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

Skip to comments.

Discovery's Creation [The rise & fall of the Discovery Institute]
Seattle Weekly ^ | 01 February 2006 | Roger Downey

Posted on 02/01/2006 6:32:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry

A Seattle think tank launched the modern intelligent-design movement with a simple memo. The idea has evolved into a media sensation. And the cause has mutated beyond rational control.

In 1998, members of a Seattle nonprofit think tank drafted a secret five-year plan with an ambitious goal: to "defeat scientific materialism" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

By the end of the stated five-year period, the benevolent conspirators had seen much of their goal accomplished. There was widespread public debate with materialist Darwinists. Dozens of books had been published presenting a non-Darwinian alternative theory of life. There was widespread respectful press coverage of their cause, with innumerable supportive op-ed columns in mainstream media, cover stories in the national newsweeklies, and even a widely broadcast PBS documentary. School authorities in 10 states were looking into adopting some or all of the recommendations for high-school science curricula. So well was the campaign going that in 2004, some of the original antimaterialism advocates were confident enough of eventual triumph to predict in detail a complete meltdown of Darwinian science by 2025—the 100th anniversary of the notorious "Monkey Trial" of 1925.

However unlikely their optimism at the time, it looks a great deal more unlikely today. In December, a federal judge presiding over another case of Darwin versus faith in a public-school system handed the antimaterialists a defeat so sweeping—in the form of a judicial decision so detailed and so trenchant—that even the most passionate advocates of faith-based science seem stunned and confused about the future of their cause. They'll be back. But in this time of their momentary disarray, it seems appropriate to look back over the short but rocketlike rise to media celebrity of the idea called "intelligent design" and the small, dedicated band of true believers who sold the concept to the wider world.

The story begins, so far as the world at large is concerned, on a late January day seven years ago, in a mail room in a downtown Seattle office of an international human-resources firm. The mail room was also the copy center, and a part-time employee named Matt Duss was handed a document to copy. It was not at all the kind of desperately dull personnel-processing document Duss was used to feeding through the machine. For one thing, it bore the rubber-stamped warnings "TOP SECRET" and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION." Its cover bore an ominous pyramidal diagram superimposed on a fuzzy reproduction of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel rendition of God the Father zapping life into Adam, all under a mysterious title: The Wedge.

Curious, Duss rifled through the 10 or so pages, eyebrows rising ever higher, then proceeded to execute his commission while reserving a copy of the treatise for himself. Within a week, he had shared his find with a friend who shared his interest in questions of evolution, ideology, and the propagation of ideas. Unlike Duss, the friend, Tim Rhodes, was technically savvy, and it took him little time to scan the document and post it to the World Wide Web, where it first appeared on Feb. 5, 1999.

The unnamed author of the document wasted no time getting down to his subject. "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Yet little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science." Such thinkers as Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and, above all, Charles Darwin promulgated a "materialistic conception of reality" that "eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and music."

Not content with bewailing the intelligentsia's falling away from faith, the author proposed to do something about it. "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies," he wrote. He went on to detail a 20-year plan to replace "materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God," and to replace materialist science with a new scientific paradigm "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

The immediate impact of the posting of The Wedge on the Web was almost nil. The Internet was far from being the instant echo chamber of news and ideas it's since become. (On Feb. 7, 1999, Google had all of eight employees.) Outside Seattle, hardly anyone had heard of the Discovery Institute, let alone its Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. By last year, Seattle's DI and the center were internationally known as the world's most respectable and most talked-about and quoted resource for the new brand of "science" called intelligent design.

In retrospect, the successful campaign to disseminate intelligent-design theory is all the more astonishing because it was achieved with remarkably modest resources and promoted by a tiny cadre. The American scientific establishment has billions of dollars annually to promote programs; the Discovery Institute's overall budget has never much exceeded $4 million annually, and much of an increase in recent years is due to a near–$10 million grant to study local transportation issues, not biology or education. Yet until the decision this past December in the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover School District, the Discovery Institute's pro-intelligent-design slogan "teach the controversy" seemed to be overtaking Nike's "just do it" as the most successful sales mantra ever to come from the great Northwest. "Considering that they did it with very few people, very little money, and no established power base, it's far and away the most successful campaign of its kind I've ever seen," says Philip Gold, a former Discovery fellow.

Discovery Institute founder Bruce Chapman, in a 2000 photo taken in Bellevue.

Chapman: Declan Mccullagh Photography

Founded by an out-of-office politician named Bruce Chapman, Discovery grew out of a short-lived Seattle branch office of Indianapolis' Hudson Institute, a 40-year-old conservative think tank founded by Cold War theorist Herman Kahn. For most of its existence, Discovery Institute occupied a dumpy office suite in an old- fashioned downtown Seattle office block. Discovery's first outings into the public-policy arena were very much in the spirit of the long-standing goals of Seattle's reigning political establishment: good government, strict law enforcement, conservative fiscal policy, and a forward-looking transit system for the increasingly congested Puget Sound basin.

But if he didn't know already, Chapman soon learned that a think tank, particularly a brand-new one, has to trim its sails to the winds it encounters if it's to reach any harbor at all. Times had changed since the 1970s, when he and his East Coast coterie arrived to energize the sleepy, clubby Seattle political scene. The liberal Republican issues that had proved so effective 20 years before had lost their sizzle.

Chapman's own convictions had changed, as well. His stint inside the Beltway, as director of the Census and working for Reagan policy chief Edwin Meese, had exposed him to tough-minded, right-leaning ideologues and brought him intoxicatingly close to the centers of power. Finding no post of comparable responsibility open to him under the less-ideological presidency of George H.W. Bush, Chapman returned to the relatively brackish pond of Seattle. He was a considerably more doctrinaire conservative than when he departed.

"I think he had a hard time at first," says David Brewster, founder of Seattle Weekly and an ally during Chapman's Seattle City Council days. "He'd developed a taste for serious politics, and the issues that interested us in Seattle must have seemed pretty small potatoes. He'd gotten more serious about his religion, and that doesn't play very well in this town. Plus, he'd lost touch with his circle of friends and colleagues here, who had all gone off in their own various directions. He found himself with no ready-made base and had to build one for himself."

First Hudson, then Discovery provided Chapman with a platform, but it was not until 1994 that he found both a big defining issue to lend Discovery a distinct identity and the means to push it vigorously. Introduced to the idea of intelligent design by a young philosophy professor named Steven C. Meyer, Chapman realized that this new approach to re-establishing spiritual values in the search for scientific knowledge not only spoke to his own needs and those of many others but offered access to some serious money if he could persuade the purse holders that he and his institute could do something to further their mutual goals.

