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

Most of the educated world hasn't the slightest problem with evolution.

In addition, to eliminate evolution a lot of geology also has to go.


51 posted on 11/08/2005 7:08:07 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Kansas really is flatter than a pancake: http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html


52 posted on 11/08/2005 7:13:27 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

"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."

That's been happening for more than twenty years in colleges as it is, and that's with Math and English. I saw that when I went back to finish up my degree. As a non-traditional sudent (read: not a recent high school graduate) I was much closer in age to many of my profs and became friends with some of them and boy did I hear about it from them. IMO, "deprogramming" kids from a belief in creation is the least of the colleges worries when so many of these kids can't even read, write, or do calulations without a calculator.


53 posted on 11/08/2005 7:27:26 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
To your questions:

1) SETI - What I know about the search is they don't look for some intelligent signals they look out for traces of frequency modulated signals. These signals got physical parameters you can detect.

2) Mr. Gunn is false. Evolution is only about the origin of species.

3) The difference between science and religion is the questions start with different words: how and why.
54 posted on 11/08/2005 7:29:32 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
1) SETI - What I know about the search is they don't look for some intelligent signals they look out for traces of frequency modulated signals. These signals got physical parameters you can detect.

This is an interesting point of fact. For all the comparisons ID-pushers do with their claims to SETI's work, at least SETI defines what they look to find in an "intelligently designed" signal versus one created through standard stellar background noise and they have a definable method for producing such signals. ID pushers have neither a method of design specified nor do they have a defined means of discerning design.
55 posted on 11/08/2005 7:31:17 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.”

What a moron this Behe is. It is totally permissible to question evolution, but you have to do it with science. And that's where these knuckleheads like Behe fly off the tracks. I don't understand how someone can be so (dumb? brainwashed?) as to expect that the scientific community should renounce the pursuit of science in order to accommodate someone's religion. It's astounding.

56 posted on 11/08/2005 7:32:42 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Thanks. The second -real- lol of my posting history.

I think it's time to get caffeinated.


57 posted on 11/08/2005 7:33:09 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
the religion of evolution which is much more faith based than intelligent design.

And once again, we see that when creationists want to diminish or insult the Theory of Evolution, they call it a "religion."

That never ceases to amuse me. Don't they ever read their own posts?

58 posted on 11/08/2005 7:33:33 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 46 | 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.

ROFL!!!

Man, you have *got* to put down those creationist tracts and start reading some actual science journals.

Evolution is based on over a century of solid science, and is based on an overwhelmingly huge amount of validated research and an enormous mountain of evidence, along multiply independent cross-confirming lines of investigatino.

I guess the creationist propagandists you made the mistake of relying upon sort of "forgot" to mention that when they were lying to you about evolution, eh?

You've been brainwashed, badly. The only question now is what you plan to do about it.

59 posted on 11/08/2005 7:33:54 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
That degree of flatness might be described, mathematically, as “damn flat.”

Yep. Oddly enough, the imperfections in the flatness are visible, sort of. Kansas has this thing called a "rise," which is a hill so flat you can't really see it as a hill. The way it works is, as you drive, you notice the horizon is actually creeping closer. This is startling, because you don't see a hill anywhere, but you realize the horizon is acting the way a hill would act if a hill were there. Eventually, you get to the "top" and your view broadens out again.

60 posted on 11/08/2005 7:34:56 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
There is nothing conservative about raising a generation of know-nothings.

It's not just a matter of knowing "nothing". *That* is easily remedied. But as the old saying goes, "it's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you 'know' that ain't so."

And the creationist propaganda machine has been filling the heads of millions of people with vast amounts of things which simply "ain't so".

61 posted on 11/08/2005 7:35:28 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I have to agree on that one. I am (finally) going to college as an adult, and I am more than twice the age of most of the other students. I am frequently appalled at the writing ability of the vast majority of younger students. I would never have passed the seventh grade with writing as bad as what I see in college. I literally wince at a lot of it.


62 posted on 11/08/2005 7:41:49 AM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
And that's where these knuckleheads like Behe fly off the tracks. I don't understand how someone can be so (dumb? brainwashed?)

Behe ain't dumb. I think his statement translates to: "It's great to question prevailing theory, especially if it involves spending some amount of school district money on my book, or otherwise keeping my name in the media so that aforementioned book stays prominently displayed at Barnes and Noble."

63 posted on 11/08/2005 7:43:38 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Kansas really is flatter than a pancake: http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

ROFL!! Thanks for post that. I also liked the link in the references to "Comparing Apples and Oranges".

