[snarks_when_bored]

Et tu, New Zealand?

As Shakespeare wrote, "one may smile, and smile, and be a villain." The observation holds true of the purblind, too.

[snarks_when_bored]

Ping

[cambridge]

QUOTE

For Jensen such an idea [evolution] doesn't fit with Genesis, where it says, "God created and it was good." And with the description of the Garden of Eden - "an amazing place where animals were not ripping each other apart and devouring each other".

END QUOTE

[liliesgrandpa]

While evolution doesn't have a clear explanation for the development of the eye or the flagellum, biologists say they can show that both are not irreducibly complex.

Who are they kidding? Did the little blob of accidental randomness just decide "hey, I would like an eye, I think I'll just grow one"
Or why would a bird evolve wings, not knowing that flight was even possible, which wing stubs would be useless for millions of years until fully developed.

[shuckmaster]

a religion-based conservative think-tank in Seattle.

You've got to be extremely naive to believe there's any such thing as a conservative think-tank in Seattle.

[cannonball]

"David Jensen says the evolutionists' perspective relies on unproven scientific facts and theories."

I didn't get very far past this caption. Unproven scientific facts---???

[Non-Sequitur]

"...an amazing place where animals were not ripping each other apart and devouring each other".

So...what were they eating? Purina Dinosaur Chow?

[Timmy]

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Says it all about why evolution is a "fact."

[prophetic]

Great - so maybe for the first time SOME intelligence will be in school.....

[ml1954]

I'm still trying to determine what the Creationist/ID crowd really want.

On the one hand they say that the TOE is not science but religion. And/or they say it has so many holes as a scientific theory it is invalid as a scientific theory.

On the other hand they say Creationism and/or ID should be taught alongside it in science classes.

So if TOE is not science, why should Creationism or ID be taught alongside it in a science class?

If TOE is invalid as a scientific theory, why should Creationism or ID, which have even more holes in them as scientific theories be taught alongside it in a science class?

It seems to me that if they were intellectually honest and logical, they'd simply say that the TOE should not be taught in a science class at all, and that TOE/Creationism/ID should be taught alongside each other in a philosophy class.

[Coyoteman]

Intelligent design:

Creation of the Earth

The world was once nothing but water. The only land above the water was Black Mountain. All the people lived up there when the flood came, and their fireplaces can still be seen.

Fish-eater and Hawk lived there. Fish-eater was Hawk's uncle. One day they were singing and shaking a rattle. As they sang, Hawk shook this rattle and dirt began to fall out of it. They sang all night, shaking the rattle the whole time. Soon there was so much dirt on the water that the water started to go down. When it had gone all the way down, they put up the Sierra Nevada to hold the ocean back. Soon they saw a river running down through the valley.

When they finished making the earth, Hawk said, "Well, we have finished. Here is a rabbit for me. I will live on rabbits in my lifetime." Fish-eater was over a swampy place, and he said, "I will live on fish in my lifetime." They had plenty to eat for themselves. It was finished.

Owens Valley Paiute creation story, eastern California

[Amelia]

bookmark

[loveliberty2]

In the Year 2005--just one little sliver of time in the existence of the universe--one observes the "foolishness" and arrogance of human beings who, limited by the human brain's capacity for assimilating and incorporating adequate data for rational evaluation and understanding of profound questions about the origins of their universe, deem themselves "keepers" of the gate for the minds of rising generations.

Minds are finite tools for exploring infinity, and most proponents and vocal advocates of such tyranny in the classroom must rely on data provided by other, likewise limited, minds. Can any one, alone, apply the "scientific method" to every aspect of the dogma they defend?

If not of such serious consequence to the liberty of future generations, one could find it laughable, as the Creator well must!

In every "science" classroom, could there be a gigantic and invisible elephant, just waiting to be discovered by some young mind, not yet imprisoned by his/her captors?

And, what do we do with the underlying theme and foundation of our liberty, as expressed in the Declaration of our Independence, summed up in Jefferson's capsulization?

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

Ideas have consequences!

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Kevin OMalley]

read later bump