingly endless legal battles.

15 posted on 11/08/2005 4:53:56 AM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Your source is an idiot.

LOL. Don't hold back CarolinaGuitarman. Tell us what you really think. LOL.

16 posted on 11/08/2005 4:55:29 AM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
That opens the door, he said, for astrology to be taught in public school classrooms.

Well say what you will about astrology it aint any worse than putting condoms on cucumbers and cucumbers where the .... well never mind.
17 posted on 11/08/2005 5:00:00 AM PST by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
A while back we had an astounding scientific revelation about honeybees with ESP that was sourced to the Today Show.

And don't forget the miscroscopic tracking devices being injected into people by bees that are being released into the population via black helicopters. Sadly, I heard that one at a republican state convention (Washington state).

18 posted on 11/08/2005 5:00:43 AM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

One of the common underlying themes of the founders was that truth will prevail in the end.

I wouldn't fear freedom not even in the classroom.


19 posted on 11/08/2005 5:02:34 AM PST by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
I wonder if Kansas may be a lost cause?

Kansas will be hearing from major universities regarding the value of their high school diplomas.

20 posted on 11/08/2005 5:05:27 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

How about an Evolution weekend with all your classic favorites from The Turtles, The Beatles, The Monkees, The Troggs, The Zombies, The Animals, Blue Oyster Cult and more.


21 posted on 11/08/2005 5:48:33 AM PST by Nextrush (The Soviet Union died, but Robert Mugabe is alive and well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I have a hard time understanding how a Conservative could believe in creationism/ID.

But didn't you get the memo? Conservatives are supposed to be Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible before anything else.

22 posted on 11/08/2005 5:55:37 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Let's see; flight, gravity, physics. Come on down to the nearest grain elevator and bring your hang glider. When you step off the top edge to prove the theory of gravity and flight you'd better be strapped in because without it physics will come to an abrupt halt in your case.


23 posted on 11/08/2005 6:09:54 AM PST by Dust in the Wind (I've got peace like a river. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The sun does, in fact, revolve around the earth as related in Joshua?

Go read Joshua. It DOES NOT SAY THAT THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH! Joshua says that: So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. Joshua 10:13. It merely describes how it looks to an observer (and if you try to tell me that you have never said "the sun set"...).

24 posted on 11/08/2005 6:12:23 AM PST by Seņor Zorro ("The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"--Qui-Gon Jinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; ModernDayCato
MDC's source is indeed an idiot. Anyone who invokes an a priori probability estimate--whether it's to 'prove' design, to 'prove' that a random process can produce complexity (the purported invitability of the complete works of Shakespeare arising in the output of a vast sea of typing monkeys), or to prove or disprove the existence of extraterrestrial life --is always talking rot.
25 posted on 11/08/2005 6:13:55 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I can see it now

bio 101 for science majors

bio 101a for non-science majors

bio 101b for nonsense majors from Kansas


26 posted on 11/08/2005 6:15:37 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
The guy made up those numbers out of whole cloth based upon his beliefs; Garbage in = Garbage out.

Also evolution is not "random". Mutation is random. Evolution is through natural selection.

Just because a mechanism is random does not mean the process is 'by accident'. According to quantum theory the formation of matter is random; but given the conditions of the universe formation of matter is inevitable. Something that is inevitable is not 'by accident'.

According to mutation theory, change in DNA is random; but given the conditions of life on earth, evolution through natural selection is inevitable. Something that is inevitable is not 'by accident'.

For example during an ice age rabbits would, over successive generations, eventually match their background with white fur. Now the process that brought this about would be through random mutation of the genes that supplied color to the rabbit fur pelt; but given the survival advantage of being white against a snowy background, the outcome would be inevitable.

