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

Skip to comments.

`Intelligent design' ban is proposed (Democrats to the Rescue!!)
Chicago Tribune ^ | 17 Feb 2006 | Tribune News Services

Posted on 02/18/2006 1:56:49 AM PST by gobucks

MADISON, Wis. -- Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill to ban public schools from teaching "intelligent design" as science, saying "pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom.

The proposal is the first of its kind in the country, the National Conference of State Legislatures said.

The measure would require science curriculums to describe only natural processes and follow definitions from the National Academy of Sciences.

Its sponsor, Rep. Terese Berceau, acknowledged the measure faces an uphill fight in a legislature where Republicans control both houses.

Berceau said science education is under attack across the country as proponents of intelligent design promote alternatives to Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design holds that details in nature are so complex they are best explained as products of a designer, not only unguided natural selection of mutations as with Darwin.

Critics say intelligent design is thinly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science. In December, a federal judge in Pennsylvania outlawed a school district's policy of reading a statement to classes citing intelligent design options.

(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: biology; communist; crevolist; darwin; evolution; intelligentdesign; law; monkeygod; science; soupmyth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-197 next last
To: Ichneumon

The item below is not an isolated case. This is the strategy:

First, opponents get ID banned from being taught as a science.
Then they get it banned from being taught by social studies teachers who do not have enought "science" background.
Then they get it banned from being taught at all, even as an elective, because of "separation of church and state"

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:C4VJRoQIz8IJ:www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/17/evolution.debate.ap/index.html+social+studies+teacher+intelligent+design&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

CALIIFRONIA DISTRICT TO STOP TEACHING 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN'

Tuesday, January 17, 2006; Posted: 2:38 p.m. EST (19:38 GMT)
Frazier Mountain High School will stop teaching "Philosophy of Design." RELATED
• El Tejon Unified School District

FRESNO, California (AP) -- Under legal pressure, a rural school district agreed Tuesday to stop offering high school students an elective philosophy course on "intelligent design," an advocacy group said.

A group of parents had sued the El Tejon school district in federal court last week, saying it violated the constitutional separation of church and state by offering "Philosophy of Design," a course taught by a minister's wife that advanced the notion that life is so complex it must have been created by some kind of higher intelligence.

Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the parents, said Frazier Mountain High agreed to drop the class.

"This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class," Khan said.

District officials did not immediately return calls for comment.

The settlement was announced just before a federal judge was scheduled to hold a hearing on whether to halt the class midway through the monthlong winter term.

In a landmark lawsuit, Americans United successfully blocked the Dover, Pennsylvania, school system last month from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science.

However, some activists contended that Jones' ruling opened the door to teaching intelligent design in philosophy or religion classes.

El Tejon Superintendent John Wight said the subject was proper for a philosophy class. But Americans United argued the course relied almost exclusively on videos that presented religious theories as scientific ones.

The high school in the Tehachapi Mountains about 75 miles north of Los Angeles draws 500 students from a dozen small communities.

Sharon Lemburg, a social studies teacher and soccer coach who taught "Philosophy of Design," defended the course in a letter to the weekly Mountain Enterprise. "I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach," she
wrote.

Similar battles over intelligent design are being fought in Georgia and Kansas.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:C4VJRoQIz8IJ:www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/17/evolution.debate.ap/index.html+social+studies+teacher+intelligent+design&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1


101 posted on 02/18/2006 9:36:20 AM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: starbase
[Take for example this documented case where he knowingly kept telling the same proven falsehood.]

Dude, that's BS.

No, it's a description of the exchange.

I asked him directly if he misrepresented the ages of the skins vis-a-vis the bones, and he said no, he just referred to a misrepresentation made by someone else.

Where and when was this?

To date, whenever it has been brought up, Havoc has failed to even admit that Hovind's claim was in error, unless I've managed to miss a critical post. As recently as two months ago (the original exchange was over a year ago), he blustered and tried to change the subject when reminded of the falsehood, without admitting error on his or Hovind's part.

I hope you're not chasing down anyone who commits a faux paux and never letting them forget it.

