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

Skip to comments.

Memo: Stop Teaching Evolution (It's A Plot By The Jooooos!)
Dallas Morning News ^ | 2/14/07 | Robert T. Garrett

Posted on 02/14/2007 12:43:16 PM PST by steve-b

The second most powerful member of the Texas House has circulated a Georgia lawmaker's call for a broad assault on teaching of evolution.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, used House operations Tuesday to deliver a memo from Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges.

The memo assails what it calls "the evolution monopoly in the schools."

Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.

"Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion," writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years....

(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: crevo; education; evolution; jooooos; tinfoil; yahwehdidit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-155 next last
To: Tijeras_Slim

Hey! Leave the flat earther's out of this.

I'm an honorary member.

And besides some of might even be Jewish.

;-)


121 posted on 02/14/2007 7:10:32 PM PST by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
I think it would look exactly the same as it does.

Tell you what - go read this and see if you can come up with the answers that eluded Aristotle and Ptolemy regarding a few pesky, annoying details like retrograde motion and varying brightness.

122 posted on 02/14/2007 9:48:11 PM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
If the earth didn't move but everything else moved relative to the Earth, everything would look exactly as it does now.

Foucault's pendulum would not...

123 posted on 02/15/2007 1:46:40 AM PST by si tacuissem (.. lurker mansissem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC

It could indeed look EXACTLY the same. But we would not be able to explain the motor of what was running in on gravity and simple rotational motion. We would have to add epicycles and other jigs and jogs to our explanation. The universe COULD be revolving around the earth, exactly as everything appears. But if it is, then Newtonian (or Einsteinian) gravity is not what's running it. Something else out there in the ether, perhaps intelligent phlogiston, perhaps something else, makes the planets do celestial loop-de-loos, double back on themselves regularly, etc.
You're right that it wouldn't look exactly the same and the rest of our physics be right. But if we postulate the earth at the center of the universe, we certainly can mathematically describe the motion of everything else...just not with neat elliptical formulae, and we would have to invent a whole new physics to fit the model.

To use Rob't of Occam's language, we would have to propose entities, many, many entities, as drivers to explain why the planets and stars do what they do. It remains POSSIBLE that this is actually right. The Earth really COULD be the center of the universe, dead center, with everything else rotating above us. But if that's so, then physics goes right out the window once you get into the stars, even if it works brilliantly close in. Obviously the earth-centered universe would be far, far from the simplest explanation that fit the facts. Kepler certainly made everything easier to describe and understand, and with a scalable model to boot. But Kepler and Newton could be oversimplifying. It could be that the Earth is the center of everything and that an intelligent clockwork makes everything act in funny, non-standard ways, and that everything indeed would continue to look exactly the same.
It's certainly not the simplest explanation that fits the facts. It's certainly multiplying entities to a high degree. Robert of Occam would NOT be pleased, and I doubt it myself, but who knows?


124 posted on 02/15/2007 4:19:07 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

See now THAT is a good question. One to which I don't know the answer. I think offering a broad overview and with parallels and differences would be helpful. Probably some sort of percentage reference as to approximately how much of the population adhere's to which theory would also be helpful.


125 posted on 02/15/2007 4:21:45 AM PST by GulfBreeze (www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=170 - Vote the FREEPERS choice-Duncan Hunter www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

Those annoying details COULD be the product of an intelligent clockwork driving the sky in ways that are not simply explicable. Obviously the gravitational model would be out, and Kepler's beautifully simple math would then merely be an accidental coincidence. It COULD be that this simple explanation which fits the facts: solar-centered planetary systems with elliptical motions driven by gravity, though elegant, is wrong, and the real fact is the Earth is at the center, and the planets move bizarrely from time to time because of a multiplication of entities and influences, possibly including intelligent interventions by greater-entities still. Similarly, it's possible that there isn't really any gravity, but that everything is getting BIGGER at the same rate, causing us to be accelerated upward and have the SENSE of gravity, without it being real other than relativistically.
It's all possible, and the world would look exactly the same. Our attempts to describe the world would not, and would be very messy and disjointed, and sometimes couldn't be expressed mathematically. Just because we can express more things relatively simply with Kepler and Newton (and Einstein) doesn't mean they're actually describing REALITY. Theirs is the simplest explanation that appears to fit the most facts. But that could be quite wrong. The retrograde motions of the planets could be directed by angels or other intelligences, with the Earth in the middle.

I doubt it, of course, but even the model we have, explicative as it is, starts to unravel when you really press out there.

Will we EVER know? Maybe, if there's a God and a Heaven when we die and He tells us. Of course if there IS, and we accept that there is, then we also have to accept that He could be driving the stars and planets to do funny things above an earth-centered universe. It's not a simple explanation, and it's not very satisfying, but it COULD be so. Nobody on this side of the grave knows. Nor does anybody on this side of the grave know if anybody on the other side of the grave knows either. As for myself, I prefer to believe that there is something on the other side of the grave that will answer these questions, because otherwise I will feel gypped.


126 posted on 02/15/2007 4:29:41 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

Sure it would. So long as gravity wasn't really the driver and some other entity were driving it. The Physics are probably true. But it could be that there are really a whole panoply of smaller, speciated entities that drive individual phenomena, and that the sweeping Newtonian simplification, while it appears to fit all of the observable facts and is therefore the better theory, merely does so coincidentially, and REALLY there are 36,750 different, individuated forces that drive things separately but in concert. It is a postulate that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the best, but that doesn't mean that it's literally true.


127 posted on 02/15/2007 4:32:47 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: billybudd
They should put some footnotes in the Bible explaining this, because the Pharisees come off looking pretty bad in it.

They certainly do. But the message is this: while Pharisaism as a school possesses much wisdom, followers of the school often go astray through pride.

Nicodemus the Pharisee does not come off looking bad at all.

They disagree of fundamental issues, like who should be proslytized to.

No they do not. Both the Pharisees and Jesus believed that non-Jews should be proselytized.

And the Pharisees claimed Jesus was doing the work of the devil when he was healing.

Some Pharisees did. Other Pharisees did not and reserved judgment or followed him.

The Pharisees were an informal religious movement within Judaism and the words of one Pharisee certainly did not indicate the attitude of all Pharisees - at the time of Jesus they were already split into various factions.

Barely any mention of Sadducees.

Any mention of Jewish priests or scribes in the New Testament is a reference to the Sadducees, since the Sadducees were the priestly party within Judaism. There are about 90 references to the Pharisees in the Gospels, about 15 references to the Sadducees by name and about 100 references to priests and scribes.

About even.

It was the Sadducees who actually put Jesus on trial for his life.

128 posted on 02/15/2007 4:45:27 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
So he wants Genesis taught instead?

That's just the Trojan horse. His real agenda is to teach in schools that babies come from the cabbage patch.

(Cleveland, Georgia, Rep. Bridges' home town, is the birthplace of the Cabbage Patch Kids; Babyland General Hospital is its main tourist attraction.)

129 posted on 02/15/2007 4:47:12 AM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
Admitting that there could have been creation events at several points in history where the science is fuzzy or counter-intuitive is not a threat to science.

And that is, essentially, all that I suggested in my original post. Who says that creationism and evolution don't meet somewhere down the road? Why can't BOTH concepts be correct? Who was it that decreed that every few hundred years God has to return to his drawing board and redesign a few species here and there to keep up with changes in the environment? Why can't we believe that God originally created all living things and is clever enough to turn to evolution as a way to maintain various species and allow them to continue to survive in changing environments?

The impression I get is that everything has to be one OR the other, but both can't be correct. Why?

130 posted on 02/15/2007 5:03:17 AM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
The impression I get is that everything has to be one OR the other, but both can't be correct.

That's a false impression created by religious zealots on one side and Richard Dawkins on the other. In fact, the majority of scientists, and of Christians, are able to reconcile faith with science, and don't see any contradiction.

To break it up in Journalism 101 terms, Genesis lays out the who, what, and why; science addresses the when, where and how. They don't collide with each other, because they're answering different questions. That was good enough for Einstein and Gould, and it's good enough for the Vatican.

131 posted on 02/15/2007 6:11:57 AM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
Genesis lays out the who, what, and why; science addresses the when, where and how. They don't collide with each other, because they're answering different questions. That was good enough for Einstein and Gould, and it's good enough for the Vatican.

Interesting insight. Thanks for the info.

132 posted on 02/15/2007 7:19:42 AM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
If evolution is a Jewish plot, he's got some explaining to do relative to Genesis.

Agreed. They would've at least explained the relationship between the Loriciferans and Cnidarians.

133 posted on 02/15/2007 9:09:51 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

A liberal by any other name would sound the same.


134 posted on 02/15/2007 9:14:26 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: metmom
A liberal by any other name would sound the same.

So.... you would consider a free marketer to be liberal? Adam Smith, for example? Or Milton Friedman?

135 posted on 02/15/2007 10:26:24 AM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
Genesis lays out the who, what, and why; science addresses the when, where and how.

Genesis lays out the who, what,why, where, when and how. Science supports it.

136 posted on 02/15/2007 10:27:12 AM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Genesis lays out the who, what,why, where, when and how. Science supports it.

Fair enough. Or put another way, Genesis sketches the outline, and science shades in the details.

137 posted on 02/15/2007 10:31:42 AM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
...Genesis sketches the outline, and science shades in the details.

The question is, does it produce a Rembrandt, or a Picasso. Personally, I don't see the former as being manifest, and the latter, only serves to complicate...

138 posted on 02/15/2007 11:00:51 AM PST by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
It could indeed look EXACTLY the same. But we would not be able to explain the motor of what was running in on gravity and simple rotational motion. We would have to add epicycles and other jigs and jogs to our explanation. The universe COULD be revolving around the earth, exactly as everything appears. But if it is, then Newtonian (or Einsteinian) gravity is not what's running it. Something else out there in the ether, perhaps intelligent phlogiston, perhaps something else, makes the planets do celestial loop-de-loos, double back on themselves regularly, etc.

Sorry, but Einstein said you can use every point of view you like. So a fixed and non rotating earth is valid.

Well, you have to adapt your math to that system but this transformation is still valid physics. But most physicists are a little bit lazy and not so good in math. So they use most of the time the simplest available system.
139 posted on 02/15/2007 11:59:32 AM PST by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
everything would look exactly as it does now.

Rotating frames of reference are not inertial. Therefore, you're incorrect. If the Earth didn't rotate, the coriolis effect wouldn't occur, for starters.
140 posted on 02/15/2007 4:35:43 PM PST by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-155 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