Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Do Students Reject Evolution? It's the Science!
Evolution News & Views ^ | June 28, 2006 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 06/29/2006 9:55:17 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Why Do Students Reject Evolution? It's the Science!

Despite the Darwinist community's long-standing campaign to help the public come to the "correct" view that "evolution and religion are compatible," public skepticism of evolution remains high. (See this link for documentation.) This would logically lead one to the conclusion that there are other factors besides religion that drive skepticism of evolution. Perhaps, one might even suggest, for many people the issue has a lot to do with science!

Recently I was told about a 1997 article in Scientific American which reported a study conducted by Brian Alters on students' reasons for rejecting evolution ("What Are They Thinking?: Students’ reasons for rejecting evolution go beyond the Bible," by Rebecca Zacks, Scientific American, October 1997, pg. 34). The study surveyed over 1200 college freshman, and found that large percentages of students who reject evolution stated scientific reasons for holding their views. Alters claims that all their scientific reasons are wrong, and another educator simply believed that students' views could be corrected by telling them what to think, i.e., if "misconceptions are countered with specific evidence."

While some of their reasons may be questionable, some of them are on the right track—i.e., students rejected evolution due to insufficiencies of the mechanism of random mutations or the statistical impossibility of the origin of life. As the article stated, "nearly 40 percent of those skeptical of evolution believe the chance origin of life to be a statistical impossibility"!

These are good reasons to be skeptical of evolution—and this shows that for many people this issue is not a matter of evolution vs. religion, but rather of evolution vs. science.



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; crevolist; dlrspamathon; enoughalready; evolution; fsmlovesyou; graspingatstraws; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign; luddites; pavlovian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-604 next last

1 posted on 06/29/2006 9:55:18 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ...

Interesting bit of news.


2 posted on 06/29/2006 9:56:02 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (If you're proud to hold the American Flag, then the Flag is proud to be held by you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
No problem. Such folks don't tend to become scientists anyway.

I've said it a million times "Creation science" is to the religous right what "second hand smoke" is to the secular left. BS by any other name is still BS!

3 posted on 06/29/2006 9:56:49 AM PDT by Clemenza (The CFR ate my bilderburgers! Time to call for a trilateral commission to investigate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Question to you evolution true-believers out there:

Are human beings evolving today? In what specific way (i.e., what trait(s) is emerging? And how are the non-mutants being eliminated?


4 posted on 06/29/2006 9:58:05 AM PDT by Elpasser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Read the Book or listen to the audiobook of Ann Coulters "Godless" if you want to know

here

5 posted on 06/29/2006 9:58:07 AM PDT by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Its a good thing the Bible never said anything about subatomic particles, or we might not have Quantum Mechanics today...


6 posted on 06/29/2006 9:59:56 AM PDT by Paradox (Removing all Doubt since 1998!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Well now you went and said the unthinkable! God created the world and the heavens in SIX days damn it! If you don't believe me, just ask anyone here.

I wonder what day he created NASCAR though......I wish he'd take that one back, personally speaking.


7 posted on 06/29/2006 10:01:50 AM PDT by Dazedcat ((Please God, make it stop))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The Achilles heel of the whole area of "science" under the umbrella of biological evolution is the mental leap necessary to believe in the chance origin of life.

It is the only foundation upon which the whole concept can rest, and it has no load bearing capacity whatsoever.
8 posted on 06/29/2006 10:01:52 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

If you can't read or listen to the whole book check out Chapters 8-11.


9 posted on 06/29/2006 10:02:11 AM PDT by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

>>Its a good thing the Bible never said anything about subatomic particles, or we might not have Quantum Mechanics today...<<

Sorry, I'm missing the correlation.


10 posted on 06/29/2006 10:02:55 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Well if BS is told long enough, fact is lost and BS becomes the truth. BS!


11 posted on 06/29/2006 10:03:04 AM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
No problem. Such folks don't tend to become scientists anyway.

Actually they do, they are the ones most likely to ask questions and not accept thing as they are told, but feel the need to see it or prove it on their own.

12 posted on 06/29/2006 10:03:28 AM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser

"Are human beings evolving today?"

Yes but in reverse due to the laws of thermodynamics...we
the complex system, are breaking down.

"In what specific way (i.e., what trait(s) is emerging?"

ISLAM! That is all that needs to be said.

"And how are the non-mutants being eliminated?"

I think you meant mutants. They are being eliminated
individually and in groups by honorable members of
military forces around the world.


13 posted on 06/29/2006 10:04:36 AM PDT by DonaldC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Evolution is not repeatable and has no observers; therefore it is not scientific.


14 posted on 06/29/2006 10:05:21 AM PDT by RoadTest (“Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil” –Thomas Mann)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
1999: Polls say that only 9% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.

