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 ...
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!).
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.
Come on. On what basis do we say NAMBLA is wrong?
Who defines terms? You? Me? the man down the street?
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).
On the basis that children are too young to consent to sex; and that sex with children is unnatural and can be physically harmful.
No, I admit that my knowledge is not exhaustive. If you have any scientific evidence of intelligent design, please post it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Cool Modern, we agree on the language, just differ in the length of time. I prefer around 6-10 thousand years old.
Human experience. We know that children who have sex with adults are harmed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Too young according to whom?
And unnatural by whose standard of what 'natural' is?
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.