Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The kentucky Creationist Museum

Pages: (6) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:53    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03) By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner. Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's fake science journal? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:53    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,15:32) Dave - got it.  FTK = ignorant.  You've made that point many times in the past.  Does repeating yourself get tiring? Wrong, again. FtK = ignorant about science (you might be quite intelligent about other stuff, I have no idea) Additionally, as has been pointed out by me and lots of others, questioning your ideas and understanding of science is not personal. That's how science works (ideally). Let's talk about the ideas, and see if we can get past the personal stuff. And yes, it does get tiring to keep saying that (and lots of other things). You could help me out by giving me a glimmer of hope that you understand it. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:05    Click here to apply for the 2003 ISCID Undergraduate Summer Workshop. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:13    Quote I mentioned discussing these ID/creationism matters in philosophy of science classes at university. In theory, that might possibly be an option (though that is a lot of science to shove into a philosophy class). But, the problem is that those who would be approved to teach the class would probably guys like Elsberry or Krebs.  In that case, the course would be useless.  That would be like having Kent Hovind teach a class on evolution (or ID or creation science for that matter - LOL).   See the problem?   It's also interesting that you don't think it's a problem to present these issues at the universities, yet on the SMU thread, people are outraged about the conference taking place this weekend on university grounds.   Would that be because there are actually ID advocates running the show rather than anti-ID professors teaching a class in regard to these issues? -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:19    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,17:13) Quote I mentioned discussing these ID/creationism matters in philosophy of science classes at university. In theory, that might possibly be an option (though that is a lot of science to shove into a philosophy class). In theory nothing. I had several of these classes. In real life. At an ordinary public university.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:23    Quote (stevestory @ April 13 2007,16:19)   Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,17:13)   Quote I mentioned discussing these ID/creationism matters in philosophy of science classes at university. In theory, that might possibly be an option (though that is a lot of science to shove into a philosophy class). In theory nothing. I had several of these classes. In real life. At an ordinary public university. Yes, it's called 'Philosophy of Science'. Many of those wicked secular humanist universities teach it. Quote But, the problem is that those who would be approved to teach the class would probably guys like Elsberry or Krebs.  In that case, the course would be useless. Why? Real, informed scientists can't be trusted? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:24    Quote It's also interesting that you don't think it's a problem to present these issues at the universities, yet on the SMU thread, people are outraged about the conference taking place this weekend on university grounds.   Would that be because there are actually ID advocates running the show rather than anti-ID professors teaching a class in regard to these issues? I don't think you can support this statement. Also, I'd like to second Steve's question at the top of this page. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:30    Oh, I understand, Dave.  I simply disagree. Honestly, I do understand the concerns that many of you have.   But, I still think that ID falls under the category of science, and I don't believe that it is a threat to scientific advancement whatsoever.   The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,16:54    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03) By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner. Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's fake science journal? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:23    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:30) Oh, I understand, Dave.  I simply disagree. ;) Before I reply in any detail, I guess I need to know with which of the (five or so) questions I posed, do you "simply disagree"? It might be interesting to see how you finesse your thinking that it is OK to appear ignorant by repeating a gratuitously insulting term, but not OK to be called ignorant when you do that...   Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:30) Honestly, I do understand the concerns that many of you have.   But, I still think that ID falls under the category of science, and I don't believe that it is a threat to scientific advancement whatsoever.   The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications. It might not be a "threat to scientific advancement", but it will never be a contributor, either. And it is a threat to education, because it promotes unscientific and muddled thinking, conflates science with religion and philosophy, and wastes time. Again, as just about everyone else on this thread has pointed out, ID will be seriously considered as science when ID predictions are tested, and the results published in peer-reviewed journals as well as presented (and criticized) at regular scientific meetings. The reluctance of mainstream scientists to short-circuit that pathway is something that you certainly do need to understand. You can keep saying that you you "think" it is science, but that is not going to be enough. Ever. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:33    Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,22:51)  Most parents don't want their children to end up dead, and with the STD's we've got floating around these days, you'd have to be a complete moron not to advise your kids of all the options. Ya mean like THESE "complete morons" . . . . ? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....47.html -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:35    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,06:30) I'm not promoting anything.  I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.  So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.   I suggest promoting abstinence ALONG with education about birth control for those who have no self control whatsoever, or those who are out to get laid regardless of the consequences. Abstinence students still having sex. Which hardly surprises me. Ftk, speaking only for me, you're talking to a nerdy bookworm who was 1) too unpopular to care about peer pressure 2) saw too many girls get pregnant and said, "Not me" 3) had an escape plan to get out of Dodge 4) was holding out for a Carl Sagan type. Believe it or not, I believe it's a good idea to wait at least until one is out of high school. But I also believe in advocating condom use. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:35    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,07:30)  I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.  So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.   So I take it then that you'd be in favor of abortion rights for people in those situations . . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:44    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:30)   The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications. Then, uh, why do so many Christians and other theists think ID/creationism is full of shit? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,17:55    I know this is WAAAAAY past when it appeared, but I have a little bone to pick: " Who would know best the consequences of same sex unions? God of course. Consequences would include, but are not limited to: disease and deterioration of the family (consider the aids epidemic)." The AIDS epidemic is not a "gay" epidemic. The vector that brought it to the US was a gay male, and therefore the epicenter of the epidemic in the US was the gay community, primarily on the west coast, in the late 70's.  However, HIV is spread by any sexual contact, and also be blood exchange (drug use or transfusion). To imply that AIDS is a consequence of same-sex unions is false. It is very much a disease of heterosexuals in many other countries, and can be contracted even if a person has done nothing "morally" wrong. Sorry-I've been out of town and it just burns me to see this sort of stuff.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,18:00    Hey FTK, I am (mildly) curious about soemthing.  In the 25 years that I have been fighting creationists/IDers, I have noticed a particular pattern amongst them all -- a pattern that you follow, too.  All of them, like you, have refused to answer any specific scientific questions, and all of them, like you, plead that they "don't have the time" for it. Yet all of them, just like you, suddenly find all the time in the world when the discussion turns to their particular religious opinions. I've never yet, in two and a half decades, every had an ID/creationist refuse to discuss his religious opinions with me, or tell me that he "didn't have the time" to tell me all about them. Why is that? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,18:06    Quote Abstinence students still having sex. Which hardly surprises me. Doesn't surprise me in the least either.  That is why I stated that I support abstinence +.  See, that way if your abstinence goal fails, you know exactly what route to take next.  Make sense?  I think that would work rather well.  I TOTALLY disagree with abstinence ~only~ classes.     Quote Ftk, speaking only for me, you're talking to a nerdy bookworm who was 1) too unpopular to care about peer pressure 2) saw too many girls get pregnant and said, "Not me" 3) had an escape plan to get out of Dodge 4) was holding out for a Carl Sagan type. Believe it or not, I believe it's a good idea to wait at least until one is out of high school. But I also believe in advocating condom use. Again, we're very much alike.  1) Average popularity, but I was pretty shy in high school so I had a hard time striking up conversation with the guys much less get into bed with one.  LOL.  2) Also watched friends end up pregnant, and still know some of them today.  Their lives were seriously affected by their mistakes. 3)  I also wanted to "get out of Dodge" and did, but found out that "Dodge" wasn't all that bad so I hightailed it back eventually.  4)  Had way to much respect for myself to allow myself to get used like some of my friends did.  5) Also believe having sex during those high school years is usually a mistake.  6) I have no problem advocating condom use. My "wild" days didn't include sleeping around.  Unfortunately, I was a lush.  Drank to hide the shyness - got pretty crazy. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,18:07    BTW Let it be known that I in no way apply moral judgement to homosexual behavior or orientation. It has been shown that it is a natural variation in sexual behavior, and if is between consenting adults, is no one's business. I know gay adults in loving, long term monogamous relationships just as I know heterosexuals who are promiscuous and/or uncommitted to any one person. Either way, their lives are their business and it is not for me to judge. As far as morality, my standards are simple: if what you do promotes the dignity and value of another human being, whatever their religion, sexual orientation, politics or race, then it is a good thing. If it denies them full citizenship or implies that they are not worthy of acceptance and love, then it is wrong.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,18:29    Quote Why is that? Well, let me tell you why that is, Lenny.  Most of us have been around a while and have had the "science" discussions in the past.  I spent literally years in a forum where I carried on dialogue about the scientific issues until I finally got the boot.  I did talk about religion, philosophy and everything else under the sun as well.  But, there was a lot of science covered.   I think many of us learn that some crowds are not really interested in our point of view.  They've heard the issues before, just as we have, so they point us to talkorigins, and we point to them trueorigins or other sites, and there is a back and forth that lasts forever without either side being able to convince the other of anything.  Then the whole discussion starts over again...and again...and again.  There are defininently different interpretations of the data and I'm convinced that we cannot state emphatically that one "side" is correct over the other.   So, what's the point in a layperson like me going through these issues again?  Now, I can see where a thorough written or oral debate might be quite interesting.  But, that would be between the leading advocates from both sides of this controversy.   Why do I talk about religious & philosophical issues?  