We also tend to think of the Earth as a whole as being very "bumpy" -- an impression reinforced by topographical globes, which have their vertical component greatly exaggerated. But actually, if the Earth were the size of a billiard ball, it would be pretty much as smooth as a billiard ball as well. Even taking into account the extremes of the height of Mt. Everest and the depths of the Marianas Trench, an Earth shrunk to a three-inch diameter would have a surface smoothness perfect to within 2/1000th of an inch.

64 posted on 11/08/2005 7:45:45 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland

You're right. It is amazing, with these characters, that if you think it through, there's always a cash register ringing away...


65 posted on 11/08/2005 7:55:06 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
Behe ain't dumb.

You're absolutely right. He's taken the rubes for a ride - if creationists knew what he actually stood for, would they be giving him their money?

Behe had better hope that his creationist supporters don't actually read his book, lest they learn he acknowledges both an old earth a common ancestor between humans and other primates, not to mention the fact that we should teach that the Creator may be dead, since He hasn't done actually anything in millennia....

66 posted on 11/08/2005 7:55:24 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 63 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash; PatrickHenry
What a moron this Behe is. It is totally permissible to question evolution, but you have to do it with science.

Well, you don't "have" to question it with science. From a religious vantage point it's certainly valid to question evolution (or anything else) with religion. And it can be questioned with philosophy, or from an ethical standpoint, etc.

How far you might get in that approach is another matter, as is whether you're going to make any headway with someone who doesn't share your premises.

The real problem, however -- and I think this is the point you're actually making -- is that Behe et al are *pretending* that they're using science to challenge evolution, when they're actually basing their objections on something else. They're dishonestly trying to give their religious misgivings about evolution the procedural authority of real science, in order to deceive the public about the validity of their "rebuttal". They're falsely claiming that their religious/philosophical dissatisfaction with evolutionary biology has met the high standards of scientific discovery and validation, when it most certainly has not.

67 posted on 11/08/2005 7:58:46 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | 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.

SETI proponents aren't waging an assault against a scientific principle that is supported by mountains of evidence. They are doing things right; i.e. making observations, collecting data, and developing falsifiable tests to analyze their research. If and when they bring their work to the science community, I suspect it will be after collecting enough verifiable, reproducible information to merit scientific consideration. ID wants to be granted scientific status without doing the legwork first, mainly because there isn't any way to do it without changing the rules of science.

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?

Gunn is not a scientist; he is an ACLU hack. And there is also always the possibility that a reporter might wrongly state this either from ignorance or laziness. Other than that, the only other such claims I have ever heard come from the ID/creationist supporters trying to distort perceptions of what the ToE says.

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?

Science goes where the evidence takes it. Just because some people are uncomfortable with how this might conflict with their religious beliefs is no reason to stifle or deny this evidence. Plugging your ears and pretending the evidence doesn't exist not only hobbles the usefulness of scientific discovery, but doesn't make the evidence cease to exist. However, I will concede that scientists are human, and therefore can succumb to their own personal bias just like everyone else. If that results in using science as a weapon to further their own opinions on religion then they are in the wrong as well and should be opposed.

68 posted on 11/08/2005 8:01:06 AM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
WOW...what a terrific response, filled with logic and totally refuting what was said. I see the light (is that all right to say to someone like you?). I've switched sides.

But seriously, no. Google actually buttressed the argument. Take a look for yourself.

69 posted on 11/08/2005 8:07:08 AM PST by ModernDayCato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; PatrickHenry
The real problem, however -- and I think this is the point you're actually making -- is that Behe et al are *pretending* that they're using science to challenge evolution, when they're actually basing their objections on something else. They're dishonestly trying to give their religious misgivings about evolution the procedural authority of real science, in order to deceive the public about the validity of their "rebuttal". They're falsely claiming that their religious/philosophical dissatisfaction with evolutionary biology has met the high standards of scientific discovery and validation, when it most certainly has not.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. If one's objection to the science of evolution is to be given the imprimatur of science, that objection must itself be scientific. And Behe et al.'s objections, as you correctly noted, are not scientific.

70 posted on 11/08/2005 8:12:52 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
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.

Afrocentrists already have a lot of clout within the educational community, and would take the opportunity of a creationist win to push their ideas further. Native American and other PC cultures' mythology would wind up pushed as being another means of viewing the world. Someone once wrote a letter to the St.Paul Pioneer Press noting that it was pretty disingenous of the Twin Cities' Science Museum to show an IMAX movie depicting Native American myths and beliefs as fact when they wouldn't dare show one depicting Judeo-Christian beliefs as such. In response, some irate reader sent off a second letter, which avoided completely the issue of superstition vs. science, and instead babbled on about the oppression of Native peoples, and how this somehow justified showing the movie.

