[Proud_texan]

Aw, I was just pulling your leg, no, you did not.

But allow me to make this observation. In an Islamic country if you presented Darwin you'd probably be killed.

I have no problem with the theory of evolution being presented, it may ultimately be moved from the theory box and put into the fact box, but I do think, and I realize that there are disagreements on this, is that there are still questions.

Given that I don't see why there should be such a demand to suppress any questioning of it nor should the ACLU and an activist Federal judge override a local school board that put a sticker on a book that said it was a theory.

It appears to me that Darwinist (and I guess they're talking about Charles' granddaddy since old Charlie pretty much lifted everything from him in the first place) can't tolerate 1) any questioning of the theory or 2) allow others to gather wool on other possibilities.

I'm a tolerant Muslim but I have rarely, no, I think it's fair to say I've never seen a tolerant Darwinist. Thus I have been called all those things in my previous message as well as a couple more that weren't quite so entertaining.

That's unfortunate and frankly I suspect it's one of the reasons that Darwinist are getting their butts kicked in the court of public opinion. When a position of squelching all other ideas is taken there's usually a push back from the American public. My counsel, for what it's worth, is that "we're confident enough in the theory, and so much has been established already, that we're sure that ultimately it will become established scientific fact" would be much more effective.

Instead anyone who isn't a believer are called all those things in my previous message. They may be true, but it's a very poor way of winning people over.

[Tax-chick]

"Campion's Law," which came up earlier, posits that if any thread goes on long enough, religious FReepers will be accused by non-religious FReepers of being Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalists, Theocrats-manque', or other categories designed to kill the exchange of ideas.

I don't think "inbred, toothless, drooling hillbillies" was mentioned in the original definition, but it can be included :-).

This is harmful for conservative discussion, as you might imagine.

[Tax-chick]

Oh, and your dog looks adorable!

[Dimensio]

In an Islamic country if you presented Darwin you'd probably be killed.

I wasn't comparing creationists to Islamic terrorists. I'm pointing out that creationists are endorsing a position taken by Islamic terrorists.

One of the speakers for ID at the Kansas BoE hearings is an Islamic extremist.

I have no problem with the theory of evolution being presented, it may ultimately be moved from the theory box and put into the fact box

Interesting, given that absolutely no scientific theory has had this distinction thus far.

It appears to me that Darwinist (and I guess they're talking about Charles' granddaddy since old Charlie pretty much lifted everything from him in the first place) can't tolerate 1) any questioning of the theory or 2) allow others to gather wool on other possibilities.

1) Questioning the theory is fine, but asking the same questions over and over again after they have already been addressed is tiresome, and presenting these already-answered questions as "evidence" that the theory is flawed is fundamentally dishonest.

2) Other possibilities are fine. The problem is that people are trying to push non-scientific "possibilities" and call it "science" and then demand equal time in the science classroom. Then, when their position is finally fully exposed as non-science, they try to change the fundamental definition of science.

I think it's fair to say I've never seen a tolerant Darwinist.

What, you mean someone tolerant of allowing non-scientific nonsense to be presented as science? I don't think that any respectable scientist should be tolerant of such a thing.

That's unfortunate and frankly I suspect it's one of the reasons that Darwinist are getting their butts kicked in the court of public opinion.

You may be correct. The perception that Darwinists are big meanies for not wanting religious propaganda masquerading as science to be thrust into public schools might be arousing the ire of a scientifically illiterate public.

It probably doesn't help matters that a good number of creationists are content to outright lie about the science of evolution and the scientists who back evolution, and then take the resulting response from those who are informed -- that is, the correct statement that the creationists are lying -- and present it to the public that the evolution-backers can only respond with name-calling. Nevermind that the claims of "liar" are perfectly accurate and that the "evidence" presented against evolution are, without question, outright lies. Heck, that's happening on FR quite often as of late.

My counsel, for what it's worth, is that "we're confident enough in the theory, and so much has been established already, that we're sure that ultimately it will become established scientific fact" would be much more effective.

Except that "theory" does not graduate to "scientific fact". When an explanation for observed phenomenon becomes "theory", it's reached the pinnacle in science. There's nowhere for it to go but down should falsifying evidence come in.