Teaching Alternative To Evolution Backed

Washinton Post ^ | Wednesday, May 29, 2002 | Michael A. Fletcher

[Gladwin]

Two House Republicans are citing landmark education reform legislation in pressing for the adoption of a school science curriculum in their home state of Ohio that includes the teaching of an alternative to evolution.

In what both sides of the debate say is the first attempt of its kind, Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot have urged the Ohio Board of Education to consider the language in a conference report that accompanied the major education law enacted earlier this year.....

[ArGee]

I have no spiritual, emotional or moral need for a god; therefore, there's no "hook" with which to pull me in.

I have no spiritual, emotional or moral need for gravity. What's your point?

I'm quite happy the way I am.

Believe me when I say I'm glad for you.

That would leave rational reasoning as the only way for me.

Meaning that if someone showed you something better than you have ever known (something non-spiritual, say) you would reject looking at it because you are happy the way you are? How closed-minded of you.

So at the invitation of a very nice FReeper, I've been reading this book. The point of the book is to show by rational and historical means that Christ was indeed the deity he claimed to be. It's not working so far, but I'm still at the beginning. No matter what the end result is, it's a good book, well worth the read.

Enjoy.

Remember when you meet G-d to explain to Him that you were quite happy without Him.

Shalom.

[VadeRetro]

--need the details?

Oh, yes! Do you have a copy? Post it and I'll see you next year.

(Don't post it or you're quite possibly outta here. It's after 8:00. You never know who's on duty and it's not like there's any accountability.)

[JediGirl]

Worse, when they threw him in the water to see if he was a witch, he swam to shore. So they hanged him.

Isn't it funny how censorship and religious fanaticism make such good bedfellows?

[JediGirl]

I read it...pure hard core blasphemy---need the details?

But shouldn't many posts that insult Islam and other religions be removed as well from FreeRepublic? They could be called blasphemy as well

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"My children are homeschooled and I can tell you that it bares no resemblance to your `indoctrination' theory outlined in #260." The claim was that if someone wanted to indoctrinate their children, homeschooling might be an effective means to that end. The claim was not that anyone who homeschools has that intention.

[VadeRetro]

Isn't it funny how censorship and religious fanaticism make such good bedfellows?

And one's own ability to be offended makes a great weapon. The liberals know this trick very well, too.

[f.Christian]

To: VadeRetro

You know not whereof you speak concerning EsotericLucidity. His post #174, addressed to me, was a vitriolic, ad hominem attack on people of faith, revealing what I could only describe as a pathological hatred for the Judeo-Christian religions. Most of his previous posts presented with some skill the usual scientific arguments for the Darwinist position, but late in the discussion he began to veer off into assertions about religion and religious figures. I dunno. Guess he just lost it.

Please don't blame me for the ban, however. When 174 was posted I was watching the Detroit/Colorado hockey game, which turned out to be an awful experience for Av's fans. I should have stayed on FR. I didn't see EL's post until this morning after it had already been removed from the public forum. Freegards.

299 posted on 5/30/02 9:50 AM Pacific by colorado tanker

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking. [I am no blasphemer, Mr. Moderator.]

[Bob J]

On NOW at RadioFR!

6pm PDT/9pm EDT- Listen to Radio FreeRepublic live tonight, as Luis Gonzales interviews G. Edward Griffin and discusses his book 'The Creature From Jekyll Island. A Second Look At The Federal Reserve'. Find out the true nature of our monetary system and how it affects you!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

[JediGirl]

And one's own ability to be offended makes a great weapon. The liberals know this trick very well, too

Exactly. Liberals aren't the only people who walk around waiting to be offended. It can always work both ways.

[VadeRetro]

Oh, that.

[VadeRetro]

Liberals aren't the only people who walk around waiting to be offended.

"Might be offensive to (*) and thus not protected by free speech."

[Pete]

Wow! That's quite a guest. That book is quite an eye opener. Tuning in now...

[ConsistentLibertarian]

There's no current freeper by the name of "EsotericLucidity". Let me see if I'm getting the story here. EL posted something that made a distinction between two kinds of naturalism and argued that Johnson was confusing them. It was a detailed post that contributed to the debate. It was the kind of thing that anyone wanting to learn more about Johnson's argument would have benefitted from reading. But EL said something else in another post that offended someone's sense of religious correctness and so the post where he made the distinction between two kinds of naturalism was pulled from the boards? Is that the gist of it?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Can you add anything here? See above.

[f.Christian]

It was more like crashing a plane into an occupied building...slitting someone's belly--throat open at a dinner party!

[drq]

"Much of Darwin's work has come to be rejected by scholars..."

Examples, please. Your claim is somewhat of an urban legend among Creationists. The basic tenets of Darwin's writings have never been successfully refuted.

Examples below:

Michael Behe
Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html

William A. Dembski
Associate Research Professor Conceptual Foundations of Science at Baylor University
http://www3.baylor.edu/~William_Dembski/

Stephen C. Meyer Ph. D.,
History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University

Jonathan Wells Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology
Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute
http://www.discovery.org/crsc/fellows/JonathanWells/index.html

[ConsistentLibertarian]

What was like that? The post that got him in trouble? Why not remove THAT post, and ban him for being bad, and leave the one that makes a distinction between two different kinds of naturalism up there for people to read if it doesn't contain anything objectionable?

[PatrickHenry]

A non-blasphemous placemerker.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Departments that have names like "Conceptual Foundations of Science" and "History and Philosophy of Science" stand to science as departments of Cultural Studies or Critical Theory stand to literature.