Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

We review here the current political landscape and our own efforts to address the attempts to undermine science education in Wisconsin. To mount an effective response, expertise in evolutionary biology and in the history of the public controversy is useful but not essential. However, entering the fray requires a minimal tool kit of information. Here, we summarize some of the scientific and legal history of this issue and list a series of actions that scientists can take to help facilitate good science education and an improved atmosphere for the scientific enterprise nationally. Finally, we provide some model legislation that has been introduced in Wisconsin to strengthen the teaching of science.

The past decade has seen breathtaking progress in evolutionary biology, thanks largely to the fruits of genome sequencing projects. The molecular footprints linking all life on the planet are now fleshed out in rich detail, and we possess a chronometer of molecular evolution going all the way back to early bacteria. This has sparked a renaissance of interest in speciation, development, and evolutionary aspects of disease susceptibility and resistance. The importance of evolution to biology was properly summarized by White House Science Adviser John Marburger when he said, "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. Period. What else can you say?" (1).

In a parallel universe, a majority of Americans, 54%, do not believe human beings evolved, according to one poll (2). Only 38% agree with the statement, "human beings evolved from an earlier species" (3). Opposition to evolutionary theory has existed since Darwin. Efforts to eradicate or dilute the teaching of evolution persist throughout the nation despite consistent rejection in the courts. Conservative think tanks, religious fundamentalists, and influential magazines such as National Review continue their attempts to introduce pseudo-science into science classrooms. This movement has gained the support of such prominent politicians as President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Senator John McCain. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a onetime biology major, said, "our school systems teach the children they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud" (4). Even the definition of science itself has fallen victim to political attack; the state board of education in Kansas decided that the supernatural may now be taught as science in the classroom. Some have claimed that the challenge to evolution is symptomatic of a broader, more generic attack on science itself (5).

Scientists can no longer afford to let these challenges go unopposed. The wide gap between established facts accepted by scientists and the sentiments sampled in the polls reflects a failure of science education. For this, scientists, particularly those in academia, must take some responsibility. The remedies are educational and political and must involve scientists and non-scientists. Instituting an effective response does not require large blocks of time, nor need it involve debates with creationists: small actions can have large effects.

The road to Dover.

In 1968, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Court ruled that the Arkansas law had a religious purpose — namely, to oppose teachings perceived to conflict with the biblical story of creation. Following this defeat, opponents of evolution adopted two strategies. First, they advocated the teaching of creationism as an alternative scientific explanation, along with evolution. Second, they began to adopt scientific jargon to give creationism a veneer of science. Two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, passed laws mandating this "balanced" treatment of evolution and creationism.

This set the stage for the Arkansas trial of 1982 (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education), which was almost entirely focused on the question "Is creationism science?" Judge William R. Overton stated in his opinion (6) that creationism fails to be a science because it fails to satisfy the following requirements: "(a) it is guided by natural law; (b) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (c) it is testable against the empirical world; (d) its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and (e) it is falsifiable."

The issue returned to the Supreme Court in 1986–1987. The Court ruled 7–2 in Edwards v. Aguillard that Louisiana’s law calling for the balanced treatment of evolution ("evolution-science" and "creation-science") violated the First Amendment "because it lacks a clear secular purpose" and it "impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind" (7).

The creationists once again mutated and adapted. After the Edwards ruling, they set about removing references to God and creationism from their tracts. For example, as revealed at the Dover trial (8), the authors of the intelligent design (ID) text Of pandas and people: the central question of biological origins stripped the direct mentions of creationism present in early drafts of the text and systematically substituted the novel term "intelligent design" (9).

The evolution of creationism.