Lastly 'Intelligent' Design is not a Scientific theory, it is philosophical posturing. Just because I share the underlying philosophy that the universe was created does not mean that I have to accept a gussied up philosophy as if it were a falsifiable theory that helps to observe and predict the universe. Even if ID were 100% true, it doesn't change the fact that it is 100% useless for observing and predicting the universe.
27 posted on 11/08/2005 6:17:48 AM PST by USConstitutionBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

The arrogance is breathtaking ...Creation doesn't fit under "science" ...re-define science!


In addition to the basic group of legal stuff you alluded to, I can also see lawsuits by parents whose kids don't get into Prestige U.


28 posted on 11/08/2005 6:21:17 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
~I wonder if Kansas may be a lost cause? Mostly pretty rural and hard to get the word out about what's really going on.

Nebraska's more rural than Kansas, and we've been able to fend this sort of thing off. Partly the problem was the passivity of the scientists in Kansas, who let this thing develop into a monster before really getting mobilized against it. And partly it's the much higher proportion of Southern Baptists, who seem to be the most virulenty creationist of all the denominations.

29 posted on 11/08/2005 6:26:30 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (If you love peace, prepare for war. If you hate violence, own a gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Conservative could believe in creationism/ID. We're supposed to be the rational ones.

The start of my homepage has an essay devoted to the powerful linkage between conservatism, science, and rationality. It won't impress the creationists, because they're so unhinged from reality that nothing will impress them.

30 posted on 11/08/2005 6:32:00 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: anthraciterabbit
What I CAN'T understand is anybody who'd call himself a republican or a conservative believing in such a thing.

Conservatism isn't religious fanaticism, which quickly takes you into nightmarish totalitarianism. Probably you're a conservative only in the sense that the Taliban is conservative.

31 posted on 11/08/2005 6:32:53 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
Mostly pretty rural and hard to get the word out about what's really going on.

Too flat. Bizarrely flat. Has to do something to stunt the cognitive development.

32 posted on 11/08/2005 6:33:56 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Because we value objective knowledge and have not abandoned our minds to either right or left wing anti-science post-modernism.\

Or maybe nobody ever taught you that "I don't know" is a valid answer to most questions...

33 posted on 11/08/2005 6:39:47 AM PST by anthraciterabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: anthraciterabbit

I can understand scientists concern that science be kept "pure" (for lack of a better word) and why they want to keep non-science out of the classroom. The ACLU is obviously anti-Jewish, anti-Christain, and anti-religion and yet has found very willing accomplices in eradicating religion from schools. For the scientists, it's about science. The ACLU had just found the hot button issue to get science's backing. To tell the truth, I really don't think they give a rat's posterior about whether science is being taught correctly or not as long as they can further their agenda using it.

I know I for one don't object to science being taught properly and I'd bet a lot of other Creationists don't either. I don't think that's the issue with them. The issue is resisting the attempts by the ACLU to by legal precedent to attempt to further their agenda. I believe that's what the Creationists/Christians are fighting. Evolution is just the weapon chosen by the ACLU in that fight because they can get the support of the scientific community and that gives it some teeth.


34 posted on 11/08/2005 6:39:58 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


35 posted on 11/08/2005 6:40:22 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Right Wing Professor

Check out post 29 by Right Wing Professor.

Although I personally cannot understand voluntarily living in a flat place. Drive me nits.


36 posted on 11/08/2005 6:40:37 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: doc30

"Conservatives are supposed to be Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible before anything else."

Maybe "suposed to be" to some people but aren't in real life.


37 posted on 11/08/2005 6:42:51 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Seņor Zorro
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Truly a miracle beyond comprehension. In theory, one can "stop the Sun" by stopping the Earth in its rotation. However, you'd notice that as the earthquake from Hades before you could be bothered to notice astonomical oddities. Someone somewhere did some calculations on the difficulties after Velikovsky's book Worlds In Collision proposed that the Earth had indeed stopped. Suffice it to say that the energy of the Earth's spin, about 1000 mph at the equator, wouldn't normally just disappear. And even that won't stop the moon's apparent motion, much of which is the moon's real orbital motion about the Earth.

38 posted on 11/08/2005 6:43:42 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
Here's some science for you, friend. I happened to be listening to talk radio on the way to work yesterday. There was a molecular biologist talking about so-called 'random evolution,' with regard to a single-celled organism.

So, am I to understand that you are basing your entire understanding of a very large and complex theory comprising numerous interconnected fields of scientific study upon a statement by a guy you heard on talk radio?

39 posted on 11/08/2005 6:45:04 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I know I for one don't object to science being taught properly and I'd bet a lot of other Creationists don't either.

If that is really true, you should favor the teaching of evolution and you shouldn't have any problem with ID being excluded.

40 posted on 11/08/2005 6:46:38 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: anthraciterabbit
Or maybe nobody ever taught you that "I don't know" is a valid answer to most questions...

Do you have an actual argument against evolution or are you just going to rant without providing facts?
41 posted on 11/08/2005 6:48:26 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: metmom
For the scientists, it's about science. The ACLU had just found the hot button issue to get science's backing. To tell the truth, I really don't think they give a rat's posterior about whether science is being taught correctly or not as long as they can further their agenda using it.

We agree on this. But the school board didn't start this ball rolling in order to attack the ACLU. The school board's motives were entirely religious. There are ways to attack the ACLU when they're stretching the law to support some leftist cause (science isn't leftist, by the way, any more than math is leftist). I disagree with the ACLU on virtually everything, but in this one case -- whatever their motives -- they're on the right side (pretty much like a broken clock).

42 posted on 11/08/2005 6:48:54 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
And partly it's the much higher proportion of Southern Baptists, who seem to be the most virulenty creationist of all the denominations.

The parochial nature of the movement to change all of science is the funniest aspect of it all. ID may have Behe and Dembski as spokesmen and a headquarters in Seattle, but behind the false front it's all Bible Belt YECs. No matter what a few southern US states and some equally undeveloped areas of Australia do, the rest of the world will continue to do real science. The only issue is whether we get left in the dust.

43 posted on 11/08/2005 6:49:26 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; metmom
For the scientists, it's about science. The ACLU had just found the hot button issue to get science's backing.

It was really, really a huge mistake to attack science education and thus hand the lefties a no-brainer sure-win issue, if you think about it.

44 posted on 11/08/2005 6:52:08 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
...I can also see lawsuits by parents whose kids don't get into Prestige U.

Yep. A high school diploma isn't worth much if the kids have to take remedial science classes to make up for what the public school did not teach them. The really hard part would be un-teaching them the garbage that the school board wants the schools to teach. The colleges would have to have de-programming classes.

45 posted on 11/08/2005 6:55:05 AM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

you won't get those alternatives in physics, astronomy, flight, gravity, and all the other scientific theories out there because these are based in science not religion, unlike the religion of evolution which is much more faith based than intelligent design. like most religions of the world other than Christianity, any ideas which question it must not be made available in the marketplace or, even better, make them illegal by perverting the establishment clause of the first amendment.


46 posted on 11/08/2005 6:55:38 AM PST by Snowbelt Man (ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
No matter what a few southern US states and some equally undeveloped areas of Australia do, the rest of the world will continue to do real science. The only issue is whether we get left in the dust.

For a couple of generations, we've all understood that the leftists (commies, socialists, etc.) were deliberately dumbing down the schools. Why, suddenly, do "conservatives" want to join in that left-wing effort, to destroy what little remains of the schools? There is nothing conservative about raising a generation of know-nothings.

47 posted on 11/08/2005 6:56:03 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
you won't get those alternatives in physics, astronomy, flight, gravity, and all the other scientific theories out there because these are based in science not religion, unlike the religion of evolution which is much more faith based than intelligent design.

How is evolution a religion? Be specific.
48 posted on 11/08/2005 6:57:26 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Enough nits=nuts. (Maybe nits is Pink Panther for nuts, in honor of the French riot threads


49 posted on 11/08/2005 7:03:14 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
Notice I refrained from nutpicking your post.
50 posted on 11/08/2005 7:03:47 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-560 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