Posted on 11/13/2007 1:40:53 PM PST by yoe
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. Albert Einstein Why Socialism?
Evidently, "smart" is relative.
All the fossil we have found and I still can’t find that darn missing link one for any transitional species type.
Eh? Check again.
Check the definitions on my FR home page. "Theory," "law," and other relevant terms are included.
That has got to be one of the most tendentious cartoons I’ve ever seen. It’s worse than a Chick tract.
Yeah, like that Leftist fueled 12 part crap series they had about WWII.
I don't agree with that proposition but then again I don't agree with SCOTUS either since their "establishment clause" jurisprudence is bascially incoherent.
Battling between liberal and conservative seems like useful idiot exercises.
To me its authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian. Does a policy limit my options as a citizen? So if yesterday I could own a health insurance policy and today I cannot, my options have been limited.
Socialism limits choices and its authoritarian (they call it progressive), but conservatives often want to limit my options, too. If I’m not hurting anyone, just leave me the hell alone. Ha.
Gee...I wonder how that little gem got left out of the school books.
Well, yes they're absurd (didn't they refuse to help defend ID in the Dover trial?) but in that particular sentence they have the teensy-weensiest of claims. There are religious people who think evolution can be reconciled with religions and other religious people who disagree. That statement is siding with the former against the latter and so might conceivably put a toe across the SC's neutrality standard.
Better to stick with facts that don't claim truth for one position or another. They might, for example, quote some of the many scientists like Francis Collins who've reconciled evolution with their faith. And then they could quote creationists who say these celebrated scientists just lying to themselves because the Bible must be taken literally.
LOL. It does; lots of them, but none ever quite the same or doing the same thing even right next to each other. I remember mapping in Montana and coming across a wrench faulted formation and I just had to sit and look. I sketched it and marked it on my map, but I spent more time just marveling at that little hidden, beautiful treasure high up on a lonely peak. A mule deer stumbled on me and we both woke out of our respective musings and went in opposite directions.
All the lawyers, teachers and others who embrace Darwinism and evolution in their dying moments will see one of God’s creations for themselves. It is hell.
Wrong.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-Albert Einstein
Source: Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman (eds) (1981). Albert Einstein, The Human Side. Princeton University Press, 43.
The Pope is going to hell?
>>Well, yes they’re absurd (didn’t they refuse to help defend ID in the Dover trial?) but in that particular sentence they have the teensy-weensiest of claims. There are religious people who think evolution can be reconciled with religions and other religious people who disagree. That statement is siding with the former against the latter and so might conceivably put a toe across the SC’s neutrality standard.<<
You have a point - there is a point here.
I’ve been a science teacher and I can tell you that kids are gonna ask questions and teachers need the freedom to answer questions that are not directly in the curriculum.
I promise that kids are gonna ask about religion in science class. I do disagree with the DI - teacher need to be able to say they do not oppose religion and that science does not oppose religion (although it is sometimes hard to tell that listening to some science types)
Anyone you’d ever want to know or spend time with will be in hell. I mean, would you want to spend eternity in the company of the anti-science crowd?
Are you kidding me? There have been thousands of transitional species discovered. Maybe you've just been asleep the last 150 years...
Wikipedia, for example, has a short list to get you started.
They're both strickly liberal media for liberal consumption.
Both media have made it pretty clear that the conservative viewpoint is not welcome.
Taxation without represention ... a possibility...
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”~Albert Einstein
Both media have made it pretty clear that the conservative viewpoint is not welcome.
So it is your contention that science is liberal, and conservatives shouldn't have anything to do with it?
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.