Posted on 11/08/2005 11:05:11 PM PST by jennyp
Ah, okay. Sorry. I did indeed misread your post. My mistake. Thanks.
Considering that the OP admitted to scambling the quote accidentally, no, it was not an intentional misreading. Thanks for playing though.
Peer review always has critics, even among real scientists. There's politics in every human institution.
What bothers me is the constant clanging among otherwise intelligent people to accept supernatural explanations at every difficult turn in the road.
The default position of ID is if I can't explain it, Goddidit. It's short attention span science.
ID as "short attention span science"
I like it :-)
That's the point though. In a conservative district, with a 19% pay raise and property tax hike threatened, the Republicans still lost. This is the kind of district in which Dems shouldn't even be able to field a candidate. Thanks to the creationist agenda pushed by the school board, the Dems found a window of oppportunity, and won.
Yeh, I kind of forot about that part. What I would like to see come out of all this is some enthusiasm for all the deep mysteries of science that remain.
When I was a teenage considering a career, I was told by my teachers that all the great problems had been solved, or would be in few years. What a crime against humanity.
It's not about "putting people at ease." It's about science and whether or not we should make science conform to our ideology.
That's the trouble with creationism. It's a fuzzy-headed attempt to not hurt people's feelings with facts they don't like.
It's Political Correctness for social conservatives, and it's both as silly and as dangerous as the leftist version.
Actually not Professor. The lesson here is that local issues can be decided by locals without the intervention of federal courts and their non limited government supporters.
Question from sheer ignorance:
Were all of the Dover CARES slate Democrats or just anti-lying-Creationists of various stripes?
Last week it was divulged that Thomas More shopped around the country to find a district which would adopt the Of Pandas and People curriculum so they could fight a court case. This wasn't the ACLU looking for a battle, it was Thomas More (who, having been set up as a Catholic law center, should know better than to get into bed with Biblical literalists). They pushed Dover into a course of action that led to an inevitable lawsuit; and given the narrow margin of victory, I have to conclude that the School Board wouldn't have lost unless the suit was filed.
Any criticism or alternative theory is to be discreditied via a religious smear. Unable to explain your precious evolution on a molecular level, unable to prove your theory of macroevolution, unable to state evolution in a LAW, you resort to personal invective and castigation.
This may seem heretical but I'm actually not all that much in favor of teaching science in elementary school.
All too often, no, make that almost always, "science" is taught as a bunch of dry, boring facts to be memorized.
The magic goes away. No one's fault really. People wouldn't be elementary school teachers if they themselves had been caught up in the excitement of real science.
They were 4 Dems and 4 Republicans, who ran on the Dem. line for expediency.
I'm only an ex-Catholic, not a real one, but perhaps you might want to consider there are quite a few Christians who don't regard the Reformation as a good thing? :-)
The folks in Dover appear quite capable of making their own decisions. But I knew that from the gitgo.
At least they can't make the curriculum any more one-sided. Decades of brainwashing still hasn't convinced the majority of the subjects.
You're assuming the result of the election would have been the same if the suit hadn't been filed. Possible, but I doubt it.
Limited government includes not imposing a sectarian governmental agenda on the public sphere. That's what the religious right doesn't understand.
"I dunno. Hey, creationists: Why do you think the Dover school board got thrown out en masse?"
First of all you need to get your terminology correct. Someone could be a proponent of ID and not be a creationist. At best, logically speaking, all creationists are de facto IDers that know who the intelligent designer is. However, this childish game of trying to say that ID is reworked creationism is false. I am a young earth 6 day creationist - no matter how foolish that may sound. I see ID as merely a compromise solution and hardly a great assault on science.
Whatever, that being said. It would appear that the media attention this trial has brought on Dover has been an embarrassment for many that normally would have passively accepted ID being introduced without caring. The election is a backlash to the "bad press" caused by the trial IMO. However, regardless of the reason(s), the people of Dover have spoken by the election process. For the time being, that must be respected until the next election. If they don't want ID introduced, that is their choice, and I won't complain about it as a "creationist". I do NOT speak for true ID proponents.
Nothing prevents you from arguing that the ends justifies the means, you just can't wear the limited government hat.
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.