By 1995, Chapman and an old friend, college roommate, and Discovery board member, George Gilder, were negotiating with the ultraconservative Ahmanson family of Southern California for a substantial grant to set up a program within Discovery Institute to promote intelligent design as a way to break Darwin's seemingly unbreakable lock on science education in America. Once again, Meyer was of crucial assistance; he'd worked as a science tutor to one of the Ahmanson children. Gilder and Chapman left Los Angeles with a pledge of a quarter-million dollars a year for three years, and the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was born.

The center's first and so far only director was Meyer, who retains his day job in the Department of Theology, Philosophy, and Chaplain Services at Whitworth College in Spokane, a 115-year-old private liberal-arts college whose mission is "to provide its diverse student body an education of the mind and heart, equipping its graduates to honor God, follow Christ, and serve humanity." To this end, the mission statement continues, "Whitworth's community of teacher-scholars is committed to rigorous and open intellectual inquiry and to the integration of Christian faith and learning." (The Whitworth connection is not mentioned on the center's Web site, where Meyer is described as holding a Ph.D. in the history of philosophy and science from Cambridge University in England.)

With stable funding in hand, the center set about recruiting "fellows" to pursue goals of supporting research by scientists and other scholars. Among the goals in the center's founding document: "challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory"; "developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design"; "exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture"; and encouraging "schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well as its strengths."

The roster of fellows has grown apace over the past 10 years and numbers 44 now (only one of them female). The Web site of the Center for Science and Culture, as it is known now (www.discovery.org/csc), describes the list of fellows as "including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities." This list avoids mentioning that only seven fellows hold advanced degrees in biological sciences, while 13 profess philosophy and/or theology at such religiously oriented institutions of higher learning as Biola College in Los Angeles, Messiah College of Gratham, Pa., and Billy Graham's alma mater, Wheaton College, in Wheaton, Ill.

With such a roster, very little of the center's research into the weaknesses of Darwinism has been of the experimental, lab-oriented, peer-reviewed kind. Instead, in books, publications, and interviews, it has hewed to a tightly focused message: Intelligent design is not dogmatically antiscience, or even antievolution; on the contrary, it is an attack on dogma, on the stifling orthodoxy of modern Darwinism. Pointing out Darwin's ideological and evidential feet of clay is only part of the larger mission to open the scientific discourse to evidence and viewpoints that have been suppressed, even persecuted, by the Darwinian establishment. All we ask, the fellows have trumpeted again and again, is the opportunity to make our case, to see our evidence given equal time and exposure with Darwinism, in the media, in the academy—and in the schools.

In parallel with a mission of training the media to take it seriously, the Center for Science and Culture from the beginning had been looking for local school districts and state boards of education that might be sympathetic to the campaign. It struck gold near home in 1999. School authorities (and parents) in Skagit County's Burlington-Edison School District discovered that for going on 10 years, one of its high- school science teachers, Roger DeHart, had routinely been omitting part of the state-approved biology textbook to make room for his selected readings on evolution, most notably a little book called Of Pandas and People. It is devoted to highlighting questions unanswered by mainstream Darwinism and suggesting that the new science of intelligent design might provide answers.

Some district parents, then the American Civil Liberties Union, began threatening legal action against what they claimed was a veiled intrusion of religious teaching into the classroom. DeHart found himself with some parents on his side, but the decisive support came from the Discovery Institute, which announced to the world that the Darwinian establishment was interfering with a teacher's academic freedom. After a two-year tug-of-war, DeHart quit to continue the struggle in other ways as a Discovery Institute–subsidized martyr and witness to the intelligent-design cause. (He was still at it as recently as last May, testifying about his ordeal to a sympathetic committee of the Kansas State Board of Education, which was then looking into making intelligent design part of that state's high-school curriculum.)

Across the country, Discovery Institute fellows offered expert testimony in public and strategic advice in private. As the front widened, the message was honed for maximum acceptability.

Across the country, Discovery Institute fellows offered expert testimony in public and strategic advice in private: Texas, Kansas, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, California. As the front widened, the message was honed for maximum acceptability. Although the founding documents of intelligent design proclaimed an intention of replacing Darwinian materialism with a new God-centered, faith-based science, the public pitch was much more moderate. As opponents of intelligent design scrambled to hone their own message, advocates ceased to insist even that their brand of biology be taught. Instead, the new mantra became "teach the controversy." Inform teachers and students that an alternative to Darwin existed, refer them to appropriate textbooks and other readings, and let them make up their own minds. Surely no civil libertarian could object to such an open invitation to debate.

Indeed, as more and more school boards seriously took up consideration of intelligent-design programs, the Discovery Institute became concerned that some of the people they were trying to influence might grow so enthusiastic as to push the newly moderate ideological envelope. They professed no knowledge of the origins of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture's founding Wedge document. They also dropped the loaded word "renewal" from the name and ceased demanding that intelligent design replace Darwinism in the high-school curriculum, or that it even be actively taught there. All that was asked now was that students be apprised that there was a controversy.

That was apparently all that was in question when, in late 2004, a district school board in a small suburb of York, Pa., voted 6-3 that high-school students "will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." A month later, the board mandated that starting in January 2005, ninth-grade biology teachers would be required to read to their students a four-paragraph statement encouraging students to look into alternatives to Darwin and suggesting Of Pandas and People (available in the school library) as a good place to start.

Even though the new policy did not include active teaching of intelligent-design theory, Discovery Institute fellows issued a warning that the policy went too far and might, in fact, damage the cause rather than further it. Little did they know how damaging it would be. On Dec. 14, 2004, a district parent opposed to the new policy filed suit in federal court to block it. Tammy J. Kitzmiller and 11 other parents were represented in their suit against the Dover Area School District by 13 lawyers from the ACLU, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the National Center for Science Education. Against this legal lineup, the constitutional-law equivalent of the Pittsburgh Steelers offensive line, were the Dover board's defenders, fielded by the conservative Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich.

Considering that the Center for Science and Culture had publicly opposed making the situation in Dover a test case, it seems curious that two of the Discovery Institute's most prominent fellows signed on to testify at the trial as expert witnesses: Lehigh University biochemist Michael J. Behe and University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich. But testify they did, and it was their testimony, more than that of many experts fielded by the plaintiffs, that left the scientific credentials of intelligent design in tatters.

