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

Skip to comments.

Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced
Eagle Forum ^ | August 16, 2006 | Mrs. Schlafly

Posted on 08/15/2006 10:11:10 PM PDT by jla

Criticism Of Evolution Can't Be Silenced


by Phyllis Schlafly, August 16, 2006


The liberal press is gloating that the seesaw battle for control of the Kansas Board of Education just teetered back to pro-evolutionists for the second time in five years. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the movement to allow criticism of evolution are grossly exaggerated.

In its zeal to portray evolution critics in Kansas as dumb rural fundamentalists, a New York Times page-one story misquoted Dr. Steve Abrams (the school board president who had steered Kansas toward allowing criticism of evolution) on a basic principle of science. The newspaper had to correct its error.

The issue in the Kansas controversy was not intelligent design and certainly not creationism. The current Kansas standards state: "To promote good science, good pedagogy and a curriculum that is secular, neutral and non-ideological, school districts are urged to follow the advice provided by the House and Senate Conferees in enacting the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001."

This "advice," which the Kansas standards quote, is: "The Conferees recognize that quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

The newly elected school board members immediately pledged to work swiftly to restore a science curriculum that does not subject evolution to criticism. They don't want students to learn "the full range of scientific views" or that there is a "controversy" about evolution.

Liberals see the political value to teaching evolution in school, as it makes teachers and children think they are no more special than animals. Childhood joy and ambition can turn into depression as children learn to reject that they were created in the image of God.

The press is claiming that the pro-evolution victory in Kansas (where, incidentally, voter turnout was only 18 percent) was the third strike for evolution critics. Last December a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, prohibited the school from even mentioning Intelligent Design, and in February, the Ohio board of education nixed a plan to allow a modicum of critical analysis of evolution.

But one strikeout does not a ball game win. Gallup Polls have repeatedly shown that only about 10 percent of Americans believe the version of evolution commonly taught in public schools and, despite massive public school indoctrination in Darwinism, that number has not changed much in decades.

Intelligent judges are beginning to reject the intolerant demands of the evolutionists. In May, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the decision by a Clinton-appointed trial judge to prohibit the Cobb County, Georgia, school board from placing this sticker on textbooks: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Fortunately, judges and politicians cannot control public debate about evolution. Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has enjoyed weeks on the New York Times best-seller list.

Despite bitter denunciations by the liberals, funny thing, there has been a thundering silence about the one-third of her book in which she deconstructs Darwinism. She calls it the cosmology of the Church of Liberalism.

Coulter's book charges that evolution is a cult religion, and described how its priests and practitioners regularly treat critics as religious heretics. The Darwinists' answer to every challenge is to accuse their opponents of, horrors, a fundamentalist belief in God.

Although the liberals spent a lot of money to defeat members of the Kansas school board members on August 1, they are finding it more and more difficult to prop up Darwinism by the censorship of criticism. The polite word for the failure of Darwinism to prove its case is gaps in the theory, but Ann Coulter's book shows that dishonesty and hypocrisy are more accurate descriptions.

Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face up to the failure of evidence to support their faith, but they are smart enough to know that they lose whenever debate is allowed, which is why they refused the invitation to present their case at a public hearing in Kansas. But this is America, and 90 percent of the public will not remain silenced.


Further Reading: Evolution

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 phone: 618-462-5415 fax: 618-462-8909 eagle@eagleforum.org

Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/aug06/06-08-16.html


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; creationism; dingbat; enoughalready; genesis1; jerklist; pavlovian; schlafly; thewordistruth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-357 next last
To: jla
I'm certainly not against this but how would it be done? There are 75 million children in this country.


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Do 2 things simultaneously:

1) Government schools should start charging tuition to parents who can afford it. Remember. If a parent paid for day care of the pre-schooler, they can afford ***at minimum** that much in tuition now.

2) Offer generous tax credits to parents and any individual or business who contributes to the education of a particular child or to a private education fund offering private vouchers to private schools.

Once there is a thriving private market in education ( in ten years), give the remaining government schools to the principals and teachers who run them now. The counties would continue to own the buildings and fields. The teachers would pay modest rest. The playing fields, gym, library, and theaters would be open to all community groups and their use scheduled by the county parks and recreation department.

