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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-560 next last
To: Snowbelt Man
"study the woodpecker alone. no other animal like it. it didn't evolve. it was created.

Argument from incredulity.

Many have studied the woodpecker, including its tongue, and come to a different and highly educated conclusion.

101 posted on 11/08/2005 9:16:37 AM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
Snowbelt Man,

when does this galoot ever make any assertion about anything? Nil to never.

Wolf
102 posted on 11/08/2005 9:21:14 AM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
"most people don't even know the basic assumptions made in using carbon dating to evaluate how old things are

This sounds like a typical Hovindite manipulation of information. What the creationist sites you visit do not tell you can be more important than what they do tell you. In the case of Carbon 14 dating they forget to mention all the calibration techniques and precautions against contamination used. There is a reason they stick to 30 second sound bites. There is a reason they don't tell you everything.

103 posted on 11/08/2005 9:21:35 AM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | 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.

Being a republican or a conservative is not synonymous with being ignorant in spite of the efforts of the demented left to project that illusion.

104 posted on 11/08/2005 9:28:12 AM PST by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
He said that the odds of that organism evolving randomly were calculated to be 10 to the fifty thousandth power

That's about the same odds as a shuffled deck of cards coming up in their resulting order but, you can shuffle a deck of cards all day long. Me thinks you put too much belief in a radio talk show host.

105 posted on 11/08/2005 9:31:21 AM PST by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp; Ichneumon; VadeRetro; PatrickHenry; js1138; Gumlegs; CarolinaGuitarman; Junior; ...

"Mechanics of ATP Synthase.

Wolfgang Junge, D. Cherepanov; O. Panke; K. Gumbiowsky; M. Muller; S. Engelbrecht

Departement of Biophysics, University of Osnabrück, Barbarastr.11, 49076 Osnabrück, Germany

ATP synthase functions as two rotary motor/generators coupled together by a central shaft and an eccentric bearing. Symmetry mismatch between the protonmotive drive, FO, and the nucleotide processing device, F1, call for a soft elastic power transmission. Its existence is demonstrated by micro-videography of rotation and its functional benefits are theoretically scrutinised.

Keywords:
ATPase; motor protein; nanomechanics; viscoelasticity; proton"

from:

http://bio.web.psi.ch/MV2001/abstracts.html

Micro-videography of rotation? - wow! Pure speculation, but does this sound like an evolutionary prototype for the flagellum?


106 posted on 11/08/2005 9:32:11 AM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

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

You're right. No one knows anything about anything. The scientific method is useless. The existence of computers and human-engineered trans-continental flight evidence nothing of human knowledge. The universe is fundamentally not rational and we can discern nothing of its character. "I don't know" is the only answer I give to any question!
107 posted on 11/08/2005 9:34:35 AM PST by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Where I live, in the Canuck Bible belt, it is flatter than even Kansas.

Aggghhh!!! Must you guys mimick all our worst habits!? ;)

108 posted on 11/08/2005 9:39:14 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
"Micro-videography of rotation? - wow! Pure speculation, but does this sound like an evolutionary prototype for the flagellum?

Geeze, I wonder? LOL

Even molecules enjoy the dance and occasionally spin.

109 posted on 11/08/2005 9:40:40 AM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
it takes alot more faith to believe in evolution than creation.

Your saying that does not make it so.

Quite the contrary, actually. Evolution has centuries of testing and confirmation behind it. You may choose to ignore the evidence, but to deny it is a lie.

110 posted on 11/08/2005 9:55:02 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 78 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Pure speculation, but does this sound like an evolutionary prototype for the flagellum?

An idea how many decades old? Interesting to speculate on something almost accepted for many years all ready.

Recent article from Japan: Direct observation of steps in rotation of the bacterial flagellar motor, Nature 437, 916-919 (6 October 2005)

Has movie in supplementary info page.

111 posted on 11/08/2005 10:03:13 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; furball4paws
Interesting to speculate on something almost accepted for many years all ready.

Then how can Behe and Minnich claim that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, when not only does it work in the absence of some components, but there are sequence and mechanistic homologies to a near-ubiquitous protein system that operates by a rotary coupling mechanism?

112 posted on 11/08/2005 10:09:30 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 111 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"IC is whatever we want it to be."
113 posted on 11/08/2005 10:14:16 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Why do you care what Behe and Minnich say?


114 posted on 11/08/2005 10:16:00 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Why do you care what Behe and Minnich say?

You have to know that by now. Why this disingenuous rhetorical stupidity?

115 posted on 11/08/2005 10:19:02 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Disingenuous rhetorical stupidity is all they have left.

They have no facts, no evidence, nothing. The school board in the Dover case got caught lying, and since creationists have almost to a man refused to condemn them for doing so, we have learned that lying is okay to them....


116 posted on 11/08/2005 10:21:37 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 115 | View Replies]

To: highball
To be absolutely fair, not all of it is rhetorical or even disingenuous. But too much is.
117 posted on 11/08/2005 10:23:27 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

What?!? No Black Sabbath?


118 posted on 11/08/2005 10:25:30 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: highball

Lying for the cause is another thing creationists have in common with the left.


