spanking stories private voyeur femdom free tranny slaves bondage gag upskirt voyeur spanking teens for cash whipping transvestites sex slave chicks with dicks torture camel toe teen slave camel toe anna sex slave tranny trick tit torture spring break ...

The basic divide between ID and origins by evolution argument is about RNA and DNA. You seem to give ID a pass on RNA and DNA. Thanks, it makes the job easier.

No it isn't. It's about speciation. Evolution makes no claim as to the transformation of simple proteins into RNA or DNA. Look it up.

RNJ I'm sorry for being a smart-ass. You are right, I am ridiculing where I should be discussing. The anonymity of the internet makes it too tempting to be mean spirited.

As far as brainwashing goes, religion does fall into that category, regardless of the institutions it fosters or creates. Taking someone else as an authority on a subject that we as a species are not authorities on is allowing control where it does not belong. This is a sincere belief and not a smart-assed comment. I have never had an intelligent entity directly speak to me in my native tongue and neither has anyone else, ever. Therefore, all ideas that god has an agenda are mere speculation. That is not to say that there is no religious experience. Religious experiences occur every day to some people. But something gets lost in the translation. As Lenny Bruce said "Any man of God with more than 2 suits is a shyster".

Thank you RJN for reminding me of the importance of civility.

Does this National Center for Science Education know who you are? The smart-ass and generaly ignorant tone of your last post should make them blush by association.

The basic divide between ID and origins by evolution argument is about RNA and DNA. You seem to give ID a pass on RNA and DNA. Thanks, it makes the job easier.

By the way, the Christians made science, and the Christians made public education, and the Christians made Colleges and Universities, and the Christians made the land grant Universities in this country. Some brainwashing, some brain.

THe education in science illustrates a number of things, among them is where the boundaries of science are. The problem with Christian wingnuts is that their cult doesn't teach them where the boundaries to their philosophy are. Evolution is squarely within the boundaries of scientific inquiry. ANd scientific inquiry has illustrated without question that evolution is the mechanism for organisms' change over time and speciation.

The "theory" of evolution does not make a claim about how the first simple protiens became RNA and DNA. It doesn't say that SHiva didn't put those little suckers down here to start evolving away. It only empirically demonstrates that man and all other animals evolved from other life forms dating back to a long time ago. The problem is that the discussion needs to go through Biology, Geology, Oceanography, Physical Geography, Astronomy, Chemistry, Astrology, Phrenology, and, did you catch those last two? -I guess I am showing my religious underpinnings here- and that takes a long time. Especially to people who have already been brainwashed into taking someone's word for how the universe started. As if anyone knows.

Those who scoff at the brainpower of IDers usually infer, strongly, that science is by its nature objective, and is thus intrinsically sufficient for all origin and development questions.

Evolution is still a thory based on nothing more then pure speculation and junk science as well as a few fossels that show absoluttly no signs of evolution EVOLUTION IS JUNK SCIENCE

I don't really have anything to say, I think Thunderbird does a pretty good job of making himself look ridiculous. Oh, bye the way-
THE EARTH IS FLAT! I SAID, THE EARTH IS FLAT! BE STINKING CAREFUL YOU MIGHT FALL OFF! THE EARTH IS FLAT! THE EARTH IS FLAT! THE EARTH IS FLAT!

National Center for Science Education

The poor people of Dover must feel relieved. Relieved that they don't live in Kansas.

Actually evolution isn't simply random as many like to claim. Natural selection isn't random. It isn't like a cosmic dice is rolled and some sub-group of the species is allowed to live while the rest die. For example, look at anti-biotics. There is nothing random about the selection for anti-biotic resistant bacteria. It isn't like they just got lucky, they had the right mutation at the right time. Now the mutation is random, but it isn't a completely random process.

But when science says a proccess is random and purposeless, they do in effect say something about “God” and it is hard to dismiss this.

It only says something about a literal iterpretation about the bible. Funny how people don't have a problem with the speed of light, age of the earth, and so forth, but the idea that Adam and Eve might not have been just like us seems to really ranckle for some reason. Maybe it is like how people attribute human motivations to their pets (Fido pee'd on the rug because I left him alone the other day).

RJN,

Conservativeman has nailed it. He has illuminated the First Amendment components of the controversy so very well. I don’t think “Science” advocates can divert the attention of SCOTUS justices from Conservativeman’s thesis by claims of intrinsic objectivity in science.

This is a strawman. I haven't claimed that science is inherently objective. Scientists are biased, and yes they do limit the set of possible explanations to the natural world. But the reason they do this is methodological not theological reasons.

Imagine you have a phenomenon (I don't care what) and you come up with a natural explanation. No matter how good your natural explanation it can never, ever beat my supernatural explanation. Ever.

The reason why science and Western culture has tended to reject the supernatural is for methodological reasons. First, with a good natural explanation we don't need the extraneous assumption of the supernatural. Second, there was a realization that nothing can "beat" the supernatural explanation. So such assumptions are jettisoned in favor of just natural explanations. The result was a tremendous outpouring of scienctific advancement.

My take is that should this ever get to SCOTUS, Katie bar the door. Think about it; science advocates would have to prove that science is intrinsically objective. Lots of luck.

No, because nothing is "intrinsically objective". This is too high a bar and if any Supreme Court Justice advocated that as the test he should be removed from the bench immediately for being a complete dunderhead. What has to be shown is that evolutionary theory is not a religion, which is obvious as by definition evolutionary theory precludes the supernatural in its positive statements.

But when science says a proccess is random and purposeless, they do in effect say something about "God" and it is hard to dismiss this.

My take is that should this ever get to SCOTUS, Katie bar the door. Think about it; science advocates would have to prove that science is intrinsically objective. Lots of luck.

Thanks, Steve, for another opportunity to spread understanding.

In a way, the IDers are putting limits on God. By saying, "God could only do something in a way we can detect" puts limits on God. It says, that God must leave a fingerprint so that we can have evidence of his work.

Nicely said. Of course, they could always go the Thomas Aquinas route and say that the fingerprint must exist because the Bible says that it does, but that would expose them as A) trying to promote their religion and B) having such weak faith in their religion that they find themselves compelled to seek a scientific basis for it.