ID is the contemporary version of an argument that has a long history. It was given a succinct formulation by William Paley in the early 19th century. Modern defenders of the design argument contend that living things are too complex to have evolved by the process of natural selection; rather, their "irreducible complexity" is convincing evidence of the hand of an intelligent designer. ID theory’s contemporary advocates, who include Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, cite complex systems such as the blood-clotting cascade, the flagellar motor, and the human eye to argue that because these systems would be nonfunctional if even a single component part were excised, they could not have evolved by mutation/natural selection and therefore must have been "intelligently designed." The argument can be boiled down to this: complexity is itself evidence of a designer. In its current version, ID conveniently omits mention of God.

However, ID is not a scientific theory. The premise for the arguments of Behe and other ID proponents is deeply flawed, scientifically and philosophically. Behe assumes that the component parts of irreducibly complex systems never had other functions in older organisms. This is contradicted by scientific evidence. The Dover trial transcripts are illuminating (see "The Dover trial") (8). Under oath, Behe was forced to concede that there are organisms that lack some of the mammalian clotting proteins. Proteins that are present in the flagellar motor have orthologs that are involved in unrelated functions. A recent elegant example of proteins acquiring a new function within a complex system can be seen in a structure that functioned in respiration in fish and later evolved to be part of the mammalian inner ear (10).

ID makes no testable predictions. There is nothing in this concept that allows for scientific investigation of the "designer." It is simply an argument by default; the failure to explain something is said to lend credence to a supernatural explanation. The attempt to promote this as science is deeply misguided. In spite of uncounted hundreds of thousands of scientific studies published in the last 50 years, there are still demonstrable gaps in what we know about the evolution of life on this planet. However, those studies tell us a great deal about how life came to be as it is and now form the foundation of modern biology. ID, by contrast, has produced nothing.

The Discovery Institute.

The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute, founded in 1990 by Bruce K. Chapman. Today, the institute receives more than $4 million per year from numerous foundations, most with religious missions. The center’s objectives are outlined in its "Wedge Strategy," which was leaked and posted on the Internet (11). The document states that the Discovery Institute "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Its goals are to see ID theory as the dominant perspective in science; to see design theory applied in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics, and cosmology in the natural sciences and ethics, politics, theology, and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts; and to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life.

The Dover decision.

In Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005, 11 parents sued to reverse a school board requirement that the following statement be read to students: "because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations" (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District) (12). The required statement referred only to evolution. The third paragraph in the statement read: "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of pandas and people (9), is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves."

In his decision, Judge John E. Jones stated that ID is essentially Paley’s argument for the existence of God, with God left unmentioned. In short, ID is a religious doctrine. He noted that Behe "claims that the plausibility argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God"; thus, "ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." He characterized ID as "nothing less than the progeny of creationism." Jones stated that the Dover school statement forces a "false duality" on students by making them choose between God/ID and atheism/science and "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

The Dover case was an important victory for science education. Judge Jones wrote a strongly worded, carefully crafted opinion that should guide future litigation (12). The transcripts of the Dover trial constitute an excellent educational resource, rich in testimony about the nature of science, the evidence for evolution, and the history of deceit in the creationism/ID movement.

The "teach the controversy" hoax.

The ID movement employs a tactic that appeals to the American tradition of "fairness and balance." ID advocates argue that since there is a controversy over evolution, we should "teach the controversy" in public school science classrooms.

The "controversy" is manufactured. Evolutionary biology draws strength from a supporting scientific literature extending across 150 years that includes literally hundreds of thousands of individual papers. Creationists offer no science. In some cases, they have misrepresented science in their efforts to debunk it. For example, in Of pandas and people (9), evolutionary lineages are presented as straight lines linking species, rather than as parts of a tree structure. The incorrect linear model is then used to argue that cytochrome c homology patterns do not conform to evolutionary predictions.

The "just a theory" hoax.

Creationists purposefully confuse the two meanings of the word "theory." In common usage, a theory connotes a statement that is tentative or hypothetical. This is the meaning implied in the frequent claim of ID advocates that evolution is "just a theory." However, science uses the term "theory" differently. When substantiated to the degree that evolutionary theory has been, a theory is regarded as a fact. Practicing biologists operate within the rich context of evolutionary theory, and no part of modern biology, including medicine (13), is completely understandable without it. Scientific arguments are not qualified with clauses that allow for a nonevolutionary scenario.

