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.
I'm fine with the understanding that the Bible presents nature as it was understood thousands of years ago, but it does not present nature as it is, or as we understand it today.
I am of the opinion that the untranslated word of God is existence itself, an all of us are free to read it as it stands.
"So the translation is suspect? Do we toss out Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John as mis-translations? Okie-dokie."
It's nice to know that as a backer of evolution, you don't need evidence of whats going on to support your own fancy.
"I am of the opinion that the untranslated word of God is existence itself, an all of us are free to read it as it stands. "
Then despite our arguements, we are of one accord.
I didn't realize it was a contest. Why can't people be open-minded and willing to consider both? And how can evolutionists be so sure?
"I didn't realize it was a contest."
It shouldn't be if it's "science" and not an agenda.
"And how can evolutionists be so sure?"
Because they have a dirty word that smells bad to back them up: Faith. Icky icky Faith! (/do I need the sarcasm tag?)
Correct. The most common usage of the term "alienable" was in connection with land. In England they had a system of land tenure where property automatically went to the oldest son, and literally couldn't be sold. Some exceptions probably existed, and of course you could lose it through debt, but generally, the big tracts were unalienable. Free alienability of land, and the right of all classes to own it, was a big achievement here in the US.
And you did not see the invitation for you to chime in with your own definition? Instead you attempt to draw conclusions not in evidence.
Dear God! Do they not teach thinking any more? Or do your average creationists shun it for some reason?
And is thus intellectually dishonest. The controversy exist only in the minds of the ID proponents. They are using the school board and courts rather than trying to honestly get their ideas examined; perhaps that's because when people do look at the ID's publications, the ID claims just don't stand up.
"And you did not see the invitation for you to chime in with your own definition? "
I was under the impression I was doing the "scientist" thing and starting off with an assumption.
And as for "not in evidence"- I'd rather have Truth than musings of labcoats that can't get laid. (and by "can't get laid," I am implying that they are so out of touch with the real world that they couldn't operate in the natural capacity most of us do.)
The controversy, to the extent there is one, is so esoteric that no one supporting ID on FR has ever managed to explain what difference it would make to biological research.
Alamo: you recently suggested to me that you believe in something like Lamarkian evolution. Any bias towards non-random mutation would be easily observable in controlled experiments. I'm curious why ID proponents haven't suggested such experiments, or if they have, none have been described on these threads.
I've pointed out before that adult creationists are, by definition, that residue of the population that either cannot -- or will not -- do the required thinking. By limiting this statement to "adult" creationists, I am making appropriate allowance for children and students who have not yet been introduced to the theory -- a theory which is, in its overall concept, very simple to understand.
As to the first part of your statement, how do you verify the "Truth" is what it says it is? Or, do you simply accept it as is?
As to the second part of your statement, it's obvious the contempt in which you hold folks that work in the scientific disciplines. It is natural for those of limited intellect to hate and be distrustful of those who show themselves to be smarter, more successful or more capable. Hence the popularity of "soak the wealthy" tax schemes and the time-honored physical abuse of "nerds."
One that is also moral can do it.
Btw she was told which one not to eat. Eve was deceived, Adam was not but did it anyway. It had nothing to to with the actual fruit but had everythign to do with putting themselves in God's place, wanting to be gods themselves. Hmmm.... sounds a little bit like secular humanism to me.... (there is NOTHING greater than man in all the universe...)
They have a good illustration for all kinds of absurd people.
I will repeat for him:
Doesn't the sun rise in the east and set in the west in your world? You're too obsessed with the sun revolving around the earth concept.
You might spend a few moments calculating the effects of slowing the earth's rotation.
You might spend a few moments calculating the effects of falling into the hands of the Living God, who overrides nature.
Most of those look pretty human. I guess your head must be exactly the same shape as everyone else in this world.
Nice touch. I'm sure it will add heaps to your treasure in Heaven.
Yes. I posted that on April Fool's Day: The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved [Finally!].
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.