Posted on 04/10/2005 3:53:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A pro-evolution group has organized what appears to be a successful boycott of Kansas hearings on intelligent design.
Alexa Posny, a deputy commissioner with the state department of education, told the Kansas City Star that only one person has agreed to testify on the pro-evolution side for the hearings scheduled for May.
"We have contacted scientists from all over the world," Posny said. "There isn't anywhere else we can go."
Harry McDonald, head of Kansas Citizens for Science, charged that the hearings, called by a conservative majority on the state board of education, have a pre-ordained outcome.He said that testifying would only make intelligent design appear legitimate.
"Intelligent design is not going to get its forum, at least not one in which they can say that scientists participated," he said.
Backers of intelligent design, the claim that a supreme being guided evolution, say it is a theory with scientific backing. Opponents believe it is an attempt to smuggle religion into public education.
It doesn't address that information is communicated by living things?
ID is a political movement that is attempting steal the credibility of science in their effort to claim scientific "proof" of the existence of God.
Since they have no positive evidence in their favor, their method is to cast questions on the validity of evolution, while piosly claiming that "truth" is their only agenda. While ignoring the fact that litterally anything can be questioned to the point of apparent "doubt".
The last poll I saw was over 65% but since I don't remember where, I'll defer to your numbers. Scientists disagree on many things, which I'm sure you know, but do they call each other ignorant? Probably. Most scientists seem to be quite rigid. The thing about the evolution/creationism debate is that we won't know for sure until we're dead. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
Wait...Just because I don't show you the facts I have gathered doesn't mean I don't have any.
The facts are I have not shown you any facts to support my claim yet, but I will advise you to be careful with your theory...just like your theory of evolution.
You may have some facts, but you can not possibly have the whole picture...especially when you completely ignor some historical constructs.
There is a lesson here. As in most controversies, or perhaps all controversies, the liberal-left Establishment simply isn't interested in dialogue. They are, fundamentally, tyrants and bullies. The sooner we recognize and SAY THIS, SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS EVERY DAY, the better.
The recent confirmation of the evolution of cetecans from artiodactyls is one of the most perfect and beautiful examples of how science actually works. It should eventually become a part of every biology textbook, the way it brings together morphology, paleonotology, genetics and molecular biology into one seamless consilience of inductions, and the way it shows the drama of how theory and experiment interact in the scientific process.
We're not doing it for the luddite to whom we are replying. Such folks are beyond salvation. We're doing it for all the others out there.
Padded out with statements like this?
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."?*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).Potential falsifiability is good. Gould is saying something good about evolution.
More genuinely recent quotes of Denton would reveal that he now accepts evolution. Those never seem to make it into these cretinist quote salads. How does that happen?
Poor old Colin Patterson. The creationists will still be twisting a few words they can use from him when all else of him is forgotten. Poor Douglas Futuyma! He's never said anything good about creation or bad about evolution, and still come ingenious idiot is trying to lump him in with the evo-skeptics. (This is simply dishonest.)
A generic dissection of the kind of fraud you have attempted here is on this web page. No one is fooled. You don't dismiss mountains of very real evidence against your position--the actual body of knowledge in biology, paleontology, etc.--with a few selected and twisted quotes.
What is "free will?" As best as I can figure it, it's a purely religious concept concerning man's ability to act independently of God. In a natural sense then, there is no such thing as "free will."
Care to explain that? You do realize that Thewissen, who found the artiodactyl evidence, still does not really accept the molecular evidence.
The new pakicetid data indicate that the third branching diagram, the artiodactyl hypothesis, describes the relationships of cetaceans best.Thewissen writes.
This is what the molecular evidence has continuously shown with respect to hippos(heidi), whales(celia), and the other artiodactyls(arlene).
BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!
Youve driven me mad with this Junior!!
Youll appreciate this geeky science humor: The other day I was looking for a pharmacological inhibitor of the protein Rho Kinase (called ROCK). I went up to a coworker with air guitar in hand and belted out "I WANNA ROCK....inhibitor!"
BTW, "dead matter" implies the matter was living at one time. The proper term might be "non-living matter" but at the very fringes of what is considered "life" even this gets a little fuzzy.
Poll:Creationism Trumps Evolution
If you believe in polls.
More from that link.
There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.... the number considering both groups was 55% for no evolution.
I'm just the messenger here.
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.