Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ed Current

"Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence."

Wow! So science has suddenly become a democracy!?!?! Gee, I musta missed that memo.

I like this new way of defining the natural world. In fact, I'm not so keen on gravity. I don't want to get rid of it all together, I just want to lower it by a percentage, let's say... 50%, it would make my groceries a lot lighter to carry. Who's with me now! Come on, let's vote, according to Ed Current, if more than 50% of the scientific illiterates in america vote that the gravitational effect should be lessened, it will!

Sheesh...


9 posted on 12/27/2004 2:59:01 PM PST by Alacarte (There is no knowledge that is not power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Alacarte
A Theory of Constitution Interpretation [Free Republic]
I belong to a school, a small but hardy school, called "textualists" or "originalists." That used to be "constitutional orthodoxy" in the United States. The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.
I do the same with statutes, by the way, which is why I don't use legislative history. The words are the law. I think that's what is meant by a government of laws, not of men. We are bound not by the intent of our legislators, but by the laws which they enacted, which are set forth in words, of course. As I say, until recently this was constitutional orthodoxy. Everyone at least said that: That the Constitution was that anchor, that rock, that unchanging institution that forms the American polity. Immutability was regarded as its characteristic. What it meant when it was adopted it means today, and its meaning doesn't change just because we think that meaning is no longer adequate to our times. If it's inadequate, we can amend it. That's why there's an amendment provision. That was constitutional orthodoxy. When I say constitutional orthodoxy, I don't mean its just judges and lawyers. Judges and lawyers are not very important. It's ultimately the American people. What do they think this document is?
This is not, I caution you, a liberal versus conservative issue. Conservatives are fully as prepared to create new rights under this evolutionist theory of the Constitution, as liberals are.

11 posted on 12/27/2004 3:02:48 PM PST by Ed Current (U.S. Constitution, Article 3 has no constituency to break federal judicial tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Alacarte

Repealing the law of gravity would do wonders for all our figures. It would lower our gas taxes, because we would consume less gas - cars would get better mileage. We would also save money on those groceries - less gravity means less force to fight as we walk, therefore less caloric expenditure needed... therefore fewer groceries needed. One more thing. Those with smaller brains to weigh them down would be at higher risk for floating right off the face of the planet.

Lots of advantages - when do we vote?

I'm in favor.


13 posted on 12/27/2004 3:05:26 PM PST by ItCanHappenToYou (ItCanHappenToYou)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Alacarte
Wow! So science has suddenly become a democracy!?!?! Gee, I musta missed that memo.

Well, that seems to be how (junk) science is determining that man is causing global warming. /sarcasm off

41 posted on 12/27/2004 3:37:28 PM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Alacarte
[ Who's with me now! Come on, let's vote, according to Ed Current, if more than 50% of the scientific illiterates in america vote that the gravitational effect should be lessened, it will! ]

Hmmm.. you seem to be all mouth, no balls...
Actually God creating things is also a theory..

You seem to NOT want an opposing point of view..
Perhaps, your theory is not superior to the other theory..
Watta wimp..

304 posted on 12/28/2004 8:48:25 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been ok'ed me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Alacarte

Actually, on a previous thread, it was posted that (and I don't remember the exact breakdown or wording, but this is the gist of it) something like 18% of Americans believe that evolution occurs without any reference to God and something like 33% believe that God created the universe and that evolution is a creation of God. Thus, 51% of Americans actually believe that the theory of evolution is true. Last time I heard, 51% is a majority. Therefore, 51% of Americans believe in evolution, so it's pretty dishonest to claim that supporters of evolution are a minority.


432 posted on 12/30/2004 6:53:17 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson