betsy

So many threads, so little time! So you thought I'd fogotten you. Never, August...never. If you’re planning to initiate a discussion on whether certain elements of society are responsible for certain events, then do it. State your idea. (e.g. “Religion is the cause of war.”) Refine it for rational discussion. (e.g. “Religion is the cause of all war”, or “Religion is the cause of some war”, or “All religion is the cause of some war” or “Some religion is the cause of some war”, or…well, you get the idea…I hope.) Define your terms. (e.g. “By religion I mean any belief system”, “By religion I mean a community that believes in an all-powerful god”, “By religion I mean Christianity”…whatever; “By war I mean… a confrontation between modern nations…between religious groups…between primitive tribes, or maybe just any armed confrontation…”, it’s your call) Present your arguments as to the definitions of your terms and LISTEN to those of the other guy. Agree on the terms and you’re ready to debate the truth of your proposition. Voila, a basic discourse. Remember the listening part. “WHENEVER YOU SET OUT TO PROVE SOMETHING, IF YOU’RE HONEST, YOU RISK DISPROVING IT. THE HONESTY IS THE HARD PART.” Now, I’m not sure what all these killers represent, August, but let’s try to work through this analogy. Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you. Killer 1 and Killer 2 must be analogous to Christianity (or maybe religion in general) and atheism respectively. The dog and cat must, as causal (i.e. whispering in lunatics’ ears) agents, represent Christians and atheists respectively. So, Christians (dogs) are the cause of killings by Christianity or religion (Killer 1). Atheists (cats) are the cause of killings by atheism (killer 2). So if I’ve got it right, Christians – a community of people – are the cause of killings by Christianity (a concept). And if I’ve got it right again, atheists – a community of people – are the cause of killings by atheism (a concept). Or is it, Christianity (dogs) is the cause of killings by Christians (Killer 1). Atheism (cats) is the cause of killings by atheists (Killer 2). That’s a little like saying “Delusions are the cause of killings by the delusional.” The meaning of your original statement is up in the air. It doesn’t make sense either way. That’s the point, which I haven't missed, and that's the problem. Now, at least, the statement is structured so that it can be discussed, the rationality of its content notwithstanding. It’s ironic, but not surprising, that you picked, probably subconsciously, a subject that has been “defined” by science (psychiatry) as an irrational agent. Anyway, the point is that your statement needs to be constructed in such a way that rational debate is possible. Now don’t misunderstand. I’m all for bar room discussions over a few beers or whatever, but if we’re settling for less than productive discourse, we should (all) at least get the bar room ambience. Actually, you can pick up some pretty profound insights in the pub. And the beauty is you don’t have to feel guilty about not crediting your source because the donor probably wasn’t even aware of his brilliant observation. But I digress! Maybe your idea would be better stated, “Delusions are the cause of some/all killings by psychopaths”. I don’t think its true – I think psychopaths are not delusional from a medical perspective at least, but that’s not the point. At least now you have a well structured and valid (even if not true) proposition for debate. It would also be enlightening for you to read back on this and other related threads. Many contributors use a similar logic. For example, Christians burned-at-the-stake witches, therefore Christianity perpetrated violence. Christians as inquisitors tortured and executed heretics, therefore Christianity perpetrated violence. That is a lot like saying that day care workers abused and molested children, therefore the day care system perpetrated violence on the children. I know, I know. In our litigious society, I’m sure this approach works well – sometimes for the victims but by no means always – but the logic is lacking nevertheless. As for the cat-lover. Where did she come from? Is she an atheist that nonetheless believes that cats feel anthropomorphic guilt – a very post-modern liberal view (“Cat’s have feelings too, ya know”). I think, personally, that we should all be grateful if she said nothing at all – her contribution, as you state it, would be irrelevant to say the least. No. Shake your head. Pol Pot not being a Christian has nothing to do with whether Christians were killers. What are you on about? It’s hard not to be rude. His beliefs, or lack thereof, are IRRELEVENT in respect of whether Christians killed. His not believing in Christianity HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH whether Christians were killers or whether Christianity has made the world more civilized. He has nothing to do with anything regarding the discussion on this board other than to be a subject of AN OBSERVATION that non-Christian (non-religious) people have perpetrated atrocities as have Christian (religious) people. Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin, to name just a few, are examples of agents who have caused death and mayhem. The inquisitors, witch burners and Jimmy Jones are a few other examples of agents who have caused death and mayhem. Only simplistic reasoning allows you to pick and choose those that suit your contentions. So, if you’re planning to initiate discussion, then do it. If you plan to only present your opinion as fact without argument or references, please spare us. After re-reading your posts especially, and the posts here in general, it’s apparent that rational discussion is probably impossible. It’s the inability of many to read, concentrate, remember, and respond logically that is irritating. Statements are made as declarations that are seen by their posters as flawless and not open to discussion. This only serves to demonstrate a shallowness and lack of understanding of the issues. It also implies a fear of being wrong. You can be wrong. It’s okay. Sometimes you will be and sometimes you won’t be. Either way, take it like a man…I mean, person. Le Fin.

The flaws in evolution is quite clear. Disciples of the so-called Darwin's evolution, led by the atheist self-proclaimed messiah Dawkins, do not follow their own theory-creator's advice. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species Clearly Darwin himself questions his own theory. Even now, after all these years....nothing solid! You'd think with all the new technology it would've been much more easier to find an unrefuted and undeniable proof that all species came from one! But nada! This theory still remains only a theory - a theory that's proven untrue! Questioned and refuted by other equally qualified scientists! But of course, fundamentalist evolutionists led by Dawkins could not...and will never... accept the other theories by equally-qualified scientists who have other theories. For these theories hint on the possibility of a Creator. Which contradicts their Atheistic belief of non-God. Darwin, as stated in his comment, in his genuine quest for scientific proof and being a true man of science, clearly wished to hear arguments and welcomed challenges. He spelt this as a "commandment" for finding what he said was, "a fair result." Dawkins goes against Darwin. Dawkin's focus is no longer in seeking the scientific truth of origin. His purpose is to use his pseudo-science to uphold his own atheistic view.

Just on the news this morning (2 May) it's being reported that: This H1N1 is not a mutation. This is not like the flu of 1918. This strain is considered mild. That by WHO raising its alert level to #5 only raises the panic level. This is just like any other regular flu.

Gosthacked and Segnasaur, Obviously you miss my point, so refer to my previous posts: #186 #198 #209 #205 here's an excerpt of the Santorum Amendment Obviously there's a need for such amendment! Yes Ghosthack you have been around since 1971....but for the last 60 years or so, no one criticized the theory of evolution taught in school, criticisms were somehow muzzled! Heck, that's no exaggeration when now in the present time, just take a look at this attitude: You've got a problem, alright. A real problem! You don't like what you hear, then bury your head in the sand. I don't know if you two even grasp the parallel I did of Dawkins and Christianity. What I meant by "good" or "true" science. Heck, Segnasaur even asked why I quoted Darwin! Imagine that! FYI, that simple statement of Darwin says a lot. About him...science then and science now...and the pack of evolutionists led by Dawkins. Darwin was a true man of science. One of the sources I gave for Evolution Hall Of Shame (?) did not just give reference to books or articles used. They even provided the page numbers of each quoted materials for convenience....so you don't have to go through the whole book searching for it! The source made it as easy as possible for anyone to take a look and VERIFY! They didn't just simply say (like TalkOrigin), "Don't take our word for it, but use the primary literature and read it for yourself..." And then I scrolled down an article I was reading and found no references to anything at all! I could be reading fiction for all I know! Or part-fiction and truth. Or worse, an article by Segnasaur under a different pen-name! That's one of the tricks of deception: they know most people do not have the time to read books to verify for accuracy or actual context. But one thing sure, if such a simple point I'm making about my stance on this particular discussion, supported by articles (especially the Santorum Amendment) quite easily fly over your heads........I seriously doubt you'd recognize, let alone understand implications, scientific terms, etc., even if they hit you smack on your foreheads! If you want to re-read my posts, fine. If not, fine too. If you've read and still couldn't get it.....read them again. If after umpteenth readings and still no-go....well....what can I say? <shrug> I don't want to play merry-go-round with you, or anyone else. I don't have lots of time to waste.