2001: Polls say that only 12% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.

2004: Polls say that only 13% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.

As they say in the stock market, it's not the absolute price but the direction of the move that's important.
15 posted on 06/29/2006 10:05:40 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Despite the Darwinist community's long-standing campaign to help the public come to the "correct" view that "evolution and religion are compatible," public skepticism of evolution remains high.

Whether the two are compatible or not isn't important, unless it's a theology discussion. As a political discussion, what matters is a) libs are using evolution to try to discredit religion and b) any dissent from the prevailing scientific view of evolution is frowned upon in the scientific community. That is what this is all about.
16 posted on 06/29/2006 10:06:12 AM PDT by JamesP81 ("Never let your schooling interfere with your education" --Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Actually, there is some merit to the claims that the Bible did talk about atoms.

In Hebrews 11:3 for example. "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed (made to fit put in order) by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." (Emphasis added)

Romans 1:20 also talks about "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen".
17 posted on 06/29/2006 10:07:49 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (If you're proud to hold the American Flag, then the Flag is proud to be held by you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
Evolution is not repeatable and has no observers; therefore it is not scientific.
Not true. The theory makes testable predictions regarding:

1. What we'll find in the fossil record.
2. What we'll find in the DNA of various species.

The theory has made thousands of such predictions and all have been confirmed. Only Quantum Mechanics makes as many correct predictions as does the theory of evolution.

18 posted on 06/29/2006 10:08:15 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
The Achilles heel of the whole area of "science" under the umbrella of biological evolution is the mental leap necessary to believe in the chance origin of life.

Evolution is about how life develops not how it started. Personally, I believe that the universe was designed for life to be an emergent property of it. It does not contradict the belief that the specifics of life have been, for the most part, the results of random processes.

19 posted on 06/29/2006 10:08:52 AM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Actually, there is some merit to the claims that the Bible did talk about atoms.

Sure, but it didn't get a whole book.

20 posted on 06/29/2006 10:11:16 AM PDT by Paradox (Removing all Doubt since 1998!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
I've said it a million times "Creation science" is to the religous right what "second hand smoke" is to the secular left. BS by any other name is still BS!

But, if one studies the origins of the Bible and the vetting process that it had to stand up to, it is statistically more likely to be true than the random processes that it would have taken to create life as we know it. Many try to point out that it was mostly written after the fact and they miss the point that the after-the-fact bit is what makes it so reliable - people waited until prophesy came true before it could be included; just as God said should be done. If one were to try to scientifically try to debunk the Bible, using the scientific process, I believe that there would be some very surprised scientists out there.

21 posted on 06/29/2006 10:11:36 AM PDT by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
So by the same token, why do almost 100% of biologists accept evolution and reject creation?
22 posted on 06/29/2006 10:12:27 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

There's a lot of good money to be made writing charlatan books and promoting public ignorance on a science subject that's relatively difficult for an uneducated person to understand in the first place. It's truly amazing that so many people actually go out of their way to "educate" themselves in a way that embraces this basic ignorance but hey, it's a free country. Just quit trying to sneak your completely bogus charlatan superstition based anti-science ignorance into the classrooms of innocent children who are in school to get a real education in science and the educated people in this country will continue paying you no mind.


23 posted on 06/29/2006 10:12:39 AM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Despite the Darwinist community's long-standing campaign to help the public come to the "correct" view that "evolution and religion are compatible," public skepticism of evolution remains high.

After years of indoctrination and Darwinist preaching with tax payers money most of the people still aren't buying it...

24 posted on 06/29/2006 10:13:02 AM PDT by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

If the bible is so good at predicting things, why didn't it predict the theory of evolution itself? Why didn't it say (in the funny language of biblical speech) that some day people would find things in the rocks that they will use to question the wisdom of Genesis? Nothing has been more earth-shaking for the western religions than evolution, and what? The prophecy decided not to warn us of that earthquake? It's easy to prophesize things you already know about, like wars and such. Just keep it all general and vague and the believers will say hoo-ha, you did it. But what about something really new, like the theory of evolution, completely beyond the scope of human thought during the time the bible was written. Why didn't the prophets see it coming?


25 posted on 06/29/2006 10:13:08 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dazedcat

I used to think the same thing about NASCAR until I took the time to understand the nuances. It will surpass football in a few short years. Go #17!!


26 posted on 06/29/2006 10:13:11 AM PDT by refermech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: trebb
If one were to try to scientifically try to debunk the Bible, using the scientific process, I believe that there would be some very surprised scientists out there.

