Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run

Human Events Online ^ | Jan 31, 2006 | Allan H. Ryskind

[Sweetjustusnow]

The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.

Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.

[wallcrawlr]

Step out of your bubble and join us in the real world where people actually learn to get along with differing viewpoints.

Why are you so bitter?

Its too bad your attitude (displayed here and hopefully WONT get deleted) is what it is.

Its actually quite sad.

[wallcrawlr]

My child is dead and another is deaf and one is ok.

My God has assured me I will see the dead one again, the deaf will hear and I will have all my children with me some day.


He rates pretty high with me.

You may want to reduce the caffeine intake.

[MineralMan]

That's about enough of that, thanks! We can discuss the TOE, creationism, and intelligent design without calling names.

Your posts are ugly, wrong, and unintelligible, for the most part.

Please stop calling people names here on FR. If you have something to add to the discussion, please do so, but do it in a reasonable way.

[metmom]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts

It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts

[furball4paws]

Garbage, and you know it. Which Creationist, anywhere or at any time has ever exposed fraudulent science?

The answer is simple - none, because no Creationist knows enough about science to spot a fraud. It is true that the frauds are played up, but it is also true that the huge percentage of good solid science is also ignored.

You should know that - you are here often enough. Shame.

[jwalsh07]

"I'm alive and have Jesus formula because I put in the research and science to find it? It's only your kids' life. Will praying fix your kid. Probably not, but our formula will."

Just a suggestion from a Luddite. Increase your dose of the formula.

[furball4paws]

MM needs to crawl back under his rock.

[RadioAstronomer]

Bttt for later read of the links. :-)

(In the lab at the moment)

[Dustbunny]

Darwinism has always been a theory but is taught as fact. Which is disingenuous of our education system and needs to be corrected.

[furball4paws]

Oops, I was too quick before I realized you two both got the same initials. Medical Mess needs to crawl back under his rock.

(sorry)

[PatrickHenry]

In the lab at the moment

And doing the devil's work, no doubt.
</creationism mode>

[tutstar]

PING

[wallcrawlr]

Well, for a Mineral Man....I'm not sure that was even a put down. :)

[i.l.e.]

Somebody needs to open a book and go back to Comparative Vertabrate Anatomy and learn something. Darwin wasn't making a large claim - only that as things change in the environment - animals adapt in morphology. This isn't hard to understand.

And it doesn't refute the fact than humans were created by external intervention(s).

As long as the facts are kept away from the argument then hot air will rise.

[Coyoteman]

Darwinism has always been a theory but is taught as fact. Which is disingenuous of our education system and needs to be corrected.

Darwinism? About the only folks who use that term are creationists.

But if you are referring to the Theory of Evolution -- well, it a theory. It says so right there on the label.

See the definitions in post #100, above.

[Tribune7]

Bump

Great find.

[RadioAstronomer]

And doing the devil's work, no doubt.

Using the black candles today.

But HEY! You/I already know this since you/I got "cold busted" by Longshadow wnen he figured out were were the same guy yesterday.

[blowfish]

Yeah, and George Bush is about to be impeached. He's cowering under the bed as I type.

The truth is, most of the flap about ID is generated by religious people, for religious people. ID has not traction in the scientific community because it has not scientific basis. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
The truth is, most science people are upset about ID for the same reasons that they'd be supset about astrology being taught in the schools: they detest the increasing scientific illiteracy of the public and don't want to see it accelerate.

[Dimensio]

Why?

Because it is not science. It fails to conform to the scientific method.

Teach it and present the best possible refutations of it.

You mean like explaining how Behe's "irreducable complexity" is founded upon a fundamentally false premise?

I can't say about any other refutations of it since it's simply impossible to pin down what ID is: some people say that it's the theory that evolution did happen, but it cannot by itself explain all species diversity; some say that it's the idea that evolution didn't happen at all, and some kind of unnamed "intelligent designer" created all life; some say that it also applies to the universe itself; and some say that it's literal six-day creationism with all of the overtly Biblical elements removed.

Education is always a dialogue between opposing viewpoints.

No it isn't! That's debate! Education is teaching an established viewpoint. I haven't learned "opposing" methods of computer design in my engineering studies. Students don't learn "opposing" methods for how gravity operates in physics class. Students don't learn "opposing" models of the atom in chemistry. Students don't learn "opposing" views of historical accounts in history classes. Students don't learn "opposing" views of grammatical structure and spelling in English classes (ebonics garbage notwithstanding). Where did people get the idea that high school classes were all about presenting a "dialogue" between "opposing viewpoints", and why do they only seem to apply that to biological sciences?

[SteveMcKing]

I agree, but no brain can ever know truth from illusion 100%. More precisely, "to know is to change" - by measuring anything, we affect it, and so any definite conclusions can only be made of the past.