[Steel and Fire and Stone]

The evidence for Darwinian evolution is so provoking, and the evidential support for ID so weak, that liberals have decided that the only way to protect Darwin's theory is to legislate it into law.

This turns the first Amendment concept of "separation of Church and State" on it's head, except, of course, that the 1st Amendment says no such thing. That argument has always been just another convenient device for which liberals to attack religious people from some imagined moral high ground.

So, now in the name of tolerance and scientific purity and truth and accuracy, they intend to dictate their faith of secular humanism built upon Darwinian theory into law. Now, THAT's some kind of science - Machiavellian science, but it's all they know.

Black is white, and white is black, and to hell with "right and wrong".

SFS

[gobucks]

"The evidence for Darwinian evolution is so provoking, and the evidential support for ID so weak, that liberals have decided that the only way to protect Darwin's theory is to legislate it into law."

I know, stunning the decision-making process these liberals have. But as I said, such a move, especially if it makes it into law, can only be very, very good for I.D.

I wonder what other laws exist on the books which 'ban' teaching a subject.

[A. Pole]

The evidence for Darwinian evolution is so provoking, and the evidential support for ID so weak, that liberals have decided that the only way to protect Darwin's theory is to legislate it into law.

I see serious consequences for such laws. Darwin theory does not include genetics (as it was developed in XIX century), it does not includes DNA paradigm (that organism develops from the DNA) etc ...

Congress would have to worked out definitive synthesis of these three and other principles. It would freeze the improvements and updating the school materials and will force schools to teach false things (DNA paradigm is useful but obviously false).

The science as opposed to religion does not aim to formulate eternal truths. Elevating scientific knowledge or assumptions to the rank of legal dogma will damage science.

We see twin attack on science - from free market side when science is corrupted by the profit motive, and from Political Correctness side where science is to serve the eradication of moral rules and establishing Soviet style atheism as state anti-church.

[Paine's Ghost]

Dr. Ken Wilber, the renowned trans personal psychologist and certainly not a supporter of Evangelical Christianity has reached the conclusion of intelligent design (though not a Garden of Eden type) through science.

He states that there are 14 distinct mutations between a fishes fin and a limb. All of these mutations are inferior to both the fin and the limb and therefore give the mutant less chances of survival then a non-mutated fish. Also, he states that the mutated fish would need to mate with another fish with the same chance mutation for the trait to not regress. And this process would be required on a grand enough scale to make it statistically possible to thrive.

Wilber does not come across as Christian and indulges more in quoting Eastern religions then any other. Nor is he advocating a biblical creation theory. As Wilber says, "history is struggling to get somewhere".

But read him. I am not qualified to quote him. It isn't simply Darwin or the Bible. There are other arguments.