The "fair and balanced" hoax.

In the name of "fairness and balance," the media have decided to present "two sides" of this story. For example, a day after the Dover decision, National Public Radio aired a commentary by a Heritage Foundation fellow comparing ID to the Big Bang Theory, predicting that eventually it will be widely accepted by scientists (14). By giving uncritical treatment to "both sides," the media convey to the public the false impression that this is a genuine scientific controversy and that each has a substantial body of evidence and convincing argumentation. Journalists should be mindful of the fact that no science supports creationism/ID; 150 years of biological, geological, and physical science supports the modern synthesis of Darwin’s theory. The individuals with scientific credentials who support ideas such as ID actually constitute a rather small group, as recently described in a New York Times article (15).

The "persecuted scientist against the establishment" hoax.

Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas. A search through PubMed fails to find evidence of their scholarship within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In the original Wedge document, a key part of the plan to displace evolutionary biology was a program of experimental science and publication of the results. That step has evidently been skipped.

The constant, unanswered assault on evolution is harmful to science and science education. ID and its progeny rely on supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. Yet all of science education and practice rests on the principle that phenomena can be explained only by natural, reproducible, testable forces. Teaching our students otherwise disables the very critical thinking they must have in order to be scientists and is a fundamental distortion of the scientific process. ID is therefore not simply an assault on evolution: it is an assault on science itself.

ID groups have threatened and isolated high school science teachers. Well-organized curricular challenges to local school boards place teachers in the difficult position of arguing against their employers. We have spoken with high school science teachers who feel censored in their efforts to teach the basic principles of science. The legal challenges to local school districts are costly and divert scarce funds away from education into court battles. Although these court battles result in the defeat of ID, they are draining and divisive to local schools.

Finally, the assault on evolution and science threatens our nation’s scientific and technological leadership. Political and economic agendas are interfering with the free flow of scientific information. For example, political appointees have ordered scientists at NASA to eliminate references to the Big Bang Theory and to cease to mention the eventual death of the sun billions of years from now in their comments and publications. Other scientists have been cautioned about speaking out on global warming. These actions disrupt the long-standing tradition of public policy based on the consensus of the scientific community.

[snip]

There is a wide range of actions that each scientist can take to facilitate good science education. Our experience has shown repeatedly that every action carries weight and represents a very productive use of time. Some of these require little time; some require a more substantial commitment.

Educate yourself.

A few hours with publications available on the websites of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the National Center for Science Education can help clarify the issues and provide the preparation needed for an effective scientific response to challenges (see Table 1). The decision rendered by Judge Jones in the Dover decision is a particularly excellent resource and is well worth reading in its entirety.

Write letters.

Write to legislators and newspapers. Write to school boards considering actions that might undermine science education. Write to government leaders. Respond to comments made by ID proponents wherever they might appear. The letters need not be long, and even one letter every few months will have a large effect. This is an activity that can and should fit into the schedule of every working scientist. Similarly, call in to talk shows featuring pro- or antiscience guests. Every letter written by authors of this paper has elicited a positive response. The ID program consists entirely of public relations efforts. They have had this playing field to themselves for too long.

Organize campus evolution groups.

This provides an informal way to husband campus resources in evolutionary biology. Seminar series are useful. Regular meetings to plan special events such as Darwin Day celebrations can serve as outreach exercises.

Organize educational support teams.

Scientists can be a compelling resource for teachers in K–12 science programs who are facing pressure from school boards or parents to alter good science curricula in ways that harm students. If a group of such scientists can be organized, individuals need not face unreasonable demands on time, and the group as a whole can provide valuable assistance to educators within the scientists’ state.

Participate in outreach activities.

Go to local schools and talk to classes about science in general and evolution in particular. Go to school board meetings when appropriate and talk to school board members. Talk to local business groups.

