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

Skip to comments.

The ‘Darwinist Inquisition’ Starts Another Round
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=169

Posted on 09/30/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by truthfinder9

It's amazing that these Darwinian Fundamentalists claim they're for science only to turn around and try to destroy any contrary theories or evidence. They're really getting desperate, the ID movement really has them rattled.

****

September 30, 2005

It’s happening again: another scientist, another academic institution, another attempt to stifle freedom of thought. The “Darwinist inquisition,” as a Discovery Institute press release calls it, is as predictable as it is relentless.

This time the setting is Iowa State University. One hundred twenty professors there have signed a statement denouncing the study of intelligent design and calling on all faculty members to reject it. The statement reads, in part, “We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor. . . . Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science.”

I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this thing is getting out of control. To begin with, the reasoning of the Iowa State professors is, frankly, some of the weakest I’ve ever seen. They give three reasons for rejecting intelligent design. The first is what they call “the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer”—which, even if that were true, would prove nothing. If certain features were chosen arbitrarily for study, how does that prove that no other features showed evidence of design? The number two reason given is “unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer.” That is a dubious claim; most serious intelligent design theorists have made very few conclusions about any such “wishes and desires.”

But the third reason is my favorite: They say it is “an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.” Now this gets to the heart of the matter. The statement goes so far as to claim, “Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the sciences.” I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.

It seems to me that the intelligent design theorists aren’t the ones trying to inject religion and philosophy into the debate—the Darwinists are, starting out with predetermined conclusions.

But it gets even better than that. The Iowa State fracas started because one astronomy professor there, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, has attracted attention with a book on intelligent design. It’s a little odd to accuse Gonzalez of being unscientific; he’s a widely published scientist whose work has made the cover of Scientific American. But that’s exactly what’s happening. And here’s the kicker: Gonzalez barely mentions intelligent design in the classroom. He wants to wait until the theory has more solid support among scientists. All he’s doing is researching and writing about it.

Now the lesson here for all of us is very clear: Don’t be intimidated when confronting school boards or biology teachers about teaching intelligent design. All we are asking is that science pursue all the evidence. That’s fair enough. But that’s what drives them into a frenzy, as we see in Iowa.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Iowa; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: allcrevoallthetime; anothercrevothread; creation; crevolist; crevorepublic; darwin; design; dover; enoughalready; evolution; god; intelligentdesign; played; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 551-600 next last
To: Amos the Prophet
There are Darwinists who claim that the universe exists by random chance

Possibly. There are Christians who are serial killers. So you're OK with the statement 'Christians are serial killers'?

201 posted on 09/30/2005 4:26:20 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing

"So once again, what is the source of this external energy?"

Hint: big, yellow, bright, often seen in the sky


202 posted on 09/30/2005 4:27:03 PM PDT by Ignatius J Reilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

I am sitting in Windsor Ontario at a WIFI equipped bar, killing three hours before I have to pick my daughter up at the train station. This ID thread was just what the doctor ordered.

Thank you everybody!


203 posted on 09/30/2005 4:27:09 PM PDT by RightInEastLansing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Yes, I agree. Just the other day, the sun created a new Lexus for me. Thank you for finally solving the mystery!


204 posted on 09/30/2005 4:28:34 PM PDT by RightInEastLansing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
News Flash: Most design supporters are practicing scientists.

That's interesting. There are many "design" supporters on this thread. Would all of those who are indeed "practicing scientists" please identify yourselves, and your relevant credentials and areas of research?

205 posted on 09/30/2005 4:28:44 PM PDT by MRMEAN (Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of congress;but I repeat myself. Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing
Do you not understand the clear meaning of his words?

I'm sure what's confusing everyone is that neither "Darwinism" nor evolutionary theory say anything about the universe existing by random chance. When faced with such nonsense, it's natural to try and elicit the intended meaning.

206 posted on 09/30/2005 4:29:25 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
My low opinion of their knowledge of science, you bet.

No, your low opinion of their ability to run their own local affairs. You're not alone, it's a typical Democrat reaction.

the Creationist Hitler

Well, look who's playing the Nazi card. And very clumsily at that.

207 posted on 09/30/2005 4:31:37 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Ignatius J Reilly
And you of course have evidence to support the notion that solar energy can reverse entropy to the requisite level required for abiogenesis? Please explain this process to me. This is going to be great!
208 posted on 09/30/2005 4:32:44 PM PDT by RightInEastLansing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing
I don't know any Darwinists who cite random chance--they cite natural selection. The simple meaning of "There are Darwinists who claim that the universe exists by random chance." strikes me as odd. Darwinists don't usually meddle in astrophysics. This makes me think the author of that sentence probably meant "darwinists claim evolution of species is the result of random chance." This, I would support as partly accurate about Darwinist views. Chance results in a variety of mutations. The best are selected and passed on to future generations.

