Posted on 06/30/2006 12:42:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
They have not made any such prohibition. They are forbidding the teaching of religion in public schools as part of a science discussion.
That is what you do, and that is what you support.
Religion can and should be discussed in philosophy, history, etc. It doesn't belong in Biology class any more than it belongs in Chemistry or Math.
You are Fascist!
You are an idiot who tosses terms around you don't even understand.
Learn a little and come back when you have some real education under your belt. Your adolescent rants are getting really old.
On the contrary, with quotes and citations, she shows that many of the basic points of ID have explicitly NOT been refuted by Darwinists. She quotes leading Darwinist scientists, for example, as admitting they "don't yet know" how the complex and interdependent cell mechanisms "evolved." They simply ASSUME it must have happened -- even though, as Behe points out, the various facets of the mechanism need each other to operate - so evolving independent of each other is logically difficult to comprehend (to put it generously). Ann offers at least a dozen quotes of major Darwinist scientists ADMITTING they don't have answers to ID points - - they only ASSUME that answers will someday be found. WHEN YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THOSE QUOTES - - WHICH ANN OFFERS WITH FOOTNOTES -- THEN YOU CAN SAY SHE'S OFFERING "THRICE REFUTED" ARGUMENTS. Truth is, her arguments have NEVER been refuted, only "scoffed at" by Darwinists who don't want to engage in open debate.
Thank you for adding rationality to this discussion. Perhaps he was trying to make a rational point. However, he did not make it a "generic" example as he should have. His case could be made for anyone, even a devout Christian that believes he is a soldier of God and doing God's work when he "takes what he wants".
Behe, stated under oath, that God may be dead.
I haven't read the book but I have heard that many of the footnotes were from the NYT.
Nuff said.
Uh, they took their evidence from the writings of the pro-ID movement that ID was a wedge issue to get religion into the science classroom. What is illogical is that the pro-ID'rs here have as their hero, Behe, who stated underoath that he believed in evolution.
You are Fascist!
Very original. Are you a professional writer or do you just dabble in fiction.
OK. Then I assume that you agree with what I had stated that I had heard that many of her references were from the NYT?
The courts haven't issued any ruling about debating the issue of evolution or antievolution. They've only ruled on certain matters regarding how they're taught in the public school classroom, in introductory level science curricula.
And don't say that's not a difference. It's a huge difference. The scientific debate occurs in the scientific community: in the universe of those actually doing science and applying, and consequently testing, scientific theories and principles in the conduct of original and productive research.
With very rare exceptions, no such debate occurs in a high school biology classroom. That's just one of the places were the results of the debate are reported.
It's also a huge, and directly relevant, difference because if some antievolutionary view managed to find a place in public school curricula because it had first succeeded, on merit, in the scientific debate, then there could be no constitutional problem with that. Even if this view was held to have religious implications, that would be overridden by the "valid secular purpose" of teaching, in a science class, a theory that was objectively a part of science.
It's solely because you insist that a certain view be taught, in public schools, despite its failure to survive scientific debate (or even its failure to subjected thereto) that you have a problem with the courts.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
You are an idiot who tosses terms around you don't even understand. Learn a little and come back when you have some real education under your belt. Your adolescent rants are getting really old.
I think we should all stay rational around here. We don't know that he is an idiot. He may just have a limited vocabulary.
Here's a place to start:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Not even the evolutionists have been able to do that
So says Ann. Or course she says many silly things on this subject.
1. The truth about the entire fossil record, which shows a very non-Darwinian progression, noticeably lacking the vast number of transitional species we ought to see (if it were true)
This means that there are no fossils of things like a dog with antennae or a fish with hair. According to Darwin's supposed "survival of the fittest", if each one of the incremental mutations is more fit than what preceded it, which it has to be in order to survive, those transitional mutations should have stayed around long enough to appear in the fossil record, before mutating their way to something even better. But sadly, for the evolutionists, there are none.
2. The truth about the Cambrian explosion, in which virtually all the animal phyla suddenly appeared, with no Darwinian ancestors.
The Cambrian period was a relatively short period of time in which a vast quantity of plants and animals appeared on the scene in a blink of an evolutionary eye more than 500 million years ago. In a period of less than 10 million years, there is a sudden explosion of nearly all the animal phyla we have today. Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins said, "It is as though they were just planted there, without evolutionary history."
3. The truth about the Galapagos Finch population changing not one bit since Darwin first observed them more than 170 years ago.
In a 1991 "Scientific American" article, Darwinist Peter Grant effused about the famous finches saying that if droughts came only once a decade, natural selection "would transform one species into another within 200 years." Well, it's been 170 years and we're still waiting.
4. The truth about the peppered moth experiment.
One of the major triumphs of the evolutionists was the "discovery" that peppered moths had the ability to change color according to their environment. They are photos of white peppered moths resting on black soot covered trees where they can easily be picked off by passing birds, and photos of them on white trees where they blend in, and likewise the black moths against white trees and black trees. The trouble is, Peppered moths are nocturnal (for the Liberals reading this, that means they only come out at night). Furthermore, they rest on the underside of branches, not on the outside of tree trunks. Subsequent studies showed that the moths that were supposed to have proven the "fact of evolution" had been dead, and pinned to the tree trunks by the "scientists" conducting the "study".
The Peppered moth "discovery" is still presented in biology textbooks as proof of evolution.
5. The truth about Haeckel's embryos being a fraud perpetrated by a leading German eugenicist.
Ernst Haeckel was a biologist and eugenicist who drew pictures of vertebrate embryos that purportedly demonstrated the amazing similarity of fish, chickens, and humans in the womb. Thus, proving that all vertebrates evolved from a similar looking organism 500 million years ago.
And then, in the 1990's British embryologist Michael Richardson was looking at vertebrate embryos through a microscope and noticed they look nothing like Haeckel's drawings. As it turns out, Haeckel was a fake. Richardson said, "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in Biology."
Today, Biology textbooks are still displaying Haeckel's doctored drawings to prove the "fact" of Evolution to impressionable young minds, like commenter Jim's.
6. The truth about the Miller-Urey experiment being based on premises no longer accepted.
This was a famous experiment in 1953, which seemed to re-create the beginnings of life in a test tube. Scientist Stanley Miller and Harold Urey reconstructed what was thought to be earth's early atmosphere. They sent a spark of electricity through the primordial soup, and a single amino acid appeared.
The first problem to arise was that for the next twenty years, scientists couldn't get close to the next step, which was to produce proteins. Simple amino acids aren't proteins, much less life, so the bridge between nonlife and life remained elusive.
But the real fly in the primordial soup arose in the early seventies, when geochemists realized that the Earth's early atmosphere was probably nothing like the gases used in the Miller-Urey experiment. Creation of even simple amino acids would have been impossible in Earth's real environment.
The Miller-Urey experiment is still being taught in biology textbooks as proof of evolution.
7. The truth about the non-existence of computer simulations of the evolution of the eye.
There have long been bald assertions by Darwinists of the existence of a computer simulation of the evolution of the eye. David Berlinski tracked down the scientists alleged to have performed this wondrous feat, and discovered it doesn't exist.
In the end, the only evolutionists' argument is contempt. They know that if people are allowed to hear the arguments against evolution all will be lost. So they go to extreme ends to prevent any other possibilities from being taught in schools. Like Intelligent Design. So they demonize the people making the arguments. They say things like, "You're just saying that because you believe in God! You probably believe in a flat earth, too!" That's the kind of argument they usually revert to.
What all this boils down to is simply this:
Evolutionist are willing to believe anything, assume anything, and even lie to promote their belief that there is no God. They look at things they can't explain and say, "We can't explain it, but the one thing we do know is that there is no intelligence in the universe".
At least, there is no intelligence in evolutionists."""
And even beyond these points, Ann points out that evolutionist don't offer a detailed summary of how the process worked, just a lot of speculation about how it "might" have worked. It's a theory, because nobody knows what species "decended" from a previous species, or how, precisely, DNA "evolved," or the cell for that matter, or why humans are the only species to "evolve" language and communication and reasoning skills that allow civilized interaction (why aren't there other species building and living in cities and philosophizing and building hospitals?), The underlying theme of Ann's devastating critique: Evolutionist ask us to believe, in essence, that Shakespeare's works really were written by the proverbial bunch of monkeys with typewriters - i.e., that all of humanity and life is a product of chance and time and incredible coincidence. And they ask us to believe this based on their hypotheses about how things happened - but no proven instance of one species actually evolving from another.
Ok. I accept that you did not intentionally mean to demonize me.
I didn't really expect you to be. I just wanted to go on the record with the explanation so you wouldn't ever have to repeat the request for one again.
Well, the smart ones do. Who cares about the retards?
Maybe someone else will give a better explanation?
Good thing we have cooler heads here -- thanks Omaha.
Radix, I stand corrected. You are an ignoramus who spouts foolish statements based on your ignorance. Your working so hard to stay ignorant may indicate idiocy but as Omaha points out, we don't know this for sure.
I sometimes forget what PH says about Being Nice.
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.