119 posted on 11/08/2005 10:26:11 AM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; highball
You two fellows are so far out of touch with any sense of reality it is astonishing.

Your zeal blinds you.

120 posted on 11/08/2005 10:26:27 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; VadeRetro; highball
This comment is for VadeRetro; highball. Some people are about as dumb as it gets.

Then how can Behe and Minnich claim that the flagellum is irreducibly complex etc...

As I stated in a post to RWP the other day (I think it was you) Behe does not have an appreciation or understanding of the molecular aspects of proteins nor their physicochemical nature.

The irreducible complexity argument is fine, the problem is the basic suppositions behind it are not congruent with what is known of protein structure and function and genomic architecture.

121 posted on 11/08/2005 10:33:05 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Some people are about as dumb as it gets.

That would be anyone you can still hoodwink.

122 posted on 11/08/2005 10:39:40 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: highball

Chuckling - you've never gotten an answer to that question, as many times as it has been asked. Too funny.

Their answer, though, is obvious, if unspoken. Those other religions are simply false.


123 posted on 11/08/2005 10:41:23 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: metmom

LOL. your post is so true. You responded to yourself.


124 posted on 11/08/2005 10:45:59 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
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?

I didn't see that you got an answer and these threads have a tendency to take off, so I thought I'd give you my 2 cents.

1. The SETI search is based on the idea that physics and chemistry work the same in other parts of the universe as it does here. If it's the same, then it seems like similar processes that created us should be working. Since we appeared "only" 4.55 billion years after the earth's formation in a universe around 13.5 billion years old, it seems like some other planet could have intelligent life something like us by now.

Behe's concept is actually not Behe's, it's Darwin's. And he re-worked Dembski's ideas to get there. But ID is really an idea looking for data, methods and definitions. Complexity still apparently has no meaning, and there is apparently no objective method for determining it.

2. Darwin, or evolutionary biologists, don't claim to explain the origins of life and don't claim to have any well-defined process for how it occurred. These claims originate with creationists and ID'ers who don't know a lot of science or biology. Behe and Dembski, for example, don't believe biologists claim this.

Evolution claims to explain that species evolve over time from existing species. The evidence for evolution is in the fossil record. No ID'er has ever addressed this massive amount of data in any logical form as of this date. That's why they choose to argue in the arena of molecular chemistry and genomics. There are more unknowns to work with.

3. There are some scienists who believe that man, or our more evolved descendants, will eventually be able to explain nearly everything in the universe. And there are atheists and agnostics who will tell you so. But most scientists are Christians in this country.

The problem with public school in general is that God has been shown the door. But rather than fix this by pretending that the Bible is a science text book, Christians should rally to the cause of Christian classes in schools. Things like ID could be aired there without diminishing the quality of science education, which is already pathetic. The proof of how bad science education is in this country is that we even have to have crevo debates.

ID has no methods, definitions, results or even a journal for publishing research. That's because it's not science. It's just an attempt to sell books, lectures and the like to people who want to hear a faith-based message.

125 posted on 11/08/2005 10:57:54 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Why do you care what Behe and Minnich say?

Because they, God help them, are the most scientifically competent IDers. (Dembski on his blog today has a link to the Blacklight Energy page we ripped apart a few days ago. Evidently he can't spot bogus pseudoscience even when it's someone else's. How the heck did he con his way to a math Ph.D.?)

If Behe and Minnich can't articulate the basic, underlying principles of ID, then who can? And if they can't explain it, who's going to write the teaching materials to teach it to high school kids?

126 posted on 11/08/2005 11:02:53 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 114 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Because they, God help them, are the most scientifically competent IDers

Why do you care what IDers say?

127 posted on 11/08/2005 11:04:21 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Having a Big Brother like the US does that to us. ;-P


128 posted on 11/08/2005 11:08:26 AM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

When you fish you almost always catch something. And sometimes you just have to throw it back.


129 posted on 11/08/2005 11:16:58 AM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Why do you care what IDers say?

Because they're trying to force their pseudoscience into the public schools my kids attend.

130 posted on 11/08/2005 11:31:42 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 127 | View Replies]

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

Project much? It's Creationists/ID'ers who are arrogant enough to think there is nothing new to learn. Scientists are far more humble in their statements.
131 posted on 11/08/2005 11:31:58 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Because they're trying to force their pseudoscience into the public schools my kids attend.

Oh the horror.

If that were even the 100th on the list of problems with public schools we'd be in great shape.

I send my kids to private schools you ought to as well.

132 posted on 11/08/2005 11:34:21 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

Science classe is one of the last vestiges of critical thinking and problem solving training in public school. Why screw it up by mixing in philosophy and religion? If it's not broken, don't fix it. Tackle the 100 or so other problems first.


133 posted on 11/08/2005 11:39:03 AM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
If that were even the 100th on the list of problems with public schools we'd be in great shape.

Lincoln Public Schools are fine. Maybe if you took an interest in the schools in your community, you could make them better.

I send my kids to private schools you ought to as well.

Yeah, like I'm going to turn my kids over to people who think the earth is 6000 years old.