71 posted on 11/08/2005 8:15:22 AM PST by RightWingAtheist (Free the Crevo Three!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

You're working on the presumption that the schools are actually teaching evolution correctly and that the kids are really learning it. If what I've seen of the results of education in our society today holds true, they aren't picking up evolution properly to begin with. Just look at the pathetic state of knowledge in Math, English, writing, spelling, history, and geograpy. I highly doubt they're doing much better in science.


72 posted on 11/08/2005 8:17:55 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I did answer that one already I see. My mistake. Sorry if I seem to be harping on you. Sometimes I don't pay as much attention to the namse on the posts I'm responding to as I should. :)


73 posted on 11/08/2005 8:20:28 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
But seriously, no. Google actually buttressed the argument. Take a look for yourself.

How can we "take a look for ourselves" when you refuse to provide any references, or even a justification for the starting premises of the alleged probability calculation?
74 posted on 11/08/2005 8:22:18 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

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

The truth prevails only by opposing the lie.

75 posted on 11/08/2005 8:23:41 AM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

I'm not doing well today. I just responded to myself when it should have been you. Please see post #73. Sorry again. I think I need to give FR a break for a couple hours and give my mind a rest.


76 posted on 11/08/2005 8:26:37 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

nobody's talking about eliminating evolution. people are talking about presenting facts that do not support it or problems that scientists have with it. the evolutionists act like these scientists don't exist and that these facts don't exist and, when confronted with the fact that they do exist, their response is to silence them. doesn't sound like science to me. i would think evolutionists would welcome the debate.


77 posted on 11/08/2005 8:29:57 AM PST by Snowbelt Man (ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: highball

it takes alot more faith to believe in evolution than creation.


78 posted on 11/08/2005 8:31:24 AM PST by Snowbelt Man (ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
unlike the religion of evolution which is much more faith based than intelligent design

You have something against religion?

79 posted on 11/08/2005 8:37:58 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

i have read them on both sides. what amazes me is how afraid the evolutionists are of any dissent. i have no problem with people presenting their evidence of no creator or that Jesus was a fraud or that the Bible is a fairy tale. bring it on. it's the evolutionists who want to use the courts to silence all dissent or discussion about the issue. most people don't even know the basic assumptions made in using carbon dating to evaluate how old things are. there's a reason the majority of the population does not believe in evolution after a generation of the evolution monopoly in the scientific community. because it's not science.

study the woodpecker alone. no other animal like it. it didn't evolve. it was created.


80 posted on 11/08/2005 8:38:23 AM PST by Snowbelt Man (ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

not at all - just call it what it is and don't treat me like an imbecile because i don't believe it.


81 posted on 11/08/2005 8:39:36 AM PST by Snowbelt Man (ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
"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.

Isn't it fortunate for us that life did not start purely by random? Isn't it good that complex molecules tend to spontaneously develop through energy inequality according to the 2LoT?

BTW, those probability calculations are misleading, wrong and useless.

82 posted on 11/08/2005 8:41:12 AM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | 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

I do. But perhaps you would like to tell me about them?

Hint: stay away from the creation websites; they are full of nonsense on this subject.

83 posted on 11/08/2005 8:46:12 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
i have read them on both sides. what amazes me is how afraid the evolutionists are of any dissent

I teach physical chemistry at the advanced undergraduate and graduate level, and I can assure you, I suppress dissent. People who use equations that are different from those found in the p. chem. books; people who employ 'alternative' definitions of conventional units; people who do 'non-standard' mathematics; all of them are brutally identified with a red pen and punished. Particular egregious dissenters fail the course, and in many cases this can deny them a lucrative career.

84 posted on 11/08/2005 8:49:42 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 80 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
study the woodpecker alone. no other animal like it. it didn't evolve. it was created.

This is an assertion. Unless you can support it, it is meaningless.
85 posted on 11/08/2005 8:51:35 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

so you're saying the scientific certainty of evolution is the same as the concepts of physical chemistry. and people say that i'm brainwashed.


86 posted on 11/08/2005 8:52:16 AM PST by Snowbelt Man (ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Dust in the Wind
"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

The implication in this post is that you believe gravity is a fact and evolution is not. This shows an underlying misunderstanding of the terms fact and theory as well as a misunderstanding of the fact of evolution.