Organize educational sessions at national and international meetings.

Major scientific professional societies should embark on a concerted educational effort, directed both at educating scientists about the problem and arming them for an effective response. Resources also must be made available for science teachers at the K–12 levels. Travel grants, where available, should be concentrated on K–12 teachers to make attendance possible.

Revise textbooks.

Scientists engaged in textbook writing should be more cognizant of the need to educate future scientists and science teachers about evolutionary biology. Additional education is required to explain what science is, what defines a scientist, and how the various forms of the scientific method constitute a consistent whole.

Become more effective lobbyists for legislation that improves the atmosphere for science and science funding.

We urge scientists in all 50 states to work with their respective legislatures to enact legislation similar to the bill just introduced in the Wisconsin Legislature. This movement should appeal to a widely shared interest to uphold the standards of science education and should transcend political ideology.

Make yourself available at least occasionally as a local resource.

Creationists are not deterred by the Dover case. There are troubling situations brewing in almost every state. Scientists should use these new cases as teaching opportunities in their own classrooms and should be willing to testify and support the cause of science education in the courtroom.

Teach.

For academic scientists, there is no greater responsibility than the education of our citizenry, and there is no activity that has a greater impact. For too long, educational programs in biology at the college level have neglected to provide a solid grounding in evolutionary biology, despite its central importance. This background has been left to unstandardized mentions in core courses and to upper-level specialized courses that are often not required. A nationwide overhaul of these programs is essential. New introductory courses are needed to provide a background in evolutionary biology at the very beginning of all programs leading to science or science education degrees, and the courses should be required. New lower-level courses for nonmajors, pitched at a level appropriate for students with minimal science background, are needed to expose as many citizens as possible to evolutionary theory and to introduce them to science.

Work with your legislators.

Identify legislators who are friends of science and work with them, as we have in Wisconsin, to introduce legislation that supports and strengthens science education.

Work with clergy.

As Judge Jones indicated, the creationists have fostered a false duality between science and religion. A majority of people do not hold a literal young-earth interpretation of the Bible. The clerical community has a shared interest in keeping science and religion apart. They do not want religion to be presented as science and, like a large block of religious scientists, do not see any conflict between religious belief and evolutionary theory.

Whether in crafting a tax code, making health care decisions, evaluating the economy, exploring the resolution of world conflicts, evidence-based thinking is the best intellectual tool in our possession. In science, controversies are usually temporary. When scientists have divergent hypotheses, they usually agree on the key experiments that will favor one hypothesis over others. This is because there is a consensus that framing questions in a way that is subject to the test of evidence is the most progressive way to advance knowledge and understanding. In an ideal world, such principles ought to be widely embraced. Students should learn the difference between hard evidence and speculation. They should understand the elements of logic and clear, critical thinking. They need to understand how to suspend belief while gathering and evaluating evidence.

As George Orwell observed, "a mere training in . . . sciences . . . is no guarantee of a humane or skeptical outlook." Yet Orwell advocated universal science education if such an education was structured to focus on "acquiring a method — a method that can be used on any problem that one meets — and not simply piling up a lot of facts" (18).

Within universities, the cultural gap between the sciences and the humanities needs to be bridged. A useful approach is to create courses in critical thinking that combine science and the humanities. Ideally, such courses would include an exploration of contemporary problems from the combined perspectives of the sciences and the humanities, united in the common theme of evidence-based, critical thinking. Given that our universities play a large role in the training of the next generation of government and corporate leadership, investing in a future better guided by evidence-based, critical thinking is the most important investment we can make.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; pavlovian; puppetmasters; scienceeducation; usualsuspects; yomommaisanape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 961-973 next last
Comment #801 Removed by Moderator

To: HappyFeet
"Your question and above analogy are illogical, as I explained in a previous post."

No they aren't. You have this notion that evolution says that EVERY member of a species evolves into a new species, leaving the old species extinct. That's not even close to what is said. In every species there are subpopulations. All that is needed is for a subpopulation, isolated from the rest of the members of it's species by some means (reproductive choice, geographic isolation, and so on), to undergo speciation. That population will evolve into the new, daughter species. That doesn't mean anything for the other populations of the original species. Both can exist at the same time; in fact, there is no reason for more than one daughter species to evolve from one parent species.

What you also seem to not realize is that ape is NOT a species designation; there are a number of ape species. Even IF every member of a species of ape became the new species of ape, that would say nothing about the other species that existed with it.

"I guess if you can't rebut the case is closed."

The only thing closed is your mind. I already rebutted your claim.
802 posted on 05/05/2006 9:39:11 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: HappyFeet
And I meant to say, in response to the post, "your apt analogy," NOT "your inept analogy."

OK, I understand. Thank you for the clarification.

Do you have any response to my lengthy post?

803 posted on 05/05/2006 9:46:06 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Creationists know Jack Chick about evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

Comment #804 Removed by Moderator

Comment #805 Removed by Moderator

To: js1138
I know of several regular freeper posters who are adamant evolution critics. At least one of them pops up occasionally to declare the rest of the evo tribe to be ignoramuses. But they don't deny common descent. No one capable of accurately describing the evidence denies common descent, even if they don't accept the Darwinian explanation.

If you make the assumption that our existence is not the result of some event beyond the comprehension of homo sapiens or beyond our current understanding of the environment around us, then some level of common descent makes sense. But the evidence of universal common descent, the idea we all came from a single life form, a singularity like the big-bang, is incomplete at best.
806 posted on 05/05/2006 10:10:07 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: HappyFeet
The only thing closed is your mind.

That was not my response; see #802. Debate that response with the proper poster.


My most recent post was #803, whereas my lengthy post, which you have not responded to, was #795.

Do you have (on the morrow) any response to my lengthy post, which answered in detail the question you asked in #787.

You asked a detailed question on evolution, I answered it, and you have made no response. I look forward to hearing from you on this.

807 posted on 05/05/2006 10:10:36 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Creationists know Jack Chick about evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: HappyFeet
If we humans are descended from apes (ie, apes evolved into humans), why are apes still around?

Humans are a type of ape. Do you not expect other ape species to exist? If not, why not?
808 posted on 05/05/2006 10:21:07 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; HappyFeet
Unfortunately, with this one question, you have shown that you know virtually nothing about the theory and practice of evolution.

Actually, HappyFeet has already established that he or she knows absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution, starting with his or her false claim that the purpose of the theory of evolution is to destroy Christianity -- and with it, Western Civilization. HappyFeet also claims that with that "knowledge", there is no need to learn anything more about the theory. In this way, HappyFeet has established that he or she will never learn anything at all about the theory of evolution, as he or she is using a false belief regarding the theory as an excuse to justify never learning just how wrong he or she is about it.
809 posted on 05/05/2006 10:24:28 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: js1138
It is distressing to see widespread public ignorance on an issue of some importance. I could live with people in denial of evolution if it didn't go hand in hand with denial of the methodology of science.

I agree that anyone that doubts what science has contributed to the human race cannot be take seriously. At the same time, I do not think it is vital nor desirable that every American believe in evolution.

I think part of the problem is that when scientists read that 54% of the people do not believe in evolution they, being experts on the scientific aspects of life, resent that.

At the same time, scientists have no right to declare that their scientific explanation is the only possible explanation of how life and the universe came to be. Science does not directly translate into Truth.

Science is a tool, employed by humans, to understand the world around us. It is not infallible, and scientists should not resent people that believe that the origin of man and this universe may not be able to be explained scientifically.

