Posted on 08/16/2004 9:40:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
That's what makes these threads so harmonious.
It's not a semantic correction. It's an important distinction. Words have meaning.
Oh, that's right! This isn't about religion. Good!
The Designer couldn't pour pee out of a boot if the instructions were on the sole.
No, they don't. Botanists, geologists, biochemists all work in fields where evolution and evolutionary processes play a significant role.
Nope. "Evolutionary processes" are not the "Theory of Evolution" by a long shot. Not without a whole heapin' helpin' of extrapolation.
signature = Kansas City Royals?
Oooh, you capitalized 'designer'. Now you're in trouble.
Good to know, Willie. I gladly retract my Slashdot troll claim :)
You're not gonna get very far trying to stick an ACLU label on my calloused Buchananite hide.
The problem is, the shoe fits in this case. Look, even Rush Limbaugh got some help from the ACLU in his recent drug case. You seem to have something against religious organizations making use of public facilities.
As I stated before, I simply believe that religious activities are best practiced in church or private schools.
While that is a fine and fair statement to say in the general, you seem to believe that people must jump through extraordinary practical hoops to make that happen. When I said that 500 people attended this lecture you proposed they build a private school for crying out loud!
If you want to pursue religious beliefs in public schools, you're simply opening the door to allow gov't bureaucrats to dictate what you can teach.
That dog won't hunt.
We are not talking about religious beliefs intruding into the educational process. This student was not trying to get the school to endorse this lecture or hold it during school hours. Rather, we are talking specifically about equal access to public facilities for extracurricular activity. Once school is out of session, the physical building becomes a community center of sorts.
Secondly, if your logic were valid, then letting Republicans hold after-school meetings on school grounds would be dangerous because it would open the door to allow government bureaucrats to dictate what political views are taught in school. Or, letting environmental activists hold after-school meetings would lead to government dictates on life science curriculum.
Thirdly, by refusing to use the school facilities for any religious purpose whatsoever you are, in a sense, tacitly approving of the liberal movement's slow but sure attempt to eliminate all religious expression from the public sphere. The First Amendment does not attach the clause "in the privacy of one's home or church building" to its guarantee of freedom of religion. And yet people have been forced to go to the Supreme Court to guarantee that facilities bought and paid for with public funds, and freely available for entirely secular purposes, are freely available for religious purposes as well. Retreating inside the walls of the physical church hardly seems like an effective strategy for the preservation of our religious freedom.
Finally, let us not deny the evangelical benefit of holding various religious events outside of the traditional church environment. There are many people who will attend lectures on a variety of spiritual topics who would not do so were they held in a church. So to suggest that all religious activity is best practiced inside the church is simply false; evangelism, for example, would be far less effective if practiced solely within the walls of the church. What is more, I know of many brand new churches who began their operation in community centers and school gyms. It would not be practical for such churches to build a building first and wait for their membership to grow.
So the bottom line is this: not only is it reasonable for groups of a religious nature to avail themselves of public facilities, it is both important and beneficial for them to do so.
I'm just trying to figure out what he was doing with a boot full of urine in the first place.
Once again, you're avoiding the question. I'm starting to think that you don't want to answer it.
Are you seriously suggesting that scientists who deal with evolutionary processes don't have any opinion on evolution?
I'll ask one last time. Why do you think the scientific community has overwhelmingly accepted evolution?
Or, if you prefer, why do you think that no reputable scientific organization espouses creationism?
Wrong. Mutation and natural selection (or very unnatural selection for many diseases) don't add up to the theory of evolution.
I am not questioning what has been observed, I am questioning the extrapolation of what has been observed. Even among bacteria and viruses, there is no example of evolution from one form to another. You are taking a six inch lizard, extrapolating a sixty foot tail and calling it a dragon.
Where does that leave you? I don't see a living creature labelled with "body by Douggie"
Put in a good word for me.
Is that Krazy Kid from Wichita still running that funky website? I think it's hilarious that Certain People get all huffed up about supposed rudeness from the evos on FR, and then blithely log on to a web site where we're routinely accused of being Satan's spawn.
Good thing we don't suspect.
Mutation and natural selection are mechanisms of evolution. Evolution itself is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time.
Maybe he was badly designed.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Your question is loaded with assumptions that you will not let go of, and therefore precludes any meaningful answer.
Are you seriously suggesting that scientists who deal with evolutionary processes don't have any opinion on evolution?
You listed a whole gamut of disciplines, proclaimed them to deal with "evolutionary processes" and then demand to know why they all believe in evolution. I told you, the "evolutionary processes" you proclaim them to work with only have a tenuous connection to evolution, and the connection evolution has to their discipline is nonexistant.
I'll ask one last time. Why do you think the scientific community has overwhelmingly accepted evolution?
Because they aren't hip deep with it on a daily basis. It has no real effect on their paychecks unless they get noisy about denying it. So the cost to accept it is negligible and the cost of making it an issue is their career. Gee, you tell me.
Or, if you prefer, why do you think that no reputable scientific organization espouses creationism?
Because "God did it" is lousy science. You can't coherently describe the natural world by constantly appealing to the supernatural.
In as much as my bicycle is a mechanism for getting to the moon.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a vast undercurrent of creationists in the sciences, who are afraid to speak up lest they lose their paychecks? That's the best tin-foil argument I've heard in months.
All the disciplines I listed have an underpinning of evolution. People who believe the world is 4000 years old don't make very good geologists or astronomers.
You can't coherently describe the natural world by constantly appealing to the supernatural.
That's the first thing you've said that I can agree with. "Creation science" is not science. No reputable scientists truly believe in strict creationism as an explanation for the universe.
Or was it just a new species of grant?
Have we at last found someone who can identify the micro/macro barrier, the thing that stops variation and selection from accumulating too much change? Never mind where it is, just tell us WHAT it is, please!
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.