About 4 years ago, when I was still in college, a statistics major did a study of the old testament prohecies that have been known to have been fulfilled both from biblical documentation and sources outside the Bible. The odds of those events occurring randomly without divine intervention were below the mathematical absurdity threshold.
27 posted on 06/29/2006 10:17:13 AM PDT by JamesP81 ("Never let your schooling interfere with your education" --Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: Celtjew Libertarian

>>It does not contradict the belief that the specifics of life have been, for the most part, the results of random processes.<<

You are correct. I mean, I agree.

Although I don't share the specific belief, from a raw intellectual perspective, what I called the "Achilles heel" does not contradict such a belief.


29 posted on 06/29/2006 10:18:23 AM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

So I take it you now have time to respond to post 100?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657185/posts?page=100#100

"So DaveLoneRanger, perhaps you would care to explain to your fellow Freepers why you lied to them so badly about the actual state of the fossil find... And you should explain this to your ping list as well."


30 posted on 06/29/2006 10:18:31 AM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
Are human beings evolving today? In what specific way (i.e., what trait(s) is emerging? And how are the non-mutants being eliminated?

Are human beings evolving today? Yes.

In what specific way (i.e., what trait(s) is emerging?
We are evolving a privileged wealthy class that tells the worker class (the unmutated class) the things it needs to do among which is to serve the wealthy class and the third class, the welfare class. The welfare class is a red herring created and tossed into the social confusion by the wealthy class as a moral distraction to motivate the worker class to perform in the name of altruism.

And how are the non-mutants being eliminated?
The unmutated class, the worker class, is being replaced by a fourth class, the illegal immigrant worker class. The wealthy class, the Bushes, Gores, Kennedys, Kerrys, etc., see the illegal immigrant worker class much easier to control in the long run.

I hope this helps your understanding of evolution and sociology. I'm a student of Professor Irwin Corey. He taught me a lot.

31 posted on 06/29/2006 10:18:46 AM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (Illegal Aliens will take down the Democrats and Republicans and give rise to a new American party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wbmstr24
the red herring of only ignorant bible thumpers beleiving in creationism is the only ploy left for some....

I wont call my bible thumping freeper friends "ignorant", they just have a different belief than I do. But I WILL say that all of the anti-evo's here ARE "buble thumpers". Thats a challenge I guess. Anyone care to fess up? I know, however, that there are plenty of non-athiests who believe in Evolution here on FR.

32 posted on 06/29/2006 10:20:31 AM PDT by Paradox (Removing all Doubt since 1998!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: refermech

NASCAR is simply motorized Roller Derby. What is nuance of bashing into one another in hopes of being able to tail-gate your way into the lead on the last lap?

Best racing on the planet is CHAMP cars.

Warm, muggy regards from the swamp known as Houston,


33 posted on 06/29/2006 10:21:31 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Americans are the world's best consumers, and the world's best at weeding out inferior products and inferior theories are basically inferior academic products. Charles Darwin is your basic all-time loser like in Jethro Tull's song and it's got nothing to do with religion.

Evolution is impossible dot com

34 posted on 06/29/2006 10:21:47 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trebb

Amen. And might I add the Bible has this word of warning to those who have an ear: "keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith."


35 posted on 06/29/2006 10:22:51 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Well in part Darwinist is miss taught by Evolutionist

Darwinism by definition is lower order life evolving to higher order life… however it does not explained how the first life started in the first place to start evolving "up" therefore there is a non Darwinian Evolution explained, life creating mechanism in place… This is not easily and openly acknowledged or addressed

The general public is left with the impression that Darwinism explains it all...and it does not... so it hurts the creditability…. Little kids ask probing honest open questions and look for honest open answers

36 posted on 06/29/2006 10:23:26 AM PDT by tophat9000 (If it was illegal French Canadians would La Raza back them? Racist back their race over country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"nearly 40 percent of those skeptical of evolution believe the chance origin of life to be a statistical impossibility"!

Well, yeah. So do scientists working on the question. That's why they propose and investigate models appealing to known principles, laws and theories of chemistry rather than pure "chance".

37 posted on 06/29/2006 10:25:08 AM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
Question to you evolution true-believers out there:

Are human beings evolving today? In what specific way (i.e., what trait(s) is emerging? And how are the non-mutants being eliminated?

Since evolution usually takes tens of thousands of years - don't you think it's a little early to tell?

One possible proof is to look at the ancients - Greeks & Romans and the others.

Why did the ancients not use technology that was staring them in the face? There was a toy found from ancient Greece that was a steam engine. It consisted of a globe with two tubes with 90 degree bends sticking out of opposite sides. The globe was filled with water and placed on a stand with a small lamp underneath. As the water heated, steam would escape out of the tubes and the globe would spin around rapidly.

Why did the Greeks and Romans not look at that and realize they could use it to power grain mills or other tools?

The Greek physician Galen wrote a book on medicine. There was no further advances in medical science for over a thousand years. Why not?

Why was there a sudden outpouring of scientific advances in the late middle ages. All the information had been there for thousands of years. Why did it lie fallow all that time?

There are theories that say the reason is that earlier man simply didn't think of using the information. Why didn't he? Why did he all of a sudden a thousand years later?

Is it possible that mankind's intelligence took a quantum leap during the late middle ages? Is it possible that the reason could be that the human mind has evolved over the past 2000 years?

For those who are interested in questions like these - an interesting book to start with is The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence by Carl Sagan.

38 posted on 06/29/2006 10:25:19 AM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The godless Freepers who worship Darwin should be along any minute with a tireless rant to defend their belief that there is no Almighty and they are not accountable to Him.
39 posted on 06/29/2006 10:25:49 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
This is the same argument Gore uses to promote his movie on Global Warming. ~"Consensus among Scientists says humans are causing the global warming."~ Hogwash!! If consensus were the driving force we would still be living on a flat world with the sun traveling around the earth
40 posted on 06/29/2006 10:26:21 AM PDT by dwighteise (People have more fun than anybody!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

"While some of their reasons may be questionable, some of them are on the right track—i.e., students rejected evolution due to insufficiencies of the mechanism of random mutations or the statistical impossibility of the origin of life. As the article stated, "nearly 40 percent of those skeptical of evolution believe the chance origin of life to be a statistical impossibility"!

These are good reasons to be skeptical of evolution—and this shows that for many people this issue is not a matter of evolution vs. religion, but rather of evolution vs. science."

You mean to tell me there are students out there that can think for themselves?!


41 posted on 06/29/2006 10:28:28 AM PDT by swmobuffalo (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Yes, moron, I have TIME today. Do you have to be peeking over my shoulder to be convinced I'm looking into it??

Fox News Alert. Research takes time. It may not even BE today before I get back to you and Ich. I know you're itching for a response, but you'll just have to wait. I like to do things the right way, and that takes time.


42 posted on 06/29/2006 10:28:30 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (If you're proud to hold the American Flag, then the Flag is proud to be held by you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tokra
Since evolution usually takes tens of thousands of years

I thought it took "hundreds of millions" of years.

That way, you can't disprove it, right? I mean, who is going to replicate a timespan that immense in any experient.

It is like playing a card game where the dealer gets to make up the rules. Just throw in a ridiculous amount of time, and the pocket watch builds itself out of clay and dust.

43 posted on 06/29/2006 10:29:08 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tokra
Why did the Greeks and Romans not look at that and realize they could use it to power grain mills or other tools?

Because slaves were cheaper than industrial machinery and in large supply when you were perpetually at war with your neighbors. At least that seems to have been the motive.
44 posted on 06/29/2006 10:29:32 AM PDT by JamesP81 ("Never let your schooling interfere with your education" --Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

"almost 100% of biologists accept evolution and reject creation?"

they do?

It is more likely they accept the fact that things adapt and mutate rather than rejecting creation.


45 posted on 06/29/2006 10:30:17 AM PDT by swmobuffalo (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Why Do Students Reject Evolution?

Because they are taught outside the school to reject evolution. Children will in most circumstances take the side of their parents.

46 posted on 06/29/2006 10:30:39 AM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Don't you know that God is either dead or non-existent, or that he/she is impotent and aloof? Of course there's no meaning beyond my stomach. Of course elkfj wlkjl lk by chance l


47 posted on 06/29/2006 10:31:01 AM PDT by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo
You mean to tell me there are students out there that can think for themselves?!

Amazing, considering our school system was designed to prevent people from thinking for themselves.

This whole thing, like many other things in our culture, is based on this idea that our betters know what's best for us and we should shut up and accept it. It's a totally unamerican idea.
48 posted on 06/29/2006 10:32:05 AM PDT by JamesP81 ("Never let your schooling interfere with your education" --Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

"Not true. The theory makes testable predictions regarding:
1. What we'll find in the fossil record.
2. What we'll find in the DNA of various species."

You mean Darwin predicted DNA findings? I didn't think they knew about DNA in those days.

But still, nobody has observed evolution, something I thought scientists insisted on. Observation. And you can't repeat it, so everybody has to take somebody's word for it, which no real scientist would ever do.


49 posted on 06/29/2006 10:33:01 AM PDT by RoadTest (“Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil” –Thomas Mann)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
Read the Book or listen to the audiobook of Ann Coulters "Godless" if you want to know

We are well aware that if we want to know a number of bad and false arguments against the theory of evolution, we need look no further than Coulter's new book.
50 posted on 06/29/2006 10:33:03 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-604 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson