I don't believe my ancestor was a monkey
An interesting trial is wrapping up down in Harrisburg. Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District is being touted as the 21st century's Scope's Monkey Trial. It puts on trial the theory of Intelligent Design, which its critics decry is just plain old creationism, which is not science but faith.
The problem is that so much of science is faith and ideology. No one in modern science was alive at the beginning of time so we rely on theory of how things happen, instead of observable evidence. That when things get dicey.
There is no reason why ID can't be put forth as another theory alongside evolution. But the evolution facists won't have it. Their anti-religion relativism is totally dependent on the quelching of free debate, and the treatment of Darwin's theory as fact, which, of course is intellectually dishonest. All the Dover school directors wanted to do is read four paragraphs ninth graders before diving into weeks of evolution education, correctly referring to evolution as "not fact" and another theory is ID, and that they actually had a ID textbook in the school library.
The evolutionists own college campuses, the textbook companies, the professional journals, the media. It won't let some backwater school board in rural PA breach their thought police.
Whoever loses in Harrisburg vows to bring the debate all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
posted by Radio Free JoJo @ 6:59 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Are you high? I know that arguing with a Creationist is like running in the special Olympics, but at least get some facts straight before spouting off this crap.
Theory instead of observable evidence? What do you think fossil records are? Also, science has nothing to do with ideology and I have no clue where you dug that one up. That's the first time I've heard that gem.
If you read the Bible long enough, it doesn't surprise me that you can take facts and twist them to favor your faith. I don't expect you to change your mind, but this whole Intelligent Design thing was a thinly veiled Creationist wedge trying to promote religion in the classroom. There's a reason the judge ruled it was unconstitutional and a religious agenda, because it WAS, and the judge wasn't a bible-belt crackpot.
Ron,
Thanks for the comment, except for the ad hominem attack.
Dude, get into the debate! You're spouting off stuff that you learned in a high-school textbook years ago. So much of the "fossil record" has been discovered as fraud, shams. Even science's top evolutionists now require you to take leaps of faith to hold up Darwin's failing theory.
Stop talking and start reading.
Thanks again! RFJJ
And you should stop spouting off information that was skewed by people with an active interest in disproving paleontologists to further a religious agenda. Intelligent Design is, and always will be, a religious movement. There is no scientific aspect of Intelligent Design.
The problem with arguing with an Intelligent Design proponent, however, is the all-powerful "God works in mysterious ways". Of course, they'll never say God outright, unless they're desperate know that ID will fail in that certain school district (You can't let them know it's about religion or you can't squeeze it past legally!).
I'd also like to know where you came up with the fact that Darwin's theory is failing, and that science's "top evolutionists" are in doubt about it. I want links to articles, I want references to legitimate magazines or books, not just a bunch of people with no accrediations stating this.
Another problem I have is that ID proponents skew what an actual scientific theory is. A general theory is far different from a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
So please enlighten me as to how Darwin's theory is failing. Oh yeah, and how the fossil record is a fraud, it'd be nice if you showed me that too. Next you're going to tell me that cavemen tamed dinosaurs and kept them as pets.
Religion and science can co-exist, but religion cannot be scientific (Unless it's Scientology, which isn't a relgion, but more like a money making scheme), and science cannot be faith-based. The sooner this is realized, the better off both sides will be.
Post a Comment
<< Home