[Revolting cat!]

'cuz it doesn't qualify as science or a theory.

OK, cool. Given that, a question: Why is it that you science-fiction moonies express absolutely no objections to "ethic studies", whatever that is, as "science", to Margaret Mead's fakery as "science", to the Kinsey report stating that 10% of us are pederasts, as "science", to calling 1,000 people at random and asking if they think the sun is going to come up tomorrow as "scientific polling", to "political science", whatever that is again, to Chomsky's gibberish as "science", but you get your panties all twisted when the IDers come up with some alternatives to your own fantasies? (FYI: The cat has no dog in this Lucha LIbre!)

[Revolting cat!]

"ethnic"

[Avenger]

As far as I know just about everyone on FR despises Chomsky and thinks that ethnic studies programs are a joke and a complete waste of taxpayer money regardless of their position on the ID vs. evolution debate. I don't see your point.

[Avenger]

Could you please give me a scientific definition of intelligent? How can we proceed with a scientific study of intelligent design if we don't have such a definition? Is a dog intelligent? Is a human intelligent? Is a computer intelligent? I'm curious to hear your answer.

[stands2reason]

Why is it that you science-fiction moonies express absolutely no objections to "ethic studies", whatever that is, as "science", to Margaret Mead's fakery as "science", to the Kinsey report stating that 10% of us are pederasts, as "science", to calling 1,000 people at random and asking if they think the sun is going to come up tomorrow as "scientific polling", to "political science", whatever that is again, to Chomsky's gibberish as "science", but you get your panties all twisted when the IDers come up with some alternatives to your own fantasies? (FYI: The cat has no dog in this Lucha LIbre!)

I'm sure you can back up your slanderous assertion that the evo posters support those things you mention.

You wouldn't be making things up, would you?