Amen.

Heh! Stop nagging me about Raelians. I'm not into science fiction....that's more up your alley!

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Because you're so full of "talkorigin!" ha-ha-ha

You too? Ha-ha-ha

Btw, that TrueOrigin got a slew of rebuttals to Talk-Origin.

Yeah I know....but it's hard to just ignore this one thing: This kind of argument/rebuttal is actually an example of my skepticism with this so-called science....being led by Dawkins and disciples. Several cycles - like patch-ups - before they get added to the archive! Wow!

I was reading the article WELLS AND HAEKEL'S EMBRYO....it was described as a review by a biologist. For the life of me, I can't seem to find the name of this biologist who did that article. Did I miss it? WHo's the biologist who did that review?

And now, let me present the other side.....tadaaaaa! TRUEORIGIN • TrueOrigin FAQ Q&A The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins). This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website. Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data. This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry. The contributions posted at this site give some expression to the “other side”—dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely: 1. The myth that the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution belief system—as heavily popularized by today’s self-appointed “science experts,” the popular media, academia, and certain government agencies—finds “overwhelming” or even merely unequivocal support in the data of empirical science 2. The myth that the alternative—biblical creation—somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself. This site is one answer to such unreasonable—and unscientific—practices... http://www.trueorigin.org/default.asp

I kinda found the site interesting but being skeptical, decided to know what is Talk.Origin. Apparently it's a newsnet news group. Here's what their own faq says: What is the purpose of the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup? The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins. See the talk.origins Newsgroup Welcome FAQ. Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right? We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive.. .... http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html "Don't take our word on it." Gee, at least thanks for the warning. What do they mean by, "subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the archive?" Cycles of what? Editing? Manipulating? Word Play? Looks just like another message board....maybe the Oakleaf Forum. If it walks like a beaver, and talks like an otter, it probably is a seal. See if you can find a LINK in that. Is this your source?

Excerpts from.... EVOLUTION HALL OF SHAME The Peppered Moth (See J. Well's article published in The Scientist.) "Dr. Kettlewell published results from his 1955 experiment on natural selection in peppered moths in Birmingham, England concluding that, "birds act as selective agents, as postulated by evolutionary theory," and that industrial melanism was "the most striking evolutionary change ever actually witnessed in any organism." "It seems that the classical example of natural selection is actually an example of unnatural selection. The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments and poses a serious problem for the classical explanation of industrial melanism in peppered moths" (Jonathan Wells, The Scientist 13[11]:13, May. 24, 1999). "The importance of industrial melanism in the peppered moth as one of the first, and still most cited examples of evolution in action, places emphasis on the need to be sure that the story is right. In the 40 years since Kettlewell's pioneering work, many evolutionary biologists, particularly in Britain, but also in other parts of Europe, the United States, and Japan, have studied melanism in this species. The findings of these scientists show that the precised description of the basic peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most of the story's component parts. When details of the genetics, behaviour, and ecology of this moth are taken into account, the resulting story is one of greater complexity, and in many ways greater interest, than the simple story that is usually related (Melanism: Evolution in Action, Michael E. N. Majerus, 1998, p116). Why does it persist in spite of the fraud being exposed? One evolutionist writes that the peppered moth is, "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed" (Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Volume 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. p. 186). " http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame2.htm More examples of fraud given....

Excerpts from... EVOLUTION HALL OF SHAME Vestigial Organs "Blind evolutionary bias is responsible for the fallacy of using vestigial organ evidence for evolution. Concluding that an organ with no apparent purpose was evidence of previous ancestral history, evolutionists have paraded such examples in classrooms as “proof” of evolution. However, discoveries revealing organ purpose and function reveal that the apparent non-purpose of organs was the result of ignorance of its purpose. Another oversight caused by blind bias was failure to recognize that organs without purpose were due to loss of function within the species not a remnant of ancient history. What are vestigial organs? “Elements appearing in various life forms which, although often quite underdeveloped, are no longer needed or functional and represent a carry-over from more primitive forms. The human appendix is an example. (Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, edited by Douglas M. Considine, page 2281). "There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities" (Horatio Hackett Newman, 1990, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case, p. 268). "Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926). Evolutionist Scadding wrote: "I suspect that this argument; [functionless organs] gained widespread use not because it proves anything about evolution, but because it was thought to have particular force against some varieties of creationism…. "There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion [i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically…. "Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational science…. Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution" (S. Scadding, "Evolutionary Theory," quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190). Below are a couple of examples of "vestigial" organs cited as evidence for evolution, but have been discovered to have function. Appendix: Evolution myth: "The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost." Joseph McCabe, 1912, The Story of Evolution, p. 264 Fact: "There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure” (William Straus, 1947, Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 149). 'Anatomically the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function … There is experimental evidence as well that the vermiform appendix is a lymphoid organ which acts as reservoir of antibody producing cells.' "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory - Vol. 5 (May 1981) p.175. Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84." http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

Excerpts from..... EVOLUTION HALL OF SHAME When Darwin presented a paper to the Linnaean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, Evolution from Space, p. 159). "Some of the classic evidences given in support of the "fact" of evolution are embarrassingly flawed. Yet they continue to be displayed as "proofs" for evolution. [The word "proofs" is set off because in science, this is a misuse of the word, yet that is what must occur for evolution to be a "fact."] Three things can be alleged about the thinking of those who allow such flagrant disregard for honest science. They must be thinking that ... 1) evolution is a fact regardless of the evidence, 2) this is the best evidence evolution has to offer, 3) most people will not know the difference, so use it. Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny: Haeckel's Fraud In 1866, guided by the bias of evolution and atheism, German embryologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, concluded that evolutionary the stages of species from single cells to humans (phylogeny) were repeated in embryological development (ontogeny) of each species. He surmised that, being highest on the evolutionary tree, human embryos should pass through the stages of the lower or more primitive species, namely single cell, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to human. So convinced that he was right, he self-proclaimed the "Biogenetic Law": Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. However, it was neither a law nor correct. It was fraud. Haeckel supplied drawings as evidence of his “scientific law,” which can still be found in textbooks to convince students that evolution is a fact. The truth is, Haeckel’s drawings are wrong. Worse yet, they were intentionally created to mislead viewers to “see” what Haeckel believed to be true. Haeckel falsified his drawings to depict the appearance of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. German scientist, Wilhelm His “… accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates …” (Stephen Jay Gould, 1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, p. 430). To support his case [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120. During the trial, Haeckel confessed that he had altered his drawings, but excused himself by saying: “I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications), p. 128). "The law of biogenesis has to use cheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory" (G. Rager, "Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis," in Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum 79 (1986), pp. 451-452. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04). "Haeckel claims these works to be both easy for the scientific layman to follow, and scientific and scholarly….There is considerable manufacturing of scientific evidence perpetrated. Yet the author has been very careful not to let the reader become aware of this state of affairs" (L. Rutimeyer, "Referate," in Archiv fur Anthropologie (1868) p. 301-302. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04). http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

I thought I said it all.... For those of you posting so many questions and/or dismissing the ID theory, it will serve you well to read the latest link that provides information about ID....so you can truly say that you are well-informed in this subject. Though to the faithful disciples and followers of messiah Dawkins, Darwin's theory - Dawkin's own bible I guess - is being evangelised as the one and only rightful path that should be travelled in seeking the truth,.... clearly there are those who say.....baloney! The Santorium Ammendment is quite telling and interesting. We are talking SCIENCE! Challenges should and must be welcomed. Open-mind, a definite requirement - not necessarily to mean outright acceptance that new ideas are right - but to be able to take a real look and to consider (especially when your own theory is full of holes to begin with). Why should we all settle for just one theory that's riddled with holes? A theory that even its own creator came to question? Repeatedly refuted? A theory that's clearly just propped up by patch-up explanations? A theory being kept afloat not for science, but more for personal philosophical beliefs? Science shouldn't be hijacked and used to promote personal beliefs (religion or philosophical). I am a Creationist ...that is based in my faith in God. But that is not the point in this discussion.