No, I'm pointing out when an anti-evolutionist is unable to admit even the most obvious of his own errors, or the errors of another anti-evolutionist, and how he *repeats* the false claim even after it has been demonstrated to him that it is false.

That's not science either!!!!

I didn't say it was. It was an examination of someone's abysmal inability to be accurate or honest.

102 posted on 02/18/2006 9:45:01 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Evolutionary biology without faith in God has created a pulpit in the classroom forming its religion worshipping rationalism and the Creation.

Wrong.

Scripture is God's Word revealed to man, but religion is not a revelation, rather it is a system of worship. By excluding God or faith in Him from evolutionary theory or the classroom, the state is establishing a religion.

Wrong again.

103 posted on 02/18/2006 9:46:41 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

Of course the really fun thing about this bill is that it would also ban the teaching of string theory--that damned massless scalar field it predicts just isn't observed in nature. Only teach 'natural processes'.


104 posted on 02/18/2006 9:48:17 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"If you have any accusations to make towards any specific Freepers, now would be a good time to make them. If you don't, you should retract your cowardly and slanderous implication. Have you enough honor?"

Tell me you are kidding. Please. In these days of the Verona translations from the KGB files, please tell me that you believe a few, perhaps a bunch of False Flag Freepers have free reign here.


105 posted on 02/18/2006 9:49:20 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I encourage you to study epistemology.


106 posted on 02/18/2006 9:51:33 AM PST by Cvengr (<;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Not to mention imaginary numbers,...the nerve of the idea...;^)


107 posted on 02/18/2006 9:53:42 AM PST by Cvengr (<;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
This forum purports to be in support of high educational standards, against the NEA bureaucracy etc.

How can our kids compete with foreign engineers whose math and science curriculums aren't watered down by myth and superstition ?


BUMP

108 posted on 02/18/2006 9:57:40 AM PST by capitalist229 (Keep Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Amused Placemarker


109 posted on 02/18/2006 9:57:48 AM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
First, opponents get ID banned from being taught as a science. Then they get it banned from being taught by social studies teachers who do not have enought "science" background. Then they get it banned from being taught at all, even as an elective, because of "separation of church and state"

You are grossly misrepresenting what occurred in the El Tejon case. The presentation was so overtly religious, that even the Discovery Institute (the foremost "Intelligent Design" organization) had its lawyer send the school a letter asking them to in effect "cease and desist" from calling its course "intelligent design":

"We support efforts to teach different scientific views on the subject of origins in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner, which allows students to study the strengths and weaknesses of various views. But if this course is intended to present purely scientific views on intelligent design, the content needs to be reformulated and creationist material should be removed. Otherwise, change the title of the course so it does not misrepresent the theory of intelligent design. A final acceptable remedy is to simply cancel the course."

110 posted on 02/18/2006 9:58:32 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
I encourage you to study epistemology.

Oh, I have. That's how I know I'm on firm ground when I tell you you're speaking nonsense.

111 posted on 02/18/2006 10:00:10 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: starbase

Don't go down their rabbit holes starbase. It's one of their tactics.


112 posted on 02/18/2006 10:01:45 AM PST by zeeba neighba (Onward into the fog, dear evolutionaries, there's tapioca just ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: metmom

lol


113 posted on 02/18/2006 10:04:43 AM PST by zeeba neighba (Onward into the fog, dear evolutionaries, there's tapioca just ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: zeeba neighba
Don't go down their rabbit holes starbase. It's one of their tactics.

Well I must know!!! Fear not, dear Zeeba, I have the free time! :-)

But if I'm not satisfied I won't make a habit of it! Thanks again.
114 posted on 02/18/2006 10:06:36 AM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the parents, said Frazier Mountain High agreed to drop the class.

"This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class," Khan said.

115 posted on 02/18/2006 10:07:20 AM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
["If you have any accusations to make towards any specific Freepers, now would be a good time to make them. If you don't, you should retract your cowardly and slanderous implication. Have you enough honor?"]

Tell me you are kidding. Please.

I am not kidding.

In these days of the Verona translations from the KGB files, please tell me that you believe a few, perhaps a bunch of False Flag Freepers have free reign here.

Your reference to translations and the KGB mean nothing to me, perhaps they relate to something on a thread I haven't visited, but my point is that if you have specific accusations to make against specific Freepers, you should do so outright, instead of making vague, broad implications which sound as if you are accusing people on this thread of something without having the guts to say it outright, or as if you just wanted to leave a broad slur in the hopes of tarring as many targets as possible without having to actually back it up.

So again I say, if you have specific accusations against specific Freepers, make them, and if you don't, you might want to think about retracting your broad slur if you didn't mean for it to reflect on present company. Or just fail to do so and damage your own honor if you wish.

116 posted on 02/18/2006 10:07:56 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: starbase

okay, but they all end up in some cube thing, lol.


117 posted on 02/18/2006 10:09:15 AM PST by zeeba neighba (Onward into the fog, dear evolutionaries, there's tapioca just ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: zeeba neighba; starbase
Don't go down their rabbit holes starbase. It's one of their tactics.

Yes, yes, pay no attention to the scientific evidence, you might pollute your mind with actual knowledge, and we know where *that* leads...

118 posted on 02/18/2006 10:09:40 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Revisit your notes regarding faith, psychological certainty, and discernment between the soul and spirit from Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

If one only studies from post enlightenment epistimology, don't be surprised if one never fully comprehends the meaning of righteous justified faith, but confuses knowledge with rational justification in unrighteous arrogance.


119 posted on 02/18/2006 10:09:55 AM PST by Cvengr (<;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

lol. I won't answer, it's dangerous for my FR health.


120 posted on 02/18/2006 10:11:45 AM PST by zeeba neighba (Onward into the fog, dear evolutionaries, there's tapioca just ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"But be honest -- if it turned out that the truth did happen to result in more liberal votes than conservative ones, would you find that a good reason to suppress it, or fail to stand up for it in the face of falsehoods? Really? Because if so, wouldn't that make us as bad as the worst of the liberals and the Islamists? Don't they care more about political power than about truth? Don't they care more about expediency than about being right?

I'm not willing to sacrifice reality, or honesty, or being correct, for the sake of increased political muscle. I hope you aren't either."

This is a really curious end to your post. The facts are rather plain: Islamists don't believe for a second in allowing competing ideas into the minds of kids. No where do you see this message from Christians. However, liberals are a lot like this.

Evolution is not 'the truth' by the way. I like your adherence to 'the truth', but unless I miss my mark, there is no way you actually believe an absolute standard by which to say 'truth exists' even exists. Correct?

As for reality, my reality is clear: I obtained a degree in Science, based on numerical flow models using finite difference methods. I understand the power of math. I also fully understand how to abuse boundary conditions such that the results are publishable.

By what standard do I refrain from that abuse, if I know I won't get caught? Another way to ask this is plain: how does one teach 'honor'?? I'd sincerely, SINCERELY be willing to devour links you may have at the ready on that topic.

I find it very interesting you equate the expediency of the Islamists and Liberals with what the Creationist and I.D. types are trying to do. It is over the top, for I.D. types, especaially are not trying to ban evolution.

By the way, that's a golf term, over the top. It normally results in a slice.

And if evolution is actually TRUE, that what we see is 'all that there is', then by definition, I would be irrational to see my self as any thing but an entity geared to survive and pass my genes on. If I really thought it was true, I would act on it.

In fact, for years, I did. Then I discovered Gravity. Hard to quantify this thing I discovered. Certainly I have trouble coming up w/ a good math equation to describe it. 1+1=3 is my best stab at it.


"I appreciate the suggestion, but really, I doubt I'd find great philosophical revelations in knocking a ball around with a stick. "

You are correct if you are merely knocking it around. But, knocking a ball into a hole in as few strokes as possible? That experience is not for the faint of heart, nor weak of mind.

