Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teaching Alternative To Evolution Backed
Washinton Post ^ | Wednesday, May 29, 2002 | Michael A. Fletcher

Posted on 05/30/2002 7:40:53 AM PDT by Gladwin

Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.....


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; intelligentdesign; msbogusvirus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 1,081-1,089 next last
To: medved
Would YOU try to design something which a customer was only going to use for ten minutes and worry about whether or not it was perfect? Likewise, we're only here in this physical world for 60 or 80 years and whatever comes next is forever; which would you rather have God spend more time worrying about?

Your causality is backwards. The reason we only live 60 or 80 years is because the design is imperfect. People die due to system defects and failures that are not intrinsically necessary.

The analogy would be the manufacturer of my car designing it to break down because the knew I was going to call the tow truck. It is an absurd proposition.

461 posted on 05/31/2002 10:58:27 AM PDT by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: medved
Interesting post. Great questions.

Take the Box Jelly Fish for an example. The worlds quickest killer by way of venom. Why does it need such a potent venom? The answer....

Because it is a fragile creature and a stugling prey animal would do it sever damage. Makes sense to me anyway.

As to the funnel web. Australia does not have native populations of large predators (outside of that extinct marsupial, the Taz-Tiger). It seems to me that the only real threat to its life (besides some lizards and other spiders) is getting crushed by large animals. And its only defense it that is to announce its presence and to act agressively. At least that is my off the top of my head response.

EBUCK

462 posted on 05/31/2002 11:02:51 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Just to make it absolutely clear, your post is a total fraud. Neither Klein nor Ohmoto uphold Wells, propose an anoxic early earth, attack Matzke, or attack Schopf.

You don't understand English which is why you have a private secretary to take notes for you. I told you the red herring is being ignored. I did not bring up Wells, you did.

Your contention in post 273 [Banded iron formations (containing unoxidized iron) and pyrites don't form in the kind of oxidizing atmosphere you claim.] falls flat on its face especially in light of the last citation I give which says --
Therefore, the common occurrence of oxide-type BIFs suggests the atmosphere-ocean system has been oxygenated since ~3.8 Ga.

Oxygenated not oxidizing, that is even stronger than the Duke post of neutral oxidizing atmosphere containing CO2 and N2

which is the information you attacked. That original link still stands unrefuted and supported now by Dr. Ohmoto. as of (NASA AMES Research Center - April 7 - 11, 2002)

463 posted on 05/31/2002 11:14:48 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: medved
Whoa. You mean that folks like Merlin and other Pagans were really magicians tapping into some force that has been exhausted (or removed by some other means) and that this "mana" (for lack of a better term) was usefull in transforming oneself at will (magical evolution)? That is interesting indeed. And I suppose you have some sort of evidence to back this up? Or is the lack of affore mentioned evidence that leads you to this conclusion?

EBUCK

464 posted on 05/31/2002 11:18:30 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Funny...the emperor's new cloths---hairy!

Not alarming...your head---empty (you know i'm just pickin') :-D

465 posted on 05/31/2002 11:32:03 AM PDT by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
Perhaps the emperor's new cloths were eaten by moths?
466 posted on 05/31/2002 11:36:54 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
You are here.
467 posted on 05/31/2002 11:39:04 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
I may contend that the larger ego belongs to the one that believes that he is Gods child, put here for a purpose, and created in his image.

EBUCK

468 posted on 05/31/2002 11:39:41 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
To tell you the truth, I've really got my plate full with political reading right now. Can you give me a short explanation?

EBUCK

469 posted on 05/31/2002 11:41:17 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

Comment #470 Removed by Moderator

To: AndrewC
Wells's claim is your claim, that the Miller-Urey experiments are "discredited" because the atmosphere was guessed wrong. Wells's and your claim are what is discredited. You further injure yourself with the patented AndrewC distraction barrage. You can't make enough smoke and mirrors to hide.

Uraninite. Pyrite. How'd that happen, Ace?

471 posted on 05/31/2002 11:45:59 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
I would guess that f.Christian, in a fit of religious fervor, ate them himself. :D
472 posted on 05/31/2002 11:50:36 AM PDT by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: All
Lurking ...
473 posted on 05/31/2002 11:55:36 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
This doesn't make sense. What you've said (even if you didn't mean it) is that even if there is a Designer, science has to act as if there isn't -- which is not even remotely scientific.

No. I'm categorically not saying science has to act as if there is no Designer, even if there is.

What I'm saying is that the existence or non-existence of a Creator is a subject with which science does not concern itself. Evolution is a tool, if you will. A tool for describing and explaining the development of the organisms that inhabit this world. I think I understand why it worries/offends some Christians, but the only ones who really need worry are those who take Genesis as a literal, complete account of the Creation. Their worldview is seriously threatened by the factuality of evolution. If you aren't a literalist, however, you've really no quarrel with evolution. If you are, then you've got a whole lot of other problems (like the notion of a spherical Earth).

The real issue here is one of assumptions: "science" as you've used the term tacitly assumes an atheistic universe -- one where there is no God. This assumption has an ideological, rather than scientific basis -- which is one implication of your statement that the designer is outside the purview of science.
Listen, science has more than enough on its plate to explain natural phenomena without delving into the supernatural, which a Creator God would most certainly be. Science concerns itself with the physical, not the metaphysical. If you can devise a repeatable, scientific experiment that will test for the existence of a Supreme Being, then you might have a scientific theory worth exploring.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the belief that God isn't a supraliminal being, but rather a highly advanced natural entity, which then leads to the question of limits on God's abilities, which then leads to the notion that the hypothetical god isn't the God of the Bible after all. But that's still basically philosophy, and definitely falls outside this discussion.

474 posted on 05/31/2002 11:56:06 AM PDT by Snidely Whiplash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Your cloaker is busted.
475 posted on 05/31/2002 11:58:54 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: All
. . . are what is . . .

Do not try this in English class, kids.

476 posted on 05/31/2002 12:00:33 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
You are here.

And I'm not.

477 posted on 05/31/2002 12:02:36 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Had a look at your supposed "demolition" of Phil Johnson and notice it had been removed.

Had a look at your personal information too and wonder why any of us should find any of your evidently poorly-reasoned, scientifically unaccomplished, un-necessarily beligerent, and generally unpleasant commentary worthy of further discussion by anyone on this topic.

But as your website says, you do probably just have too much time on your hands, so you chose to pick fights on topics you don't understand and look like the fool that you are for having done so.

You might want to re-invest some of that currently wasted time by actually educating yourself on the subject matter pertaining to natural and physical sciences. Your commentary might then have more weight. As a presumed author of 4 books, which you claim youself to be -- books which I suspect are not exactly flying off the shelves -- you might want to acquaint yourself with the works of someone like C.S. Lewis and learn what a real book author reads like.

I suspect that if your books read anything like your posts on FR, they are tomes fit for the paper recycler.

478 posted on 05/31/2002 12:15:39 PM PDT by Agamemnon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Your cloaker is busted.

Better than my cloaca.

479 posted on 05/31/2002 12:19:20 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
But as your website says, you do probably just have too much time on your hands, so you chose to pick fights on topics you don't understand and look like the fool that you are for having done so.

Ad hominem attack. But we appreciate it and accept it gracefully. You are a perfect example of how desperate Creationists get when they don't have any evidence outside of the Bible to back up their beliefs. Keep up the good work. You're getting your point across quite well.

480 posted on 05/31/2002 12:24:32 PM PDT by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 1,081-1,089 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson