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: gobucks
(Honestly, if it weren't so familiar it would be tragic. But you can type these words w/o a shred of recognition of what you are actually stating.)

(Meanwhile, starbase is off still researching Incheumon's many links and unable to debate, as planned!!!!!!!!!!)
51 posted on 02/18/2006 6:38:18 AM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: starbase

Things like this just prove one thing: unless you support atheism, affirmative action, abortion, homosexuality, pacifism, multiculturalism, or rabid environmentalism there's no reason to vote for a Democrat.


52 posted on 02/18/2006 6:48:04 AM PST by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: starbase
Well Ichneumon, I'll be honest, I have intentionally avoided conversation with you precisely because of your extraordinarily caustic style and your ridiculously long posts.

If I have ever been "extraordinarily caustic" with anyone who wasn't themselves already being either obnoxious or spreading major falsehoods, point it out and I'll be glad to apologize.

Don't you think so many links dumped on someone will be widely viewed as a diversionary tactic

No, I think it will help people realize which side of this debate actually has the facts on its side, and a hell of a lot of them. The anti-evolutionists are fond of dishonestly trying to paint a picture of evolutionary biology being nothing but an empty shell, just a desired belief wrapped in suppositions. They frequently make baldfaced lies about how there are "no" transitional fossils, "no evidence" for evolution, blah blah blah. In response to that, it's entirely appropriate to give a small taste of the utterly vast amount of evidence and research that actually underlies evolutionary biology, in order to demonstrate just how enormous of a "Big Lie" the anti-evolution propaganda actually is.

(i.e. do you think anyone actually reads so many links?)

Yes, many people do -- the people who actually want to learn. Unfortunately, this almost never includes the anti-evolutionists, who not only have failed to bother to learn the first thing about this topic before they spout off endlessly about it, but who also actively *avoid* learning anything that might challenge their comfortable fictions and bring them to rethink anything.

I'll tell you what, I will look over these transitional fossil links of yours,

I'm very happy to hear that. I don't post them just to exercise my fingers, I *do* provide them in order to provide enlightenment for anyone who cares to look further into this issue.

but you must know it will take me some time,

Of course.

and if I find them fraudulent, will you be anywhere around for me to talk with, or will you just dump even longer lists of links on me once I'm done with this task?

I'll be around.

Finally, I will say that if you really want to win this debate, you should be able to concisely list your points.

I wish that were the case, but anything short enough to earn the label "concise" begins to approach just declaring that something is so. There are more than enough "is so, is not" discussions on this forum. Sooner or later someone has to actually make a case and show support for their position, and that simply can't be done in a few short sentences. Furthermore, science usually deals with somewhat complex topics, and can't be adequately covered in half a paragraph, and ultimately science comes down to not proclamations or declarations, but about the *evidence*, and for any well-established field of science there is a *very* large amount of that.

Now as I promised, I will go and start hunting down all these links of yours, but heavens knows this will take me all day.

I understand.

I hope that wasn't your plan all along, or I will feel as if I'd been had by your "invitation"!!

No, it wasn't. My "plan" was to demonstrate that the frequent claims (by anti-evolutionists) of evolutionary biology having "no evidence" or "lacking support", etc. are a "Big Lie" of enormous proportions, and to show that on the contrary, there really are mind-boggling vast volumes of support for evolutionary biology. I've been studying this field for over three decades, and still I've only scratched the surface of the depth of the evidence. Any time I get curious about a particular corner of the field (the other day, the topic of mosquito evolution came up, for example), I can spend days digging deep on that one narrow focus, and still never come close to hitting bottom. It's like exploring a library the size of Nebraska.

This is part of the reason I have little patience for the folks (and there seem to be endless waves of them) who cavalierly blow off the entire field as "nonsense" while declaring that it's just an empty shell with no support whatsoever, or who think that despite having no real knowledge of the field they can demolish all of a century of research in evolutionary biology with some "refutation" they thought up on their lunch break.

53 posted on 02/18/2006 6:49:56 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
[Public schools are not the source of the problem -- lack of parent involvement in their kids' schools is the problem.]

Lack of Parent Involvment is the blame?

Yes. If parents don't monitor their kids' schools, and take an active role in shaping the education that is provided there, they're going to have a problem no matter *what* kind of school they're parked in.

So, logically, rationally, you are stating that not only is Gov't monopoly education the best way to furnish the minds of kids,

You have *really* got to work on your reading comprehension. I said nothing of the sort.

but that the SOURCE of the problem is the Parents??????