Behe's day in court began placidly enough, as More Law Center attorney Robert Muise established his scientific credentials, then coached him through a recital of numerous now-discarded theories once widely believed by reputable scientists—that the sun rotates around the Earth, that light travels through space as vibrations in an invisible ether—to suggest that Darwin's version of evolution might soon be due to join them. Behe also quoted a formidable list of well-known biologists—Steven Jay Gould, Francis Crick, even super-Darwinist Richard Dawkins—as stating that there were problems with Darwinism as currently formulated. At the same time, Behe modestly suggested that intelligent design, at least as formulated in his book, Darwin's Black Box, provides a simpler, more reasonable view of how living things came to be the way they are: Someone (or something) with a purpose designed them that way.

Almost as soon as Eric Rothschild began his cross-examination, Behe's cultivated scientific calm began to crumble. Rothschild baited him like a picador, dashing in, planting a barb, turning away to attack from a new direction before his victim realized it. Hour by hour, Rothschild got Behe to admit:

In the last testimony of the Dover trial, Discovery Institute fellow Minnich presented a low-key, engineer's approach to intelligent design but ended up just as ideologically pummeled in cross-examination by plaintiff's attorney Steven Harvey.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones

In the decision handed down on Dec. 20, 2005, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by George W. Bush, refers frequently to inconsistencies and equivocations in Behe's testimony, primarily in reference to this question: How does intelligent design differ in any significant way from earlier attempts to avoid conflict with the Second Amendment prohibition of state-supported or countenanced religion? Judge Jones' answer: Not enough to distinguish it in law from the various versions of creationism already banned from the schools by a series of unequivocal U.S. Supreme Court decisions beginning in 1968.

Intelligent design, said the judge, is creationism with a scientific veneer. Advocates contend that nature offers any reasonable observer evidence of purposeful design while refusing to offer an opinion on who or what that designer might have been. On the contrary, said the judge, the evidence presented in the case should suffice to persuade any reasonable observer that the purpose of intelligent design is to slip God back into the classroom through the transparent device of refusing to mention his name. The Dover School Board's intelligent-design policy is unconstitutional. The board will pay all costs of the plaintiffs. Case closed.

The evidence, said the judge, should persuade a reasonable person that the purpose of intelligent design is to slip God into the classroom through the transparent device of refusing to mention his name.

By the time the holidays had passed, the stunned silence following the court's decision was followed by a fusillade of attacks from Discovery Institute personnel, including Bruce Chapman himself, who appeared on a Salem Radio Network talk show to denounce the judge as a "judicial activist" and his decision as an example of unwarranted judicial intrusion into academic freedom—a concept now stood on its head to protect the rights of outsiders to dictate educational policy to teachers rather than the other way around.

One point made over and over by the losing side in Dover is that the decision has the force of law only in the middle of Pennsylvania's three federal judicial districts; therefore, intelligent design still has a clean bill of health in all the other areas of the country where advocates have brought it to the attention of school authorities. There are a lot of them. School districts and/or state boards of education in Texas, Kansas, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, and California have given intelligent design some level of approval in their curricular guidelines.

In reality, Judge Jones' decision should give a strong warning to anyone thinking of ignoring its provisions. Though it is "law" only in mid-Pennsylvania, the decision is so thorough and detailed in citation of constitutional precedent that most other courts would be likely to pay a great deal of attention to it, rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel. Other such midlevel decisions have proved decisive in earlier creationism cases: McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education technically applies only to the eastern district of Arkansas, but the Supreme Court has cited it approvingly in decisions on church-state issues.

There is also a financial impact in Jones' decision. School districts and state boards may not want to embark on a fight over intelligent design if there's a chance that, as in Pennsylvania, they might find themselves liable for millions of dollars in court and lawyer costs. There are already rumors that cooler heads are prevailing in some of the ongoing state disputes.

For local observers of the evolution wars, perhaps the most interesting aftereffect of the Dover bring-down is: What will the long-term impact on the Discovery Institute be? A number of former contributors have already cut back or eliminated support. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has pledged nearly $1 million a year for 10 years to the transportation arm of the institute, is known to be both uncomfortable with the adverse publicity that's come its way through funding an anti-Darwin organization and concerned that some of the funds earmarked for transport issues have been applied to other areas of Discovery's operations, including a substantial portion of Chapman's $120,000-a-year salary.

While trying to maintain a position above the partisan fray, the Discovery Institute has found itself more and more isolated ideologically. Former fellows have departed, concerned by what they see as a drift away from policy issues toward doctrinaire religiosity. It has not escaped the notice of those who question the nonpartisan bona fides of the institute that the executive director, Steven Buri, is a member of the fundamentalist Christian Antioch Bible Church of Kirkland, which describes its congregation as "not a collection of people to whom paid clergy minister" but "a called out collection of ministers who are doing God's work in the world." Further, "We believe that God gives His Church a great variety of ways to influence culture, business, government, education, and so on, and that He expects His Church to be salt and light throughout the community."

Some find the recent appointment to the Discovery board of directors of reclusive California evangelical and creationist Howard Ahmanson disturbing. Others were upset when it emerged, in the online journal Salon, that in the summer of 2000, Discovery Institute President Chapman had counseled a breakaway faction of Episcopalians opposed to the ordination of gays on how to fund their desired schism from the mainline denomination. Chapman addressed a memo to fellow dissident Episcopalians stating that for their campaign to succeed, fund-raising was critical. But that "is going to be affected greatly by whether we have a clear, compelling forward strategy." Ahmanson money might well be available to underwrite that strategy, Chapman continued, but "the Ahmansons are only going to be available to us if we have such a strategy and I think it would be wise to involve them directly in settling on it. . . . "

The question naturally arises: With Ahmanson the single biggest funder of the Center for Science and Culture and sitting on the Discovery board, to what degree is he consulted on strategy in intelligent-design issues? (So far as the schism in the American Episcopal community goes, Chapman is no longer personally involved in the painful issue; he was received into the Catholic Church in 2002.)

Seattle Weekly began making inquiries for this story in mid-2005, but neither Chapman nor any Discovery Institute fellow has been willing to be interviewed. A last attempt to elicit comment, e-mailed to spokesperson Rob Crowther on Jan. 4, elicited the following: "With the start of the new year all of the Fellows and staff are quite busy and their schedules are completely full. I think you'll find more than enough information on our website that you are welcome to quote from. If you want to submit questions in writing, I'd be happy to pass those along and see if anyone has time to respond, but I can't make any guarantees." A number of questions were submitted; none was answered.

