Free Republic

A good idea, but knowing the left, they'll probably hide behind the invented right to privacy.

parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

-=link=-

You might be able to copy something from a web site, but you are not capable of presenting a best case description of evolution in your own words. You might be able to copy something from a web site, but you are not capable of presenting a best case description of evolution in your own words.

Oh yes, you are smarter than all the creationists, which is your best argument for evolution to date. Some of you have become bitter over the years and have lost everything in your repertoire except the ad hominem attack. Therefore I must ask you to refrain from addressing me unless you are able to maintain control over your emotions and conduct yourself in a civil manner.

My suspicion is that if a nationwide quiz were taken, asking everyone to briefly describe the theory of evolution in a paragraph, less than 10% would be able to do so with any resemblance of accuracy.

I suppose you reject Christianity, yet could not accurately describe it in a paragraph.

The very first error almost every creationist makes is in believing that the TOE has anything whatever to do with the origins of the universe or the origins of the first lifeform on this planet. I've seen few who know that the TOE does not address either.

That's a popular way of avoiding the extremely difficult and embarrassing task of having to explain the origin of matter or life. However, the non-existence of God requires a non-theistic explanation of the origin of matter and the origin of life. Or do you want to give God a foot in the door? Your buddies say you can't.

Based on that, I cannot see why anyone should pay any attention to creationism in the first place, since it is not arguing against anything real.

But Mineral, you just disqualified yourself from criticizing creationism because you have demonstrated that you don't understand it. You said:

If those arguing the issue do not understand the theory in the first place, then whatever their argument is has no relevance.

Have you not just discarded your own credibility?

As a conservative, you should be ashamed for bringing left wing populist lines of argument into this discussion.

;) Is that like enlisting the ACLU to silence dissent?

Is that like Darrow asking for creation and evolution both to be taught?

Is that anything like using tax money to spread the darwinist gospel?

Because science is complicated. It doesn't make for good sound-bites. It requires reasoning, which we all know is in short supply.

That over-simplification doesn't take into account many things, such as the qualified men of letters who are not evolutionists. My son, for example is in the honors chemistry program with two Ph D's overseeing the track. Neither of the Ph D's are evolutionists.

People want simple solutions, especially ones that vindicate their inborn prejudices.

Careful.. If what you say is true, it is true of evolutionists even more.

That doesn't change the fact of evolution.

Now there we have a perfect example of compound problem involving the use of language and logic. Could it be an illustration of a simple solution vindicating an inborn prejudice?

What percentage of the population do you suppose could describe how a television set operates, and under what principles television transmissions take place?

With television, one makes a persuasive case, then demonstrates it to be true. Unfortunately, that is not possible with evolution.

Therefore you ask us to believe, not know. And I did believe in high school and college. Creationists from Morris to Meyers take the time to explain and persuade rather than demand belief like the materialists.

None of the schools I went to even taught evolution. That's why most people don't know what it is.

People don't know what evolution is because it wasn't in your school?

People reject evolution because they DO know what it is. To say otherwise is to imply that you are smart enough to "get it" but the other 88% is in the dark. If evolution were a new idea of only a few years, maybe that would work. But you've had 150 years.

It actually has more to do with not teaching evolution at all in public schools in some states until the 1960's. And it has to do with the poor quality of instruction.

That's a variation of "people are stupid." However, the golden opportunity has appeared for your side. Now is the time to present your case both to the public and to the courts that evolution is a certainty. Yet that's not happening. Why?

If we'd had to wait for the majority in the South to desegregate public schools, they'd still be segregated.

Probably true if Dems were in charge, though it wouldn't be because a persuasive case against racism hasn't been made. The naturalist's worldview provides for the existence of race discrimination naturally, as Darwin well knew. It is only through coercion that slavery can continue in the modern world and only through coercion that evolution will remain a monopoly in the schools. Hence the use of the courts, rather than evidence, to stop ID.

Actually, there are some folks who won't even listen to the "persuasive case" that scientists have built up for the past 150 years. Any wouldn't believe a word of it if they did.

While that will apply to "some folks," it doesn't make sense that 88% are not convinced and that most want evo and creation taught together so that the student can make up his mind. Evolutionists don't seem to want students to make up their minds. Whatever happend to "Think For Yourself" bumper stickers?