For those who actually persevere? I testify your doubt is badly informed by your lack of experience. Mr. I., you should still be in good enough health despite 30 years in your field, to walk 18 holes at a par 3 golf course. To hit the ball, as many times as it takes until you hear that sound, 18 times, of the ball thunking into the cup.

I promise the first round won't provide revelations. But by the 10th round or so, the revelations will begin to manifest themselves, and you'll see a Plato in you that you never knew was there...

It's all a question of this: what is imagination made of? Be honest Mr. I, and answer that question.


121 posted on 02/18/2006 10:13:35 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Khan is entitled to his (her?) opinion, but that's still not an accurate description of what happened in the El Tejon case, nor why. Nor is it an accurate description of what is and is not allowed in schools.


122 posted on 02/18/2006 10:13:38 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

I was going to do that, but oh boy, you did it so much better...


123 posted on 02/18/2006 10:15:05 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Actually, there are more and more articles out there making this point, and that string theorists are about to be put on notice .... that is if the definition of 'science' is actually taken over by lawyers as seems to be the case..


124 posted on 02/18/2006 10:16:38 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229

Those horrid overseas folks who get 'pure education'.... what a myth.


125 posted on 02/18/2006 10:17:50 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Havoc
Well, I don't want to put words in the man's mouth, but here's the exchange, I think anyone might get tired of being bludgeoned, so I might just drop the topic as well:

(#185)Havoc:

No, I didn't misrepresent the ages of anything. I refered to something that is said to be misrepresented by someone else. Apparently, that is equivelent to lying on some planet in this universe - which I guess would make Bush a liar; but, we must compartmentalize and esteem the two differently to save face.. lol. Next question.


In fact, I copied you to post #181 (my original question to Havoc) of that same thread, but we're all busy, so it's easy to lose track.

And BTW here's my understanding of the fossil record (before I've read your links, which I'm still maneouvering towards!!)
126 posted on 02/18/2006 10:19:21 AM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Why do you assume those who are pro-evolution are pro- forced public schooling or anti-homeschooling? That is a false assumption.


127 posted on 02/18/2006 10:25:41 AM PST by stands2reason (It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"Your reference to translations and the KGB mean nothing to me..."

That is a very sad thing to see typed. Your office must be on one of the upper floors indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers


128 posted on 02/18/2006 10:26:32 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

And as for me believing that you might be one of the folks who is false flagged here ... whether I believe it or not makes no difference. Your posts are disciplined, and thus, if you are a false flag type, you'll never get banned.


129 posted on 02/18/2006 10:29:13 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
["But be honest -- if it turned out that the truth did happen to result in more liberal votes than conservative ones, would you find that a good reason to suppress it, or fail to stand up for it in the face of falsehoods? Really? Because if so, wouldn't that make us as bad as the worst of the liberals and the Islamists? Don't they care more about political power than about truth? Don't they care more about expediency than about being right? I'm not willing to sacrifice reality, or honesty, or being correct, for the sake of increased political muscle. I hope you aren't either."]

This is a really curious end to your post. The facts are rather plain: Islamists don't believe for a second in allowing competing ideas into the minds of kids. No where do you see this message from Christians.

Oh?

Evolution is not 'the truth' by the way.

And you know this how?

I like your adherence to 'the truth', but unless I miss my mark, there is no way you actually believe an absolute standard by which to say 'truth exists' even exists. Correct?

Incorrect.

As for reality, my reality is clear: I obtained a degree in Science, based on numerical flow models using finite difference methods. I understand the power of math. I also fully understand how to abuse boundary conditions such that the results are publishable. By what standard do I refrain from that abuse, if I know I won't get caught?

You can never know you won't get caught.

Another way to ask this is plain: how does one teach 'honor'??

The old fashioned way -- by teaching the consequences of the alternative.

I'd sincerely, SINCERELY be willing to devour links you may have at the ready on that topic.

It hardly seems the sort of thing that requires extensive documentation.

I find it very interesting you equate the expediency of the Islamists and Liberals with what the Creationist and I.D. types are trying to do.

