That's a poor excuse for indoctrinating kids into philosophical naturalism.
It would be if I had written it as any sort of "excuse" for doing such a thing, but since I didn't, why don't you try to keep up your end of the conversation without wandering off into lala-land?
Focus, son, focus. YOU had advocated showing schoolkids, and I quote, "But students should be presented with ALL of the evidence for and AGAINST the theory of evolution". All I did was point out to you just how insane your proposal was, by describing how HUGE was the accumulated "ALL" evidence for evolution. What words in my reply did you have difficulty with?
[See above. Showing them "all the evidence" would take most of a lifetime. That's how much evidence has been accumulated supporting evolution. Deal with it.]
Puh-lease. They are not presented with all of the evidence for evolution now, so this is a poor argument.
Huh? What are you babbling about here? You made a specific proposal -- presenting "ALL" (your capital letters, not mine) of the evidence for (and against) evolution to schoolkids. I demonstrated how stupid an idea that was. Deal with it. My only "argument" was that you didn't have any idea what you were talking about, or else you wouldn't have made such a wildly impractical suggestion about how to approach the subject in schools.
And the fact that they aren't being presented with "all the evidence" now doesn't make your proposal any less ridiculous.
Your screenname does not seem terribly apt.
[There is no such censorship. Nor is there any such evidence, unless you can come up with something better than the last several hundred clueless anti-evolutionists I've talked to. Feel free to show us what you've got, though. But don't waste our time with this manure, we've seen it a thousand times before. Try something new and original.]
Yes, I know you guys are good at phoney denials.
Dodge #1. I asked you to present some of your alleged "evidence against evolution". When specifically asked to do so, you lamely avoid doing so and spew insults.
The fact remains that the dogmatic high evo priests won't even allow a simple disclaimer on a textbook cover even though the school board in Atlanta wanted it!
Dodge #2. Evidence -- you said you had evidence. Where is it? Changing the subject all of a sudden doesn't distract anyone from the fact that you're running off in all directions instead of just answering the question. Where's your "evidence against evolution"?
That is the epitomy of CENSORSHIP.
Oh no, a pointless sticker got rejected. Poor baby.
Now, where's that evidence against evolution you promised us, then ran away when invited to show it?
I read a good quote today that sums it up: "When people accept the theory of evolution as an article of faith
We don't, we accept it as supported by overwhelming evidence.
and teach it as a matter of fact
Parts of it are fact.
and permit no dissent whatsoever from their doctrine,
Horse manure. Dissent all you want, no matter how stupidly. Just don't try to present your ill-informed dissent as another valid branch of science, because it's not. Lying to students is a sin, you'll go to hell for that.
they are the ones wo are promoting religious dogma to all students."
So religion is a *bad* thing, you're saying? But dry your tears, we're not teaching religion, we're teaching science. Try to learn the difference.
Now, where's that evidence you said you had?
Besides, presenting scientific evidence of intelligent design is hardly akin to promoting a state religion.
If you actually *had* any scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, you're right, it wouldn't be akin to promoting a state religion.
But since you don't *have* evidence of that sort, since you're instead pushing religious beliefs dressed up in a cheap styrofoam Trojan Horse with the label "ID science" scotch-taped to the side, and doing your damnedest to get it presented in science classes, then yes, you *are* trying to promote your religion with government institutions.
Read the first amendment -- only Congress can establish a national religion.
Um, read it yourself, that's not what it says.
Here is precisely what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitng the free exercise thereof."
Now, do you see any room in there for anyone but Congress with the authority to establish a national religion? Couple that with the fact that ONLY Congress can establish law (Article I, U. S. Constitution). So, tell me again: HOw does a "school district" become "Congress" and how does "scrutinizing evolution more closely" in a school become the same as "establishing a religion?" I can't wait to hear this...
Besides, how is placing a mere disclaimer in the cover of a book that teaches kids to "critically" consider the validity of your sacred theory akin to teaching a religion? Now, read the 1st Amendment again. Do you see the "free exercise clause" in there? That means evos and atheists do not have the authority to deny people their GOD-given right to the FREE EXERCISE of their religion EVEN IF placing doubt on your stupid theory is the same as teaching religion (which it clearly is not!).