Judge in Dover case reports hostile e-mails

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 24 March 2006 | LAURI LEBO

[Nextrush]

Science has become as "fundamentalist" as it claims the supporters of Creationism are.

Your words only reinforce my conviction.

Maybe one day new ideas will be accepted by scientists, they were before, but for now its "evolution or else."

Click the boot heels and salute. "Hail Evolution."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Science has become as "fundamentalist" as it claims the supporters of Creationism are. "

No it hasn't. Non-science like ID/creationism just doesn't belong in a science classroom. Period.

"Maybe one day new ideas will be accepted by scientists, they were before, but for now its "evolution or else." "

ID isn't even close to being new. In it's modern form it is over 200 years old.

"Click the boot heels and salute. "Hail Evolution.""

Ah, the Nazi reference. I was waiting for that. It shows the deficiency of your argument.

Now, are you going to continue to dodge my question?

If ID isn't supposed to be about religion/God, then why do ID proponents whine about religious intolerance and anti-christian bigotry when ID is attacked by scientists?

Are you just not capable of answering this question? :)

[js1138]

I contend that experimental science is (1) intellectually deficient (2) frequently fraudulent (3) subject to a herd mentality (4) insular, unwilling to consider theory to be the solution to practice (5) unfocused (6) unable to acknowledge its own flaws.

How silly of us to infer from this a blanket condemnation of science.

[js1138]

Maybe one day new ideas will be accepted by scientists, they were before, but for now its "evolution or else."

What makes you think ID is opposed to evolution? Behe, the main expert witness for the defense at Dover, accepts common descent, as does Denton, the author of "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis".

ID is not an alternative to common descent, and it is no comfort to those who wish to read Genesis as literal history.

[Nextrush]

I'm not here to talk about what's "religion" and what's not.
Freedom is my idea and all ideas need to be heard. The anti-ID people seem to be in the censorship business, that's my point.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm not here to talk about what's "religion" and what's not."

Are you incapable of answering my question? If so, let me know. If not, I'll take it you concede my point that ID proponents are lying when they say that ID isn't about religion/God.

"Freedom is my idea and all ideas need to be heard."

Not in a science classroom. In a science classroom, only science belongs. ID/creationism aren't science. Period. It's religion/theology.

"The anti-ID people seem to be in the censorship business, that's my point."

The ID/creationism people don't just seem to be but are in the affirmative action, postmodernism critique of knowledge business. It's a gutless choice for gutless people.

[PatrickHenry]

Watch that "God" thing, Patrick Henry. The ACLU may be monitoring.

Thanks for the warning. I like your homepage.

[Hacksaw]

Bingo. The creationists keep trying to swear that "Intelligent Design" isn't just a trojan horse for religion -- until you disagree with them on it, then they scream about how you're attacking Christians/Christianity/God etc... Yeah, pull the other leg now.

Yeah, if one's "disagreement" contains insults against Christians, then accusations of attacking Christians are likely to follow. Posters on this thread have aleady compared Christians to Islamists for (allegedly) sending heated emails to a judge. A far cry from sawing a man's head off, I think. Myself, I think there are a few who use this issue (that ID is a threat) to create conflict among conservatives, quite on purpose. These threads, allegedly posted to discuss science, have a multi website reputation for being an open forum for bashing Christians.

What I find personally very funny is how those who don't agree with Darwin's theory 110% is labeled a "creationist" even if they find creationism to be rather silly.

[RightWingAtheist]

Ironically, Larry King apparently actually once asked a scientist on his show, "If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes..."

That creationist canard reminds me of Cartman asking "if dolphins are so smart, why do they live in igloos?"

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Yeah, if one's "disagreement" contains insults against Christians, then accusations of attacking Christians are likely to follow.

I haven't seen any attacks on Christians yet. Can you point me in the right direction? It seems, rather, that simply challenging an ID proponent to PROVE their case is what brings the accustaions.

Posters on this thread have aleady compared Christians to Islamists for (allegedly) sending heated emails to a judge. A far cry from sawing a man's head off, I think.

And posters on this thread have also compared evolution-believers to Nazis for (simply) requiring proof, the classic science-stickler. A far cry from exterminating millions of people, I think.

Myself, I think there are a few who use this issue (that ID is a threat) to create conflict among conservatives, quite on purpose. These threads, allegedly posted to discuss science, have a multi website reputation for being an open forum for bashing Christians.

I think the conflict comes about because the basis of many conservatives' conservatism is reason (as opposed to feelings), and when we are accused of: censorship, Christian-bashing, being undercover-liberals, etc. simply for being CONSISTENT, conflict ensues. Again, please show me where Christian-bashing is taking place, and I will share your offense-taking.

What I find personally very funny is how those who don't agree with Darwin's theory 110% is labeled a "creationist" even if they find creationism to be rather silly.

What I find personally very funny is how those who can prove 0% of ID's position claim "victim status" and seek intellectual affirmative action, bestowing upon ID the vaunted positon of "theory" without a single relevant qualification.