Chapman's friends describe him as an agreeable, low-key, generous individual; ex-KIRO-TV news anchor Susan Hutchinson, who has served on the Discovery board for 10 years, calls him "one of the finest and best men I know in this city." Others describe Chapman's apparent drift toward stark conservative positions as something of a stance: "Bruce is a contrarian, and [intelligent design] was a contrarian idea," ex–Discovery fellow Edward J. Larson told The New York Times last summer. But it's hard to hear the voice of a generous contrarian in Chapman's Dec. 21 broadcast interview with right-wing radio pundit Janet Parshall in the wake of the Dover decision: If Judge Jones' decision stands, says Chapman, "you are going to have self-censorship around this country like you have never seen. You think all that's been happening on Christmas has been under attack, simply the fact that somebody had a personal religious faith will be used against studying what they have to say. This is a remarkable victory, frankly, for the ACLU."

No one believes that Judge Jones' decision, even if it's replicated in courtrooms across the country, is going to stop the campaign against materialism and for a God-centered worldview. But it surely must be seen as a catastrophic defeat for the notion of intelligent design, and no single institution is so identified with it, and has more of its financial and intellectual resources tied up in it, than the Discovery Institute of Seattle. Maybe the group can regroup and make a comeback, but for now, the mighty wedge is irreparably blunted.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; discoveryinstitute; evolution; idjunkscience; ignorantkooks; youngearthcultists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-420 next last
Interesting that this is from a newspaper in Seattle, the Discovery Institute's home town.
1 posted on 02/01/2006 6:32:29 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 340 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 02/01/2006 6:33:40 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
With such a roster, very little of the center's research into the weaknesses of Darwinism has been of the experimental, lab-oriented, peer-reviewed kind.

With a thesis of "We'll never understand this except by punting to God on first down," it's hard to see how anyone would ever generate any research.

3 posted on 02/01/2006 6:49:01 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"A Seattle think tank"

That pretty much says all you need to know about the Discovery Institute.

4 posted on 02/01/2006 6:49:59 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I take this as evidence that liars usually don't prosper.

May DI RIP.


5 posted on 02/01/2006 7:06:28 AM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
That pretty much says all you need to know about the Discovery Institute.

Not quite all. Someone announces the results of a study affirming some aspect of evolution. Someone at DI, maybe Jonathan Wells, fires off a same-day (often deeply flawed) rebuttal. Think Carville and Stephanopolis in the Clinton Campaign War Room.

And think of the bigger picture. Science announces, DI rebuts. This is "discovery?"

6 posted on 02/01/2006 7:14:39 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Could you please explain to me just one theory of evolution that is not in dispute and has been totally proven? I am neither pro nor anti-evolution. I just can not find it within my better judgment to put my faith for truth in evolution because I can not find a consistent set of facts that actually lead to a definitive conclusion and I have no idea what intelligent design can prove other than you can not from disorder achieve order. Evolution claims the exact opposite. That right their blows evolution away for me.

I believe evolution on a macro level exists. The proof is everywhere. But as for micro-evolution, I am sorry, either their is something wrong with me or something wrong this theory. I consider myself fine. P.S. I'm still trying to digest the whole "atoms never being seen" thingy. But thats just me!!
7 posted on 02/01/2006 7:25:13 AM PST by coffee260 (coffee(I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry
... some of the funds earmarked for transport issues have been applied to other areas of Discovery's operations, including a substantial portion of Chapman's $120,000-a-year salary.

...Discovery Institute President Chapman had counseled a breakaway faction of Episcopalians opposed to the ordination of gays on how to fund their desired schism from the mainline denomination.

At least it's not about the money.

9 posted on 02/01/2006 7:48:50 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
Your complaints have been duly noted and are consistent with any rational person's perspective. A fine list.
10 posted on 02/01/2006 7:56:06 AM PST by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
How does intelligent design differ in any significant way from earlier attempts to avoid conflict with the Second Amendment prohibition of state-supported or countenanced religion?

How does

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

prohibit "state-countenanced religion?"

11 posted on 02/01/2006 8:04:13 AM PST by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coffee260

Could you please explain to me just one theory of evolution that is not in dispute and has been totally proven?

Can you name one thought of anything by anyone that that is proved or is absolute and can not be refuted.


12 posted on 02/01/2006 8:05:26 AM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
I see your list of things you find offensive about Darwinists, and would raise you my list of things I find offensive about some Creationists but why give them the satisfaction? Just a couple of general observations.

1) Some -- not all, but some -- Creationists are liars, claim factual matters exist that really don't.

2) Some -- not all, but some -- Creationists are lazy, claim they've read more than they actually have.

3) Some -- not all, but some -- Creationists are ignorant, claim they understand more than they actually do.

4) Some -- not all, but some -- Creationists are intolerant of other people's point of view and other people's religion.

On the other hand, many are honest, diligent, informed and decent people, and a few are delightful.

Bottom line -- personalities may make communication difficult, but the truth is the truth, no matter how you say it. But it's also true that the way that you say it can make it easier to understand and accept.

13 posted on 02/01/2006 8:07:50 AM PST by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Great article. Thanks for the ping.


14 posted on 02/01/2006 8:12:37 AM PST by Chiapet (The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. -Yeats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

...aside for the errors of fact.


15 posted on 02/01/2006 8:12:48 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

for=from


16 posted on 02/01/2006 8:14:32 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

BTTT


17 posted on 02/01/2006 8:21:25 AM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic

1) I don't think that evolutionary biologists (with regard to the ToE) claim to know anything about what god does or does not do. And how is this any different from a creationist or ID'er? The same complaint applies, but even more so.

2) Why is it inappropriate for scientists to claim to know what science is? I can't really think of any objection to the ToE that is sillier, except perhaps for....

3) Scientists holier than thou? How so? By studying their fields for years, and then having the chutzpah to claim that they know something about their field? Guess what? They do know more than the layman about their field! That's just how it works! I wouldn't hire a plumber to re-roof my house, you know?

4) Why should scientists debate ID proponents? First, I'm sure that most scientists have better things to do with their time, and second, ID'ers have yet to present any real science to be debated.

5) Please, Ichnuemon's posts may be long, but that's kind of the point. He is presenting just a miniscule amount of the actual science and information available that supports the ToE, and this same information gets routinely ignored. I have yet to see a creationist or ID'er on here actually address ANY of the ACTUAL SCIENCE presented in one of Ichneumon's posts. How is it bullying to present information, when the creationists/ID'ers routinely DEMAND the information, and then just as routinely ignore it? Frankly, I think that's the mark of a bully.

6) Stepping out of their proper role? By defending their work and defending their fields of study? Perhaps if creationists and ID'ers would quit attacking the sciences, then all of those folks could go back to happily researching and developing. How about you guys start leaving science alone?

7) I think you're deliberately confusing the issue with this point. Do you know how much work and study go into obtaining an advanced degree in the hard sciences? How much rigorous thought and application is involved? Believe me, it's intense. When people tell you that the ToE is basically accepted as the most legitimate explanation for the diversity of life, that actually means something. It isn't an appeal to popularity, it's just a statement of fact.


