Fact is, this theory is under attack (Evolution Revolution Alert)

Baltimoresun.com ^ | 5 Feb 2005 | Arthur Hirsch

[gobucks]

ELKTON - Charles Darwin and his intellectual descendants have taken a lashing here lately.

With the Cecil County Board of Education about to vote on a new high school biology textbook, some school board members are asking whether students should be taught that the theory of evolution, a fundamental tenet of modern science, falls short of explaining how life on Earth took shape.

*snip*

The politically conservative county of about 90,000 people bordering Pennsylvania and Delaware is joining communities around the country that are publicly stirring this stew of science, education and faith.

*snip*

At the Board of Education's regular monthly meeting Feb. 14, the five voting board members are scheduled to decide whether to accept the new edition of the book and might discuss Herold's call for new anti-evolution materials in addition to the book.

*snip*

The consensus in mainstream science, represented in such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History, was, in effect, captured in 31 pages of text and illustrations published in November in National Geographic magazine. In big red letters, the magazine cover asks: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" In bigger letters inside, the answer is: "NO. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming."

*snip*

Joel Cracraft, immediate past president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, compared the scientific agreement on evolutionary theory to "the Earth revolving around the sun."

*snip*

Then there's the matter of teaching the meaning and method of good science.

"The issue is science," Roberts said. "What is science, and, if there's a conflicting view, does it meet the rigor of science we're seeking?"

[Dimensio]

I see that you're just babbling incoherently and pretending that it makes you sound more intelligent.

You don't have the slightest clue about evolution, but you arrogantly think yourself brilliant enough to make all kinds of false statements about what it is and about the people who accept it as valid science.

[nasamn777]

Oooooohh Noooooo!!!! The GOD PEOPLE are coming.

But what is the basis for your conservativism without God? Why should one care about:

• human rights
• working hard
• taking care of family
• getting so drunk that you kill ten people with your car
• honesty
• thrift
• slavery
• killing
• raping
• waiting in back of a line

Without God, you should get as much as you can before you are dead -- the most expedient way possible. This is the rational conclusion. Hmmm. Without God, nothing makes sense!

[Dimensio]

Do not burn my family at the stake, please!

Why would I do that? I'm not a religious fanatic, no matter how often you lie and claim that I am.

[balrog666]

You must be bored again to post anything to me.

Actually, "disgusted" would be a better description.

I'm still waiting, what was the 1st?

Lessons are extra. Look it up, Bozo.

And, as for theft, what am I stealing?

Our time, our bandwidth, our patience.

[Dimensio]

Without God, you should get as much as you can before you are dead -- the most expedient way possible. This is the rational conclusion.

Get as much what before you are dead?

Without God, nothing makes sense!

Only because you are incapable of understanding anything beyond your own theistic worldview. I see, however, that your lack of perspective does not prevent you from arrogantly deciding that you know how atheists thing.

[nasamn777]

Or is it Darwinists redefining thermodynamics to support their theory?

[bvw]

I see ... well likeing the next guy/gal is vital, and being nice to each other the purpose of life. Yet no stronger and forceful an argument can be had than among best friends. Ideas evolve that way.

[From many - one.]

Umm, not quite.

If stellar evolution were singled out as the only theory to get such a warning note, there probably would be objections since it would imply that it was a theory more in the popular than scientific sense.

[bvw]

"You don't have the slightest clue about evolution, but you arrogantly think yourself brilliant enough to make all kinds of false statements about what it is and about the people who accept it as valid science."

Yes your Holiness, even back when I accepted the Holy evo-Orders myself, I had a glimmer of doubt. Oh, what a fallen sinner I am! Now my doubt has grow -- and it is Heresy! Oh forgive this fallen one befoire you, you Lordship!

[Dimensio]

Or is it Darwinists redefining thermodynamics to support their theory?

No, it's creationists redefining the second law -- unless you can explain exactly how the process of evolution actually does violate the second law of thermodynamics. Be specific.

[balrog666]

We well-schooled modern scientists examined the garbage dump behind a long-dead potter's shop and infered that the pots had evolved over many years. The clear improvemnt in pot design and complexity in each higher strata proved it. While some few thought it strange that we did ot not encounter a pot in the process of evolving, however the cold hard fact is that Pot Evolution is a well proved, undeiable fact to our scientific community. Only fools deny it.

Are you really claiming that God is an idiot, learning his craft, one stupid species after another???

[Dimensio]

Okay, I'm through with you. You're not here for intelligent discussion, you're just here to act like a fool. You're probably a liberal plant trying to make creationists look stupid.

[bvw]

To weight the point you'd foist there, you belabored the words "popular" and "scientific" to mean tautologically what was meant to make that point. Are you trying to create inertia? I've always wondered if rest energy (mass, inertia) is caused by something very tautological in being. A loop of string, constantly twisting in on itself.

[VadeRetro]

Are you really claiming that God is an idiot, learning his craft, one stupid species after another???

Are you saying He so loved bacteria He spent at least a billion years just making them and it wasn't for practice?

[FastCoyote]

"We well-schooled modern scientists examined the garbage dump behind a long-dead potter's shop and infered that the pots had evolved over many years. The clear improvemnt in pot design and complexity in each higher strata proved it. While some few thought it strange that we did ot not encounter a pot in the process of evolving, however the cold hard fact is that Pot Evolution is a well proved, undeiable fact to our scientific community. Only fools deny it."

Well reasoned, it makes at least the kindergarden level of logic. Of course, your scientists have never seen an animate pot in the real world, unlike my example of whales with vestigial pelvic girdles and limbs which exist in the here and now as well as the fossil record. In fact, modern scientists can examine current pot examples and see how they are birthed as a result of human industry in a factory and are not the fossils of organic processes. So while we would be justified in our original theory that pots evolved over time, we would be as dumb as a ceramic pot not to understand that they were inorganic, did not reproduce themselves, and had no soul.

There you go, makes your analogy look pretty pathetic doesn't it. Why don't you produce a modern scientist who believes pots are evolutionary biological creatures; since we dig up ancient potsherds all over the world, surely you must be able to find at least one such idiot to illustrate your theory. I'll give you $100 bucks if you can, you wouldn't want to look like a fool now would you.

[balrog666]

Are you saying He so loved bacteria He spent at least a billion years just making them and it wasn't for practice?

Um, ... yes. YES, that is, absolutely!

[nasamn777]

Get as much what before you are dead?

Whatever you want! It is only rational and very futile!

I see, however, that your lack of perspective does not prevent you from arrogantly deciding that you know how atheists thing.

I am referring to a rational conclusion based on the atheistic perspective. There is no rational basis for goodness and love with atheism. It is only a dog-eat-dog world. The fittest survive so why worry about the weak? The only rational reason to care about someone else is what you get out of it. Please explain any other logic?

I am not claiming to know how all atheists believe. I am only claiming that one must be irrational to be an atheist -- if one looks at their beliefs rationally!

[From many - one.]

?

[bvw]

Oh yes sir, for I can not accept as Truth something because it has "often claimed to have been thoroughly explained why it is invalid". And yes you Worshipful Majestic Holiness, it has made the Heretic of me! Oh damn me then!

For I can not worhip at the altar you've made of poor science repeated often and forcefully.

[_Jim]

The Bible has been around way longer than Darwin.

Wunderphul lojic - so was the thought that the erth was the senter of the universe, that the wurld was phlat, that only for elements (erth, wind fire and air) existed ...

Next ...