Posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by Chuckmorse
During the May 3 Republican presidential debate, moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates “How many of you don’t believe in evolution?” Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo all raised their hands indicating that they did not believe in it. Rep. Barney Frank raised the same question in 2004 when he accused me, his opponent that year, of questioning the theory of evolution. Liberals are confident that those who question the theory of evolution will be held up for public ridicule and scorn. Many liberals pride themselves on questioning everything in life except when it comes to the theory of evolution, which they accept as bedrock science. But is it?
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that mankind evolved from the amoeba, which evolved into the fish, which evolved into the bird, which evolved into the mouse, which evolved into the monkey, which evolved into man. While there is evidence of inter-species evolution, there is no proof of the basic thesis presented by Charles Darwin which is that one species evolves into another. In fact, science seems to favor creationism, also just a theory, as recent DNA evidence indicates that mankind is descended from one mother.
It could be therefore argued that the theory of evolution, since it is not science in the sense that there is no documented or empirical evidence to back it up, is based as much on religious belief as is creationism. Both theories are based on faith as opposed to scientific certainty and, I would argue, creationism contains better science. Yet the liberal establishment demands that the federal government mandate by law that only evolution is to be taught in the public school science class.
I would argue that Intelligent design, which is the theory that mankind was created by divine intervention, could be introduced into education in tandem with the theory of evolution without getting into any particular religious scenario, such as the Genesis story in the Bible, and without endorsing any particular religious denomination. If intelligent design were to be given equal time with evolution, the faith of the atheist would be no more compromised than that of the theist. In fact, such a presentation would be more honest and balanced since scientific inquiry is supposed to be open to all plausible theories.
The theory of evolution is a political question in American politics because liberal supporters demand that the federal government mandate it’s teaching and insist on a gag order when it comes to any discussion of intelligent design in the classroom. This is contrary to American traditions of free speech and the free and open expression of ideas. This also violates the right of the taxpaying citizen to have a say in the education of their own children and supplants the ability of local educators and elected local school board officials to determine curriculum.
Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution would open doors to important thought and inquiry. When the young student contemplates the possibility that mankind is more than just an evolving animal, amoral and bound to nature like other animals, than perhaps the student becomes aware of the uniqueness and value of every single human life. Implied in the theory of a divine creator is that there is a larger purpose to life and that there is a moral code. Intelligent design sets the stage for the individual to look to a higher power than the government, which is perhaps why liberals so adamantly oppose it. In these times of rampant school violence and moral relativism, the teaching of intelligent design, in a non sectarian way and alongside the teaching of the theory of evolution, would serve many positive purposes besides a simple striving for truth.
You'll lower your chances not a bit. Death is certain whether you get first aid or not. It's merely a matter of when. Science never saved any life.
And that's not saying that applying the scientific method is bad or undesirable or shouldn't be done. Science and medicine are very good. What must be kept in mind, though is science is a means, not an end. It is not something to be worshipped.
That is BS, and people are not going to just sit back and take it any more
Yes the people aren't taking it anymore, in Kansas where the school board tried getting rid of Evolution they were overwhelmingly supported by the people and re-elected, the same thing happened in Dover, Pa and in Georgia where the people were just not going to sit back and take having EVILution shoved down their throats.
Oh wait.....
You'll not find me arguing with that, LOL! I hope you find peace, wherever it is that you're looking for...
yeah metmom- don’t ya know that there isn’t any bias or agenda in science? don’t ya realize that nothing hokey ever happens in science and gets forced into our schoolbook texts despite counterevidences proving them wrong? Don’t ya realize that scientists welcome counter evidences in a completely objectiv3e manner? Why are you so against science? lol
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0216remediation.asp
“Such bias and mistreatment for religious views has happened to Dr. Richard Sternberg.5 Despite having two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology, he was harassed and encouraged to resign from the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History because, as an editor, he allowed the publication of an article that was favorable to intelligent design. A recently released congressional investigative report6 described “compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials.” In addition, it was noted that “Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials.”
Also in the report was the finding that “NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.”
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0729_Evolved_from_an_anim.html
http://www.trueorigin.org/sarfrev01.asp
I'm sure these folks would disagree with you...
45 million aborted in the USA since 'legalization'
Armenian Genocide
The Holocaust
the Burundi Genocid
Rwandan Genocide
Darfur
Stalin's Great Purge,
Killing Fields of Cambodia,
the Hama, Jallianwala Bagh,and Tlatelolco massacres.
the Nanjing Massacre
Muslim Bengalis
"To make an omelet; you've got to break some eggs."
And we have a very rabid and utter distaste for religion.
Especially that nasty ol' Christianity!
--EvoDude
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean in this context.
I think you were making fun of the “evodudes” with your post about a “distate for religion”, but...
actually, no, most “atheists”, “evolutionists”, “secular humanists”, and “Gaians”
are more “religious” than a lot of Christians, in that they believe something based on nothing but a faith in something there’s very little evidence for.
I'm guessing the answer is going to be "None.".
But WHY?
That list was of people weilding the power of science and technology for evil. You can’t blame a gun for killing an innocent person.
As for how many lives science has saved, I’d say about every person who has ever been to a hospital, been immunised, never been attacked by wild animals, never been killed by diseases... the list is endless. You sure make for a stubborn luddite, don’t you?
How many religion has killed? Chalk up a list of wars from the beginning of time, that had been started for some idiotic religious reason or the other.(Hint: The list of the inverse would be easier to compile.)
Wow. Profound, uh, observation. However, I think that extending average life expectency from the late 20s to the late 70s counts for something. Again, if you don't like modernity, you're more than welcome to retreat to a cave where you can live off berries and whatever offal you manage to scavenge.
I think he's trying to say we may live longer, but die of SOMETHING anyway.
NIV Hebrews 9:27-28
27. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
28. so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
:-)
It's not a matter of "counting for something" that is being discussed. It is "saving" lives. Science does not save any lives.
Because of suspicions that the fossil had been illegally smuggled and was likely doctored. Both suspicions turned out to be correct.
The scientific community reacted absolutely perfectly to Archaeoraptor, identifying it as a likely fraud from the outset. It's sad that National Geographic (a popular, not scientific publication) decided to publicize Archaeoraptor for what can only be described as commercial reasons.
Your pedantry is noted without comment.
nope the answer is 2 - Jesus and Stephen
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.