Why is intelligent design theory often controversial? The Short Answer: Because it challenges the reigning philosophical paradigm reigning over science, as well as the reigning theory of origins in biology, namely evolution. Additionally, it challenges the metaphysical beliefs of many practitioners of science. These changes lead to predictable "paradigm change resistance" that characterizes the discovery and promotion of new ideas in science The Long Answer: Intelligent design theory is often controversial because it claims that aspects of the natural world are the result of intelligent action rather than naturally occurring chance, or law-governed processes. For example, the scientific theory currently dominating scientific thought regarding the origin of biological organisms is the highly regarded theory of evolution, which offers chance-law-governed mechanisms (mutation and selection) to explain observed characteristics of life. Intelligent design theory claims that at least some aspects of the biological realm are the result of intelligent action, rather than a chance or law-governed processes, such as the mutation-selection mechanism thought to be driving evolution. By proposing intelligent cause over mechanistic cause, intelligent design theory presents a competing hypothesis to the highly regarded dominant evolutionary paradigm of biological origins, and thus often finds itself facing much opposition from the scientific community. Intelligent design theory is also controversial because it possibly (though not necessarily) implies that non-mechanistic causes were involved in the origins and history of life on this planet. This presents a potential challenge to both the methodological naturalism of those who practice science and also to the philosophical naturalism held to be true by many scientists. While intelligent design theory does not necessarily imply that any intelligent causes were non-natural or supernatural, the possible philosophical implications of the existence of an intelligent designer challenges the worldviews and metaphysics of many. This is often an unidentified, unrecognized, unrealized, or unadmitted source of opposition to intelligent design theory. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1160 I've explained my position and my views....and said all there is to say.

The Santorum Amendment (2001, 2002) • On June 13, 2001, the United States Senate strongly supported an amendment which states, "(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject." • Introduced by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania); supported by a vote of 91-8. • Afterwards, 3 senators made noteworthy comments: Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts): "the language itself, is completely consistent with what represents the central values of this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them so they can talk about different concepts and do it intelligently with the best information that is before them." Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia): "I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing them to avoid controversy and to try to remain politically correct. If students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors? Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and its beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the many scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the birth of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of thinking. But I understand that they might not align with someone else's. That is the very point of this amendment--to support an airing of varying opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. if education is truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience." Senator Brownback (R-Kansas): "In August of 1999 the Kansas State School Board fired a shot heard 'round the world. Press reports began to surface that evolution would not longer be taught. The specter of a theocratic school board entering the class to ensure that no student would be taught the prevailing wisdom of biology was envisioned. Political cartoons and editorials were drafted by the hundreds. To hear the furor, one might think that the teachers would be charged with sorting through their student's texts with an Exacto knife carving out pictures of Darwin. However, the prevailing impression, as is often the case was not quite accurate. Here are the facts about what happened in Kansas. The school board did not ban the teaching of evolution. They did not forbid the mention of Darwin in the classroom. They didn't even remove all mention of evolution from the State assessment test. Rather, the school board voted against including questions on macro-evolution--the theory that new species can evolve from existing species over time--from the State assessment. The assessment did include questions on micro-evolution--the observed change over time within an existing species. Why did they do this? Why go so far as to decipher between micro and macro-evolution on the State exam? How would that serve the theocratic school board's purpose that we read so much about? Well, the truth is . . . their was no theocratic end to the actions of the school board. In fact, their vote was cast based on the most basic scientific principal that science is about what we observe, not what we assume. The great and bold statement that the Kansas School Board made was that simply that we observe micro-evolution and therefore it is scientific fact; and that it is impossible to observe macro-evolution, it is scientific assumption. The response to this relatively minor and eminently scientific move by the Kansas school board was shocking. The actions and intentions of the school board were routinely misrepresented in the global press. Many in the global scientific community, who presumably knew the facts, spread misinformation as to what happened in Kansas. College admissions boards, who most certainly knew the facts, threatened Kansas students. The State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the State universities were threatened based on the actions of school board. All of these effects caused by a school board trying to decipher between scientific fact and scientific assumption. The response to the actions of the board, appeared to many as a response to the commission of heresy." • The NCSE tries to weaken bill and force it to include all controversial theories. • Apart from the NCSE's lobbying, the actual amendment remained basically in its original form. However, it was not included in the final version of the bill, but rather was included in the "Conference Report," which is meant to explain the intent of the bill. The report said: The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should Prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from the religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society. • President Bush signed bill into law on January 8, 2002 as H.R. 1, the "No Child Left Behind Act," • The Santorum Amendment is now one of the primary arguments being used to allow for the inclusion of intelligent design into the curriculum in Ohio, and also to allow for criticisms of evolution to be taught. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY IN A NUTSHELL The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature. More detailed explanations about this theory…... http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136 EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IN A NUTSHELL How Darwinian Evolution Works: 1. Random mutations cause changes, or variation, in a population of organisms. 2. These different organisms then compete to survive and reproduce. 3. Those which are best able to survive and reproduce do so, and tend to leave the most offspring. This is called “natural selection.” 4. Over time, if some organisms survive and reproduce more than others, a species will "evolve." Evolution claims: - All organisms are related through "common ancestry." - All organisms arose through the random process of mutation. - All organisms arose and persist because of unguided natural selection, which can only select for actual beneficial mutations. http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/faq.php

Segnasaur, WIP, etc.., "Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process. He did not believe this process to be "perfectly smooth," but rather, "stepwise," with a species evolving and accumulating small variations over long periods of time. Darwin assumed that if evolution is gradual then there should be a record in fossils of small incremental change within a species. But in many cases, Darwin, and scientists today, are unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin blamed lack of transitional forms on gaps in the fossil record, a good assertion, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are very small. However in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation for the numerous gaps in the fossil record. They suggested that the "gaps" were real, representing periods of stasis in morphology. They termed this mode of evolution "punctuated equilibrium." This means that species are generally morpholgically stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species. According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur from slow incremental change in the mainstream population of a species, but occur in those populations living in the periphery, or in small geographically isolated populations where their gene pools vary more widely due to the slightly different environmental conditions where they dwell" http://www.uvm.edu/perkins/evolution/darwi...?Page=plas.html You can argue and defend Darwin's evolution all you want....but it doesn't wash. So many holes. Just this article I posted above shows how Gould and Eldredge seem to only try to patch up the holes by "proposing another explanation" for the numerous gaps in the fossil record. How many other variations of "explanations" float around in an effort to cover the flaw of this theory? What I'm saying all along is that this theory should've been dropped a long time ago. Even Darwin himself knew something was wrong. Other scientists are giving their own different theories....why shouldn't we give those alternatives a good look? Dawkins and followers remain firm in their own theory and wouldn't even consider the very idea of Intelligent Design simply because of their fanatical belief that there is no God - therefore their minds are closed to anything that might suggest - or even hint - that yes, there is. So therefore they are not looking at this in an objective, let alone scientific way. With a closed mind, they're no longer credible men of science.

Source? Likely? This sounds like mere speculation. Your source? Source? Then cut and paste the source for that same argument that, you say, can be applied to what I posted! Why are you quoting the Bible? If you go back and read...and understand what you read....you'll see the reason why I quoted the Bible was because somebody pointedly asked me about the Bible. For this one time only I'll do a re-cap for you. Goshack asked me: To which I answered: I know my own reason why I would. And scientists (who do), have their own reasons and theories why they would.

Give me the credible source so I can read it. Simply claiming it is so isn't good enough in this debate.

"The transitional fossils problem Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted: Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1 Is it any different today? The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2" http://www.thematrix.co.uk/topic.asp?index=0 Astounding! The tenacity to cling to just one hole-riddled theory! Definitely not very science-like, right? I am not against science. I am against so-called scientists who peddle their own ego instead of true science! Let me emphasize: TRUE Science. The irony...Dawkins and company is to true science what Inquisitors and child-molesting preachers are to Christianity!