Posted on 12/01/2005 10:55:04 AM PST by curiosity
Edited on 12/01/2005 11:11:54 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The storm-tossed and rudderless Republican Party should particularly ponder the vote last week in Dover, Pa., where all eight members of the school board seeking re-election were defeated. This expressed the community's wholesome exasperation with the board's campaign to insinuate religion, in the guise of "intelligent design'' theory, into high school biology classes, beginning with a required proclamation that evolution "is not a fact.''
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
It only takes a couple of percentage points to swing power from one party to another. In soccer terms, Id is a Republican self-goal.
Biology is not a required subject in high school.
Now here is something I can agree with 100%. In fact as I've said many times, the purpose of ID/Creationism is to destroy and discredit the Conservative Movement.
These wack-job ID/Creationists are just practicing the old Totalitarian dictum, "The ends justify the means". They are willing to tell a lie.
.......and we know Satan's other name is "The Father of Lies".
Since you didn't read the article, Will's point is that pushing ID will split off a few percent of the party that won't tolerate ID.
Since teaching ID is not some kind of a conservative litmus test, and won't even gain religious fundamentalists anything really important, why push it? It's irrelevant to the Conservative agenda for government.
Those few percent that will leave if ID/creationism becomes associated with Republicans will cost the next presidential election. Is having a Howard Dean or John Kerry elected president worth getting ID into a few schools?
Yes, it is awfully hard to argue a point when you don't have the goods.
You need to read a few articles on the ID trials. Creationists are continually referred to as "conservatives". The effort by the MSM is to label conservatives as religious, unscientific, stupid, zealots. And there are some conservatives that are trying to help the left do this with no understanding how much damage they're doing to their own cause.
I hope I am not witnessing the unraveling of the Republican conservative coalition. However, I'm afraid I am. But I still have hope.
Perhaps - just perhaps - those radical fringe who wanted a little sticker mentioning that the theory of evolution is, ahem, a "theory" - are not the cause of the disruption, whatever disruption there is.
ID and creationism (ie Biblical) are not, not, not the same thing. I am a flagrant disbeliever in the TOE and I also do not believe in Biblical creation. But I have no objection to anyone who believes in literal Biblican creation, nor am I afraid or agrieved if people believe it, or even if children hear it. I am fine if others believe it. It doesn't hurt me one iota. In fact, at least Biblical creationists know that the whole shebang is not a mindless, soulless accident with no purpose or meaning.
There is no reason at all that the TOE cannot be taught, and then some of the actual scientists who don't agree with every jot and tittle of the TOE can be cited or quoted, so that kids learn the pros and cons.
But no, the evofundies cannot allow even a hint of a breath that maybe somehow, somewhere an actual scientist swerves from the catechism of evolutionary theory taught as absolute truth.
Actually the real important question is not whether apes are the ancestors, but perhaps the next life....
Whatever a person is focused on at the time of death determines their destination.
Let the evofundies consider that.
But, they won't. Lots of future apes coming up in the next generation!
You forgot to add "people who understand mathematics" to your list.
"ID and creationism (ie Biblical) are not, not, not the same thing."
Except when its convenient. And ID is pretty clearly the same thing as Koranical (is that a word?) creationism to one Mr. Mustafa Akyol. See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532109/posts
We've bred cats into dogs? Cattle into horses? Pigs into hens? That's news to me.
Perhaps if evolutionsists stopped falling back on the old canard of trying to confuse micro-evolution (producing distinctions within a species) with macro-evolution (one species changing into a radically different one over time by sheer accident), we could have a serious discussion between the two camps.
I find it very telling that evofundies pretend that every educated person agrees with them.
Nonsense. Perhaps you should "bother to read American history a little more". Government schools are an invention of the latter part of the 19th century, as a component of the Progressive movement. Public education was not universal in the United States until 1920.
Interesting how evofundies keep pretending that every educated person is on their team.
Have fun on a sinking ship. Even evolutionists admit they have no fossil record. But can't argue with a fundamentalist. You accuse Christians and others who don't believe in the TOE of what you are guilty of yourselves.
You condemn us to your version of fire and brimstone if we down't surrender and kowtow to the god of evolution. We can't question, debate, or raise our hands. You're the scientific world's snake handlers.
bump
good article. The focus should be on socialism, not 'social conservatism'. The valid points that some social conservatives have are generally secondary problems of economic socialism. More on that:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/secondaryproblemsofsocialism.htm
Perhaps if evolutionsists stopped falling back on the old canard of trying to confuse micro-evolution (producing distinctions within a species) with macro-evolution (one species changing into a radically different one over time by sheer accident), we could have a serious discussion between the two camps.
Perhaps if creationists stopped falling back on ridiculously false caricatures of evolutionary theory, we could have a serious discussion between the two camps.
By the way, what mechanism stops "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution"?
All Christians are creationists. The most important words in the Old Testament are contained in Genesis 1:1. If you don't believe those words, you certainly can not have any belief in a Son of God. You may not like the proper use of the language but there you have it nonetheless.
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.