Well-earned ridicule. You think whining about it will cause us to spare you?
***Would that work? Ohhh… pleaaaase stooopppp riiiidiiiicuulllinnnggg meeeeee. I doubt it. What is the level of operating that makes you folks decide that you’re going to ridicule them rather than answer their questions and deal with the points they bring up? This is, after all, a political website and not a science website. That might actually be a useful faq to put up on Patrick Henry’s page. And I might as well point out, for your sakes, that there are a bunch of lurkers who probably think like me. They might just decide to pass on the debate and then 20 years from now, they’re in a position of authority deciding what the curriculum should be and the evo guys would be still wondering what happened.
Well, there’s your problem. You thought it was a 'philosophy', when in fact evolution is a scientific theory.
***We’ve covered this before. Copout. At the point of unknown, evo/creat/ID/abio/FengShui – they’re all philosophies. Either come to the table and deal with the reality presented on the level of philosophy, or be bypassed by this generation of lurkers who would just as soon go home and watch Homer Simpson and then vote for ID being taught side-by-side at the next School Board Meeting.
If you were looking for a philosophy, why didn't you take up Feng Shui?
***If you guys continue to blindly whistle past this gaping hole in your position, don’t be surprised if someone comes in and sets up shop there. There are philosophical elements to this evo/abio theory and they aren't going away. That is the source of much of your opposition.
If his advisors can't convince the President we need a viable immigration policy or a curb on federal spending, I doubt they'll have any more luck with biology.
***Good Point.
At least Bush has the sense to employ a science advisor who does know the difference between science and ID.
***And yet, GWB seemed to overlook what his science advisor’s inputs when it came to that… how and why do you think that happened? Did his political instincts override his deductive scientific leaning? Probably. That would mean that he perceives this whole debate as a bunch of eggheads arguing with each other over the finer points of some scientific squabble. His concern would be whether that’s good for society and whether the republican party can mine it for votes in the future, plus probably some other concerns.
Evolution isn't a social policy any more than it's a philosophy.
***Here is where we differ. I see the haps side of evo/abio as a philosophy, and the teaching of evolution is the subject of social policy. I believe that a meaningful majority of americans agrees with me, which is significant in a social policy debate.
Why don't we discuss it as a scientific theory?
***Go ahead, knock yourselves out with all those other freepers who seem to know what they are doing. I am trying to limit my time and effort in a focused manner.
I'm sure you intended this to be English. Want to try again? At the point of unknown what?
There are philosophical elements to this evo/abio theory and they aren't going away.
Why do you combine evolution and abiogenesis? And please identify in what respect they are philosophical, in a way that other areas of science are not.
And yet, GWB seemed to overlook what his science advisor’s inputs when it came to that… how and why do you think that happened? Did his political instincts override his deductive scientific leaning? Probably.
That's too bad. I voted for him because I believed he wasn't merely a creature of political expediency
I see the haps side of evo/abio as a philosophy, and the teaching of evolution is the subject of social policy. I believe that a meaningful majority of americans agrees with me, which is significant in a social policy debate.
If you want to communicate, please use standard English.
Science deals with a lot of very minute details, that's why there's a proper forum for the introduction of new ideas in theories. As long as a new theory is introduced and accepted in that forum, I have no problem accepting it. My problem with ID is not that we know it's wrong (we can't know that), it's that it is essentially asking biology teachers to teach something in a classroom that they know science can't back up. What's a teacher to do in this situation?