Long story short, I do not understand the clear meaning of his words. That's why I asked the question.

209 posted on 09/30/2005 4:33:03 PM PDT by DC Bound (American greatness is the result of great individuals seeking to be anything but equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
It's a pretty easy distinction to make: If the teachers are citing the Bible as a science source, then you can begin to make a church/state issue out of it. If they're citing Dembski and Behe, you can't.
210 posted on 09/30/2005 4:34:17 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa

"I'm sure what's confusing everyone is that neither "Darwinism" nor evolutionary theory say anything about the universe existing by random chance. When faced with such nonsense, it's natural to try and elicit the intended meaning."

I guess you never met my seventh grade biology teacher.


211 posted on 09/30/2005 4:35:42 PM PDT by RightInEastLansing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
I am astounded that so many people who I thought were conservative are as bigoted as liberal secular humanists. Evolution is a farce,a legend, a fable made up by deceivers and children to explain away the knowledge of the one true God who is their creator and at whose feet we all shall bow.
You silly evolutionist kooks who believe you are descended from tadpoles and apes (hee, hee) are not worth arguing with as your prejudice and pride are excessive.
212 posted on 09/30/2005 4:37:16 PM PDT by wgeorge2001 (For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet

that's like saying there are religious people who burn witches.


213 posted on 09/30/2005 4:37:35 PM PDT by drhogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

Can we please stop using the grating redundancy 'random chance'? :-)


214 posted on 09/30/2005 4:37:47 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: drhogan
my understanding was that darwin was interested in the origin of species, not the origin of life. does anyone on this thread know if darwin ever claimed that life originated from non-living matter?

His actual, published theory said that the first life was "breathed by the Creator." (Origin of Species, last page.) In one of his diaries (not intended to be published, and published only long after his death), he speculated that life may have begun in a puddle of chemicals on the early earth. But that was clearly speculation; he never published it because he had no evidence for it.

215 posted on 09/30/2005 4:39:01 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing
"Until the Darwinian fundamentalists can demonstrate a 'natural' way to significantly reverse entropy, they should bow to the statisticians."

This statement of yours shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Inside a closed system the entropy is increasing but that says nothing how parts of that system behave. Please go and read some science books about that before repeating such nonsense.

Example:
Ever thought about what happens digesting food?
The entropy in the system man-meal is growing but man has after his way back form bathroom (toilet for all non-US) a lower entropy as before - he gained energy. What's left in the bath has a much higher entropy. There your argument goes down the drain.
216 posted on 09/30/2005 4:40:31 PM PDT by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DC Bound

"I'm sure what's confusing everyone is that neither "Darwinism" nor evolutionary theory say anything about the universe existing by random chance. When faced with such nonsense, it's natural to try and elicit the intended meaning."

So you have no problem with public educators teaching our children that there is very little evidence supporting a random origin to life, while there is significant statistical evidence supporting the non-random origin of life?


217 posted on 09/30/2005 4:41:17 PM PDT by RightInEastLansing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

thank you!


218 posted on 09/30/2005 4:42:06 PM PDT by drhogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing

a "random origin of life" would seem to contradict basic scientific principles.
what public school teachers happen to teach is often far removed from scientific thinking.


219 posted on 09/30/2005 4:44:56 PM PDT by drhogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: wgeorge2001
I am astounded that so many people who I thought were conservative are as bigoted as liberal secular humanists. Evolution is a farce,a legend, a fable made up by deceivers and children to explain away the knowledge of the one true God who is their creator and at whose feet we all shall bow.

You silly evolutionist kooks who believe you are descended from tadpoles and apes (hee, hee) are not worth arguing with as your prejudice and pride are excessive

This is a parody, right?

220 posted on 09/30/2005 4:45:30 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: drhogan

goodnite, everybody. i'm going to bed. have fun!


221 posted on 09/30/2005 4:46:03 PM PDT by drhogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: inquest
If the teachers are citing the Bible as a science source, then you can begin to make a church/state issue out of it. If they're citing Dembski and Behe, you can't.

You mean, the Dembski who said

Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.

and

ID is part of God's general revelation

and

Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ.

No church/state issue there, huh?

222 posted on 09/30/2005 4:47:43 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
"This statement of yours shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Inside a closed system the entropy is increasing but that says nothing how parts of that system behave. Please go and read some science books about that before repeating such nonsense."

So please show me an example of reverse entropy occuring in nature comparable to the act of animating the inanimate? You do understand that you must show me a natural example, i.e. devoid of intelligent, living, input.

Good luck and thanks for playing!
223 posted on 09/30/2005 4:51:12 PM PDT by RightInEastLansing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing
"I'm sure what's confusing everyone is that neither "Darwinism" nor evolutionary theory say anything about the universe existing by random chance. When faced with such nonsense, it's natural to try and elicit the intended meaning."

