Guys ... at least get the name right.
You'd be surprised how well this sells.
Posted on 09/26/2005 1:53:21 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
A Pennsylvania school district's use of "intelligent design" in its high school biology curriculum goes on trial in federal court today in the nation's first legal challenge to the idea, which contends that evolutionary theory alone does not explain how life on Earth took shape.
The lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in the Dover Area School District, attacks as unconstitutional the year-old policy of telling ninth-grade biology students that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution "is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence." School officials also recommend a book on intelligent design, or ID.
The plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argue that the policy -- which does not require students to study intelligent design -- serves religious, not secular ends, violating the First Amendment.
ID proponents say scientists can look at life forms and identify the work of a controlling "intelligence," although ID advocates are not specific about the nature of that force. While they do not reject all evolutionary theory, ID proponents argue that it incorrectly insists life took shape purely through a mindless process.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
My position is there is not physical evidence to prove evolution - hence the term "theory" continuing to be used.
What physical evidence would convince you of the truth of evolution, if it were proffered?
... and those memory problems of yours have struck again.
Anything that would make it certain humans descended from apes - the "missing link". Complete fossilized skeleton would work.
I remember you - that's enough.
I know that we've discussed the difference between a scientific theory and the vernacular use of the word "theory". Why do you continue to take this tack when you already know the difference?
The DNA retroviral evidence is more crushing than any fossil sequence could ever be (though we have an excellent sequence of fossil hominids back to our recent ancestors that I am sure you have been posted). On what basis do you reject the retroviral evidence? I've asked this question before and you never address it.
Please explain how retroviral evidence demonstrates we descended from apes.
Now, how can you argue with that??
Typical ad hominem creationistic rebuttal.
The retroviral evidence has been explained to you before. You've already rejected it; why?
Guys ... at least get the name right.
You'd be surprised how well this sells.
I don't disagree that DNA of different animals is close to humans. I just don't believe that proves we descended from apes. If you can show me how it proves it, I'll gladly listen. But if you're going to say we have similar DNA to a mouse or pig (which of course we do) and that proves we descended from apes, well, I'm not buying it.
Those that claim now that they do not share a common ancestor with other apes are the same that were claiming that the earth is the center of the universe. It's human "we are so special!" arrogance.
The comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes shows more than just a percentage similarity in content. It also shows certain identical genetic flaws and harmful mutations that indicate a common ancestry. By the way, the existence of shared flaws of this type was predicted by the ToE long before the data of the genomes was available. That this new data tested and confirmed the prediction should be of some significance.
No - actually it's what the Bible says.
So it would predict we DO have the same Creator, right?
What tests do they have to determine "design"? What empirical evidence do they have?
Is that supposed to mean something to me?
Not if you don't believe in the Bible it isn't.
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.