18 posted on 02/01/2006 8:27:31 AM PST by Chiapet (The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. -Yeats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

What is it about this document that caused the defendants in the Dover case to lie on the stand? Sounds like the work of the devil, not God.


19 posted on 02/01/2006 8:28:06 AM PST by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: coffee260
The problem most fence sitters have with understanding the theory of evolution is that the critics always ignore the basic central principles and divert the conversation by dwelling on the most obscure way out tangent. The evos then go into great detail giving the most likely explanation for this extreme tangent and the casual lurker is totally baffled by the argument and no closer to understanding the basic principles.

Over multiple generations, interbreeding populations gradually change their features as the ongoing process of replication, heritable difference, and natural selection adjusts the surviving population to severe pressures caused by changes in the environment. Adverse pressure can come from any combination of war/predators, disease, starvation/drought, or natural disasters including meteor strike or inevitable large scale climate change, etc.

When overall situations are good, the population breeds and multiplies becoming more heritably diverse in the process. When situations are bad, these pressures become the most severe and the only survivors to seed the next generation will be the few whose heritable differences makes the difference in whether they are 'selected' to live while the masses die. The future generations will thus all be adapted to the the distinct inherited features of the groups survivors and will tend to hold those features even when they are no longer necessary to survive the next inevitable environmental crises.

Darwin's theory states that whenever an interbreeding population is somehow geographically separated into two different groups which can't reconnect to interbreed, each group will thereafter face different environmental challenges and evolve in different ways. This process will continue indefinitely until each group is eventually so different that the two groups will no longer interbred if they ever again come in contact with each other. Once that step occurs, there will no longer be a cross mating to recombine the two groups and the process of evolving into different species will be complete.

I hope this helps...

21 posted on 02/01/2006 8:36:37 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The center's first and so far only director was Meyer, who retains his day job in the Department of Theology, Philosophy, and Chaplain Services at Whitworth College in Spokane, a 115-year-old private liberal-arts college whose mission is 'to provide its diverse student body an education of the mind and heart, equipping its graduates to honor God, follow Christ, and serve humanity.' To this end, the mission statement continues, 'Whitworth's community of teacher-scholars is committed to rigorous and open intellectual inquiry and to the integration of Christian faith and learning.' (The Whitworth connection is not mentioned on the center's Web site, where Meyer is described as holding a Ph.D. in the history of philosophy and science from Cambridge University in England.)"

How ominous! /s Pretty much any university founded more than a hundred years ago had a similar mission. That goes for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, as well as Oxford and Cambridge University in England (which the above statement seems to note as an obviously secular institution). But Cambridge was centrally religious to begin with - all its education centered around religious duty.

Christians start great institutions and liberals hijack them. Same goes for this great nation.

"The evidence, said the judge, should persuade a reasonable person that the purpose of intelligent design is to slip God into the classroom through the transparent device of refusing to mention his name."

Oh, but God is allowed in the classroom - contrary to the revisionist interpretation of the Constitution. He does not need to be slipped in, since He is entitled to march through the front door, publicly. If it is impossible for the free exercise of religion to be carried out in public schools, then public schools are unconstitutional. Public education was begun by people whose goal was educating youths about the Bible and the Judeo-Christian God. These included some of the founders of our nation. They fully understood the meaning of the first amendment, and saw Christian education within public education as harmonious and lawful.

It is unconstitutional to interfere with the free exercise of religion. Those who brought this suit were motivated by a desire to use the government to engage in unconstitutional religious censorship. And the judge ruled in favor of censoring religious expression. According to him, it is enough that a person is religiously motivated to censure their opinions. They do not even need to mention God, let alone actually impose a sectarian religious practice or doctrine.

I want to know which specific religion is established by teaching ID. What are its theological tenets? What is its statement of faith? Who practices this religion? How do they practice it? Who is not part of it due to non acceptance of its essential religious doctrines?

The Bill of Rights "countenances" religions in general (the supposed crime asserted by this author). The prohibition is of establishing a specific state religion.
22 posted on 02/01/2006 8:39:35 AM PST by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
The problem that most fence sitters have is that they're not really fence sitters - ever notice how none of them ever have a list of questions for creationists to clear up?
23 posted on 02/01/2006 8:39:41 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the excellent article!
24 posted on 02/01/2006 8:41:36 AM PST by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

Good point. All they need to do is actually go into Patrick Henry's or Ichnemon's personal sites on FR and start reading for themselves.


25 posted on 02/01/2006 8:42:42 AM PST by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
1) Big number one. Claiming to know what God does or does not do.

Who or what is this god you refer to and why does he need you to presume to speak for him?

2) The assertion that they alone can judge what is science and what is not science.

I'm comfortable with allowing scientists judge what is science and what is not science, thank you!

3) Science holier than thou.

Barf alert.

4) Refusal to debate intelligent design proponents.

Now you're flat out lying! Scientist's have debated and totally discredited every single intelligent design proponent to come along.

5) Intellectual bullying. Ichneumon's long posts are Exhibit A.

Exposing extreme ignorance as Ichneumon and many others here frequently do can't hardly be called intellectual bullying. ...unless you're feeling the pressure to extract your head from the sand (or whatever) it's buried in.

6) Stepping out of their proper role. The role of biologists should be a humble one: to work on developing useful medicines, hardy plant and animal varieties, and a general understanding of life. They have no role in politics, religion or education.

Ha! ...and what are your qualifications to determine someone else's proper role?

7) Assertions of the truth of evolutionary theory on the basis that it has been "widely accepted" or "believed by all scientists."

If you're having a problem with the truth, feel free to reinsert your head back into the sand (or wherever you keep it inserted)!!!

26 posted on 02/01/2006 8:54:41 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
ever notice how none of them ever have a list of questions for creationists to clear up?

Yep!

27 posted on 02/01/2006 8:57:31 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw
Hi there, I don't know which side to support, and I'm not leaning either way, but here's a list of seventy-five problems that I don't think you Darwinists can answer. If you all would do me a favor and drop everything to answer my obviously loaded questions, I'd sure appreciate it.

One of those pops up every few weeks or so, I guess. It would get a bit annoying after a while, if it weren't so hilariously transparent, anyway.

28 posted on 02/01/2006 8:57:34 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
In 1998, members of a Seattle nonprofit think tank drafted a secret five-year plan with an ambitious goal: to "defeat scientific materialism" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Writing down a naked admission that you're slapping Groucho glasses on religious doctrine in order to pass it off as a scientific alternative wasn't a very intelligent design on their part.