Simply put, evolution is the variance of allele frequencies within a population through differential reproductive success. This is a fact. It is an observation that allows us to develop data points. Evidence from biology, genomics, geology, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy and others give us additional data points.

In you analogy, this is the same as the observation of gravity in action. Fall from a height and you've provided a data point that can be applied to the development of a theory of gravity, the explanatory model of attraction of masses.

The theory of evolution (ToE) is also an expiratory model for the data points the fact of evolution provides.

In other words, a fact is a data point and a theory is an explanation.

87 posted on 11/08/2005 8:52:45 AM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

no more meaningless than someone's assertion that it evolved.


88 posted on 11/08/2005 8:53:11 AM PST by Snowbelt Man (ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: USConstitutionBuff

Nicely put. Kudos.


89 posted on 11/08/2005 8:55:23 AM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man

When there are scientifically confirmed data that counter evolution some sicentist is going to get a Nobel prize and be very, very, happy.

Pseudo-challenges by Biblical literalists are not relevant.


90 posted on 11/08/2005 8:56:33 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"Too flat. Bizarrely flat. Has to do something to stunt the cognitive development.

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

91 posted on 11/08/2005 8:57:37 AM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Snowbelt Man
study the woodpecker alone. no other animal like it. it didn't evolve. it was created.

This is an assertion. Unless you can support it, it is meaningless.

Just plain wrong too. The 'Akiapola'au is a Hawai'ian finch that has convergently evolved to behave like a woodpecker, there being no true woodpeckers on Hawai'i.

92 posted on 11/08/2005 8:57:49 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 85 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man

Just precisely what is your problem with woodpeckers?


How are they any more unusual than, say, armadillos, staghorn beetles or stinkhorns?


93 posted on 11/08/2005 8:58:41 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: metmom
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.

The ACLU has found a wedge issue to drive into the religious community. Like any other doctrine, literal Genesis creationism isn't shared by all Christians, the Catholics in particular don't have a problem with an old earth and evolution.

The idiots in Kansas and Dover charged out on a useless, impossible mission they were certain to lose. And in the end they've given credibility to the ACLU when they claim that all Christians are knuckle dragging idiots no better than the Taliban.

I hate the ACLU, but it's the IDers who are handing victories to them by fighting an impossible fight.

94 posted on 11/08/2005 8:59:27 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
so you're saying the scientific certainty of evolution is the same as the concepts of physical chemistry.

Yes.

and people say that i'm brainwashed.

Mostly just ignorant. It's a curable condition, if you have the desire.

95 posted on 11/08/2005 8:59:33 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 86 | 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. 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.

Methinks thou hast taken a lawyer's manipulations to heart too honestly.

96 posted on 11/08/2005 9:02:13 AM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
no more meaningless than someone's assertion that it evolved.

Except that evolution is backed by DNA and fossil evidence, among other lines of evidence. Why should I believe your claim that the woodpecker is solid evidence against that?
97 posted on 11/08/2005 9:03:41 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
I happened to be listening to talk radio on the way to work yesterday.

Well there you have it. I'm sold.
98 posted on 11/08/2005 9:04:29 AM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man; Dimensio

HIND LIMB MORPHOLOGY, PHYLOGENY, AND
Yes, woodeckers evolved. I'm offline for a few hours so this will have to do for now:


CLASSIFICATION OF THE PICIFORMES
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:wzzJtQs_dpEJ:elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v098n03/p0466-p0480.pdf+woodpecker+ancestry+evolution+phylogeny&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


Piciformes are woodpeckers.
Kinda technical, unike creationist websites.


99 posted on 11/08/2005 9:13:17 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
"nobody's talking about eliminating evolution. people are talking about presenting facts that do not support it or problems that scientists have with it.

Which facts are ther that 'do not support it'? There are areas where knowledge is incomplete and physical evidence is in short supply, but as far as I've been able to find, no evidence against the ToE.

"the evolutionists act like these scientists don't exist and that these facts don't exist and, when confronted with the fact that they do exist, their response is to silence them. doesn't sound like science to me. i would think evolutionists would welcome the debate.

Scientists may or may not welcome debate, depending on how tired they are from disabusing the notions of the uniformed, but the definitely do what they can to make a name for themselves by trying to bust current thought. If any of this 'evidence' against evolution had any validity, it would be taken up by a number of mainstream scientists in an attempt to enhance the recognition of their own contribution to science.

100 posted on 11/08/2005 9:14:40 AM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | 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