Well, because people always bring up something about religion and that just automatically leads to further conversation. It doesn't take me as much time to field those questions because I don't feel like I'm being set up.  I honestly don't care what anyone thinks about my religious beliefs.  But, when I'm answering questions about science, I have to be very careful to articulate exactly what I mean because I've found that people have a knack for misunderstanding my position.  Either I'm not clear, or they unconsciously misrepresent my position.   And, Lenny, it is interesting that this question comes from you.  I've seen you in action in many forums now.  Your approach is probably one of the worst I've seen if your goal is to actually engage in serious discussion.  I highly doubt if you have any true intention of doing that. PS:  I thought you told me you didn't want me to talk to you, but you keep asking me questions. ;) -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,18:37    Quote The AIDS epidemic is not a "gay" epidemic. Okay, I'll buy that.  Sorry to have made that connection. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,19:33    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,18:29) Why do I talk about religious & philosophical issues? Here, FTK, let me help you with a  much shorter answer: Because that is all there is to ID/creationism. That would also be the HONEST answer, too, but I long ago gave up expecting honesty from ID/creationists.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,19:47    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,18:29)  I've seen you in action in many forums now.  Your approach is probably one of the worst I've seen if your goal is to actually engage in serious discussion.  I highly doubt if you have any true intention of doing that. There should be no doubt about it at all whatsoever --- I absolutely positively have no intention whatsoever of any "debate" with ID/creationists.  On the scientific front, they simply HAVE nothing to debate -- just a lot of religious opinions about God and Noah's Flood and such, dressed up in sciency-sounding language.  As for the religious front, first of all, I don't CARE about their (or your) religious opinions, since you aren't God's Spokesperson™©, you're not any more divine than anyone else is, you don't know any more about god than anyone else alive does, and your religious opinions are just that -- your opinions -- and aren't any more authoritative than my religious opinioins, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.  (shrug) My aim is crushingly simple, and I make no secret of it whatseover ----- my aim is to point out to everyone the theocratic POLITICAL agenda behind ID/creationism, to oppose that political agenda on every front, to destroy ID/creationism as an effective political movement, and to keep it as far away from real political power as possible. You can preach your religious opinions from now until Jesus comes back --- I couldn't care less about them. But when you and your ilk attempt to use political power to force your religious opinions onto others whether they like it or not (particularly when you lie about it by claiming your religious opinions are really "science"), then I will fight you and your ilk whenever, wherever and however I have to.  One of my best friends is from Iran, and he has seen firsthand what happens when religious nuts are allowed to gain political power.  I have no intention at all of allowing that to happen here. Fortunately, ID/creationism is, as an effective political movement, now dead.  Dead, dead, dead.   As long as it consists solely of simple-minded uneducated preachers like you, there is nothing to fear from it, and all I'll do now is sit back and laugh at your dishonest evasive deceptive antics. But if ID/creationism ever again gains political support for its theocratic agenda, I will again fight it, in whatever manner I need to. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,19:51    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,18:29) PS:  I thought you told me you didn't want me to talk to you, but you keep asking me questions. ;) My questions make their point all by themselves, FTK, whether you answer or not. I don't need your cooperation, and I don't really care if I get your cooperation or not. Answer; don't answer.  Makes no difference to me.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,20:16    Quote (lkeithlu @ April 13 2007,18:07) BTW Let it be known that I in no way apply moral judgement to homosexual behavior or orientation. It has been shown that it is a natural variation in sexual behavior, and if is between consenting adults, is no one's business. I know gay adults in loving, long term monogamous relationships just as I know heterosexuals who are promiscuous and/or uncommitted to any one person. Either way, their lives are their business and it is not for me to judge. As far as morality, my standards are simple: if what you do promotes the dignity and value of another human being, whatever their religion, sexual orientation, politics or race, then it is a good thing. If it denies them full citizenship or implies that they are not worthy of acceptance and love, then it is wrong. Amen, brother. What consenting adults do with their wee-wee's is nobody else's business or concern. Alas, the fundies don't want to "get government off our backs" --- they want to "get government in our bedrooms". "Conservatives", my ass. Telling people what they SHOULD do or not do, is a far different matter than telling people what they CAN do or not do. Fundies seem quite unable to tell the difference.  Indeed, they seem quite *uninterested* in the difference. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,22:11    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 13 2007,17:44) Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:30)   The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications. Then, uh, why do so many Christians and other theists think ID/creationism is full of shit? She won't answer your question. Maintaining the 'evolutionist = atheist' myth is very important to FTK. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,22:18    to FtK for the third time:   Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03) By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner. Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's fake science journal? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really? And an additional question for FtK: Since you've now been informed that the claims of ID/creationism are discussed in Philosophy of Science classes in public universities in all 50 states, and nobody here has objected to that practice, will you retract the obviously wrong claim that Quote You want ID viewed as religion and confined to discussions in the church...