Eventually, move to a completely privatized system of education with parents paying their own tuition and private charities providing private scholarships to private schools for the poor.
151 posted on 08/16/2006 12:28:06 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I have never, ever met a professional scientist who rejected the modern synthesis (i.e. that genes are the mechnaism of Darwinian inheritance, and that genetic mutation is the origin of inheritable variation).

Chinese evolutionists don't seem to have the same reverence for Darwinism that you do.

Cordially,

152 posted on 08/16/2006 12:29:18 PM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

As I recall, Copernicus was not welcomed with open arms by the Church. Mendel, I am not sure of, although I agree he was a genius.

You err that use of evolution to promote Godlessness is widespread. Many are able to see the two as co-existing.

And for the last time, just because you can't prove something doesn't make it invalid. Shades of gray, shades of gray. To me, Evo is simply grayer than ID.

My posts may be short and a little scatterbrained because I am surfing on a Treo. Not to mention that I am currently in class (EVO 101: How to enslave our children and PROFIT!!!!)

No seriously, I'm in a class.


153 posted on 08/16/2006 12:31:43 PM PDT by RippyO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: jla
And none of you, with the exception of Physicist, has proffered any rebut of Mrs. Schlafly's column.

What is there to rebut? She wrote an opinion column in which she epressed her opinion. That doesn't make her an expert in anything. She cited Ann Coulter to support her position. BFD. As much as I like AC, she's not an expert in science either. What I learned from the column is that conservative pundits must be correct in their views if they cite other conservative pundits who share the same opinion, and if 10% of Americans feel the same way, then the opinion is no longer an opinion, but a fact, even if it defies the rules of science and what is known as the scientific method and peer review.

154 posted on 08/16/2006 12:32:05 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Dante Alighieri

>>Is the Big Bang theory open to experiments?

Sure, let me know how it goes (Grin)

Don’t jump to conclusions, you just might fall. Teaching any theory as a fact is my problem, the big bang, string theory, the multiverse theory, all great stuff, just don’t teach tem as facts, that’s all, allow competing theories, and compare them in a scientific way, that’s all I ask.


155 posted on 08/16/2006 12:32:32 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
"The theory was not built by consensus, but by Darwin."

    Now that you've hung out your shingle as a biologist, can you tell me what Darwin's "scientific" credentials were?

    The fact is that he had no background in science and was not credentialed in any biological field. It is also a fact that he himself doubted his own ideas later in life and many of his claims have been discarded by contemporary evolutionists.

"The goal of any investigation is for essentially everybody to agree because the correct idea has been found. Such is the case with the origin of species."

    But not "everybody" agrees. Many scientists who (unlike yourself) have credentials in the relevant fields of biology dispute the findings that you and others take as gospel. They do not concur with your claim that the "correct idea" has been found.

    You state that you have never met a biologist who rejects current neo-darwinist belief. But I have cited roughly 30 working biology professors who have long since gone public with their belief that major components of the darwinian model are not the "correct ideas" and have not been scientifically demonstrated. This was all over the news wires and was posted and discussed here at Free Republic. Where were you? While these people were putting their careers on the line to challenge sacred orthodoxy, you apparently had your head buried so deep in the sand that you believed your own circle of academic acquaintances constituted a sufficient sampling to generalize about all biologists.


156 posted on 08/16/2006 12:33:29 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser

Fine. Teach alternate views. But ID cannot be one of them.


157 posted on 08/16/2006 12:35:49 PM PDT by RippyO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

>>>>Name calling, the last resource of the liberal, also sometimes the first.

>>You just called me a liberal, without any justification for doing so.
>>The name caller on this thread is you (and a few other lowlifes).

I did not say you were a liberal, I commented on name calling as a tactic; your own mind convicts you.

>>I'm not calling names
>>Schlafly is a whiner
>>Coulter is scientifically illiterate

Must be my eyes, looks like it to me, gotta get some rose colored glasses, that’ll fix it!


158 posted on 08/16/2006 12:40:06 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: RippyO

>>Are you calling me gay? All right, maybe I watched Project Runway once or twice but that's all I swear!

ROTFLOL

>>To be honest, where we diverge is your definition of Theism.

I am purposefully trying to cover all religions here, not address a specific one.


