Posted on 02/28/2006 7:05:48 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Uh, huh. An evo tea party -- I'm sure a lot of "free inquiry" was going on. And lots of differing POVs were entertained by the Grand Master.
Uh, huh. An evo tea party -- I'm sure a lot of "free inquiry" was going on. And lots of differing POVs were entertained by the Grand Master.
Have you actually read the thread?
I just checked it, and note that you have not availed yourself of the opportunity to contribute.
Yep--read it. Have no interest in your bogus display of "opportunity"--
How many Nevadans patronize the casinos?
You're going to have to sell your definitions every time you use them.
Wow.
That's a stunning admission.
I used to think that "Words Mean Things" was a bedrock of conservatism.
The number of people on these threads who advocate re-defining words to advance a political agenda would be depressing if it wasn't so outrageous.
Let me first state that my understanding of what is entailed by your Democratic Party is incomplete, but from that perspective (which assumes your Democrats are generally analogous to our Labour Party), it is the Democrats whom I would expect to more strongly favour the ID 'teach the controversy' line, as a form of ideological interference with science (science as a high order form of rational empiricism, which provides the ultimate refuations of leftist irrational ideology). Here (Britain) it is the Labour Party which ceaselessly toils to push relativism into the educational curricula, most apparently in disciplines such as History but more recently into other areas. ID is clearly a distinctly minority view, which appears to have presented nothing with which scientists can engage; the notion of demanding equal time, as it were, for it at introductory level in your secondary schools seems to me precisely the same political agenda as that pursued by those who have expunged British imperial history (warts and all) from our school curricula in favour of 'culture studies.'
It may be of interest to note that over here, the drive for ID, though small, chiefly originates from parts of the Muslim population, and our current socialist government is seeking to facilitate an expansion of Islamic schools which can teach Darwin-free biology.
You clearly do have a culture war roaring away over there. We have a smaller one over here; the players are slightly different, but the battle lines are looking similar.
Among the boilerplate fine print, you will generally find that the bully has defined terms to suit himself.
So you think, what, the entire scientific industry is a bully?
The meanings of these words have been established through long use. You wish to change them to suit your political agenda.
The evos on Fr are would-be bullies, and obsessives. Some of them have an anti-GOP agenda.
What they are not is the scientific industry. Science has very little need for pathological evofreaks--evolution at its most useful is just a framework for classification.
Well, when you arrive to try to browbeat some freeper with your evo-spam, it won't go unchallenged. Goodbye for now.
Right, that's why Evolution (non-science) attempts to hide behind science - to avoid proofs.. Nice begoff. And you wonder why evolution has lost the debate among Americans and continues to lose ground. This detergent works - trust us. If truth in advertising were applied to evolution, you'd all be in jail.
The evos on Fr are would-be bullies, and obsessives. Some of them have an anti-GOP agenda.
Cards on the table. Who here has an "anti-GOP agenda"? No vague anonymous smears now, - if you have something to say, say it. If you have a specific charge against a specific poster, let's get it out there.
This isn't a place where we hide. This is a place for open debate and discussion. Veiled and unspecified charges are not helpful.
Besides, I'm against anyone with an anti-GOP agenda. If you can show us such a person, I'll join you in your fight against him.
What they are not is the scientific industry. Science has very little need for pathological evofreaks--evolution at its most useful is just a framework for classification.
How refreshing. More namecalling. And more wild assertions.
If you would like to claim that the debate over the meaning of words is not settled in the scientific community, it is your burden to demonstrate that.
I look forward to the evidence supporting your numerous claims.
Gosh, you sound familiar. Either evos have all gone to the same writing classes, or there's not as many of them as there seems.
I agree. When the evidence and clear reasoning are both against one's position, then all that remains is a campaign of obfuscation, deconstruction, "critical analysis," and the whole arsenal of post-modernism. That's all that ID has, and for most of their followers that connection hasn't been realized. Here I speak of those who regard themselves as conservatives (and who therefore vote Republican, probably for the first time, as their ancestors were the "Solid South" which voted democrat since the "compromise of 1877").
Background quickies:
Compromise of 1877.
Solid South.
Gosh, you sound familiar. Either evos have all gone to the same writing classes, or there's not as many of them as there seems.
Once again, the creationists respond not with a substantive argument, but with insults.
Good for the lurkers to see.
A sensible freeper, and most of them avoid evo threads like the plague, will figure out quickly that an evo never argues in good faith.
More insults, this time with a good stiff dose of paranoia.
Been able to find any evidence to support your many claims yet, Mamzelle? Or is asking you to back up your assertions not "arguing in good faith"?
At the time of the Scopes trial, the Dhims were the ones supporting creationism, and the GOP was on the side of the pointy-headed Yankee professors.
If it weren't for the fact that ID gets all of its support from religious literalists (either Biblical or Koranic), I too would expect the Dhims to support "teaching the "controversy".
They are the ones pushing all sorts of relativism, Ebonics, Afrocentric history, affirmative action in general, and also watered-down curricula and low standards for teachers.
ID is all about affirmative action, but the people pushing it aren't one of the Dhims' mascot groups.
It may be of interest to note that over here, the drive for ID, though small, chiefly originates from parts of the Muslim population, and our current socialist government is seeking to facilitate an expansion of Islamic schools which can teach Darwin-free biology.
The IDers in Kansas had a Muslim testify. See Islam OnLine (North American Affairs) for a non-Christian perspective on Kansas.
Excerpt:
The theory of Evolution has important ramifications in the lives of lay believers as well as the believing intellectuals. To teach young students in the school about it merely as one of the theories would be one thing, but to teach it as a scientifically proven fact, as it is generally done, would be utterly preposterous.
[snip]
The theory of evolution cuts the vertical relationship between man and God and possibility of creation. It horizontalizes the process of creation in terms of linearity of time, which cannot be adequately verified.
It tries to base its validity on Paleontology, which in fact is this theory's worst enemy as it does not lend reliable data for the inter-species hiatus.
Scientific proofs besides, there are important social and ethical ramifications of this theory. If biological progress is slowly incremental overtime and the humans gradually evolve towards their perfect state, then it is logical to assume that their moment of ultimate perfection resides in the future.
[snip]
And if the futuristic improved version of us humans will be free of the present human defects such as lying, cheating, greed and violence, then shouldn't we logically accept lower moral standards because we are not so smart after all? at least not yet!
This would also mean that Moses, Christ and Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Them) were not quite as perfect as some of us are already or will be at some point in the future.
Thus, the world-view they propagated must also be a faulty and outmoded one...
Please give some specific (eg links to posts) examples of this.
BTW, to claim that ID is a losing proposition politically, then to say "I told you so" after the election in Dover, is not an anti-Gop agenda. Quite the opposite in fact.
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.