It is when the parents don't take charge of their kids' education, yes. If the parents aren't paying attention, the kids can be just as poorly educated in a private school as a public school.

Democrat, I accuse thee!!!!!!!!! (Fred, go fetch me a few bundles of firewood).

Oh, right, of course, only a *Democrat* would think that it's critical that parents be responsible for seeing how their children are educated, eh? Do you even listen to yourself?

Honestly, if it weren't so familiar it would be tragic. But you can type these words w/o a shred of recognition of what you are actually stating. Why is it that I have a strong hunch you have not attended a standard run-of-the-mill school anywhere?

Why is it that I have a strong hunch you haven't even understood what it is I've actually written?

Your copy of Rousseau Unabridged must be tattered and stained indeed ...

Sorry, your knee-jerk preconceptions are leading you astray yet again, *and* getting in the way of your ability to see what I actually said and did not say. Enjoy your wildly wrong conclusions, you seem to get such satisfaction out of them.

54 posted on 02/18/2006 6:59:38 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
And it seems you are perfectly willing to advocate the threat of armed police, court, and foster care action to make certain that the government removes the "beam" from the eye of Gobucks children.

And it seems that this thread is just full of folks who have substandard reading comprehension. No, I have said nothing of the sort. Learn to read, or at least stop listening to the voices in your head.

And,,,you seem content to threaten your fellow citizens with the sheriff's auction of their homes and businesses to pay for it.

Just how stupid *are* you? No, that's not what I said.

55 posted on 02/18/2006 7:01:34 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"Enjoy your wildly wrong conclusions, you seem to get such satisfaction out of them."

Hey, when I encounter an NEA cheerleader here at FR, I get skeptical. I know, I know, you have not indicated you support the NEA.

Ahem anyway ... I think the beam comment applies here...

I think somehow your words would be far more trustworthy if you'd spend a bit of time indicating how folks become more conservative and vote Republican more often as a function of being exposed to the overwhelming evidence of evolution.

But, that just is not something you are known for. It is a crying shame. Just think of it. Together, we might end once and for all this fruitless conflict, and unite to attack the real enemy! Liberal Facist/Commie Democrats who would love to legalize all sexual dysfunction, and above change the age of consent laws.

Heck ... it's just a function of imagination you know.

Sort of like what one finds out during a round of golf. I forget ... are you a golfer Ichneumon??


56 posted on 02/18/2006 7:14:13 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: starbase

I'm sure they'll show up. They just can't resist a good creationist bashing.


57 posted on 02/18/2006 7:14:58 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
"Scripture refers to the body, soul and spirit as discernible components of man's anthropology. "

I believe in god, but not scripture. Nor do I believe in ID.

58 posted on 02/18/2006 7:15:06 AM PST by MonroeDNA (Look for the union label--on the bat crashing through your windshield!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
If you do not believe that the government schools can and do send out armed police, court orders, and foster care workers to threaten parents

Where in the heck do you hallucinate that I said any such thing?

then I advise you to visit the Homeschool Legal Defense Association website. There you will find page upon page of court recorded incidents of government school bullying.

I don't doubt that at all.

Also.,.government school expenses are a significant portion of any business or home's property tax.

I strongly support voucher systems.

Just try refusing to pay the government school portion of that tax and watch what happens.

You'll get in deep legal trouble, like other "tax protestors". If you don't like your taxes, take it up with your representative in the legislature. If not enough other people agree with you and you can't get the tax law changes you want, either move to somewhere else, or suck it up. That's how representative democracies work. Not everyone gets everything they want all the time. Most people are adult enough to learn to live with it, while working to change enough people's minds to get a different vote outcome next time. But you don't get to throw a tantrum and just refuse to pay your taxes.

This are not strawman arguments.

I didn't say they were. What I *did* say was a straw man argument was the false accusation that anyone wants to teach evolution at the point of a gun. There are plenty of alternatives if you don't like your local public school -- move, send the kids to a private school, homeschool without making waves, get elected to the school board, start a grassroots effort for change, etc.

Thoughtful people will see the truth.

...and other kinds of people will get hysterical about science being taught in science classes.

Government school indoctrination is driven through police threat. That includes evolution and ID.

Feel free to send your kids to a private school, or any of many other alternatives. No one's stopping you, and no one's going to sic the police on you for it if you do it without being a loon about it.