Actually, that's not what I said. I was not equating them. *You* were the one who was asking whether teaching the evidence was "helpful" to conservative voting rates or not. Thus my question to *you* about whether that was really your primary concern -- if like a liberal or an Islamist, you would abandon knowledge, promote ignorance of it, if that would "help your cause".

It is over the top, for I.D. types, especaially are not trying to ban evolution.

Not all of them perhaps, but you're naive if you think that there aren't a significant number who would do so if they could, and who work to achieve the same result by dishonrable means other than outright bans.

And if evolution is actually TRUE, that what we see is 'all that there is', then by definition,

Yet again, I find myself having to point out the most elementary fact: Evolution does *not* rule out the existence of god/gods/supernatural/etc., nor require their non-existence in any way.

I would be irrational to see my self as any thing but an entity geared to survive and pass my genes on. If I really thought it was true, I would act on it.

Then you really don't understand it.

In fact, for years, I did. Then I discovered Gravity. Hard to quantify this thing I discovered. Certainly I have trouble coming up w/ a good math equation to describe it. 1+1=3 is my best stab at it.

Um.. Ooookay...

["I appreciate the suggestion, but really, I doubt I'd find great philosophical revelations in knocking a ball around with a stick. "]

You are correct if you are merely knocking it around. But, knocking a ball into a hole in as few strokes as possible? That experience is not for the faint of heart, nor weak of mind.

I have other ways to challenge myself.

It's all a question of this: what is imagination made of? Be honest Mr. I, and answer that question.

The exploration of possibilities.

130 posted on 02/18/2006 10:31:45 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I just don't understand why after all these years of science promoting TOE, so many people still reject it.

The public is more accepting of homosexuality than evolution.


131 posted on 02/18/2006 10:33:26 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; The_Reader_David
Actually, there are more and more articles out there making this point, and that string theorists are about to be put on notice ....

They have no need to worry.

that is if the definition of 'science' is actually taken over by lawyers as seems to be the case..

It isn't.

132 posted on 02/18/2006 10:34:31 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
.... that is if the definition of 'science' is actually taken over by lawyers as seems to be the case..

Isn't it the case that the lawyers and judges are involved only to stop the ID (and before that CS) proponents from teaching their specific view of religion as science?

133 posted on 02/18/2006 10:41:57 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

Interesting that he recommends the same method that the policies on FR prohibit, isn't it..


134 posted on 02/18/2006 10:44:45 AM PST by Cvengr (<;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

The teaching of the junk science "Macro Evolution" is reason enough to keep one's child out of a government school.


135 posted on 02/18/2006 10:47:08 AM PST by DoNotDivide (Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

ME: Another way to ask this is plain: how does one teach 'honor'??

YOU: The old fashioned way -- by teaching the consequences of the alternative.

ME: I'd sincerely, SINCERELY be willing to devour links you may have at the ready on that topic.

YOU: It hardly seems the sort of thing that requires extensive documentation.

I'm sorry to see this typed too. Most folks don't understand honor. They understand reputation. But not honor. Fame, yes. Integrity, no. Someone from your side of the fence would do well to know why honor is important, and how it can be inculcated into our youth.

And honor doesn't just appear, unlike the way mold will grow as a consequence of unplugging the refridgerator.

Honor has an origin. But you don't have links for that topic, fine.

You said I was incorrect regarding your outlook about absolute truth. Ok. Do you have links which discuss your understanding about what Truth is, exactly?


136 posted on 02/18/2006 10:48:57 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I just don't understand why after all these years of science promoting TOE, so many people still reject it.

Because it's easier to propagandize against a complex topic than it is to properly explain it. For example, in the Lewinsky/Clinton matter it was easier for liberals to chant the soundbite, "it's just about sex", and easier for peoplel to grasp that concept, than it was to explain and have people grasp the intricacies of federal perjury laws, the importance of precedent, the original intent of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", the value of holding high officials to oaths and standards, etc.

