Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

God vs. Darwin: no contest
Boston Globe ^ | 08.08.05 | Cathy Young

Posted on 08/08/2005 8:49:04 AM PDT by wallcrawlr

THE GOD VS. Darwin debate went to the White House last week when President Bush weighed in, stating in a roundtable interview with reporters that ''intelligent design" should be taught along with evolution in public schools. It's a move that has undoubtedly pleased the president's conservative religious base. However, it has also caused much unhappiness among those conservatives who want the Republican Party to be something other than a political arm of the religious right, including such strong Bush supporters as columnist Charles Krauthammer and University of Tennessee law professor/blogger Glenn Reynolds.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; crevolist; enoughalready; etc; godisgreat; importantdiscussion; jesuslovesyou; origins; pleasepostsimilar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-242 next last
To: Tribune7

I'd be satisfied if the science class simply taught observable, present-day facts: This is a cell, and this is how we think it works. Here's a fish ... dig the gills? The blood circulates because of the action of the heart muscle, and we can show it to you on film (not just with cartoons!).


121 posted on 08/08/2005 11:32:42 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Liberals: Too stupid to realize Dick Cheney is the real Dark Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

I have no religious beliefs and I do not engage in any of these activities, nor have any desire to do so.

Not you, but succeeding generations slide too! Think intergenerationally. A life without an anchor can go anywhere, especially from generation to generation.


122 posted on 08/08/2005 11:32:54 AM PDT by joyspring777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Come on. On what basis do we say NAMBLA is wrong?

Who defines terms? You? Me? the man down the street?


123 posted on 08/08/2005 11:34:07 AM PDT by joyspring777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Using your standard of 'morality,' any human being can come up with his or her own standard of right and wrong, as well as what 'hurts' another human being, right?

Sure. But human experience show us whether or not such standards work.

NAMBLA claims that man/boy sex doesn't hurt anyone. Who's to say that their opinion is wrong?

We have the ability to do statistical studies on the effects of sexual intercourse between adults and children. No one without an ulterior motive (such as NAMBLA) can seriously claim that 5 year-olds aren't harmed by sex with an adult (both physically and psychologically).

124 posted on 08/08/2005 11:34:34 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: joyspring777
Come on. On what basis do we say NAMBLA is wrong?

On the basis that children are too young to consent to sex; and that sex with children is unnatural and can be physically harmful.

125 posted on 08/08/2005 11:36:07 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Warning! Thetan on board!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Do you mind if I ask how you are certain that you have encountered all evidence, and that none has been filtered out from 'scientific journals?'

No, I admit that my knowledge is not exhaustive. If you have any scientific evidence of intelligent design, please post it.

126 posted on 08/08/2005 11:36:47 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

I can only work with the evidence before me.

When one closes one's eyes, or looks for something in the dark...how can one see anything?

There is no evidence of intelligent design.

This is NOT a fact, but an opinion.


127 posted on 08/08/2005 11:37:14 AM PDT by joyspring777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
My point, such as it is, is that any system where a government entity imposes a curriculum is going to have problems with competing ideological viewpoints. Eliminate the government as "provider" of education, and you eliminate the conflict, at least at that level.

Not necessarily.

If the local school board is approached by the citizens of a community petititioning them to teach ID along with evolution in science classrooms, it is in no way an imposition of a 'system of government.' The curriculum is coming from the will of the people. Eliminating the Department of Education (which I would love to have happen, since it is the source of most of the liberal agenda forced on our local schools) would not change the fundamental issue at stake here.

And, forgive me, but it is way different than having them teach Chinese or roofing. It is a fundamental right of the citizens of a community to have students taught both sides of this argument, rather than having one side forced down their throats as fact, when it is not.

128 posted on 08/08/2005 11:37:34 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Let's turn it around. If you weren't a Christian, would you molest children? Do you find you have an urge to do so, that your religion helps you resist?

I find it interesting that many religious people are so concerned that if they give up their beliefs, they'll descend into depravity. I have no religious beliefs, but I feel no desire to rape and murder my neighbors.

Perhaps we need to keep an eye on religious people, if they are so close to becoming violent criminals.

129 posted on 08/08/2005 11:39:28 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

That is an opinion, not an absolute.

On what basis? Yours!

But NAMBLA disagrees and feels the kid should be free?

On what basis, outside of personal opinion, can it be wrong?


130 posted on 08/08/2005 11:40:01 AM PDT by joyspring777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
We're a pretty young species.

Cool Modern, we agree on the language, just differ in the length of time. I prefer around 6-10 thousand years old.

131 posted on 08/08/2005 11:41:05 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: joyspring777
Come on. On what basis do we say NAMBLA is wrong?

Human experience. We know that children who have sex with adults are harmed.

132 posted on 08/08/2005 11:41:08 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Statistical studies can be used to prove anything, and ARE used by the left to prove their 'morality.'

They have statistical studies to prove that the children of divorce are happy, or that abortion doesn't hurt anybody, but it doesn't make it so.

Sometimes you have to get your head above numbers, and understand that there is a source for morality beyond ourselves.

133 posted on 08/08/2005 11:41:14 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

As I said, what of your free-to-be-me progeny of suceeding generations?

Rome proved such a situation does disintegrate, and the U.S. is well on its way in its own right.


134 posted on 08/08/2005 11:42:12 AM PDT by joyspring777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Perhaps we need to keep an eye on religious people, if they are so close to becoming violent criminals.

I suggested to one guy he put himself on the sex-offenders list on a precautionary basis, just in case his faith falters. He was quite offended. Oddly enough, though, he still can't figure out why anyone else might be offended when he says that without his religion, there is no reason not to rape, murder and molest.

135 posted on 08/08/2005 11:42:16 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Warning! Thetan on board!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: joyspring777
This is NOT a fact, but an opinion.

Provide evidence of intelligent design, then.

I'm actually quite open-minded on this issue. However, no one has been able to provide evidence that intelligent design has actually occured.

136 posted on 08/08/2005 11:42:52 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: joyspring777
Okay, it's not quite a full "free market". But it still is a "free market" ... say like, driving. Would you consider driving your own car to be a free market in the US? For in nearly all states in order to drive, you must have insurance. And that insurance can be very expensive when you are under 25, so expensive that if you are under 25 and poor -- you can forget about driving your own car legally.

You can buy a running car for maybe $250 -- you can not drive it legally, when you are under 25 for under $2500 in some places. That's too much for some to pay.

Yes. The government requires schooling. A poor parent can still move to a state where the children can be home-schooled. And in many religious schools will give greatly discounted tuitions to the very poor.

The education system is more like a "free market" than not -- except for one aspect -- the public schools are totally free. Hard to compete with a giveaway when you have to pay the bills, religious school or not.

137 posted on 08/08/2005 11:42:54 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
We know that children who have sex with adults are harmed.

Who is 'we,' and what do you do with the 'them' who come up with other 'experience' to back up their idea about what's moral and what's not?

138 posted on 08/08/2005 11:43:16 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

If we have no morality outside ourselves, we can move, slide and migrate in any direction...rationalizing whatever we wish and desire to do.

We'll back into the studies to justify ourselves. That is what NAMBLA does in their minds.


139 posted on 08/08/2005 11:44:14 AM PDT by joyspring777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
On the basis that children are too young to consent to sex; and that sex with children is unnatural and can be physically harmful.

Too young according to whom?

And unnatural by whose standard of what 'natural' is?

140 posted on 08/08/2005 11:45:06 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-242 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson