Posted on 09/30/2005 7:45:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
The Campaign to Defend the Constitution, a group organized to promote the teaching of evolution, sent letters Thursday to all 50 governors, urging them to ensure that science classes teach material based on established science.
The letters were signed by more than 100 scientists and clergy of various faiths, the group said.
Although Gov. Ed Rendell had not received the letters as of Thursday afternoon, spokeswoman Kate Philips said he is committed to the idea of teaching evolution in science classes.
Rendell "believes that (intelligent design) is more than appropriate to be taught in religion classes, but has no room in science classes in public schools," Philips said. "But this is in the court's hands now, and other than his opinion, he has no influence."
But a spokeswoman for DefCon, the group's nickname for itself, said the group hopes that after governors receive the letter, they will make a public announcement opposing the teaching of intelligent design.
"It would be nice if (Rendell) took a stance and said, whether it's in the Dover district or any other Pennsylvania district, 'We need to protect the teaching of science in our science classrooms,'" Jessica Smith said.
The group named Dover its top "Island of Ignorance" in the country. It has targeted areas in the country where it says evolution is being challenged at the state level or in public school science classrooms. They include Cobb County, Ga.; Kansas; Blount County, Tenn.; Ohio; Grantsburg, Wisc.; Alabama; Utah; South Carolina; and Florida.
Advocates of intelligent design say life is so complex that it is likely the result of deliberate design by some unidentified creator, not random evolutionary mutation and adaptation.
Critics say it is essentially creationism and violates the separation of church and state when it becomes part of a public school curriculum.
"We can do better when we let science do its job, and ask religion to do its job," former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser said Thursday, "and if there's a need for conversation, please, let's not do it in the classrooms of our children."
Hi--
Ping for 301 to find easily tomorrow.
It really baffles my mind that people can say some of things they say here in defense of creationism and still be able to function in the real world. The type of mental compartmentalizing that is necessary is amazing. And scary.
I think you are mistaking the creationist definition of evolution for the definition of evolution originated and used by scientists.
Should we change the definition of religion? Oops, sorry, the creationists have already done that.
How about we change the definition of God, or Christian to make it easier to build strawman versions of religion. That would not be good, in anyone's book.
If you want to discuss evolution get your definitions correct. The horse is a different species than a zebra. That is the limit of speciation. If you want to discuss the change from a cat to a dog, that is not speciation, nor is it a part of evolution.
The only evolution Rendell supports is how our money can evolve into his pockets. The State is not too happy with him right now, thanks to a 16-54% pay raise that he engineered for himself, the State Judges and the State Legislature. Has caused quite an uproar in the State which I hope continues through to 2006. The only thing Fast Eddie is interested in is his Eagles post game show and how many hoagies he can get his hands on.
Why? Because he doesn't fall for the semantic games creationists play? Because he refuses to accept the distortion of the definition of evolution that creationists use to enable them to create strawman arguments?
js1138 knows far more about evolution and biology than you show evidence of knowing.
I am an atheist and have been for 35 years. I have much joy in my life and as far as I remember have never started name calling in any post.
Stop with the over-generalizations, it's not only a logical fallacy, it encourages ignorance.
Sorry - I'll try harder next time. And I doubt you're from either Carolina.
No one can know what happened billions of years ago so it's all conjecture.
So no dog to cat but ape to human? Just doesn't make sense.
So what were you before you were an atheist?
It really baffles my mind that people can say some of things they say here in defense of creationism and still be able to function in the real world.
I've found that in most people economic expediency and/or necessity usually trumps the luxury of religious dogma. More so in some and less in others, but present in all. It think it has something to do with survival.
A single ping will do it.
No it's observation. We see what occurs now. We hear what DNA has to say. We see what a sequence of fossils looks like. We then, through a bit of logic, statistical analysis, and chemical analysis, conclude what happened in the past.
No it's observation. We see what occurs now. We hear what DNA has to say. We see what a sequence of fossils looks like. We then, through a bit of logic, statistical analysis, and chemical analysis, conclude what happened in the past.
But the IDer knows what we have discovered and can and sometimes does change what we'll discover next before we discover it. It's all an illusion created be the IDer. Why can't you see that?
I missed the bit where I claimed that all Christians were wrong-headed on this issue. So your point is relevant... how exactly? I merely pointed out that Fitzroy was wrong headed about slavery, and like many other Christians of the time (and incredibly some Freepers even now) predicated his acceptance of slavery on Biblical authority.
Why would you suppose that any of this is news to me, any more than the established fact that numerous Christians accept evolution is news to me? The person I am arguing against, mlc9852 *is* a young earth creationist, along with most creationists on these threads. Hence the thrust of my remarks. Speaking personally I believe that old earth creationist are wrong, but I don't think that they are witlessly wrong as YEC are, and I wouldn't deride OEC for their beliefs. If you/they want to believe that God tinkers with DNA over billions of years then that belief is not science (IMHO) but it is also not stupid. Hope you don't find that patronising. Just explaining where I am coming from.
Because we can observe the mutation rate in present day cells.
Going back how far?
In cell based lab experimentation, hundreds of generations.
What kind of mutations? Good or bad?
Neither. We're talking about mtDNA here, so it's non-coding mutations with no morphological effects.
Throwing in a couple of scientific terms doesn't make truth.
What scientific terms? I don't understand. If "mitochondrial DNA" is too jargony for you, then you've picked the wrong field to argue with, because that's not obscure jargon, that's secondary school biology class.
Well, you don't have to tell me anything. But its odd to say "I read this book and I found it interesting but it's a secret why I found it interesting." And yes I read the book (back when it was first released) and I had a lot of problems with it, which I will not be afraid to tell you about if you express even the slightest modicum of interest.
"I heard that call. The guy made some good points. It's just too bad he completely blew away his believability by bringing up creationism. Because if he's so wrong on such a basic point of science, then he obviously can be wrong on other subjects.
He shot himself in the foot and didn't even know it."
No you are wrong, he knew where his knowledge came from, right out of his mouth was "God" and he knew he was not a result of evolution.
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.