Posted on 08/07/2005 6:25:03 AM PDT by RepublicNewbie
In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.
But because a cheerleader press favored Clarence Darrow, the agnostic who defended Scopes, Christian fundamentalism -- and the reputation of William Jennings Bryan, who was put on the stand and made to defend the literal truth of every Bible story from Jonah and the whale to the six days of creation -- took a pounding.
No design including "intelligent design" adherents can ever be called intelligent. Thus nothing could prove the evolution better than the existence of creationists, for they have not evolved.
What is wrong with Pat's little synopsis/
Ending a sentence in a preposition? Buchie is a fascist fool.
Oh no. Didn't you hear? We have a new Pope now who takes time out of his busy day to dump on the ToE and opine against the corrupting influence of Harry Potter books.
Only one thing evolves -- ideas. And because we see apparent evolultion in the long biological record -- that means one thing. Some ideas are evolving and being implemented throughout biological history.
That is, G-d acts continually upon His creations.
I would add science in general. What ignorance. What is worse, a self imposed ignorance.
GMTA. :-)
The sun dumps a practically unlimited supply of energy on the planet every day. So much for the closed system.
Only one thing evolves -- ideas. And because we see apparent evolution in the long biological record -- that means one thing. Some ideas are evolving and being implemented throughout biological history.
Whatever, so long as you recognize that the above statement belongs in college-level Philosophy classes, and not high-school science classes.
IFAIC, doing science without a meta-physics is no science at all. Why do it? If you can't answer that question, you are at best a lemming. Lemmings do not do science.
The mechanisms and physics are MORE interesting -- imo -- when viewed from the stable meta-physical platform of accepting that there is G-d, Creator, and Maintainer.
Evolutionism is a cancer to knowledge. Evolutionists are definitionally incapable of recognizing intelligence. They claim to be created in their own image: a most unimpressive collection of matter.
Not surprisingly evolutionism is definitionally flawed: "A change in gene frequency over time." Even DEvolutionists believe in this! It only gets worse from here for evolutionism.
So the gatekeepers of higher ed are definitionally incapable of recognizing intelligence. Does anyone see a problem here?
Evolutionism is the answer to the fornicator. If your will to fornicate is strong enough, evolutionism and all its glory is yours.
The "Darwinists" -- i.e. people who know something about biology and think that science education is important -- are afraid of having religious material insterted into science curricula.
Of course, why should we stop with just _one_ religion's idea of the creator? There are dozens, if not thousands to choose from: Osiris making the world by masturbating is a good one which would make a great link between sex ed and origin of life in bio class.
There are even made-up ones: http://venganza.org/
Religious people (thoughtful ones, at least) should also be afraid of this kind of muddle. If matters of faith are presented as matters of scientific fact, then if the "facts" are disproved, the faith is shattered.
LOL Good summary. I only occasionally post to these threads because I am informed that:
See Above Quote
They are afraid of kids asking "why/"
Darwinist presents a theocracy as well. A god it makes. A nihilistic god of "it is what it is", and random process. No love, no mercy, nor even passion in that god. Totally wrong, but it appeals to the dim bulbs.
Interesting, I am new to this argument, but it seems that one is not allowed to challenge "evolution" without getting smeared, there isn't a logical scientific defence of evolution anywhere on this page. Only a bunch of people yakking as if all is known, all is proven and shut the hell up. I am no creationist, as it were, I am probobly best defined as a DaVinci code Christian, but the Intelligent design people have a very valid point. Namely that the evolutionists can damn well PROVE their point or allow others to talk. The evolutionst side of this discussion need to act like what they claim to be, namely scientists anbd rational people, calling people knuckle draggers and misrepresenting their arguments for the sake of a laugh or two does not impress.
"Blessed are they who have been touched by His Noodly Appendage."
What closed system are you referring to?
So you're saying schools are doing a lot better job now than, say, back in the sixties and before when religon (philosophy) wasn't taboo?
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.