EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

[Guest guest]

> >> >

> >>> > > <snip> I do, absolutely, think that inserting religion as a

> > worthy

> >> > adversary in a scientific argument is, primarily, the

jurisdiction

> > of

> >> > religious wackos, and I think that they are rightfully mocked

and

> > scorned.

> >> > ----------------------

> >> >

> >> > I found an interesting website which purports to quote the

> > mumblings

> >> > of the main intelligent design proponents during the Kansas

school

> >> > board hearings last year as they tried to identify just what

> > science

> >> > is behind their " theory. " Also, the author, Lenny Flank,

does a

> > good

> >> > job in spelling out just why this supposed scientific theory

of id

> > has

> >> > never really done any science, for those needing such an

> > explanation.

> >> >

> >

> >

> > ³It's been a while since I've noticed a post from you. I hope

you've

> > been well. I agree that whether ID theory as it exists today

ought

> > to be formally taught in the schools is worthy of scrutiny and

> > debate. My concern is a little different- There seems to be

> > something of a double standard with teaching evolution. As it

stands

> > now, you can literally teach that 'we randomly came from nothing'

> > which is, in fact, not scientific fact or religiously neutral,

but

> > rather an atheistic interpretation of the theory being taught as

> > fact. Yet other interpretations are demonized as unscientific and

> > advancing religious doctrine, the only difference being they have

> > theistic rather than atheistic leanings. ³

> >

> > How in Œgod¹s name¹ is evolutionary theory preaching that we

³randomly came

> > from nothing²? It seems to me that this just irresponsibly

ignorant. So that¹s

> > what Darwin said, in your opinion, and that¹s what evolutionary

theory comes

> > down to? How in the world could any intelligent person believe

that random

> > generation, let alone random generation from NOTHING, lead to

human beings?

> > That is just crazy, religious wacko distortion.

> >

> > ³Why can't we allow teachers to present the science-for example,

> > results of attempts to create organic life from inorganic,

quantify

> > the probability of it arising by chance, etc- then openly discuss

> > various implications and controversial areas-scientific,

religious

> > and otherwise, and let people decide for themselves? ³

> >

> > Because that, as you well know, isn¹t science. I¹m simply not

impressed by the

> > fact that ³attempts to create organic life from inorganic² (LOL ­

this is

> > really pretty hilarious) have not succeeded. The fact that we,

as human

> > beings, do not come close to understanding the natural processes

by which the

> > universe and life have begun and evolved does not imply to the

slightest

> > degree that ignorant, superstitious, fools should use it as an

excuse to start

> > teaching religion (read Christian bullshit) in schools.

> >

> > You want to believe that some personal god is sitting up there

and

> > manipulating all of this ­ fine ­ do it in the privacy of your own

home or

> > church, but don¹t bring this ignorant mumbo jumbo into the

schools, and

> > personally, I find this idiocy to be rather offensive on a list

that is, I

> > believe, supposed to be scientifically based.

> >

> > ³That would be

> > no more advancing religion than teaching about different

religious

> > beliefs and customs (this is still taught, I think?), so long as

all

> > are represented equally of course²

> >

> > of course it is. Of course it is. If you want, teach it in a

religion course.

> > But it is totally offensive that people want to insert this

Christian

> > fundamentalism into our public education system.

> >

> > ³. And isn't *that* how we avoid

> > indoctrination- encouraging free thinking by presenting

> > controversial issues, examining how knowledge from one subject

> > applies to others and influences their worldview; challenging

> > children to form and challenge their own individual worldviews?

What

> > are your thoughts?²

> >

> > Yes ­ you are just so full of it. And yes ­ this IS a personal

attack.

> >

Yes, I could tell by the way my stomach churned and heart raced as I

read your words that it was a personal attack, but thank you for the

confirmation. I am reminded that words can be very powerful. Your

posts on this forum are regularly characterized by sarcasm,

profanity, contempt and personal attacks. Though I am thankful I

rarely have occasion to be confronted directly by such ugliness, it

is unfortunate it has to be part of this group at all. I trust and

submit to our moderator to censor me and you as she sees fit.

I wish you peace,