Posted on 09/26/2005 1:53:21 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Court TV petitioned the courts for coverage. It was denied. It's in the link to the pretrial motions.
Am I to assume you don't believe the Bible is true?
From Section 1 of the 14th amendment.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yes. It bothers me that I have to enlist such unlikely allies. It bothers me that so many self-styled 'conservatives' are in fact theocrats. I would have preferred it if one of the libertarian legal foundations, such as, for example, the Center for Indivudal Rights, had entered the case, but I understand they are a small organization and their priorities are in other areas.
First, I'm a firm believer in Genesis' account of God's creation. Second, I'm not trying to start any fights on this (though these threads usually end up that way). With that out of the way, I must pose this question to FR's Darwinists:
Though not a direct reflection on the "science" of the case, does it not bother you that your "side" of this issue is headed by "the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State"?
Personally, I cannot imagine too many other groups I would want on my side less.
Flame away! ...or better yet, answer my question.
A broken clock is right twice a day. Sometimes, politics does make strange bedfellows.
Rush Limbaugh's case against the prosecutors who sought to pry in his medical records was taken up by the ACLU.
Should Rush then have turned his records over, so as not to find himself on the same side as the ACLU? Pat Robertson and others have found themselves in common cause with some feminist leaders when it comes to opposing pornography. In fact, if you oppose porn, your side of an issue is headed by twits like Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworki. Does that not bother you?
This is a perfect example of the "Guilt by Association" fallacy. It proves nothing.
"Who exactly are these "radical fundamentalists" you accuse?"
Personally, the radical fundamentalists that I accuse are the ones who want to dumb down what's left of our science education in this country to conform to their personal religious beliefs.
Faith is one thing, and science is quite another. When religious leaders try to re-define science to conform to religious dogma, they're radical fundamentalists no matter what faith they belong to.
There are gaps in quantum theory too, but it still is truer than any other theory and can be used to design a hell of a computer.
Very little in science is ever a final truth, but lots of things like ID are so far wrong they aren't just bad science, they are non-science.
So9
I believe the same could be said for the evolutionists.
This is but one of many radical fundamentalist attacks against science now in the courts. I agree that it's sad that the ACLU seems to have more power than the science community to launch a lawsuit on the federal level but make no mistake it's the science community that's under attack from these radicals.
You cannot force someone to believe as you do. In spite of years and years of evolution theory in public schools, the majority of people just don't buy it. I wonder why?
Ignorance? Some people are much slower at grasping science than others and prefer to cling to ancient bronze age superstitions and myths.
Because public schools don't teach science any better than they do math, English, history or geography?
I believe the same could be said for the evolutionists.
Not if you're going to be honest.
Evolutionsists test and study. When new evidence arises that contradicts the hypotheses, the hypotheses are adapted to fit that new evidence. That's how science is done.
Then creationsists try to use that process to say that evolutionists are "changing their story." A outright lie, but one that's easy to repeat.
Scientists question and test every single new piece of evidence, even when it appears to reaffirm their original hypothesis. That's why all the hoaxes that appeared to support evolution were debunked by scientists. Creationists don't have such standards.
Radical Fundamentalists hang on to their dogma, regardless of the evidence against it. How can that possibly be said "for the evolutionists"?
not even good history.
I don't see evidence against creation.
LOL - scientists basically are lemmings.
I don't see evidence against creation.
Of course not. That's trying to prove a negative.
The more salient observation is the vast anount of evidence for evolution, and the fact that creationists fail to admit that it exists.
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.