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 ...
And Novak. Who's Roberts?
Paul Craig Roberts
> Lunatic fringers who get on to the GOP ticket - like
> Bridges, Duke and Findley - are a non-factor in my
> opinion.
They may not be what caused the democrat voting to begin with, you're correct.
They can be, however, a deal breaker on getting the folks to change their votes.
Ah, ok. He's not on my radar.
So true.
In BEPIF's view registering in a party, manning a party's campaign offices, doing tons of volunteer work for a party, donating tons of cash to a party, etc. are all "hijacking" activities.
How dare the party's rank-and-file question their country-club masters?
If the liberal Republicans want a return to the glory days of the party when it was run by Ford and Rockefeller, then they should roll up their sleeves and work for another marvelous 1975-era GOP.
I would take issue with your implication that Muslim violence is a relatively recent phenomena, but to address your last question, I really don't see Christians engaging in similar violent acts, just because of the Theory of Evolution. I think it's mighty egotistical, let alone ignorant, to even suggest such a thing.
What makes Chisum a wild eyed loon? Did you bother to read the whole article in the link. HE said THESE ARE NOT HIS VIEWS.
So true! LOL
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. But it is a theory that has more substantiating evidence than any other theory. If, over time, it proves false, so be it. But for now, it holds the stage. Live with it.
well said...
Ah, ok. That was not in the excerpt. This...
"You ought to teach creation as well as the fact of evolution... but I'm not about teaching religion in schools."
...leaves me singularly unimpressed, though, and not as repentent as I might have been.
It's very simple. Creatures evolve to adapt to their environment as the environment changes. Those that are unable to adapt become extinct. That is the natural way of life.
Did I go too fast for you?
Tsk, why did you do that...now be ready for junk thrown your way...
Second, there is a more charitable reading of the episode. Perhaps the explanation is trickery. Maybe they think equating or relating evolution with an explicitly religious doctrine is sufficient to eliminate evolution from the public schools on non-establishment grounds.
I assume you mean any other theory of the "origin of species." But if you're speaking of any scientific theory in general, then that's wrong. Other scientific theories are far better established.
When you raised it in context with a religious analogy on an evolution thread. What other implication is there. If that's not what you meant, then maybe you should think before you post.
And, you don't think Christian's can be violent when "their" world-view is challenged?
It depends what the "challenge'" or threat is. As I said, I don't see evolution as rising to the occasion.
Actually, the one line in your post that dealt with evolution, "Creatures evolve to adapt to their environment as the environment changes." was not the theory of evolution. It was an application of PART of certain theories of evolution. Except that it is not 'creatures' it is 'species' or in some cases whole 'genuses'.
There are many theories:
1) Darwinism
2) Incrementalism
3) Quantum leap
4) Random mutation
5) Guiaism (a number of variations basically incremental and/or Quantum leap directed or at least influenced by some supernatural diety)
6) Other
These theories and variations of them are used most often to explain the development of species from simpler to more complex forms. Some argue they are missapplied and that species simply "evolve" through various 'conditions' that are within their genetic makeup.
Origin of life is another whole set of theories. Creationism should fall into this set if it is given any credence at all by an individual.
*** You mentioned species decoming extinct if they are unable to adapt. This has nothing to do with (the) theory of evolution as species could become extinct irrelevant of whether their genus was stagnant or not. But thanks for the random factoid.
*** You also asked if you went to fast for me. No, I think you went to fast for your own self.
My comment: Your original post was obnoxious. Your response was both lacking and confused. I think this is where according to your original post you should consider sitting down, shutting up and getting out of the way.
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.