59 posted on 02/18/2006 7:19:27 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: metmom; starbase
I'm sure they'll show up. They just can't resist a good creationist bashing.

Right, right, the creationists weren't bashing *anyone* on this thread first...

60 posted on 02/18/2006 7:20:28 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Thanks for ping.
ID is not biology. It is like blind men feeling an elephant [existence]. Evolutionists only touch life. ID is a more general theory of existence of animal, vegetable and mineral in the universe. It is much more than biology science and can't be taught in such a self-limited sphere.
61 posted on 02/18/2006 7:33:44 AM PST by ex-snook (God of the Universe, God of Creation, God of Love, thank you for life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Even in homeschooling, you'll have the problem of agendas in textbooks, parents turning out liberal robots, etc. -- at least with public schools, kids are exposed to a lot of differing viewpoints. Imagine a future where half of the population has been homeschooled in an echo-chamber of liberal propaganda, without being exposed to other students or teachers who can make the case for other worldviews.

Do you really know many, or any, homeschoolers? In our 12 years of homeschooling belonging to three differeent homeschooling groups, usually with dual memberships, I have NEVER come across the mindset you have described. While I'm sure there are liberal homeschoolers out there, I have yet to meet any. The homeschooled kids I've met are all bright and well adjusted socially. None that I have met are liberal by any stretch of the imagination and all are very aware of the social and political issues that are facing this country today. They know what they believe and why.

"...an echo-chamber of liberal propaganda," IS a public school. Kids aren't taught to think for themselves as much as parrot back what the teachers teach. It happened to me in public high scool and even public universities.

62 posted on 02/18/2006 7:35:27 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
["Enjoy your wildly wrong conclusions, you seem to get such satisfaction out of them."]

Hey, when I encounter an NEA cheerleader here at FR, I get skeptical.

Yup, there you go with *another* one...

I know, I know, you have not indicated you support the NEA.

Wow, the little light over your head *does* turn on, however infrequently...

Ahem anyway ... I think the beam comment applies here...

I'm sure you do think that.

I think somehow your words would be far more trustworthy if you'd spend a bit of time indicating how folks become more conservative and vote Republican more often as a function of being exposed to the overwhelming evidence of evolution.

Gee, you mean like these from prior posts of mine?

It's important that conservatism does not let itself be tainted by the dishonest antics of a fringe element. This way leads to political defeat, as when all eight Republican schoolboard members in Dover Pennsylvania in a Republican district were booted out and replaced by eight Democrats during the recent election, because the Republican schoolboard members had made the mistake of catering to the AECreationists, and ended up misleading schoolchildren, putting grossly dishonest propagandistic "textbooks" into the school library, and perjuring themselves under oath in a trial.
And:
ATTENTION KARL ROVE: Creationism is a hopeless issue! Keep it out of Republican election campaigns. Wanna keep winning elections? Dump ID!

Actually, it's pretty obvious he *has* dumped it -- and had never adopted it in the first place.

In fact, I often wonder whether the "You've gotta be an AECreationist to be a 'real' conservative" folks have ever noticed that the most prominent conservative commentators have all studiously avoided ID/AECreationism entirely.

You never hear Rush Limbaugh, for example, railing against evolution. And despite the press spin on President Bush's answer to the ambush question about ID, he actually *sidestepped* it, and pointedly refused to actually advocate ID or denounce evolution. And so on, and so on. The vast majority of conservative political commentators, pundits, and politicians treat ID/AECreationism like an embarrassing hot potato, best left locked up in the attic along with crazy Aunt Harriet.

And:
"ACLU attorney Witold Walczak" This says a great deal about the case, the election, and the direction of the debate.

Yes, it says that Republicans hand victories to the ACLU when they get involved in the "ID"/creationism garbage.

And:
Attacking a field of knowledge that you barely know -- and much of what you "know" is wrong thanks to creationist misinformation -- is a waste of *everyone's* time, including your own. Stop mouthing off without knowing what in the hell you're talking about. A lot of us have better things to do than correct all the misinformation y'all spew here on a regular basis. And acting like frothing scientific illiterates (okay, maybe it's *not* an act) really does *not* help the conservative cause -- it turns off large numbers of potential Republican voters in the same way (and for the same reasons) as the wackjob/enviro/feminist/"new-age"/crystal-healing/holistic/etc. "don't-confuse-me-with-science" folks turn off potential Democrat voters.

So if you really do care about conservatism -- go find a new hobby...

And:
And I can concur with several posters' observations, in that I have often tried to bring likeminded friends and acquaintances into the conservative "fold" (or at least vote for Republicans), only to find that one of their biggest reasons for declining has been the antics of the more outspoken anti-evolution (or fundamentalism-is-the-only-way view in general) members of the conservative movement. It strongly reinforces the common stereotype of conservatives as intolerant, or non/anti-intellectual. This is especially true when the person is familiar with the science of evolution, and is thus frequently astounded by the nature of attacks on it, since those attacks often make claims the listener knows to be untrue in a way that any first-year biology student would know better than to make. This is not a good image for conservatism.
And:
And I stand by my assessment of how bad it make conservatives look when some of them grossly misrepresent science and those who practice it. It only reinforces the common stereotype of conservatives as being know-nothing, anti-science, anti-intellectual yahoos. Do you think that helps attract more people to the conservative movement? Quite the contrary. I personally know quite a few people who would otherwise be sympathetic to conservatism, but who are unwilling to associate with the movement because they see too many conservatives who do actually act that way. It's the same as how many people are driven away from liberalism by the antics of the hate-America-first crowd among the liberals.
...and so on, many times over. So yes, contrary to your ignorant presumption, I *do* "spend a bit of time indicating how folks become more conservative and vote Republican more often as a function of being exposed to the overwhelming evidence of evolution". Happy now?

But, that just is not something you are known for.

Only among people who mistake their false presumptions about me for reality, and who haven't bothered to actually pay attention to what I really write. People like you, for example.

It is a crying shame.

Yes, your ability to jump to false conclusions and be utterly convinced of their reality *is* a crying shame.

Just think of it. Together, we might end once and for all this fruitless conflict, and unite to attack the real enemy! Liberal Facist/Commie Democrats who would love to legalize all sexual dysfunction, and above change the age of consent laws.

Feel free to wake up and join me someday.

Heck ... it's just a function of imagination you know.

Yes, I know that's what you rely on. Personally I try to stick with reality, and I spend a lot of time and effort working to determine what it is.

Sort of like what one finds out during a round of golf. I forget ... are you a golfer Ichneumon??

No, I never had much interest in it.

63 posted on 02/18/2006 7:48:40 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; All
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 "Birds of a feather" quote comes to mind... When one finds oneself consistently on the side of liberal Democrats, Barney Frank, the anti-American ACLU, Barry Lynn, and People for the American Way, it's time to question your judgement.

64 posted on 02/18/2006 7:53:26 AM PST by Hacksaw (Seattle fans are the new "Gorons")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
[Even in homeschooling, you'll have the problem of agendas in textbooks, parents turning out liberal robots, etc. -- at least with public schools, kids are exposed to a lot of differing viewpoints. Imagine a future where half of the population has been homeschooled in an echo-chamber of liberal propaganda, without being exposed to other students or teachers who can make the case for other worldviews.]

Do you really know many, or any, homeschoolers? In our 12 years of homeschooling belonging to three differeent homeschooling groups, usually with dual memberships, I have NEVER come across the mindset you have described. While I'm sure there are liberal homeschoolers out there, I have yet to meet any.

That's been my impression as well, but note that I was talking about a "future" situation. What I meant was if some folks here had their way and public schools were abolished, then education would "balkanize" into various islands of private schools and/or homeschooling. In that scenario, there would be a lot of liberal "enclaves" of private schools catering to liberals, and/or homeschooling focusing on liberal indoctrination.

"...an echo-chamber of liberal propaganda," IS a public school. Kids aren't taught to think for themselves as much as parrot back what the teachers teach.

Yes and no -- while there's a lot more liberal crap in public schools than most of us would like, it isn't (except in rare extreme cases) as bad as the kind of "echo-chamber" I was writing about, where it's liberal curricula taught to liberal students, with nary an opposing view or idea anywhere to be had. And again, parent involvement can go a long way towards bringing schools back to something closer to the center -- schools do lean liberal, often strongly, but when conservative parents fight for balance it can and does have an effect.

It happened to me in public high scool and even public universities.

And yet you didn't turn out liberal. ;-)

65 posted on 02/18/2006 7:58:24 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

From the perspective of a person who identifies faith with lack of justification, evolution and science appear to be more trustworthy and rationally justified system of beliefs. Such a perspective tends to discount spiritual evidence.

