Posted on 11/05/2005 6:34:38 AM PST by billorites
Are you asserting that a scientific theory, or hypothesis if you'd prefer that has roots in or associations to theism, is not valid for a schools curricula because it violates the "establishment clause" of the 1A? If you are, then there are implications that neither you nor I would like one bit, Lemaitre and BBT being a case in point. Under your expansive reading of the "establishment clause" Lemaitre's work would have been banned from American public schools because when he first posited it, his peers looked askance at it, and of course Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest as well as a scientist. And a dreaded creationist at that.
You may certainly assert that it should not be so, but for the time being, it is so, whether you happen to approve or not.
:-} You'll understand if I don't treat that sentence like it was special delivery from a guy named Moses.
And something makes me think you would be somewhat less sanguine if some school board somewhere decided to ignore, say, the Thirteenth Amendment, federal as it may be.
Right, I would not be sanguine at all if states started enslaving students. I'll concede that point.
Ah, I'm free to express my opinion, but of course I really shouldn't have one in the first place. Got it. ;)
I don't think you got it at all. The victim-hood quotient on FR has been steadily increasing lately. If I wasn't interested in what you had to say I would never have posted to you. You have to admit, there's a certain logic there even if it flows from the keyboard of the dreaded creationist.
You are conflating two senses of the term "intelligent design".
I conflated nothing in fact. I was pointed in what I said, to wit, intelligent design, small id, is a fact. You telling me that intelligent design doesn't mean intelligent design doesn't get us anywhere. You are stuck on ID and there's no way out. Not my problem.
The fact that humans can manipulate organisms does not in any way lend support to the ID thesis that some ineffable designer has guided or otherwise influenced evolution in the past.
I never said it did. So, in essence, you have engaged yourself in argument. I'm interested in how it will come out. :-}
However, I think I see a way out of the forest of equivocation here. We can simply include a chapter on genetic engineering and the techniques used by biochemists in biology textbooks - this will then satisfy the Discovery Institute's desire that "intelligent design" should be addressed in science class.
There you go, you solved your own problem. Now for the next question. What will be the penalty for school districts describing genetic engineering generically as intelligent design? The stocks or the feds?
Or will it? Hmmmm....
Dunno, I am not in any way, shape or form associated with the demons at DI.
>>>As it is Written, there is nothing "NEW" under the sun and there is nothing new about denying the Creator.<<
"And Creationists will always trot out the lie that evolution is a denial of God. Some things never change."
IF your (man's) ancient theory discounts that the Heavenly Father formed fully grown adult human beings, more than two then that is discounting/denying the CREATOR. I will not assert that evolutionists deny a "god", as there are two gods and most don't know the difference.
I will also state that I unlike most Creationists know this earth is million upon millions of years old, how old NO man knows. This flesh was created/formed for a specific purpose and age, when the flesh 'age' is complete the flesh will no longer need be. Even old Darwin knows this now.
I once knew a girl from Peru who's family came from the mountains. We hiked in Southern California, and nobody I had ever seen could hike those mountains that well with no observable out-of-breath effects like her. She was amazing, particularly above 10k feet. Claimed she had never seriously hiked, and was not a physical fitness geek.
Lemme mull it over.
What is it with the creationist obession with homosexuality? Why is homosexuality gratuitously dragged into crevo debates by the creationists so often?
Because they can't drag in science.
Dang, I should have thought of that.
Adaptation to altitude is something most people can do, although it takes time. At least three weeks, maybe more. In the bad old days of East Germany, they build an underground gymnasium and dormitory for their Olympic athletes to live in and train for the Mexico Olympics.
Projection?
Closets.
Only if you peer into emanations from penumbras. His statement is what it is. You can't dress it up in pink and call it Barbie. The mix is "religion and tribalism". Unless you are from the school of thought that says atheism is a religion, his comment was not directed at the commies at all.
You bet it is.. Its time we made a choice to live by our Constitutional values, and forgo the "toxic" values of the other two ideologies.
The United States Constitution singles out religion for special treatment, that would be the "free exercise clause". They could just as easily made special mention of scientific humanism but they didn't. So I have to ask, just what constitution would you be referring to?
I'm curious though, are you an adherent to the Humanist Manifesto?
She claimed she moved to the city at low altitude as a young girl, and never went into the mountains. If I understand Coyoteman's post, he's saying that there was a genetic adaptation to natives of high altitude South American mountains. If so, she had it. I was on her first hike at altitude to 10k feet, and she acted like she was walking along the beach at Malibu. Even the other serious hikers in the group were at least working a bit, and she was'nt at all.
The toxic mix of religion and tribalism has become so dangerous as to justify taking seriously the alternative view, that humanism based on science is the effective antidote, the light and the way at last placed before us.
'Toxic mix of religion and tribalism'. What a great concise phrase. Radical Islam and the reactionary anti-science religious right in this country are dangerous.
Once again, to all those who believe in Creationism and reject Evolution:
How do you explain dinosaurs?
They think the Flintstones are historically accurate.
YEC INTREP
Creationists have no problem explaining dinosaurs. They were created along with the other kinds of animals. Not sure what your question is...
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.