So you have no problem with public educators teaching our children that there is very little evidence supporting a random origin to life, while there is significant statistical evidence supporting the non-random origin of life?

1) Just for the record, I didn't make the statement you quoted in your post. That said, I agree with it. Evolution is not entirely about random chance, and calling it that is either ignorance or an attempt to minimalize the evolutionist argument that change is a product of natural selection. Anyone with a beef about evolution needs to make the case against natural selection.

2) I have not stated an opinion about public educators. But as you state the proposition, you mischaracterize. The school board wants a short statement to be read that tells kids there are challenges to evolution. That is factually accurate. I don't have a problem with kids making up their own minds. The only thing science has to fear is a shortage of new ideas. Over time, no matter how many dead ends we run down, we will continue to get closer to the truth. The very point of science is that nothing is ever beyond reevaluation based on new evidence. People who want to squelch new ideas are not interested in science.

224 posted on 09/30/2005 4:51:47 PM PDT by DC Bound (American greatness is the result of great individuals seeking to be anything but equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
EEK! He expressed a religious view!

Too bad it was in a book that talked about the relationship between science and religion. Other scientists do that all the time of course without raising anybody's eyebrows, as long as they're doing it with approved theories.

225 posted on 09/30/2005 4:53:37 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing
So please show me an example of reverse entropy occuring in nature comparable to the act of animating the inanimate?

If you're under the impression there is a significant entropy difference between a live body and a dead body, or for that matter between a live body and a similar mass of water, please disabuse yourself.

226 posted on 09/30/2005 4:55:20 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: wgeorge2001
I am astounded that so many people who I thought were conservative... ...at whose feet we all shall bow.

All the conservatives I know refuse to bow at anyone's feet. Are you a troll?

227 posted on 09/30/2005 4:55:40 PM PDT by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing
Yes, I agree. Just the other day, the sun created a new Lexus for me.

Of course. When a creationist can't refute a point, he simply introduces a logical fallacy. In this case, you simply change the subject.
228 posted on 09/30/2005 4:55:59 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Can we please stop using the grating redundancy 'random chance'? :-)

What about Random Normal Deviates?

229 posted on 09/30/2005 4:56:32 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: inquest
So ID is part of 'God's general revelation', and a means to rid people of materialism, but it's not religious, it's scientific.

Any other scientific theories you'd care to name with similar qualities?

230 posted on 09/30/2005 4:57:39 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Are you a troll?

If you have to ask....

231 posted on 09/30/2005 5:00:27 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
So ID is part of 'God's general revelation', and a means to rid people of materialism, but it's not religious, it's scientific.

Well, since Dembski believes that ID is scientifically accurate, and since he believes in God, you can put two and two together as well as I can. What you can't do is make the realistic claim that because a proponent of a particular theory has a religious view surrounding it, any teaching of the theory in a public school is thus tainted as a church/state violation.

It really isn't that hard to look at what's going on in a classroom and see if what's being taught is or is not religion. If they're examining scientific evidence, and not introducing any religious texts or religious dogma, then it's not religion, regardless of how strongly you disagree with the conclusions they're drawing from the evidence.

232 posted on 09/30/2005 5:03:00 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852; jennyp
I thought we had proof of the holocaust.

And the Revisionists just want to teach the flaws in that proof.

233 posted on 09/30/2005 5:03:52 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Well, I'm willing to listen to their argument but I doubt my mind would be changed. It has been proved that the holocaust happened and there are witnesses to it, writings of it, pictures of it - but people are free to reject that evidence if they so choose.


234 posted on 09/30/2005 5:06:59 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
All the conservatives I know refuse to bow at anyone's feet.

He was referring to God's feet. So all the conservatives you know are atheist? I'm not doubting you, because I know there are atheist conservatives, but I don't think they constitute the majority.

235 posted on 09/30/2005 5:07:54 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I guess this is an example of a solid news/activism post. Far unlike some other posts that have been relegated to other categories.


236 posted on 09/30/2005 5:08:40 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: inquest
He was referring to God's feet.

Does god wear shoes?

237 posted on 09/30/2005 5:09:55 PM PDT by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: porkchops 4 mahound

This sentence is false.


238 posted on 09/30/2005 5:12:25 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
I guess this is an example of a solid news/activism post.

The mods have a difficult job. They can't be expected to place every thread in the right forum. Not a big deal.

239 posted on 09/30/2005 5:20:51 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing

Photosynthesis.


240 posted on 09/30/2005 5:30:48 PM PDT by MRMEAN (Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of congress;but I repeat myself. Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: etlib
"Whether something has led to other discoveries is not of significance in whether it can be studied scientifically or not."

Sorry, but precisely that is the main error in the ID concept. For a scientific theory there must be at least one prediction you can test.