The important thing about this is that it not the scientists fault that they cannot tell us what happened 2 billion years ago or when Mt. St. Helens will erupt again. But the main work of science goes on, gathering and categorizing data, so that future scientists will get a better picture.
810 posted on 05/05/2006 10:28:27 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Elsie; metmom
Your analogies as you, are very easy to come by because you are very simple / :) ubiquitous smiley face>

In your simpleton world you reign supreme, the /strike tag> being the most complex and potent of your mental maneuvers, of which a psychotic toucan would reject

CG.., sigh you are to easy to even rate amusing.

Wolf
811 posted on 05/06/2006 1:21:05 AM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: HappyFeet
"The analogy you gave (evolution from humans to humans) did not parallel evolution from ape to humans. hence, since it was not comparing similar things, the analogy was inept."


It showed that one larger population (all Europeans) can give rise to a different population (Americans) with there still being Europeans left. In the same way apes (which aren't even one species anyway, there are many) could give rise to humans and there could still be humans. Your answer shows you haven't even read my post.

You ignored my entire treatment of how speciation works with subpopulations within the larger species, not entire species turning into a new species.

Is there a reason you were unable to address my points other than your inability to understand them?
812 posted on 05/06/2006 4:19:38 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"In this way, HappyFeet has established that he or she will never learn anything at all about the theory of evolution, as he or she is using a false belief regarding the theory as an excuse to justify never learning just how wrong he or she is about it."

He/she is in good company here. So many take the motto "ignorance is my strength" to heart. It's a lot easier attacking something you don't understand and refuse to learn about than to have to do the hard work of figuring out just what it is the theory says.
813 posted on 05/06/2006 4:26:40 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
It is fairly clear that what you require as "explanatory" from ID you do not require of "natural selection." ID serves as a good theory because it fits most of the information science deals with, from the first hypothesis intellectually formed and expressed to the tiniest particle of matter that does not fly off into chaos. To that extent ID is indeed "explanatory." Organized matter that perfroms specific functions is its evidence, of which there is plenty.

ID does not need to give a name or specific characteristics, personal or otherwise, to any implied or inferred intelligence in order to be scientific. To insist upon as much is to conflate the theory wit hits implications. ID has plenty of evidence from which to infer or deduce intelligent design. And science will certainly not be harmed even if it proceeds inductively under assumption of intelligent design. Please do not deny ID the same amount of inferences and assumptions you enjoy for yourself.

814 posted on 05/06/2006 4:31:24 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
it seems we have less time to waste than ever before...we are too busy having fun...

AMEN!

How did we EVER get things done when we worked all day?

815 posted on 05/06/2006 5:29:51 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You should read some of this sage's writings before you make any more snides over a quote which you didn't understand.

If you are going to QUOTEMINE, then don't be upset if we mere mortals do not Google® the REST of an authors stuff and get fully up to speed!

816 posted on 05/06/2006 5:31:55 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Not accepting common descent is equivalent to believing in a flat earth.

The belief itself may anot inconvenience anyone, but the mental gymnastics required to fit it into your worldview distort everything else. The lenses required to filter out evolution also filter out things that do affect everyday life.


817 posted on 05/06/2006 6:29:32 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

Hey, I did a little research and look what I found:

"About ELIZA:

ELIZA was meant to be a hoax. The name is that of the flower selling
girl in My Fair Lady who pretends to be more than she is."

http://hps.elte.hu/~gk/Eliza/index.html

Apparently I was spot on when I posted that picture from "My Fair Lady", and I didn't even know it!


818 posted on 05/06/2006 6:56:27 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: HappyFeet

And if dolphins are so smart, why do they live in igloos?


819 posted on 05/06/2006 7:06:25 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Creationism is to conservatism what Howard Dean is to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
If you are going to QUOTEMINE, then don't be upset if we mere mortals do not Google® the REST of an authors stuff and get fully up to speed!

I have read virtually all of this author's works, most several times, over a period of decades. That's not exactly the same as Google® QUOTEMINEing.

820 posted on 05/06/2006 8:16:49 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Creationists know Jack Chick about evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 961-973 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson