Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
That is a stupid question but then I think you were not really asking a question but trying to make an inference so that other readers would think I had made such a position.
Yes, parents should have input and part of that input is ensuring that the kids are taught a proper curriculm and not ID video tape garbage pretending to be scientific fact.
>> Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?
Well your great, great, great... great Grandmother was a hairy caveman. So there!
I would rather be on that phys-ed teacher’s side than the side that sued over bumper stickers about keeping an open mind.
America is supposed to be a free country. If the government wants to force kids to school, then fine— but when the government wants to undermine a child’s faith against the parents’ wishes, I would only agree with regard to countering murder cults.
People get really impatient with Christians. But DAMMIT, it’s Christians who are making the world a better place. It’s the enemies of Christianity who cause most of the world’s problems.
Interesting that you bring up the Dover case. Isn’t that where the ID experts testified that it should be taught in clase that the Intelligent Designer was most probably dead? Would you want your kid coming home from school crying saying that he was taught in school that God was dead?
Scientists have discovered that their fundamental belief is flawed. Having several simultaneous mutations is a near-impossibility unless there is some kind of intelligent force behind the occurrence. But they still want to ‘disprove’ the Bible with their own religious superstitions.
The biggest flaw is having several simultaneous mutations. But there’s the other flaw, the Cambrian period.
Would you not agree that the phys ed teacher with no credentials in either science or philosophy is unqualified to teach a philosophy course about science?
We can observe simultaneous mutations. If you are a typical person you have several alleles not found in your parents. This is a fact.
“That is a stupid question but then I think you were not really asking a question but trying to make an inference so that other readers would think I had made such a position.”
I have to ask stupid questions sometimes. Sorry, but when Neal Boortz tried to equate Christian parents as committing ‘child abuse’ through education sources, that’s the kind of fanaticism that forces me to ask stupid questions, not having studied your entire posting history.
False
Having several simultaneous mutations is a near-impossibility unless there is some kind of intelligent force behind the occurrence.
Please explain where you are coming from.
But they still want to ‘disprove’ the Bible with their own religious superstitions.
I think you are paranoid. Nothing in evolution 'disproves' the Bible. It only threatens those that have minds closed due to years of brainwashing by other humans that have their own agenda of keeping you slave to their particular distorted philosophy of religion. After all, I would guess that your particular denomiation didn't even exist when the Bible was written.
I’m refering to a mathemetician who would be called ‘stupid’ according to the fanatical headline of this thread: Michael Behe.
I don’t recall discussing Behe with you. You daid simultaneous mutatins ar a flaw in evolution and I pointed out that in any instance of reproduction there are likely to be multiple copy errors. This is an observable fact.
Is that the same MB that testified that public school children should be taught that the Intelligent Designer (God) was dead? Also the same MB that believes that we should teach our school children that man's origin was in a pool of chemicals and he evolved over hundreds of millions of years to where he is now?
This from someone who sent their daughter to "one of the best Christian schools in the area"? Post 1034
There's a really big disconnect there.
Here’s a guy who is too ‘dumb’ for evolution:
Michael Behe.
No disconnect. The Christian school is one of the best in the area partially because it does not brainwash their students.
Are you referring to Behe’s two binding site rule?
If Behe said that God is dead, then that should make evolutions respect him all the more, I would think. I used to believe in evolution myself until I read Coulter’s ‘Godless’. Now I know enough to know that the leading evolutionists are far too snide and sue-happy. Leading evolutionists have a superiority complex and think that parents are ‘too stupid’ to know what their kids should be taught. I’m actually DEVO myself.
I guess I’m jusss tooo dumbbb to know whacha talkin’ bout, like the brilliant headline sayz.
From your link. He calls Darwin's theory 'elegant' and refers to 'common descent' as valid.
"Teach Darwin's elegant theory. ...If I were teaching a high school biology course, I certainly would want my students to understand Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which explains antibiotic resistance and a lot of other things.
I would want them to know the many similarities among organisms that are interpreted in terms of common descent, as well as to understand the laboratory experiments that show organisms changing in response to selective pressure.
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.