Posted on 11/08/2005 11:05:11 PM PST by jennyp
Then you claim that my statement is false concerning the Dover disclaimer.
Well here it is:
"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
Where's the "forced religion" in this statement Itchy?
Nowhere, motivation is the central issue. Your claim to the contrary is silly.
ROFL! How did I ever manage to *not* run across that before?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
7. What causes earthquakes?
A. Intense heat in the Earth's core causes platelets to collide, thereby shaking and splitting the ground above.
B. God inflicts earthquakes on sinners when he is really angry.
8. Why do rivers and springs sometimes dry up?
A. Quite simply, this is the product of the sin of those nearby.
B. The condensation of moisture from the bodies of water into the atmosphere outstrips the amount of rain needed to replenish the bodies.
Shame on you.
We all decided that Evolution was a Cabal last night and even renamed the Darwin Central cafeteria.
And now you go talking about evidence.
1. Which of the following are among God’s methods of punishing those who break His commandments?
A. He strikes them with plagues, burning fevers that consume the eyes, pestilence, consumption, blasting, the sword and even mildew.
B. He strikes them with hemorrhoids, scabs, itching, madness and blindness.
C. He sends wild bears to devour their children.
D. Any of the above, depending on His mood.
The Earth has platelets?
Hey, that's part of the blood coagulation cascade system and it's irreducibly complex.
LAVA is the EARTH's BLOOD!
ROFL.
However what really frightens me is that this bunch of thoroughly discredited liars under oath still got nearly 50% of the vote. Evidently being caught openly perjuring yourself isn't that big an issue to a large section the Dover voters if they think you are misspeaking for God.
Did I miss a memo again?
So by the disclaimer's definition, ID isn't even a theory? Works for me.
Delaware?
Yawn.
You tell me I'm wrong on motivation being the central issue
No I don't. Try reading it again. Here it is with the parts you obviously didn't bother to actually read highlighted:
Second, the point wasn't the "motivations of the school board" as such. If they were, for example, religiously motivated to teach better science, that wouldn't have been an issue. The problem was that their motivation was TO INTRODUCE RELIGION into the classroom in a Trojan-Horse manner. In that respect, it most certainly *is* perfectly relevant and appropriate to examine their motivations.Are we clear now? Or are you going to dance around it some more and continue to misrepresent what I've actually written?
You were wong on the MANNER in which motivation is the issue. You were also wrong when you stated that the curricula itself wasn't also a "center" of the trial and lawsuit -- it most certainly was.
and then go on to tell why motivation is central to the issue. I must have missed the content once again.
Indeed you did miss it. Try reading my post again until you grasp it for a change. Or stop misrepresenting it in a disingenuous attempt to ridicule what I *actually* wrote (as opposed to your straw man version of it).
Then you claim that my statement is false concerning the Dover disclaimer.
Indeed.
Where's the "forced religion" in this statement Itchy?
The part where it's a Trojan-Horse attack on science in the service of a religion. The part where it twists the truth in the service of a religion. The part where it misrepresents science education in the service of a religion. The part where it is disingenuously crafted to make ID-creationism sound on par with evolutionary biology. The part where it pushes "Of Pandas and People", which lies about science in the service of a religion. The part where moneys were raised in churches with the express purpose of supporting religion via this change in the classroom. The part where the board members crafted it *as* support for their religion, *as* a way to advocate God to the students.
Try reading the actual trial transcripts if you want to come up to speed on this issue.
Nowhere, motivation is the central issue. Your claim to the contrary is silly.
You yet again misunderstand or are misrepresenting what I wrote. Cut it out. I said that *you* misunderstood the nature in which motivation is the issue. I said that motivation *is* the issue, just not in the way you have mispresented it. You have misrepresented the manner in which their motivation is at issue.
Deal with what I actually write, or go pester someone else with straw man attacks. I want to discuss the actual issues, not some twisted misrepresentation of them and of what I have actually written.
Pennsylvania, even!
(Pssst: Wrong Dover.)
Yep, Behe has enough guts to suggest that astrology is as valid a science as astronomy, and that we should teach children God might be dead since He hasn't done anything in a long time.
He still your hero?
Oh, by the way, he lied about the peer review of his book. So no wonder he's a creationist icon....
Vox populi, vox dei.
"(I noticed that Muslims showed up to protest gay
marriage when Newsome did his thing in San Francisco. The
gays didn't even bash up their protest, they must have been
in shock)."
No, they were probably afraid that the Moose Limbs would go Hamas-ly medieval on their a$$es.
Actually, he once did deal with it, in a very superficial way. And he got it wrong. But since then he's avoided the subject. Bill O'Reilly too is all wucked up on evolution -- as he is with several other topics, like oil company profits. But basically, you're right. At the top, the GOP isn't into this subject. But for the record, I'll repeat myself ...
ATTENTION KARL ROVE: Creationism is a hopeless issue! Keep it out of Republican election campaigns. Wanna keep winning elections? Dump ID!
Interesting. When I point out that your hero got caught lying about the peer review on his book, you call me a liar.
Yep, that's about par for the course from creationists.
For the record, Wolf, do you support the school board's tactics in this case? Is lying okay, in the service of this cause?
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.