159 posted on 08/16/2006 12:45:41 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: RippyO

>>Fine. Teach alternate views. But ID cannot be one of them.

I personally think ID is bunk that said, I think they should be able to teach it too if it is taught, and analyzed with the same standard Evolution (or any other theory) is held to. I just think it looks bad to say, “You can’t teach that theory here”

Honest debate, all facts allowed, opposing theories, logical argument = kids who learn to think for themselves. Sounds like good education to me.


160 posted on 08/16/2006 12:55:04 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: RippyO

"That's basically a conspiracy theory."

What, Global Warming? I think so. Grant money determining scientific results? No that's not just theory. My brother works in a lab where all decisions and even denial of experiment results are slanted to appease the grantors. He's seen this in many other labs he deals with. If you look closely at most GW science, you will see corruption, selective data and doctored results. More than ever, science has preconceived results affecting how experiments are set-up and controlled. The grant funding gravy train rules. Many scientists do not get grants unless they will produce the desired results. This has become an epidemic.


161 posted on 08/16/2006 12:57:39 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (LIBS = Lewd Insane Babbling Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RippyO
Teach alternate views. But ID cannot be one of them.

I don't have a problem with public schools teaching intelligent design or creationism as long as they don't teach it as part of the science curriculum or pass it off as science. If they are going to be taught in the public schools then they should be taught in social studies class in the same chapter as the "sky turtle" and other religious and cultural beliefs regarding the creation of the universe and the origin of human life.

162 posted on 08/16/2006 12:58:10 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig

I'm well aware of the time it takes for a species to evolve. But, with all the species in existence, you'd think there'd be one in the middle of the process where the evolutionists, could say, "See, here's the missing link in a living species". Since it has occurred in the past and is supposed to in the future, it should also be happening now. I was being a bit facetious with those last two questions.


163 posted on 08/16/2006 1:04:21 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (LIBS = Lewd Insane Babbling Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

>>Coulter is scientifically illiterate. Read her new book. A friend's 15-year-old kid knows more science than she does.<<

"Science" is a broad field/term and, generally speaking, quite specialized. That is why one "anti-evo" poster was ridiculed here by darwiniacs for saying he was a "scientist". What "science" does your kid know (as opposed to "believe) more than Ann?

Post 11 was pure ad-himinem.


164 posted on 08/16/2006 1:05:38 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is more dangerous to the world now that Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: RippyO
As I recall, Copernicus was not welcomed with open arms by the Church. Mendel, I am not sure of, although I agree he was a genius.

Read and learn: Nicolaus Copernicus

As with Galileo, the Church objected to proclamations of the certainty of the theory in Copernicus's work. Much like the modern peer-review process, the Church was very skeptical of novel ideas. And when you look at the history of science, there have been a lot more cranks with wrong ideas that led nowhere than geniuses with innovative new ones.

You err that use of evolution to promote Godlessness is widespread. Many are able to see the two as co-existing.

OK, I'll take your word for it over the testimony of my lyin' eyes and ears.
165 posted on 08/16/2006 1:06:07 PM PDT by Antoninus (Public schools are the madrassas of the American Left. --Ann Coulter, Godless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

'tis not your eyes and ears that lie but thy perceptions.

True that there are many a crank in science, but not many keep up the charade after 150 years. Especially in such an open environment as today. (or do you actually believe the 16th century was more tolerant of unconventional opinions)


166 posted on 08/16/2006 1:12:31 PM PDT by RippyO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Yeah, I'm starting to have more and more doubts as to evolution. Like GW, I think many scientists are corrupt in their experiments by trying to match desired results. Scientific integrity is hard to find these days. All doubters and critics are denounced on several levels. Also, they can't or seldom get federal grant money. Plus, the press will not present their views to the public. Bunch of sell outs.


167 posted on 08/16/2006 1:13:04 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (LIBS = Lewd Insane Babbling Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos

And where do the IDers get their money? I doubt James Leininger opens his checkbook unless he's sure what the result of any 'research' will be.


168 posted on 08/16/2006 1:16:08 PM PDT by RippyO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos

You've hit the nail on the head. It takes real courage for an academic biologist to go against neo-darwinian orthodoxy. If he is not already tenured, his career will dead-end, his research funding will dry up and he will have difficulty getting any of his work past peer review to publication. But those who go along to get along will qualify for a seat on the National Academy of Sciences with the other hardcore enforcers of the "correct ideas."


169 posted on 08/16/2006 1:21:39 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos

And I'm going to need a little more evidence of 'The Man' punishing anti-GW and anti-evo views besides 'My brother says this is happening.'

I want examples, and lots of them


170 posted on 08/16/2006 1:26:15 PM PDT by RippyO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: RippyO
'tis not your eyes and ears that lie but thy perceptions.

You haven't spent much time arguing with atheists, have you?

Especially in such an open environment as today. (or do you actually believe the 16th century was more tolerant of unconventional opinions).

I think the fact that a scientist can't criticize Darwinian ToE without losing his career is an indication of how open our society isn't. Unconventional ideas, even if they are supported by science, are commonly shouted down in our current climate. Don't believe me? Try making the following statement in a scientific millieu and see what happens to you: "Statistical studies have indicated that women may not have the same cognitive abilities as men when it comes to mathematics."
171 posted on 08/16/2006 1:27:57 PM PDT by Antoninus (Public schools are the madrassas of the American Left. --Ann Coulter, Godless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Dante Alighieri
Weren't there several experiments in speciation? I recall the fruit fly literature.

Work on fruit flies went on for decades. They were good subjects because their chromosomes were large and relatively easy to manipulate, and they reproduced like crazy.

That work involved sorting out the functions and locations of genes. I think homeobox was one of the fruit fly discoveries.

I remember seeing the pictures where they covered the flies alternatively with eyes and then legs. Mostly gross.

But I wouldn't characterize this as work in evolution because it was too primitive for that. Evolution was established based on the fossil record. Molecular biology has mostly supported the fossil record, but it's not far enough along to resolve many issues IMO.

172 posted on 08/16/2006 1:31:24 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I agree that Summers was sandbagged but he made that statement in a public forum. I have to believe that grantwriters are less hysterical than the Harvard chapter of NOW. I would love to see examples of anything otherwise.

Besides, aren't there religious foundations out there that are relatively well endowed? I defy you to find a starving creationist in a world where James Leininger exists.


173 posted on 08/16/2006 1:33:49 PM PDT by RippyO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
The two populations may no longer interbreed, but to me the more important question is this: Are they cross-fertile, and would they produce fertile offspring?

Do you mean like ligers or mules? With enough technology you can cross anything. Look at all the weird lab mice strains running around. Some have human immune systems or human brain cells. ;(

In evolutionary biology, the important first step to speciation is that 2 populations rarely, or don't, crossbreed. That's what allows them to develop separate characteristics and eventually become morphologically distinct and unable to cross-breed.

Your requirements are not part of evolutionary theory.

174 posted on 08/16/2006 1:43:37 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
If they have the same number of chromosomes and would produce fertile offspring, I submit to you that they are the same species.

I agree. Species can be defined that way.

175 posted on 08/16/2006 1:46:29 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: RippyO

Go see Al Gore's movie.


176 posted on 08/16/2006 2:28:01 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (LIBS = Lewd Insane Babbling Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

I don't have a problem with public schools teaching intelligent design or creationism as long as they don't teach it as part of the science curriculum or pass it off as science. If they are going to be taught in the public schools then they should be taught in social studies class in the same chapter as the "sky turtle" and other religious and cultural beliefs regarding the creation of the universe and the origin of human life.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doing this is not religiously, culturally, or politically neutral. If the government gives the imprimatur of "true science" to evolution, and labels ID and/or creationism "social science", the government is sending a powerful religious message to all the students in the school.

Face it, please. Government schools never were, are not now, and never can be religiously neutral. Evolution is merely one of hundreds of curriculum policies and issues. As long as we have government schools, the fighting among the various political bully groups over the hearts and minds of the children will continue to be acrimonious.

There is only one constitutional solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Do this and the curriculum wars will end.


177 posted on 08/16/2006 2:29:10 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: RippyO

Fine. Teach alternate views. But ID cannot be one of them.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Please read post: #177.