Evolutionary biology takes years to get a good foundation in. But anti-evolution propaganda is easy -- it doesn't have to restrict itself to the truth or the evidence, just "sounding good" in a short anti-evolution slogan is sufficient to raise a level of doubt. And anti-evolutionists have been working hard for many years to reach as many ears as possible with as many fallacies, misrepresentations, and outright lies about evolution as possible.

Given the onslaught of propaganda it has had to endure, evolutionary biology is actually holding up surprisingly well, from a popular-opinion standpoint.

But needless to say, truth is not determined by polls or popularity.

The public is more accepting of homosexuality than evolution.

Nonsense:

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results

Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?

  Acceptable Not acceptable No opinion
2003 Jul 25-27 46 49 5
Versus:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?


Humans developed, with God guiding

Humans developed, but God had no part in process


God created humans in present form


OTHER (vol.)/
No
opinion

 

%

%

%

%

 

 

 

 

 

2001 Feb 19-21

37

12

45

6

49% of the public believe humans evolved over millions of years, while 46% consider homosexuality acceptable.
137 posted on 02/18/2006 10:49:35 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Most of the PH crowd will do much to bait intemperance. But I understand it.

They don't really believe anything but counterfeits exist.


138 posted on 02/18/2006 10:51:18 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Revisit your notes regarding faith, psychological certainty, and discernment between the soul and spirit from Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

None of this salvages your false statements about the teaching of biology.

If one only studies from post enlightenment epistimology, don't be surprised if one never fully comprehends the meaning of righteous justified faith, but confuses knowledge with rational justification in unrighteous arrogance.

I'm not confused.

139 posted on 02/18/2006 10:52:22 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; Cvengr
Most of the PH crowd will do much to bait intemperance. But I understand it.

No, you really don't.

They don't really believe anything but counterfeits exist.

See, as I said -- you really don't understand.

140 posted on 02/18/2006 10:53:15 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Ah, hello CM. Hope your saturday weather can support some practice on the golf range later!!

As for your question, a false delineation of the word science is at issue. Democrats are now appealing to force, governmental force, to affect how a single word is seen.

Scary. But talk about an Amen for the effectiveness of the I.D. position!!


141 posted on 02/18/2006 10:54:18 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
INDOCTRINATION ALERT - INTREP

The death of critical thinking!

142 posted on 02/18/2006 10:54:20 AM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; gobucks
Interesting that he recommends the same method that the policies on FR prohibit, isn't it..

Interesting that you're too cowardly to just come out and say whatever it is you're trying to imply here.

143 posted on 02/18/2006 10:56:20 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Democrats are now appealing to force, governmental force, to affect how a single word is seen.

No they aren't. You're misunderstanding your own article.

144 posted on 02/18/2006 10:57:21 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Hope your saturday weather can support some practice on the golf range later!!

I used to shoot golf in the 60s.



(Then I had to give up for college and grad school, and haven't played since.)

145 posted on 02/18/2006 10:59:03 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Government has created a price-fixed monopoly of schools that has made private schools scarce and exclusive. Then when the parent has no other choice, the government threatens parents with armed police, court, and foster care action if they do not send their child to the government indoctrination center.

Furthermore, when the people institute an alternative (vouchers) the FL SC gets activist and has the fix in.

146 posted on 02/18/2006 11:00:31 AM PST by 101st-Eagle (God http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/28/healthscience/sneinstein.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DoNotDivide
The teaching of the junk science "Macro Evolution" is reason enough to keep one's child out of a government school.

Actually, it seems that you could have used a better education yourself. Macroevolution is "junk science", eh? Feel free to support that claim if you think you can. Be sure that your response matches all the available evidence and research, and isn't just parroting something you read in a creationist pamphlet.

147 posted on 02/18/2006 11:00:54 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

So when is the book burning scheduled?


148 posted on 02/18/2006 11:01:13 AM PST by Hoodat ( Silly Dems, AYBABTU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Very well. How do you normalize the Creation with evolutionary theory?


149 posted on 02/18/2006 11:03:56 AM PST by Cvengr (<;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Thank you for the stats. I stand corrected.


150 posted on 02/18/2006 11:06:51 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-197 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