IC?
Sorry again. Imagine yourself standing on an ice block used as a bridge over ditch. It's summer time and so the ice is melting. You probably know what is going to happen? At some time the ice will break. But what did we have just the very moment before that happened? Before the very last crystal melts keeping the bridge alive? The bridge was irreducible complex. Well, someone may mention, that another crystal may melt. OK, let all crystals melt till that point, that independent on what is next crystal going to melt the bridge will break.

1. Do you need an intelligent designer to build such a bridge? No, just try and error, but you still don't know if this solution is the only one.

2. The aim. What was the use of the ice block? Was it the aim of block to be a bridge. Because without an aim you can't define what is the use of something. Maybe the ice was just for cooling the water in the ditch. So without an designer with an aim you can't have any kind of IC!

IC is a circular reference to ID.
241 posted on 09/30/2005 5:32:10 PM PDT by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Gracias.


242 posted on 09/30/2005 5:34:53 PM PDT by Junior (Some drink to silence the voices in their heads. I drink to understand them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing

"Yes, I agree. Just the other day, the sun created a new Lexus for me. Thank you for finally solving the mystery!"

Yes, and the sun has created the fuel for you to run your Lexus and the energy to melt the ore for your Lexus and finally another sun bred the iron atoms for your Lexus.


243 posted on 09/30/2005 5:48:36 PM PDT by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
Your irreducible complexity example doesn't quite make sense. I get your point about about having an "aim" and having a designer. Function is integral to the concept of IC in that the whole machine performs that function, and is in a sense defined by its capacity to perform the function. You state that IC is a circular reference to ID. The same logic would mean that natural selection is a circular reference to evolutionism. Is that significant?

The example of a block of ice bridging a ditch doesn't quite rise to an irreducibly complex machine. Unless you refer to the atoms in the ice, the block of ice has no components. It is not complex. The argument for IC is that multiple components of a complex machine can't be accounted for by sudden, direct evolutionary paths (evolutionists don't dispute this) and cannot be accounted for by small successive steps (evolutionists do dispute this.) The block of ice idea just isn't an adequate example of IC. Try to make your argument with flagellum.

244 posted on 09/30/2005 5:48:51 PM PDT by DC Bound (American greatness is the result of great individuals seeking to be anything but equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
If you and your buddies are really conservatives as you claim, you wouldn't care if people are taught different viewpoints.

You are so right! I've been trying to get hot girl-on-girl action into sex ed forever, but the reactionaries don't want kids taught different viewpoints! What a bunch of Luddites!

245 posted on 09/30/2005 5:56:09 PM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: trisham
Maybe just a case of "science envy"?

Is that what ID/Creationism foes believe? I must say, I'm surprised. I am neither envious nor anti-science.

You didn't address my reasoning at all.

Why are religious people attempting to put their particular creation story into science classrooms? They must desire the authority of science to be placed on ID.

At the same time, many creationists label evolution as a "religion". Why does this make evolution less valid in their eye? Do they think that religions are somehow inferior?

They must have a confidence problem in their faith to desire the blessings of science on it, and at the same time an inferiority complex about religion in general.

I really can't think of another reason they'd want ID in science class while continually labeling evolution a religion.

246 posted on 09/30/2005 5:56:11 PM PDT by narby (Creationists and IDers, Stuck On Stupid for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
Ever heard of an uncaused cause?

System with parts (A B C) is irreducibly complex

This means system (A B C) has function but any subset of parts does not have function. The argument is that A B C cannot be reached via single steps going through these functionless subsets. True, however:

step 1) D (functional)

step 2) D E (functional)

step 3) D E B (functional)

step 3) D E B C (functional)

step 4) D A B C (functional)

step 5) A B C (functional + IC)

An IC system is reached via gradual single steps where each step is functional.

247 posted on 09/30/2005 5:58:54 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing
"So please show me an example of reverse entropy occuring in nature comparable to the act of animating the inanimate? You do understand that you must show me a natural example, i.e. devoid of intelligent, living, input."

Breakfast, lunch and supper.

I suppose your steak is dead then you eat it.
Also is it possible today to make artificial sugar in a chemical process. Don't mix it up with artificial sweeter. Well, it is a far more expensive than collecting cane sugar. The sugar is just for the case you want real dead matter.
248 posted on 09/30/2005 6:05:15 PM PDT by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

The first two reasons are stupid and dismissed outright. The solution for the 3rd is for scientists to prove macro evolution with NO supernatural causes can explain all the points ID makes. ID is already a success in that regard in that Biology textbooks are on the defensive trying to explain (pathetic as it may be) how eyes evolved. Macro evolution has no science except that "given enough time stuff happens".


249 posted on 09/30/2005 6:21:24 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
That would be kinda pointless.
250 posted on 09/30/2005 6:22:01 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 551-600 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