29 posted on 02/01/2006 9:02:59 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
Refusal to debate intelligent design proponents. This is offensive to American tradition.

So, I guess that George Bush's refusal to debate Michael Moore proves that Bush is offensive to the American tradition and implies that the claims advanced in Farenheit 9/11 are true.

30 posted on 02/01/2006 9:05:04 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
Intellectual bullying. Ichneumon's long posts are Exhibit A. It's very ugly and it's outside both American and Christian tradition to behave this way.

ROFL!!! Presenting facts is "intellectual bullying" and "outside both the American and Christian tradition"??

31 posted on 02/01/2006 9:07:22 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
The Communist Manifesto was also believed by all members of the Supreme Soviet.

The communist apparatchiks in power (as opposed to the useful idiots who did their bidding) didn't really believe that tommyrot any more than the Discovery Institute really believed that ID had nothing to do with religion.

32 posted on 02/01/2006 9:09:25 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
(and I don't view the theory of evolution as being in any way valuable)

That pretty much tells us all one needs to know about you and your opinion of the sciences.

The ToE is the very underpinning of much of the natural sciences. If you don't think that an understanding of biology or genetics is "in any way valuable," why should we listen to your opinion of what is or is not science?

33 posted on 02/01/2006 9:18:30 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Good article ===> Placemarker <===
34 posted on 02/01/2006 9:21:13 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
In 1998, members of a Seattle nonprofit think tank drafted a secret five-year plan with an ambitious goal: to "defeat scientific materialism" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

I guess it's irrelevant that the same situation existed back in the pre-Darwin days, but with the players reversed. Darwin was the Rosa Parks of the movement back then to eliminate the idea of theism with respect to origins of nature. Many then disagreed with Darwin but saw him as a good rachet mechanism in getting them farther toward the goal. Of course, many of those claiming orthodoxy now are simply unaware of their own origins, lost, as it were, in the mists of history.
35 posted on 02/01/2006 9:26:06 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
The problem that most fence sitters have is that they're not really fence sitters - ever notice how none of them ever have a list of questions for creationists to clear up?

I have a list. How do you prove God exists, ID exists, or creation exists? Did ID design God? Is ID God? If God created everything other than himself who created God? Does ID have a agenda? What is the ID agenda? Does creation have a agenda? What is the creation agenda? What is the philosophy of philosophy? What is the agenda of philosophy? What is the philosophy of science? What is the agenda of science? What is the philosophy of mathematics? What is the agenda of Mathematics? What is the philosophy of all theology? What is the hidden philosophy of theology? What is the agenda of theology? Are faith and belief only thoughts of philosophy? Are there any proofs that would verify faith and belief?

If the answer to all of the above is but faith and belief
in the thoughts and opinions of yourself they are irrelevant except that you aspire to a philosophy of your own opinion. However if you can provide proof or truth or refute any proof or truth of the above questions the world would be eternally grateful and we would all aspire to the same thoughts.
36 posted on 02/01/2006 9:32:55 AM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: coffee260
I believe evolution on a macro level exists. The proof is everywhere. But as for micro-evolution ...

Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.

37 posted on 02/01/2006 10:01:07 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Presenting facts is "intellectual bullying" and "outside both the American and Christian tradition"??

Presenting facts is bullying to American Creationists. Those unwilling to do the work necessary to understand science often feel threatened by other people having knowledge. Similarly for those who fear algebra.

38 posted on 02/01/2006 10:21:56 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Great article.


39 posted on 02/01/2006 10:29:59 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
Intellectual bullying. Ichneumon's long posts are Exhibit A. It's very ugly and it's outside both American and Christian tradition to behave this way. It's a leftist type of tactic: shouting down the opponent.

Gosh, that's pathetic.

If nasty Ich's big posts huwt youw feewings, then just don't wead them, baby. No one's going to make you.

40 posted on 02/01/2006 10:34:24 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (When you're mind's made up, nothing's more confusing than lots and lots and lots of facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
The problem that most fence sitters have is that they're not really fence sitters - ever notice how none of them ever have a list of questions for creationists to clear up?

There are no questions for creationists to clear up because every question has the same answer -- God did it.

41 posted on 02/01/2006 10:35:56 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Those unwilling to do the work necessary to understand science often feel threatened by other people having knowledge.

That's it in a nutshell.

42 posted on 02/01/2006 10:39:45 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic

Great job with your list! What's fun is to read evo posts below that actually CONFIRM many of your points by demonstrating their arrogance, condescension and ignorance.


43 posted on 02/01/2006 11:01:37 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
I have no idea why long, fact filled posts bother you guys. You don't read them.

Does the very existence of information of which you are determined to remain deliberately ignorant disturb you so much you can't simply ignore it, but have to prevent it from existing?

44 posted on 02/01/2006 11:07:50 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (When you're mind's made up, nothing's more confusing than lots and lots and lots of facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
I have no idea why long, fact filled posts bother you guys. You don't read them.

Does the very existence of information of which you are determined to remain deliberately ignorant disturb you so much you can't simply ignore it, but have to prevent it from existing?

45 posted on 02/01/2006 11:07:54 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (When you're mind's made up, nothing's more confusing than lots and lots and lots of facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Information? Or data? Data packed as spam to shout down an opponent? A thoughtful poster would include a hyperlink so as to not waste space and bandwidth in such a childish manner.


46 posted on 02/01/2006 11:12:05 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: plain talk; Syncretic
Data packed as spam to shout down an opponent

How can you be shouted down by something that doesn't coincide with or interfere with your posts? Nothing one person posts prevents in the tiniest degree anyone else from contributing.

What you don't like is a reminder of the sheer body of scientific evidence you have to discount to believe in creationism. So you'd rather whine until you've gotten Ich banned or silenced, which I'm sure is the goal of this little campaign. Then, having shut him up, you'll complain about the refusal of evos to debate, as syncretin did, simultaneously complaining at the lengthiness with which Ichneumon is debating.

Most would-be censors are petty tyrants.

47 posted on 02/01/2006 11:18:25 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (When your mind's made up, nothing's more confusing than lots and lots and lots of facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: plain talk; Syncretic
Data packed as spam to shout down an opponent

How can you be shouted down by something that doesn't coincide with or interfere with your posts? Nothing one person posts prevents in the tiniest degree anyone else from contributing.

What you don't like is a reminder of the sheer body of scientific evidence you have to discount to believe in creationism. So you'd rather whine until you've gotten Ich banned or silenced, which I'm sure is the goal of this little campaign. Then, having shut him up, you'll complain about the refusal of evos to debate, as syncretin did, simultaneously complaining at the lengthiness with which Ichneumon is debating.

Most would-be censors are petty tyrants.

48 posted on 02/01/2006 11:18:30 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (When your mind's made up, nothing's more confusing than lots and lots and lots of facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: highball; Syncretic
"The ToE is the very underpinning of much of the natural sciences. If you don't think that an understanding of biology or genetics is 'in any way valuable,' why should we listen to your opinion of what is or is not science?"

ToE makes up a large part of natural history. It definitely does not serve as an "underpinning" of hard sciences like physics or chemistry. Contrarily, evolution would be based on these sciences, rather than vice versa.

It is not necessary to embrace universal common descent in order to understand biology or genetics. Darwin made useful and valuable contributions to science, but the entire theory is not central to natural science in the way you are claiming.
49 posted on 02/01/2006 11:19:10 AM PST by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

The Conspiracy That Cares

Corrupting the World's Youth Since 1859


February 1, 2006

The CrevoSci Archive

Since June 25, 1999


Keyword Searches


Links


Box Scores
(All values subject to change)

Year Threads Daily Avg.
1999 42 0.12
2000 120 0.33
2001 255 0.70
2002 376 1.03
2003 497 1.36
2004 447 1.22
2005 1388 3.8
2006 170 5.31
Totals 3295 1.37

Lost Threads

%
44 1.3

Participants Banned %
1055 112 10.6

Freepdays for February

  1. [02/18/2001] Aarchaeus
  2. [02/14/2003] adam_az
  3. [02/22/2001] Ahban
  4. [02/25/2003] akdonn
  5. [02/24/2001] AlaskaErik
  6. [02/29/2000] AnalogReigns
  7. [02/14/1999] Bob Z.
  8. [02/27/1998] Bonaparte
  9. [02/07/2004] Brooklyn Kid
  10. [02/01/1998] Cicero
  11. [02/07/2004] conservative_crusader
  12. [02/19/1999] cornelis
  13. [02/22/2005] Crackingham
  14. [02/20/2000] DittoJed2
  15. [02/21/2001] doc30
  16. [02/04/1998] donh
  17. [02/01/2005] dougp59
  18. [02/28/1998] editor-surveyor
  19. [02/08/2001] exmarine
  20. [02/26/2004] ezfindit
  21. [02/15/2003] GarySpFc
  22. [02/22/2003] gomaaa
  23. [02/23/2003] Hadean
  24. [02/10/2002] I_dmc
  25. [02/11/2004] Ignatius J Reilly
  26. [02/14/2005] infocats
  27. [02/16/2005] Just Kimberly
  28. [02/11/1999] kattracks
  29. [02/27/2004] lightman
  30. [02/17/2003] Lindykim
  31. [02/14/2002] Lorianne
  32. [02/18/2005] Loud Mime
  33. [02/19/2005] Markjwyatt
  34. [02/29/2000] Mean Maryjean
  35. [02/08/2004] Mike Bates
  36. [02/22/2004] Mogollon
  37. [02/07/1999] NewLand
  38. [02/22/2000] nika
  39. [02/03/2000] nikola
  40. [02/06/2001] NormsRevenge
  41. [02/07/2005] Para-Ord.45
  42. [02/09/2005] planetesimal
  43. [02/28/2000] Politically Correct
  44. [02/08/2005] Quark2005
  45. [02/11/2003] Quick1
  46. [02/10/1998] Rightwing Conspiratr1
  47. [02/18/2000] RnMomof7
  48. [02/13/2005] sageb1
  49. [02/03/2002] scripter
  50. [02/01/2004] slowhand520
  51. [02/24/2000] Starmaker
  52. [02/22/1998] SteveH
  53. [02/20/2005] strategofr
  54. [02/17/2000] streetpreacher
  55. [02/24/2005] Teófilo
  56. [02/24/2004] TheDotte
  57. [02/20/2005] TheTruthess
  58. [02/03/2005] Tolkien
  59. [02/05/2000] truthandlife
  60. [02/24/1999] Uriel1975
  61. [02/04/2001] ValerieUSA
  62. [02/18/2000] Vaquero
  63. [02/10/2002] William Creel
  64. [02/25/2001] wolfpat
  65. [02/27/1999] xsysmgr

CrevoSci Threads for the Past Week

  1. 2006-02-01 Discovery's Creation [The rise & fall of the Discovery Institute]
  2. 2006-01-31 Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run
  3. 2006-01-31 Evolution Sunday(liberal churches attack fundamentalism)
  4. 2006-01-31 Intelligent Design at George Mason University
  5. 2006-01-31 Standard Definitions for Science Threads
  6. 2006-01-31 The Relative Longevity of Science Frauds (Piltdown Man and other hoaxes)
  7. 2006-01-30 Belief in intelligent design is pure logic
  8. 2006-01-30 Buddhism and Neuroscience [The spirit helps/owns science! YES! for capitalists]
  9. 2006-01-30 Celebrate Darwin Day Feb. 9-13 at Cornell, Ithaca College and the Museum of the Earth
  10. 2006-01-30 Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says
  11. 2006-01-30 Intelligent design is not creationism (Stephen Meyer)
  12. 2006-01-30 Scientists Find Gene That Controls Type of Earwax in People
  13. 2006-01-30 Summing Up Some Politically Incorrect Positions
  14. 2006-01-29 Design and the Anthropic Principle
  15. 2006-01-29 Intelligent Design in the Philosophy of Biology Curriculm at University of Bern (Switzerland)
  16. 2006-01-29 The Symbolic Species The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain
  17. 2006-01-27 Evolutionary Theory: Verified or Vilified?
  18. 2006-01-27 Morality on the Brain
  19. 2006-01-27 Mountain ranges rise dramatically faster than expected (Earth not as old as evolutionists say)
  20. 2006-01-27 Screwtape's 'Age of Darwinian Scientism'
  21. 2006-01-26 BBC: Most Brits Don't Believe in Evolution
  22. 2006-01-26 Fossil Yields Surprise Kin of Crocodiles
  23. 2006-01-26 Making Darwin Right
  24. 2006-01-26 Pitt Professor's Theory of Evolution Gets Boost From Cell Research [Sudden Origins]
  25. 2006-01-26 What Are Creationists Afraid Of?
  26. 2006-01-26 Why do you not understand what I say?(Understanding non-Christians)

On this Date in CrevoSci History

  1. 02/01/2005 Darwin, Evolution and His Critics - Part 2 Darwin's Escape from God
  2. 02/01/2005 Flew's Flawed Science - [critique of Antony Flew's 'conversion']
  3. 02/01/2005 Time (Magazine)to get more transparent
  4. 02/01/2004 Universe Is Not 'Billions of Years' Old
  5. 02/01/2003 Genetics: Why Prince Charles is so wrong

Deleted, Locked, or Pulled Threads

  1. 01/07/2006 Did Jesus Exist? Italian Court to Decide [Locked]
  2. 11/15/2005 'Perception' gene tracked humanity's evolution, scientists say [Locked]
  3. 04/27/2004 Stop Teaching Our Kids this Evolution Claptrap! [Pulled]
  4. 10/29/2003 The Mystery of the Missing Links (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution) [Pulled]
  5. 10/27/2003 Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution [Pulled]
  6. 10/23/2003 Gene Found for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder [Pulled]
  7. 10/21/2003 Artificial Proteins Assembled from Scratch [Pulled]
  8. 09/23/2003 Solar System Formation Questions [Pulled]
  9. 09/17/2003 Agreement of the Willing - Free Republic Science Threads [Pulled]
  10. 08/20/2003 Lice offer clues to origin of clothing [Locked]
  11. 07/19/2003 Darwin in a Box [Pulled]
  12. 07/18/2003 Unlikely Group May Revive Darwin Debate [Evolution v. Creationism] [Pulled]
  13. 07/02/2003 Unlocking the Mystery of 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' [Pulled]
  14. 06/26/2003 Darwin Faces a New Rival [Pulled]
  15. 06/06/2003 Amazing Creatures [Pulled]
  16. 05/30/2003 NUCLEAR DECAY: EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG WORLD [Pulled]
  17. 09/14/2002 Geological Theory Explains Origin of Ocean, Continents [Pulled]
  18. 09/13/2002 Oldest Known Penis Is 100 Million Years Old [Pulled]
  19. 04/13/2002 To Creationists: Is There a Global Conspiracy to Promote Evolution? [Pulled]
  20. 04/10/2002 (Creationists) CRSC Correction [Pulled]
  21. 04/04/2002 Evolution: What is it? (long article) [Locked]
  22. 03/22/2002 Evolution is designed for science classes [Pulled]
  23. 03/05/2002 Life found 'on margin of existence' [Pulled]
  24. 11/10/2001 Alabama to continue biology textbook warning sticker [Pulled]
  25. 11/06/2001 Warming makes mosquito evolve, University of Oregon scientists find [Pulled]
  26. 09/18/2001 CHEERED BY BIGOTS, SCIENTIFIC INDIA TAKES 'GIANT LEAP BACKWARDS' [Pulled]
  27. 08/29/2001 How Not to Defend Evolution [Deleted]
  28. 08/28/2001 The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [6th Revision] [Deleted]
  29. 08/27/2001 Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang [Deleted]
  30. 08/26/2001 A Scientific Account of the Origin of Life on Earth [Thread I] [Deleted]
  31. 08/24/2001 Satellites Search for Noah’s Ark [Deleted]
  32. 07/19/2001 Evolution is Religion — Not Science [Deleted]
  33. 07/19/2001 The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part I [Deleted]
  34. 07/19/2001 The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part II [Deleted]
  35. 07/19/2001 The Effect of Darwinism on Morality and Christianity [Deleted]
  36. 07/07/2001 Evolution Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks [Deleted]
  37. 03/31/2001 Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator [No Such File]
  38. 01/13/2001 A Christian Understanding of Intelligent Design [Deleted]
  39. 11/15/2000 Evolutionism Receives Another Hard Blow [Deleted]
  40. 10/10/2000 Another Lost Generation? [Deleted]
  41. 10/02/2000 God and the Academy [Deleted]
  42. 09/18/2000 The World of Design [Deleted]
  43. 08/30/2000 Evil-Ution [Deleted]
  44. 11/14/1999 Creationism's Success Past 5 Years: (Gallup: 1 in 10 hold secular evolutionist perspective) [No Such File]

The Wall
"In death, all men are equal"

  1. 1LongTimeLurker
  2. 2Trievers
  3. Ada Coddington
  4. Ahab Brigade
  5. Ahriman
  6. akdonn
  7. Alas
  8. ALS
  9. angelo
  10. Area Freeper
  11. Aric2000
  12. Askel5
  13. Asphalt
  14. biblewonk
  15. bluepistolero
  16. Boot Hill
  17. broberts
  18. churchillbuff
  19. claptrap
  20. Clinton's a liar
  21. codebreaker
  22. Con X-Poser
  23. D. Skippy
  24. dbbeebs
  25. Destro
  26. DittoJed2
  27. dob
  28. drstevej
  29. Ed Current
  30. Exnihilo
  31. f.Christian
  32. Far Gone
  33. farmfriend
  34. followerofchrist
  35. freeparella
  36. general_re
  37. geros
  38. Good Tidings Of Great Joy
  39. goodseedhomeschool
  40. gopwinsin04
  41. gore3000
  42. H.R. Gross
  43. Happy2BMe
  44. Helms
  45. Ignatius J Reilly
  46. IllumiNOTi
  47. JediGirl
  48. JesseShurun
  49. JethroHathaway
  50. JFK_Lib
  51. jlogajan
  52. JoeSchem
  53. john_baldacci_is_a_commie
  54. Justice Avenger
  55. Kerberos
  56. Kevin Curry
  57. kharaku
  58. knowquest
  59. Land of the Irish
  60. LarryLied
  61. Le-Roy
  62. malakhi
  63. Marathon
  64. masked face doom
  65. medved
  66. Merdoug
  67. metacognative
  68. mikeharris65
  69. missyme
  70. Modernman
  71. Morris Hattrick
  72. mrustow
  73. n4sir
  74. neoconsareright
  75. newsperson999
  76. NoKinToMonkeys
  77. nuda_veritas
  78. Ogmios
  79. OnlyinAmerica
  80. peg the prophet
  81. Pern
  82. Phaedrus
  83. Phoroneus
  84. pickemuphere
  85. RCW2001
  86. ReasonedThought
  87. ret_medic
  88. RickyJ
  89. RJCogburn
  90. Sabertooth
  91. ScotchBible
  92. SeaLion
  93. Selkie
  94. Shubi
  95. spiker
  96. SplashDog
  97. Stingy Dog
  98. StupidQuestions
  99. That Subliminal Kid
  100. The Loan Arranger
  101. the lone rider
  102. Tomax
  103. tpaine
  104. Truth666
  105. Turan
  106. twittle
  107. Unalienable
  108. USA2000
  109. WaveThatFlag
  110. What about Bob?
  111. winner45
  112. xm177e2


50 posted on 02/01/2006 11:21:10 AM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-420 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