From the perspective of a person who considers God exists and is able to have a relationship with Him through faith in Christ, an entire new domain of the spirit is manifest. In order to develop an epistemology or new thinking in the believer that not only accounts for every piece of evidence maintained by evolutionary theory, but also to acknowledge the domain of the spirit, a new theory of Intelligent Design emerges.

IMHO, both believer and unbeliever, if honest will acknowledge the evidence used in either theory. There are many statements made by both in their particular vocabularies, based upon previous premises, which become dogmatic in their later development. Such advanced dogmas tend to cause immediate rejection by an advocate of the alternate position.


66 posted on 02/18/2006 7:58:39 AM PST by Cvengr (<;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw; gobucks
The "Birds of a feather" quote comes to mind... When one finds oneself consistently on the side of liberal Democrats, Barney Frank, the anti-American ACLU, Barry Lynn, and People for the American Way, it's time to question your judgement.

I don't know any Freeper who finds themselves "consistently" on the side of the folks you list.

67 posted on 02/18/2006 7:59:30 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Moderate right-winger
actually they use "pseudo-science" as a code name for religion

But I thought that ID has nothing to do with religion!

68 posted on 02/18/2006 8:00:48 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

That's the Dems for you, banning intelligence in favor of stupidity.


69 posted on 02/18/2006 8:01:17 AM PST by F.J. Mitchell (Let's make government a liberal free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I wish you were a golfer - you'd see things differently if you were. I'm guessing you have a trauma memory on a golf course, which goads you to never risk that sensation ever again. But I testify in all sincerity: become a golfer, I mean, Golfer, and your life will never be the same. It will be better.

"...and so on, many times over. So yes, contrary to your ignorant presumption, I *do* "spend a bit of time indicating how folks become more conservative and vote Republican more often as a function of being exposed to the overwhelming evidence of evolution". Happy now? "

Ahh. Now who's looking dogmatic. Post after post which, fairly I'll grant, indicates that folks are turned off by over zealous bible thumpers. Ok ...I'll grant these folks do not accelerate the winsomness of being in the GOP.

But that is not what I asked you. I asked you for EVIDENCE that EXPOSURE to the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION brings out the 'conservative voter' latent in some hapless Public School educated fellow.

You see, we bible types are pretty convinced of something: exposure to GOD creates GOP voters. Exposure to Darwin creates selfish survivalists who love all messages from Today's Democrats.

This is evidence by experience, and articles like the one I posted here ... where DEMOCRATS are attempting to enshrine Darwin by legal fiat ... a survivalist tactic if there ever was one.

But for the sake of arguement, I'm just hoping in that vast library of links you have, you have just 2 links to studies which show how effective the teaching of evolution is in bringing about GOP voting patterns.


70 posted on 02/18/2006 8:05:33 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
I don't disagree with anything you've written, but the fact remains that the modern "ID movement" is trying to wrap itself in the mantle of science, without having actually met the standards of science. This is dishonest, and if/until it actually does meet those standards, it has no place being taught in a science class as if it had.

It would be equally dishonest in the reverse case -- if evolutionary biology tried to elbow its way into the pulpit while falsely pretending to be revealed religion.

71 posted on 02/18/2006 8:06:59 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

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

Only one religion is allowed and its name is naturalism.
72 posted on 02/18/2006 8:09:26 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Junior
[Thunderous applause!]

Junior, archive?

73 posted on 02/18/2006 8:10:51 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

"I want ye to kill every gopher ya see" placemark


74 posted on 02/18/2006 8:17:42 AM PST by dread78645 (Intelligent Design. It causes people to misspeak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
"I want ye to kill every gopher ya see" placemark

I hope this isn't simple mockery used in place of intelligent debate, but then, who am I to judge?

PS I'm still reviewing Inchuemon's links, no opinion as yet!!!!!
75 posted on 02/18/2006 8:27:16 AM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

"Critics say intelligent design is thinly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science."

Let's see...So the opposite of that would be, "Thickly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science." And I'm just guessing here, but evolution fits that description quite nicely...


76 posted on 02/18/2006 8:28:25 AM PST by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starbase
I hope this isn't simple mockery used in place of intelligent debate, ...

No. It's a placemark. With a Caddy-Shack quote to remind me of what/where the thread topic is.

Paranoia is not pretty.

77 posted on 02/18/2006 8:35:13 AM PST by dread78645 (Intelligent Design. It causes people to misspeak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: starbase

How long will it go on? If you look at the debate in the same way that we view the crackup of the democratic party, I think the answer is self-evident. The majority of Americans rejects Evolution utterly. The best numbers they have are 6 percent in the ruling party believing it in undilute form and 13 percent total. The soft numbers give them a nod up to 40 percent; but, it's a nod, not wholesale support. The numbers are soft and are where Creationists are gaining much of their ground.

The best descriptor for the evo crowd right now is panic. They don't want to admit it; but, the evidence of their actions betrays it day in and day out. The fervor with which they hit ID is full scale lunacy. And they don't have the slightest clue that it's tangiential. ID is not religious - has nothing to do with religion. But, it serves to make their fight a two front war with both fronts advancing against them. They may think they've won something with court battles and schoolboards; but, the majority public is with Creation and ID. And you can't legislate or adjudicate that. They have to prove their case and cannot.

A key point to make is that they've pretended the theory is scientific. The crowd doesnt' believe that when it is discussed forthrightly. The longtime hidingplace has been behind science. When people don't find it scientific and they're hiding behind science.. just does them no favors. The copout on proofs drives many away as well. Once you beg off proofs, you've lost the audience with no real way to overcome it.

The lunacy is not at critical mass yet; but, when they're referring to Ken Ham and Dr. Dino as dangerous threats akin to the Taliban, it isn't far off. The fat lady has been warming up for a while. I wouldn't be too surprised when she starts belting it out. There is just too much being learned each year and the best they can do is take something that discredits them and spin it to look the opposite way


78 posted on 02/18/2006 8:36:53 AM PST by Havoc (Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"When there is a concerted and cynical effort to distort and pervert science education, don't be surprised when people start taking action in response, to set, maintain, or protect standards of education.

Yep, democrats will always try to protect their standards of education by forcing them on us just like the communists.
Nice to see you have taken their side. :)


79 posted on 02/18/2006 8:42:18 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mlc9852
"Its sponsor, Rep. Terese Berceau, acknowledged the measure faces an uphill fight in a legislature where Republicans control both houses."

I can see the democraps, liberals, socialists, and a group certain FR members uping their donations to their true champions for this "uphill fight" .... the ACLU. After all, the ACLU is hero of the left wing and evolution science agenda. If this "uphill fight" looses in the legislature (and it will), then we will see this agenda promoted through the courts. I am glad conservatives have secured a better position is the Supreme Court.

80 posted on 02/18/2006 8:43:54 AM PST by GregoTX (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Orwellian Thought Control Harridan:


81 posted on 02/18/2006 8:48:10 AM PST by wardaddy (Bryant Gumbel is a self hating bastard but it's snowing in Nashville!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
I wish you were a golfer - you'd see things differently if you were. I'm guessing you have a trauma memory on a golf course, which goads you to never risk that sensation ever again. But I testify in all sincerity: become a golfer, I mean, Golfer, and your life will never be the same. It will be better.

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

Post after post which, fairly I'll grant, indicates that folks are turned off by over zealous bible thumpers. Ok ...I'll grant these folks do not accelerate the winsomness of being in the GOP.

Well that's a start. ;-)

But that is not what I asked you. I asked you for EVIDENCE that EXPOSURE to the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION brings out the 'conservative voter' latent in some hapless Public School educated fellow.

Well, in this case I'd say it does -- if presenting the evidence that the radical anti-evolutionists are wrong gets them to tone down their public rants, it *will* bring out the "latent conservative voter", at least in a lot of *other* folks, who otherwise would have been scared off by the rants of the radicals. That's a large part of my primary reason for participating in these threads -- to try to get the anti-science folks to pipe down a bit so they'll stop scaring off a lot of conservative votes. If they weren't mouthing off so loudly and so publicly, I really wouldn't be concerned about what they chose to believe or not, nor would I be bringing up the subject myself except at rare times when it was relevant to something else being discussed. I'm not here to "preach" biology. It's just that with the anti-evolutionists being so loud and so numerous -- and so off-putting to folks who know better -- it's important for the sake of conservatism to a) try to get them to tone down a bit, and b) if that can't be done, at least show lurkers that it's possible to be science-literate *and* a conservative, come on in, there's room for all kinds, it's not all just folks itching to restart the Scopes trial.

But to address your more specific question, yes, I *do* believe that a good knowledge, appreciation, and respect for science can and does lead people to conservatism. As many have noted, in broad terms liberalism is about feelings, conservatism is about thinking/pragmatism. In my experience a good grounding in hard-nosed science or engineering produces conservatives more often than liberals -- it instills an ability to tell sense from nonsense, workable solutions from wishful thinking, and that there are right answers and wrong answers when dealing with reality. Joining hands and singing "kumbayah" doesn't get the rocket off the ground, and the parts and labor have to be paid for somehow. The more that people understand science and its methods of finding and testing knowledge, the more they become practical conservatives and the less they become starry-eyed liberals.

You see, we bible types are pretty convinced of something: exposure to GOD creates GOP voters.

I'm not sure that's true. There are plenty of liberal Christians. They may not be *your* kind of Christians, but they were exposed to God and still ended up liberals.

Exposure to Darwin creates selfish survivalists who love all messages from Today's Democrats.

Frankly, this is nonsense. There's some correlation between political outlook and acceptance of evolutionary biology, but not as high a correlation as you seem to assume, and the causation probably runs in the reverse direction -- instead of "Darwin" creating liberals, it's just that liberals are more open to the idea when they hear it, whereas not as many conservatives are (due to more traditional religious views, etc.) I've never heard of anyone who actually switched their political affiliation after "finding" evolution. And contrary to common belief, evolutionary biology really doesn't have any direct applications to politics or political philosophy. About the only non-biological parallel that's an apt one is the dynamics of laissez-faire capitalism, and as I'm sure you realize that's much more popular among *conservatives* than liberals.

This is evidence by experience, and articles like the one I posted here ... where DEMOCRATS are attempting to enshrine Darwin by legal fiat ... a survivalist tactic if there ever was one.

You're really misconstruing that article. No one's trying to "enshrine Darwin by legal fiat". As I mentioned earlier, the motive is just to keep unscientific stuff out of science classrooms. If there was a big sustained movement to shoehorn astrology into science classrooms, they'd eventually get around to putting a foot down on that too, but it wouldn't be about "enshrining" anything else, it'd be about saying, "come *on* folks, this doesn't belong in a science class, we're trying to maintain some standards." And yes, I'd be here posting about why astrology was bunk in response to folks trying to extoll it.

But for the sake of arguement, I'm just hoping in that vast library of links you have, you have just 2 links to studies which show how effective the teaching of evolution is in bringing about GOP voting patterns.

Well, I've got my personal experiences, described here, in the excerpts I posted in a prior post, and have talked abotu elsewhere.

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.

82 posted on 02/18/2006 8:51:40 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom...
...other than "the greenhouse effect", "global warming", Clovis-first-and-only...
83 posted on 02/18/2006 8:51:59 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Islam is medieval fascism, and the Koran is a medieval Mein Kampf.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
So the opposite of that would be, "Thickly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science." And I'm just guessing here, but evolution fits that description quite nicely...

Next time, try an informed opinion instead of "just guessing" and getting it wrong. See post #33 for starters.

84 posted on 02/18/2006 8:55:27 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Nope, it has already been established that you are only out for an argument for arguing's sake, so your opinions/suggestions and the like, matter not to me...


85 posted on 02/18/2006 8:58:15 AM PST by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"I don't know any Freeper who finds themselves "consistently" on the side of the folks you list."

Certainly not openly. That would get them banned, remember?


86 posted on 02/18/2006 8:58:34 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
"pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom...

...other than "the greenhouse effect", "global warming", Clovis-first-and-only...

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark!

Most folks won't get that one, but -- good dig!

87 posted on 02/18/2006 8:59:45 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin

"Thickly disguised religion ...."

Hmmm. Yes. It works, and well.


88 posted on 02/18/2006 9:01:10 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: antisocial

"Nice to see you have taken their side. :)"

But, really, it is not true. It is just a 'coincidence', governed by time and chance.

Everyone here at FR really is a friend of the GOP!! Really!!

Bob Ross, the famous artist, would call the conincidence 'a unhappy accident' on the FR canvas.


89 posted on 02/18/2006 9:04:30 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

:') Glad you *dug* it. ;') [rimshot!]


90 posted on 02/18/2006 9:06:29 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Islam is medieval fascism, and the Koran is a medieval Mein Kampf.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

"Thickly disguised religion ...."
Hmmm. Yes. It works, and well.

Thanks for the post. The critics have out-critiqued themselves...


91 posted on 02/18/2006 9:10:32 AM PST by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

I agree.