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,22:27    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,17:30) The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications. Wesley Elsberry, the christian who owns and operates this here discussion board, is afraid of the implication that god might exist? FtK, you make it hard to be respectful sometimes.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,23:09    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 13 2007,22:11) Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 13 2007,17:44)   Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:30)   The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications. Then, uh, why do so many Christians and other theists think ID/creationism is full of shit? She won't answer your question. Maintaining the 'evolutionist = atheist' myth is very important to FTK. Indeed, as it is to the entire ID/creationist political movement . . . That dishonest myth is, of course, the primary reason behind much of their fundraising, much of their grassroots recruiting, and much of their political support. Of course, though, I didn't expect any answer from FTK on the matter. Nor do I expect any explanation from her as to why most of the plaintiffs in the 1981 Arkansas trial that outlawed creation 'science' were clergy and representatives of churches and religious groups, or why the founder of People for the American Way is an ordained minister, or why most of the Dover plaintiffs were church-going theists. Nor do I expect any comment whatsoever from FTK if I use some simple math to make a point:  in the US, about 50% of the population accepts ID/creationism, and about 50% thinks it's a load of horsecrap.  In the US, the percentage of the population that is atheist and/or agnostic is, at most, around 15%.  Using fourth grade mathematics, we can see that (assuming that each and every atheist/agnostic accepts evolution and rejects ID), then about 35% of the US population is both theistic and accepts evolution/rejects ID.  Over twice as many as those who are atheist and who accept evolution/reject ID.  Or, to put it another way, more than two out of every three people in the US who accept evolution and reject creationism/ID are not atheists -- i.e., most of the people in the US who accept evolution and reject creationism/ID are, uh, theists.  Ya know, as in "believe in God".  As in "not atheist". Which makes the shrill "evolution equals atheism!!!!" crapola that comes from ID/creationists look . . . well . . . pretty stupid.  And pretty dishonest. Nope, I don't expect any response from FTK about that.  None at all whatsoever. But if I *do* get one, then I hope --- please, please, pretty please -- that it's the same ole  "well, ya see, they're not Real Christians™© like I am"  refrain. I want everyone to see just what self-righteous arrogant holier-than-thou (literally) pride-filled pricks, people like FTK actually are. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,23:53    Quote Wesley Elsberry, the christian who owns and operates this here discussion board, is afraid of the implication that god might exist? I'm relatively sure (though I'm not a mind reader) that even though Wesley is a Christian, he is on some level concerned about the religious implications of ID.  So, yes, I do think that even TE's are in this debate due to the religious implications.  They feel their religious beliefs are on the line as well.   I've found that many TE's think that those who support ID have a hidden agenda to bring a particular religious belief into the public schools.  Obviously, they wouldn't want that.  Some TE's believe that ID supporters want to actually teach biblical creation in the science class.   Others TE's don't want ID taught because they believe it is in conflict with their Christian beliefs in which they hold that the Creator created all of life through the mechanisms of evolution.   I've had a TE tell me that he did not want his children to feel uncomfortable in school due to their Christian belief that God created the world through evolutionary means, and he felt that ID may create that type of atmosphere. So, yes, I think virtually everyone (if they are honest) must admit that the religious implications do have great bearing on their involvement in this debate. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2007,00:30    Quote So, yes, I think virtually everyone (if they are honest) must admit that the religious implications do have great bearing on their involvement in this debate. Yes, in the sense that ID is misdirected religion and not science, and so many people are understandably uncomfortable calling it science. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Pages: (6) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard