Posted on 10/20/2005 6:17:41 PM PDT by furball4paws
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=1
Chapter 1: The Threat IN THE SUMMER OF 2001, long before his reelection and even before he became a "wartime president," George W. Bush found himself in a political tight spot. He responded with a morsel of scientific misinformation so stunning, so certain to be exposed by enterprising journalists (as indeed it was), that one can only wonder what Bush and his handlers were thinking, or whether they were thinking at all. The issue was embryonic stem cell research, and Bush's nationally televised claim—that "more than sixty genetically diverse" embryonic stem cell lines existed at the time of his statement—counts as one of the most flagrant purely scientific deceptions ever perpetrated by a U.S. president on an unsuspecting public. Bush's assertion, made on August 9, 2001, came as the president sought to escape a political trap of his own making. Campaigning in 2000, Bush told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that taxpayer money "should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos." The statement threw a bone to Bush's pro-life followers, who view the ball of about one hundred fifty cells constituting a five-day-old embryo as deserving of the same moral and legal protections as fully developed human beings. Accordingly, these religious conservatives consider embryonic stem cell research—the study of excess embryos donated for research from in vitro fertilization clinics—ethically abhorrent. But some prominent Republicans, such as Utah senator Orrin Hatch, favored the research because of its scientific promise. As the issue came to a head in the summer of 2001, Bush publicly agonized over what to do. Finally, he opted for a supposed compromise: he would allow federal funding, but only for research on preexisting cell lines.
(Excerpt) Read more at waronscience.com ...
It's where the nutcase left and the loony right come together, I guess.
We've already seen that the difference between many conservatives and liberals is the motivation behind their using the government to advance a social agenda. The agenda differs, but the results are sadly the same.
I don't like the label. It implies that we believe that the correct political philsophy can be arrived at scientifically, just like the "scientific socialists" thought. I don't want anything to do with such nonsense.
I prefer to be labeled science-savvy conservative.
Meanwhile, scientists have called for the ending of American Indian mascot names because it is demeaning to Indians.
Are you folks sure that American Indian kids aren't taught the truth of tribal origin stories and that you don't object to it when "yahoos" don't benefit?
That sounds good. I think you may have invented a successful meme.
You forgot to call them "savages."
Say, since scientists are opposed to insulting American Indians with demeaning mascot names, maybe teams could call themselves "the Yahoos" or "the Creationists."
Yeah, they got the proof from a Kinko's here in Abilene.
Say, since scientists are opposed to insulting American Indians with demeaning mascot names, maybe teams could call themselves "the Yahoos" or "the Creationists."
Take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard.
[Night all.]
[Night all.]
My entire worldview has crumbled beneath the unassailable logic of your rejoinder.
Replacing science? I want more labs, I want more science and Math classes as opposed to health classes, where emotional and sexual problems are discussed. I want schools to stick to the facts rather than peddling alternative lifestyles.
I guess I don't see anything wrong with expaining why the Bible says "thou shalt not kill" "thou shalt not steal" "thou shalt not lie" to H.S. students. It would have done me a world of good to learn biblical standards in school. Esp. since the Bible contains standards for marriage, standards for running a business, standards for managing a household After all,, a student can accept or reject Christ if they want.
Yes, genuflect! you worthless scum. Only the "scientific" elite should have the privelege of controlling any aspect of society. /sarc
Hmmm. And the creos are not biased ...
I am a creationist and I am 100% biased. As far as I am concerned the Earth did not exist without God. If I were a scientist, that is the bias I would be working from.
An evolutionist is absolutely certian that God does not exist. That is the bias from which they approach their work.
Yes. When the "chief scientist" for the ID movement (supported by the creos) believes in evolution and has testified that he thinks school children should be taught that the Intelligent Designer (God) may no longer exist.
You are oh, so wrong. But then you are 100% biased and it shows. As a good "soldier of God" you are willing to bear false witness.
Not really. I think the scientists have some sort of power-sharing deal worked out with the advocates of earth-worship, voluntary human extinction, and "indigenous pipples." Hence the silence of scientists on liberal enthusiasm for aboriginal myths and the silence of those very "anti-West" types in this particular controversy.
BTW, has any PC censorship campaign against "dead white European males" ever included Darwin?
Some Christians have committed murder because they believe the other person under the devil's influence.
Thanks for the ping!
Certainly there are some who try to reconcile God and evolution. Yet, I don't see how they are compatible.
All I did was answer your question. There is no need to accuse me of lying. I don't know of many evolutionists who also believe in God. The only evolutionists I know are also Atheists and that is where my reasoning comes from.
I see you agree with Mr. Behe on teaching alternative theories like how God the Intelligent Designer may be dead.
Well I am not as large an advocate of "Intellegent design" (after all, doesn't that leave me room to claim that I am the intellegent designer.
I am specifically for the God of Abraham. He claims in the Bible that he is, was, and will always be alive.
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.