178 posted on 08/16/2006 2:31:32 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: RippyO

Yes, private money does provide grants for skeptics of evolution and GW, non-skeptics as well. But, almost all federal money and the powers that be in academia and the media are for GW and evolution. Their is no balance in federal funding. The doubters are silenced. That's why you doubt the doubters. You don't hear their view. Read 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton. He exposes this very nicely.


179 posted on 08/16/2006 2:37:28 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (LIBS = Lewd Insane Babbling Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Sentis

"I believe a GOD probably exists I don't believe in the superstitious little god worshiped by most evangelicals..."

On what basis do you believe that a GOD probably exist? Is this a hunch? Or do you base this belief on some proof? You've done an awful lot of denigrating of the community of believers on this forum, denigrated them for [what you presume to know about] what they believe in. How is your nebulous statement about the "god" you believe probably exists any more valid than those made about the God of the people you denigrate? This is extraordinarily hypocritical and arrogant of you. This, along with many of the statements made by like-minded folks like yourself, show an irrational, condescending smugness that belies the reasoned, scientific approach you claim to utilize when invetigating the origin of life.


180 posted on 08/16/2006 2:54:22 PM PDT by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos

A-ha! Already did. I fail to see how a pro-GW-exists piece assumes that all opposing views are blocked.


181 posted on 08/16/2006 3:03:54 PM PDT by RippyO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: RippyO

You couldn't see any cherry-picking and manipulation of facts and data, in Gore's fakumentary? Or BS statements like: "All scientists now believe..." and "There is a consensus..." These terms are used when something has not been proven to mislead the masses. More than a few years ago, they probably said, "A consensus of scientists now believe the Sun orbits around earth." As if it's absolute fact and can not be questioned.


182 posted on 08/16/2006 3:38:24 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (LIBS = Lewd Insane Babbling Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser
You misunderstand - evolution is both a theory and a fact. How so? The theory explains the diversity of life and its relation to each other; then there's the fact - there is so much evidence for evolution and considering observed speciation, it's laughable to deny it. It's equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes, and shouting, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" In the same manner, there is the fact, law, and theory of gravitation. The theory explains the tendency for objects with mass to accelerate to each other, the law (Gx(m1m2/r^2)) describes the tendency, and the fact is the universal observation of the tendency. Newton was wrong; it's as simple as that. The only problem was, his Laws were approximately correct at speeds less than 0.1c. Evolution is constantly refined. What's your point? As for competing theories however, there isn't any evidence that really supports anything else. Lamarckian evolution's gone, spontaneous generation's gone, along with everything else. They couldn't withstand the scientific scrutiny, but evolution did. Albert wasn't a theist, in the sense of a personal God - he was a scientific pantheist. Ever heard of physicists and their "God" talk?
183 posted on 08/16/2006 4:01:47 PM PDT by Dante Alighieri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser

Things can be both a theory and a fact. Gravity is both a theory, law, and fact. There is germ theory and the fact of germs. There is atomic theory and the fact of atoms. There is evolutionary theory and there is the fact of evolution.

Perhaps, science classes should not only time teaching the results of scientific research, but also spend a significant amount of time teaching the philosophy of science. (In any case anyone's wondering and accuses me of plagiarism, that's from my account on YouTube)


184 posted on 08/16/2006 4:04:58 PM PDT by Dante Alighieri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: MarDav

It's based on faith but faith doesn't belong in the classroom, science does. Faith is not provable neither yours nor mine. Creation has no evidence, none. Men did not appear when God blew spittle at a dirt pile anymore than women grew out of a rib.

If I have denigrated people of faith here they deserved the slap in the face for forcing their faith onto those who would rather teach reality. If they are insulted that man isn't made from a pile of mud and that the Earth is older than 6000 years then they need to wake up and join reality and quit acting like the mullahs in Iran and forcing their atavistic nonsense on the rest of us.


185 posted on 08/16/2006 4:06:11 PM PDT by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Dante Alighieri

Has there really been observed speciation? I think that would be even more significant than piltdown man (at least when it was thought not to be a hoax). I mean no disrespect by mentioning piltdown man. I only mean that, if it had been genuine, it would have solved a lot of problems. I would think that a genuine example of true speciation would pretty much shut a lot of non-evolutionists up. Why are these examples not being shouted from the housetops? I know of none.


186 posted on 08/16/2006 4:08:49 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is more dangerous to the world now that Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Speciation has indeed been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html


187 posted on 08/16/2006 4:17:37 PM PDT by Dante Alighieri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Why not just type observed speciation into a search engine sometime. Thats close enough for shouting.


188 posted on 08/16/2006 4:20:08 PM PDT by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
I would think that a genuine example of true speciation would pretty much shut a lot of non-evolutionists up. Why are these examples not being shouted from the housetops? I know of none.

Primarily because actual speciation doesn't correspond to the Hollywood image. No special powers; not dramatic change in form; no fish to squirrel in one step.

The most dramatic examples of speciation being observed are ring species. There are examples of birds whose territories circle the globe. Each individual can mate with the individuals to its immediate East and West, but there is a distance, like the international date line, at which differentiation prevents interbreeding. Perhaps the non-mating individuals just don't approve of their cousin's tail-feather color; but whatever, they don't mate when they have the opportunity.

This is the way speciation actually works. Nothing dramatic or consistant with Hollywood. It's slow and boring. Nothing to shout from the rooftops.

189 posted on 08/16/2006 4:29:28 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos; jla
Notably absent from her "resume" is any reference to academic achievement or professional experience in the areas of biology, physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics, or any other real science.

Master's in Political Science. That's sorta science inn't it?

190 posted on 08/16/2006 4:48:01 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
So we should listen to her opinion on whether the critiques are good science or not, or whether they belong in science class or not, because....?

Her "feelings" tell her Evolution is wrong, and she doesn't want it, and noöne else should either.

191 posted on 08/16/2006 4:59:54 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Phillis Schlafly is a whiny "liberal":. Who knew?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
re are current observations of speciation.
In what species?

You only had to ask

Try Google: "ring species" salamander

192 posted on 08/16/2006 5:06:54 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
Schlafly is a whiner

It is my understanding they prefer to be called "political activists"

193 posted on 08/16/2006 5:16:07 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Master's in Political Science. That's sorta science inn't it?

Simple concepts made difficult by people who have far too much time on their hands.

194 posted on 08/16/2006 5:58:02 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Then why do you use liberal responses? Sheesh.

Name one, punk.

195 posted on 08/16/2006 6:06:49 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser
Must be my eyes, looks like it to me, gotta get some rose colored glasses, that’ll fix it!

Glasses wont help you. Your problem is what you are using to process the information.

196 posted on 08/16/2006 6:07:48 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Her "feelings" tell her Evolution is wrong, and she doesn't want it, and noöne else should either.

It would be nice if they were that concise for once.

197 posted on 08/16/2006 6:12:42 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow (If you're not sure, it was probably sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
What "science" does your kid know (as opposed to "believe) more than Ann?

Biology. Ann spent a third of her new book making a fool of herself. Even high school kids are laughing at her ignorance of the biological sciences. (and it's not my kid, by the way).

Post 11 was pure ad-himinem.

You shouldn't use big words that you can't understand. Heck, you can't even spell it. An ad-hominem attack would have been if I was attacking taxesareforever on a personal level in post 11. I didn't. What I did do is make observations regarding the people that he was quoting. The ad-hominem attack was in taxesareforever's (and the usual cheerleaders) response to me.

Schlafly is a whiner. Her book "Safe, not Sorry" is a total "poor, poor me" whining rant about her not getting her way at a convention. It also contains a lot of man-hating feminism. I lost all respect for her after reading it.

198 posted on 08/16/2006 6:17:09 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

Your support of the theory of evolution? (By the way, I don't think think evolution is really a liberal idea; heck, the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover were conservatives, and the judge was a conservative recommended by Rick Santorum!)


199 posted on 08/16/2006 6:18:17 PM PDT by Dante Alighieri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Sentis

You sort of ducked my question. You say you believe in some sort of god. Then you say that this is based on faith. Faith in what? What is it that leads you to place your faith in whatever God you believe in? It sounds like you are merely hedging your bets and covering the "god angle" just in case...Don't mean to come off as disrespectful or smug (sorry if that's how I'm sounding). It's just that your answers are very curious.


200 posted on 08/16/2006 6:30:11 PM PDT by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-357 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