92 posted on 02/18/2006 9:11:35 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Havoc; starbase
How long will it go on? If you look at the debate in the same way that we view the crackup of the democratic party, I think the answer is self-evident. The majority of Americans rejects Evolution utterly. The best numbers they have are 6 percent in the ruling party believing it in undilute form and 13 percent total. The soft numbers give them a nod up to 40 percent; but, it's a nod, not wholesale support. The numbers are soft and are where Creationists are gaining much of their ground. The best descriptor for the evo crowd right now is panic. They don't want to admit it; but, the evidence of their actions betrays it day in and day out. The fervor with which they hit ID is full scale lunacy. And they don't have the slightest clue that it's tangiential. ID is not religious - has nothing to do with religion. But, it serves to make their fight a two front war with both fronts advancing against them. They may think they've won something with court battles and schoolboards; but, the majority public is with Creation and ID. And you can't legislate or adjudicate that. They have to prove their case and cannot. A key point to make is that they've pretended the theory is scientific. The crowd doesnt' believe that when it is discussed forthrightly. The longtime hidingplace has been behind science. When people don't find it scientific and they're hiding behind science.. just does them no favors. The copout on proofs drives many away as well. Once you beg off proofs, you've lost the audience with no real way to overcome it. The lunacy is not at critical mass yet; but, when they're referring to Ken Ham and Dr. Dino as dangerous threats akin to the Taliban, it isn't far off. The fat lady has been warming up for a while. I wouldn't be too surprised when she starts belting it out. There is just too much being learned each year and the best they can do is take something that discredits them and spin it to look the opposite way

We've refuted Havoc's rants time and time again, but he has proven himself incapable of admitting even the most obvious of errors. Take for example this documented case where he knowingly kept telling the same proven falsehood.

So it has proven pointless to try to get him to realize any of his various fallacies, errors, and falsehoods. It just bounces off his forehead with a sharp *ping*.

But if anyone else wants to see any of Havoc's claims addressed, say the word. Otherwise, I'll presume that no one else is taking him seriously either, and we can all use the time we save on better things.

But since I already had material relevant to his final "point", I can't resist addressing one of his fantasies now:

it isn't far off. The fat lady has been warming up for a while. I wouldn't be too surprised when she starts belting it out. There is just too much being learned each year

Ah, yes, the old "imminent demise of evolution".

People have been predicting that was about to happen "any day now" for oh, 150 years now.

For some perspective, check out this web page on The Imminent Demise of Evolution. Anti-evolutionists have been continuously predicting that evolution was about to come crashing down any day now since 1840... That page contains quotes predicting the "any day now" crash of evolution from 1825, 1840, 1850, 1878, 1895, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1912, 1922, 1929, 1935, 1940, 1961, 1963, 1970, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Sample:

"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its defenders at the outset. A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
-- Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution, 1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995)
But surely, Havoc is finally right *this* time, eh? Dream on. The anti-evolutionists have been fantasizing about evolution crashing down since before the Civil War... Uh huh. Sure. Any day now.
93 posted on 02/18/2006 9:15:03 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

Okay-maybe-it's-*not*-an-act placemarker.


94 posted on 02/18/2006 9:16:38 AM PST by balrog666 (Irrational beliefs inspire irrational acts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
Nope, it has already been established that you are only out for an argument for arguing's sake,

Gee, really? When was *that* "established", and how?

so your opinions/suggestions and the like, matter not to me...

A closed mind gathers no thought.

95 posted on 02/18/2006 9:17:31 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
["I don't know any Freeper who finds themselves "consistently" on the side of the folks you list."]

Certainly not openly. That would get them banned, remember?

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?

96 posted on 02/18/2006 9:19:40 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

ID is not being banned from being taught as a "science". It is being banned from being taught (discussed) at all in a public school.


97 posted on 02/18/2006 9:26:40 AM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Dude, that's BS. 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.

I hope you're not chasing down anyone who commits a faux paux and never letting them forget it. That's not science either!!!!
98 posted on 02/18/2006 9:27:37 AM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
ID is not being banned from being taught as a "science". It is being banned from being taught (discussed) at all in a public school.

Feel free to support this claim, if you think you can. The news article to which you are responding says otherwise.

99 posted on 02/18/2006 9:29:05 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
It would be equally dishonest in the reverse case -- if evolutionary biology tried to elbow its way into the pulpit while falsely pretending to be revealed religion.

This statement actually touches on the heart of the argument.

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

100 posted on 02/18/2006 9:35:47 AM PST by Cvengr (<;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | 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