Posted on 10/07/2005 7:23:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
pasta be upon him
Well of course it can. However, if you want to use the color of law to pursuade children that the questioning of science by religeous people on overt or covert religeous grounds is science, than you are committing fraud, and the civilization conspiracy will eventually track you to ground--as is occuring in the courtroom this thread is dedicated to.
"Our side doesn't have a history of burning its scientific opponents at the stake"
Oh Yes You Do! those that do the burning are alway full of themselves...so convinced of their superior humanity, and the lack of it in the burnee! That pretty much describes the views of the religion haters around here.
You've given up debating creationists entirely, then?
Technically, it should take the form of a partial repeal of the 14th Amendment, so that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the states. It didn't, originally, but was interpreted to apply to the states via the court-created doctrine of Incorporation.
You've cracked the code.
Free scientific inquiry is the best idea, Darwin can be scrutinized, it doesn't matter if it is religious people that are doing the questioning. It doesn't matter how many bad anaolgies you and others use to change the subject or to feebly denigrate those that disagree with you, the civilized idea that took years to develop is free inquiry and freedom of expression and speech.
Free scientific inquiry is, I will agree, the bedrock of Western civilization.
Problem is, free scientific inquiry has nothing to do with ID. Free scientific inquiry reveals ID to be worthless, with zero scientific value. It's just not worth discussing on scientific terms.
Proponents of ID, having lost the battle of free scientific inquiry, have taken to lies and deception to advance their agenda. They cannot support ID in scientific terms, so they resort to fraud. They have lied about their true motives, as has already been shown in this trial. Their dishonesty reveals how they really feel about your "free scientific inquiry."
The notion that evolution cannot be scrutinized is a creationist lie. Evolution is constantly scrutinized. It is constantly tested. Every new piece of evidence has the potential to refute evolution, but every new piece of evidence only reaffirms evolution's position as the only theory to actually address the evidence.
Free scientific inquiry is the best support that evolution could ever ask for, because for two hundred years free scientific inquiry has provided volumes of evidence to support it.
You and others are the thug at the classroom door. Please move.
One whose cloaked agenda relies upon deception has no claim to the classroom, period. We will not yield to lies.
It's funny, but the people defending ID have sworn under oath that it has nothing to do with religion. So how can making fun of them be religion bashing?
Your entire response is based on a falsehood. This argument is not laymen against scientists. It is scientists against scientists. The Intelligent Design idea was formulted initially by scientists that find Darwin lacking. Creationists joined in and they are free to do so, but they are not the source of the debate. Sorry, either you are misinformed or you intetionally misinform, one is forgiveable the other is not. The fu manchu thing doesn't flow it's just more bad prose. Having said all that creationsists have rights, equal rights. You and other do not have the right to burn them at the stake so to speak, to order them away. We went through all that centuries ago.
Are you standing by that as your impression of the complete definition of ID?
"man-on-dog sex."
You guys are behind the times. About 6 months ago they arrested a woman in Grand Junction, CO (IIRC) for , well doing it with Rover. The only thing the stories didn't mention was whether the dog was smiling.
You can't wear stripes with plaid?? I'd better go and change my shirt.
Name a scientist behind ID who is not primarily motivated by religion.
That is funny! when you open your mouth and you bash religious people...than you bashed religious people. Very Clintonesque...religous bigotry in this country masks itself as, shall we say a highly evolved and nuanced point of view. The idea, by the way, not that it matters, that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion is true. True...sorry
It's perfectly acceptable, but only if you live in Cleveland.
The lack of evidence is actual evidence. In the case of evolution, the lack of a fossil record of transitional forms is actual evidence that transitional forms did not and do not exist.
Which life-forms, that exist today, do you think are transitional? Why is a transitional form, simply not a life-form? Why do evolutionists even have to bother creating the fiction of transitional forms?
The obvious reason is that without the propaganda of the existence of transitional life-forms, no reasonable person would believe in evolution.
Then if I say that the designer of life must have been a psychopathic sadist, I am merey commenting on the moral characteristics of space aliens, right? I cannot possibly be bashing religion.
Behe is the obvious answer.
Gotta live up to my tagline.
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.