134 posted on 11/08/2005 11:41:03 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 132 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Madness?

The madness is in the rejection of science by the academic dogmatists that promote the faith of evolution over science. To study the arguments made in opposition to telling Kansas students the truth that the evidence (science) opposes the faith of evolution at every turn, is most telling.

135 posted on 11/08/2005 11:42:57 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Science classe is one of the last vestiges of critical thinking and problem solving training in public school.

Nice piece of histrionics. But it isn't particularly important one way or another. It's also interesting how you substitute science class for what should be biology class. Unless they are now teaching evolutionary theory in Chemistry and Physics classes.

This is all a big to do about nothing.

It seesm those concerend about critical thinking have more issues with hysteria -- their own.

136 posted on 11/08/2005 11:44:34 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
If that were even the 100th on the list of problems with public schools we'd be in great shape.

The schools are riddled with problems already, so what's one more? Is that the argument?

137 posted on 11/08/2005 11:46:06 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Yeah, like I'm going to turn my kids over to people who think the earth is 6000 years old.

This is your impression of all private schools?

Issues with reality dude.

I think the reason so many here get so hysterical at the thought of Behe saying his stuff is because they are the flip side of the coin. Nothing personal to anyone on any side, but this is rather the war among the mediocrities with no better things to do or think about.

Somehow they need each other.

138 posted on 11/08/2005 11:48:10 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
The schools are riddled with problems already, so what's one more? Is that the argument?

No.

139 posted on 11/08/2005 11:48:57 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

What is the argument, then?


140 posted on 11/08/2005 11:49:26 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; betty boop; bondserv; bvw; D Rider; dartuser; ...
"How do we keep science from encroaching into an area that it has no business?"

Wrong question. Not all things that pretend to be science can support that claim. If you have reached your conclusion prior to gathering the evidence, and that conclusion causes the rejection of the bulk of the evidence because it fails to support your pre-conclusion, then you are not a scientist.

This test eliminates more than 99% of those posting here in the name of teaching evolution.

141 posted on 11/08/2005 11:52:07 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
My opinion is it is a trivial issue and not cause for the hysteria it has engendered.

I think it is like the Dem/Johm Kerry replay of Vietnam. Iraq becomes Vietnam. Re-fight that.

This is a silly replay of Scopes, this time the sides are switched in terms of who has the power. It's boring and pathetic.

As I said it is the battle of the mediocrities with world views of the early 20th century.

142 posted on 11/08/2005 11:53:30 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: metmom
That's ok. I talk to myself a lot as well. %-)

One guy at work teased me about it, saying "you're talking to yourself again!", to which I responded "sometimes that's the only way to have an intelligent conversation around here!"

(I'd like to say that I came up with that witty response myself, but I honestly picked it up from a comedy routine. It was worth remembering, in case I ever had the opportunity to use it. The look on the guy's face when I said that to him was priceless).

143 posted on 11/08/2005 11:54:05 AM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
This is your impression of all private schools?

The Protestant religious ones.

You think all public schools suck?

Issues with reality dude.

Coming from an IDer, that's rich.

I think the reason so many here get so hysterical at the thought of Behe saying his stuff is because they are the flip side of the coin. Nothing personal to anyone on any side, but this is rather the war among the mediocrities with no better things to do or think about.

Ah, thank you for enlightening us from your Olympian heights, oh Great One. And what year did you win your Nobel Prize?

144 posted on 11/08/2005 11:54:07 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 138 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
It seesm those concerend about critical thinking have more issues with hysteria -- their own.

*sigh*

Science curriculum should teach the prevailing scientific theory. In the life sciences, this means teaching evolutionary theory. Students spend precious few hours in science class as it is, and there simply isn't enough time to spend on digressions about alternative points of view. Also, as most schools are geared towards college prep, science curricula should take this into account. Public schools should cover material in the same way students will be exposed to them in college, so that they will have the proper foundation in the subject when the continue in their studies at university.

145 posted on 11/08/2005 11:54:33 AM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
My opinion is it is a trivial issue...

Then I shouldn't hear any objection to the suggestion that evolution be taught in biology class and creation be taught in Sunday School.

146 posted on 11/08/2005 11:57:23 AM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: highball
Don't they ever read their own posts?

Yes, but with no more understanding that their reading of yours.

147 posted on 11/08/2005 11:58:29 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Coming from an IDer, that's rich.

I'm not an IDer. Why do you have that impression?

Talking to you guys is like being in the twilight zone.

I won my Nobel the same year you won yours.

148 posted on 11/08/2005 12:02:29 PM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

But your kids would NEVER fall for that so why are you concerned?


149 posted on 11/08/2005 12:02:36 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
If you have reached your conclusion prior to gathering the evidence, and that conclusion causes the rejection of the bulk of the evidence because it fails to support your pre-conclusion, then you are not a scientist.

Indeed, if an investigator chooses to ignore contradictory evidence he is not helping anyone. Perhaps such a one should change careers and become a mainstream investigative journalist where this skill is evidently highly valued. LOL!
150 posted on 11/08/2005 12:02:43 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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