The essence of PoMo or deconstruction is that all assumptions and indeed all of reality is based on constructs of binary oppositions.

Then pomo is also an assumed artificial construct. It's self-refuting.

A policy that had a religious purpose would violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

This is the only way your side can keep a monopoly in public schools. If you could persuade the public, you would. If you had the proof, you'd bring it out. If you even had convincing evidence, you parade it down every main street in every American city and town.

But you don't have a persuasive argument, so you don't present it. You don't have the convincing evidence, so you just pretend you do. And even though only 12 percent think materialistic evolution is true, you want to impose your illogical, eclectic and unpersuasive worldview on a captive audience of children with the tax dollars of those who oppose such nonsense.

BTW- another reason evolution is highly suspect: After 150 years of supposedly compiling evidence, monopolizing public schools and colleges, enjoying the support of liberals and the liberal media, and using the ACLU to suppress their opposition, and spending untold billions on research, we are still unpersuaded. And it's not because 88% of America is stupid. It's because evolutionists couldn't make a persuasive case if they had the entire GNP to spend doing it.

A postmodern mind can hold conflicting beliefs.

Bertrand Russell (no Pomost Modernist) said this was the sign of a great mind.

The adult mind in which A can be both A and non-A at the same time is not sane. We cannot be sure which side of the line Russell was on at any given time.

How do the Post modernists get tangled up in this?

Postmodernism is a reaction against modernism. They may be said to be anti-modern. A postmodern mind can hold conflicting beliefs. Similarly, an evolutionist will perhaps assert that a theory is a fact and that laws such as the law of biogenesis and the law of cause and effect are not really laws at all. Postmodernists also believe that meaning is determined by the reader, not the writer, the hearer, not the speaker. Remember Bill Clinton and the meaning of "is?"

A man is a Janitor for eight hours a day and comes home to his apartment to be with his children every evening; whereas another man spends seventy hours a week working so he can own a mansion and afford the Janitor.

Thanks for pointing that out. It reminds me of Hillary's school-to-work program that rewards and penalizes kids according to their belief system. What a typically elitist attitude: "Your kids are creationists so we will punish them." The same bunch that whines about alleged witch burnings enjoys conducting its own witch hunts.

You are correct, and even though the Founders set out to keep the gov't out of the churches, the postmodernists are looking down their snouts and telling us that the Founders really meant to keep God out of society. Good is bad, lies are truth, right is wrong.....

I have never been abusive of you, nor shown any disrespect or lack of civility regarding the expression of your argument, or even of the way you see things. Whether I have understood you correctly or not, I respect your place in the "marketplace of ideas."

You shouldn't be surprised. This is predictably how the opposition deals with what they perceive to be intellectual threats. But then if I. were to be treated as he does unto others, then he could only communicate to a handful of like "minded."

I for one, don't subscribe to the us-good, them-bad drill. It's based on a false premise that certain groups have a monopoly on virtue while others have the monopoly on vice.

That's nice, cornelis, but that is not what I said. It would be nearly impossible for you to disagree that the evos are desperately trying to frame the debate as religion vs science, and as religion, the belief system should be suppressed. Don't you think it's a bit bizarre that the so-called scientific view isn't defended with facts? But no, the facts are deep secrets never to be revealed to the common people. Instead of facts, opinions, multiple fallacies, leftist political groups and character assassination are the primary devices used to support science.

And don't forget, ID'ers aren't calling for the elimination of the teaching of evolution, but for both sides to be presented. IOW the evos want to decide for the thinker, and the ID'ers want the thinker to decide.

Reporter to self: how can I get in a last-word slur against ID without actually stating it directly myself? Ooooh, I know. Guilt by irrelevant association. Find a MUSLIM (read; terrorist, jihadist, etc) on campus to say something critical of evolution.

While creationists may hold the belief in a Creator in common with moderate Muslims, evolutionists hold the suppression of truth in common with the extremist Muslims.

Unless the evolutionists have their way and block off all attempts to improve.

Dembski said this week in a radio interview that ID will never be silenced by the materialists because it is already causing vigorous debates in scientific circles. It seems that the more alert scientists see the handwriting on the wall. Those darwinists that close their eyes and plug their ears will willingly go the way of the alchemists.