A Fault Line for 'Intelligent Design'

A Fault Line for 'Intelligent Design'

There are 1379 comments on the KTLA-TV Los Angeles story from Jan 12, 2006, titled A Fault Line for 'Intelligent Design'. In it, KTLA-TV Los Angeles reports that:

LEBEC, Calif. - Tucked in the raw folds of the Tehachapi Mountains, 63 miles north of Los Angeles and a time warp away in ambience, this town is not used to being the center of attention.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KTLA-TV Los Angeles.

First Prev
of 69
Next Last
Bent Frederiksen

AOL

#1 Jan 12, 2006
My name is Bent Frederiksen, a resident of Frazier Park, California and father of Christian Frederiksen, age 14 who is currently are taking the very controversial class at Frazier Mountain High School, called The Philosophy of Design.

I am going to voice my opinion about this law suit filled by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of 13 students who actually is not even attending the class.

First and foremost, this class is taken on a volentary basis by the students. IT IS NOT A Class that they are forced to take by the school.

From January 3 to February 3, 2006 the students at Frazier Mountain High School has Intercession, which means that students that made all their grades in the first 2 quarters, can take, on a volentary basis, other classes of their choice, while students who did not have passing grades have make up classes. The students was given a list of classes that was offered during intercession, classes like various sports, niedle point, etc, and one of the classes that was offered was “Philosophy of Design.”

The parents of the students were all given a letter outlining the class objective, what subject would be tought and what video and guest speakers would appear, all prior to January 3, 2006. All parents had to sign a letter of consent that their son/daughter could take the class, which I did and approved the class subjects.

My son truly enjoys the class, the teaching, the forums for discussion and the subjects that are presented to the students.

Let me again underline, that this is a class taken on a volentary basis by the students with parents permission during intercession. I feel as a concerned parent, that such law suit filled in the District Court in Fresno by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is a very dangerous signal of our right to choose and our personal freedom and belief, that we enjoy each day in this country and we have soldies dying for such freedom we enjoy every day.

We have seen in other countries over the years, that people does not have the freedom we have, that certain teaching and belief is forbidden by the government. We can not claim to be a free and democratic country, when a group like Americans United for Separation of Church and State can stop a small group of 15 students, that at their own free will, are volentary taking a class that they wanted and with their parents permission.

None of the students are forced against their own will to take the class. By denying them to continue the class, it is an attack against their personal freedom to choose and an attack against their right to be free individual.

As fare as I am concerned as a parent, my son will continue to take the class until it is either completed, or he choose to stop the class by his own choise. It would be a shame and an attack against my son’s personal rights, that the class is stopped my a court order.

Bent Frederiksen
Concerned

AOL

#2 Jan 12, 2006
Bent Frederiksen wrote:
My name is Bent Frederiksen, a resident of Frazier Park, California and father of Christian Frederiksen, age 14 who is currently are taking the very controversial class at Frazier Mountain High School, called The Philosophy of Design.

I am going to voice my opinion about this law suit filled by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of 13 students who actually is not even attending the class.

First and foremost, this class is taken on a volentary basis by the students. IT IS NOT A Class that they are forced to take by the school.

From January 3 to February 3, 2006 the students at Frazier Mountain High School has Intercession, which means that students that made all their grades in the first 2 quarters, can take, on a volentary basis, other classes of their choice, while students who did not have passing grades have make up classes. The students was given a list of classes that was offered during intercession, classes like various sports, niedle point, etc, and one of the classes that was offered was “Philosophy of Design.”

The parents of the students were all given a letter outlining the class objective, what subject would be tought and what video and guest speakers would appear, all prior to January 3, 2006. All parents had to sign a letter of consent that their son/daughter could take the class, which I did and approved the class subjects.

My son truly enjoys the class, the teaching, the forums for discussion and the subjects that are presented to the students.

Let me again underline, that this is a class taken on a volentary basis by the students with parents permission during intercession. I feel as a concerned parent, that such law suit filled in the District Court in Fresno by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is a very dangerous signal of our right to choose and our personal freedom and belief, that we enjoy each day in this country and we have soldies dying for such freedom we enjoy every day.

We have seen in other countries over the years, that people does not have the freedom we have, that certain teaching and belief is forbidden by the government. We can not claim to be a free and democratic country, when a group like Americans United for Separation of Church and State can stop a small group of 15 students, that at their own free will, are volentary taking a class that they wanted and with their parents permission.

None of the students are forced against their own will to take the class. By denying them to continue the class, it is an attack against their personal freedom to choose and an attack against their right to be free individual.

As fare as I am concerned as a parent, my son will continue to take the class until it is either completed, or he choose to stop the class by his own choise. It would be a shame and an attack against my son’s personal rights, that the class is stopped my a court order.

Bent Frederiksen
Please give us a break. I wonder why you believe that just b/c you think a class is voluntary, you believe our schools should be teaching them. I will bet that if I wanted a class during this so called intercession which taught cross dressing for boys, or how to understand homosexuality, you would come unglued. I cannot believe you think our tax dollars should be spent on this sort of scientifically unsupported nonsense.

in addition, you speak to YOUR "Freedom to Choose" but I would bet that you would be the first to prevent a woman who wishes an abortion to have the freedom to choose. We are so DAMNED hypocritical when it comes to the rights of others, but not the one "I" want.....wow

Lastly, you have some problems--and if your child does no better than you did with writing this letter I would say his time is best spent in English Class.
california taxpayer

Oroville, CA

#3 Jan 13, 2006
I would agree with the first comment to this posting, but I might put it more politely. Philosophy of Design is the discussion of religious mythology. In my humble opinion, this discussion belongs in private: at home, in church, or anywhere else outside of the public schools. Thanks.
Bent Frederiksen wrote:
My name is Bent Frederiksen, a resident of Frazier Park, California and father of Christian Frederiksen, age 14 who is currently are taking the very controversial class at Frazier Mountain High School, called The Philosophy of Design.

I am going to voice my opinion about this law suit filled by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of 13 students who actually is not even attending the class.

First and foremost, this class is taken on a volentary basis by the students. IT IS NOT A Class that they are forced to take by the school.

From January 3 to February 3, 2006 the students at Frazier Mountain High School has Intercession, which means that students that made all their grades in the first 2 quarters, can take, on a volentary basis, other classes of their choice, while students who did not have passing grades have make up classes. The students was given a list of classes that was offered during intercession, classes like various sports, niedle point, etc, and one of the classes that was offered was “Philosophy of Design.”

The parents of the students were all given a letter outlining the class objective, what subject would be tought and what video and guest speakers would appear, all prior to January 3, 2006. All parents had to sign a letter of consent that their son/daughter could take the class, which I did and approved the class subjects.

My son truly enjoys the class, the teaching, the forums for discussion and the subjects that are presented to the students.

Let me again underline, that this is a class taken on a volentary basis by the students with parents permission during intercession. I feel as a concerned parent, that such law suit filled in the District Court in Fresno by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is a very dangerous signal of our right to choose and our personal freedom and belief, that we enjoy each day in this country and we have soldies dying for such freedom we enjoy every day.

We have seen in other countries over the years, that people does not have the freedom we have, that certain teaching and belief is forbidden by the government. We can not claim to be a free and democratic country, when a group like Americans United for Separation of Church and State can stop a small group of 15 students, that at their own free will, are volentary taking a class that they wanted and with their parents permission.

None of the students are forced against their own will to take the class. By denying them to continue the class, it is an attack against their personal freedom to choose and an attack against their right to be free individual.

As fare as I am concerned as a parent, my son will continue to take the class until it is either completed, or he choose to stop the class by his own choise. It would be a shame and an attack against my son’s personal rights, that the class is stopped my a court order.

Bent Frederiksen
Another Hyopcrite

Lytle Creek, CA

#4 Jan 14, 2006
Concerned wrote:
<quoted text>

Please give us a break. I wonder why you believe that just b/c you think a class is voluntary, you believe our schools should be teaching them. I will bet that if I wanted a class during this so called intercession which taught cross dressing for boys, or how to understand homosexuality, you would come unglued. I cannot believe you think our tax dollars should be spent on this sort of scientifically unsupported nonsense.

in addition, you speak to YOUR "Freedom to Choose" but I would bet that you would be the first to prevent a woman who wishes an abortion to have the freedom to choose. We are so DAMNED hypocritical when it comes to the rights of others, but not the one "I" want.....wow

Lastly, you have some problems--and if your child does no better than you did with writing this letter I would say his time is best spent in English Class.
Well, you've just shown yourself to be a hypocrite, also. You don't want others to prevent a woman from killing her child, you don't want others from preventing crossdressing, or condemning homosexual activity, yet it is you and your kind that want to shove your belief system (evolution) down our throats. How dare we prevent a woman, or create legislation that would prevent a woman from killing her child. How dare we look at homosexuality in a less than normal light. To you it's biggotted if we have the audacity to place out beliefs upon you. Yet, the hypocrisy is that that is exactly what you're doing to us.

If you remember, evolution is only a theory. Intelligent design is only a theory (intelligent design is not necessarily creationism). Creationism is only a theory. You need to get back to the scientific premise of education and teach all theories on equal ground. When one theory has more prominance that others...that's discrinmination taught by biggots. In this day and age it's the biggots proposing evolution.

If you remember, all the Scopes trial was asking for was equal footing in education. What happened? Unequality begat unequality in the name of equality. The oppressed became the oppressor.
Get it right

Lytle Creek, CA

#5 Jan 14, 2006
california taxpayer wrote:
I would agree with the first comment to this posting, but I might put it more politely. Philosophy of Design is the discussion of religious mythology. In my humble opinion, this discussion belongs in private: at home, in church, or anywhere else outside of the public schools. Thanks.

<quoted text>
The term "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere stated in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independance. The Term "Separation of Church and State" was never a phrase used by our Founding Fathers. Why? Because they didn't believe in the separation of church and state. They believed in preventing the state from forming a religion as England did with he Church of England. THIS is what they were running from, and attempting to prevent from reoccurring. Congress will not ESTABLISH a religion. What many overlook is the next phrase..Nor prevent the free exercise thereof (religion).

Nowhere does it say that congress has the right to make laws restricting my free exercise of my religion by separating my religion from my civic duties.

Like it, or not, this country was founded upon religious precepts. All one has to do is look at the life, the writings, and the beliefs of George Washington to see how separated his God was from his office.

Look at our present society. This is the fruit of our taking God out of our government. Gangs run rampant. Children kill children. Children grow up only knowing 1 parent. Millions of teenagers get pregnant out of wedlock. Unborn children are needlessly slaughtered, because of these pregnancies. Drug addiction is out of control. STDs are spread as easily as the common cold.

When you turn your back on God, God turns his back on you. You want God out of your government? Prepare to pay the cost!
oh get real

Oakland, CA

#6 Jan 14, 2006
NO ONE is prevnting you from the free exercise of your religion. You as an individual can pray whenever and wherever you want. YOur chldren can do so as well, individually. Their right to free exercise thereof guarantees taht to you and to them. What you can NOT do is use the coercive power o the government, especially in a mandatory environment involving children, to push YOUR particular religious variant with offical civil imprimature. Meaning official school power and authority MAY NOT be involved.

This may be "intercession" (uhh... it's inter-session, dude. Intercession is what priests do with G_d, in some particualar religions. That is a telling misspelling)... anyway, this may be intersession, but it is still advertised, offered, made available by the school so it comes with official public (government) approval and imprimature, and that constitutes, in small (and impermissible) part, establishment.

Adn I say this as someone who attends services, who prays.. and who's religion is NOT your religion. I'll thank you to keep your particular religious variant out of the power stucture of the schoosl my kids adn fellow citizens attend, because we adn many otehr religious people dont believe what you believe.

BTW, evolution is "just a theory" in exactly the same way that gravity is "just a theory" or chemcial bonds are "just a theory." If you are going to make such statements, try to first learn enough that you dont embarass yourself with them.

.
Get it right wrote:
<quoted text>
The term "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere stated in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independance. The Term "Separation of Church and State" was never a phrase used by our Founding Fathers. Why? Because they didn't believe in the separation of church and state. They believed in preventing the state from forming a religion as England did with he Church of England. THIS is what they were running from, and attempting to prevent from reoccurring. Congress will not ESTABLISH a religion. What many overlook is the next phrase..Nor prevent the free exercise thereof (religion).

Nowhere does it say that congress has the right to make laws restricting my free exercise of my religion by separating my religion from my civic duties.

Like it, or not, this country was founded upon religious precepts. All one has to do is look at the life, the writings, and the beliefs of George Washington to see how separated his God was from his office.

Look at our present society. This is the fruit of our taking God out of our government. Gangs run rampant. Children kill children. Children grow up only knowing 1 parent. Millions of teenagers get pregnant out of wedlock. Unborn children are needlessly slaughtered, because of these pregnancies. Drug addiction is out of control. STDs are spread as easily as the common cold.

When you turn your back on God, God turns his back on you. You want God out of your government? Prepare to pay the cost!
Embarassing You

Lytle Creek, CA

#7 Jan 14, 2006
oh get real wrote:
NO ONE is prevnting you from the free exercise of your religion. You as an individual can pray whenever and wherever you want. YOur chldren can do so as well, individually. Their right to free exercise thereof guarantees taht to you and to them. What you can NOT do is use the coercive power o the government, especially in a mandatory environment involving children, to push YOUR particular religious variant with offical civil imprimature. Meaning official school power and authority MAY NOT be involved.

This may be "intercession" (uhh... it's inter-session, dude. Intercession is what priests do with G_d, in some particualar religions. That is a telling misspelling)... anyway, this may be intersession, but it is still advertised, offered, made available by the school so it comes with official public (government) approval and imprimature, and that constitutes, in small (and impermissible) part, establishment.

Adn I say this as someone who attends services, who prays.. and who's religion is NOT your religion. I'll thank you to keep your particular religious variant out of the power stucture of the schoosl my kids adn fellow citizens attend, because we adn many otehr religious people dont believe what you believe.

BTW, evolution is "just a theory" in exactly the same way that gravity is "just a theory" or chemcial bonds are "just a theory." If you are going to make such statements, try to first learn enough that you dont embarass yourself with them.

.<quoted text>
Yea, I can exercise my freedom of religion unless it's involves the government. So, my "freedom" isn't really freedom. It's subserviant to the state. I can teach my children creationism at home, but in school my children don't have that freedom. In essence, what you're saying is that the school cannot support the religious teaching of my children, but you're not going far enough. The school is teaching in direct opposition to my religious teachings. So whereas it may not support my religion, it is actively involved in the opposition and destruction of it in the mind of my child.

No one says that everyone has to believe what I believe, but in the same token, why do my children have to be taught their unbelief? Sounds kind of hypocritical, to me.

BTW if evolution is thought of as just a theory, then what's the problem of teaching other theories along side it and allow each individual to make up their mind?

BTW taking cheap shots at me doesn't dilute what I'm saying.
oh get real

Oakland, CA

#8 Jan 14, 2006
The problem with teaching your 'theory' is that it has NO evidence or body of investigation to support it. None. It is not a theory, it is a supposition based solely on a particular set of religous, faith beliefs. There are no investigational suporting papers for 'intelligent design.' None. Read the transcript and decision in the Dover case for support for that statement.

Evolution, on the other hand, is OBSERVED reality (fact), and ALSO an explanatory framework (theory) making sense of those observations; it is not "just a theory." And the fact that you use this phrase shows that you have no understanding of what a scientific theory is. That is not a cheap shot, it is an observation of reality. If the reality of what we observe in the world is detrimental to your religous beliefs, if you deem it damaging to your kids to learn about what we actauly see when we look about in the world, then that seems a problem for YOU to work out in YOUR religous beliefs and practice, not a problem for the rest of the world to accomodate. Freedom to practice your religion does not require that the world deny observed reality to accomodate your beliefs.

Evolution is THE central organizing paradigm for the biological sciences. Biology mnakes no sense without the explanatory framework of evolution. Teaching biology without evolution is equivalent to trying to each chemistry without theory of bonds, or teach pysics without quantum mechanics. It is supported by a massive body of evidence; this is what makes it science. We observe it in action; evolution is observed fact. We have observed populatin adapting by evolutionary mechanisms, we have observed speciation events be evolutionary mechanisms, new species coming into being. The evidence for macroevolution from anatomical, physiological, molecular, fossil, and suportign fields of science is at least as strong as that for the existence of subatomic particles (which have never been seen) or of the covalent nature of chemical bonds, which derives entirely from indirect observation and theory.

You are asking that YOUR particular religous variant be taught in school. If that is allowed (it is not) we must teach ALL religious variants, an impossibility. I am not Christian, I suspect you would be offended it the schools started teaching my faith beliefs to your kids.
Embarassing You wrote:
<quoted text>

Yea, I can exercise my freedom of religion unless it's involves the government. So, my "freedom" isn't really freedom. It's subserviant to the state. I can teach my children creationism at home, but in school my children don't have that freedom. In essence, what you're saying is that the school cannot support the religious teaching of my children, but you're not going far enough. The school is teaching in direct opposition to my religious teachings. So whereas it may not support my religion, it is actively involved in the opposition and destruction of it in the mind of my child.

No one says that everyone has to believe what I believe, but in the same token, why do my children have to be taught their unbelief? Sounds kind of hypocritical, to me.

BTW if evolution is thought of as just a theory, then what's the problem of teaching other theories along side it and allow each individual to make up their mind?

BTW taking cheap shots at me doesn't dilute what I'm saying.
Oh Get Real too

Lytle Creek, CA

#9 Jan 14, 2006
I must correct you in 2 areas. There is a body of evidence in support of creationism and there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. Microevolution is more commonly known as adaptation. Macroevolution which most people know as general evolution is evolution where one species "evolves" into another given the magic wand of time. One is the evolution within a species, the other is evolution across species lines. No one doubts adaptation. But there is no "smoking gun" for macroevolution. The reason for a "missing link" is because there is a "missing link". Hence, the word missing. It is missing, because it's not there. In its place is faith. Faith that this species "changed" into this other species where the "evidence" is missing. So, whereas faith in God is missing, faith exist, nonetheless. It is this aspect of evolution that is not observed. According to the general theory of evolution, these changes take millions of years...no one has "observed" this. So, your claim of observable evidence in this arena is unfounded. In adaptation there is observation, but in macroevolution, there is not.
If I spit on the ground and say that a person will evolve from my spittle tomorrow, you'd laugh me to scorn. If I say the same in a week, a month, or a year, your mockery would be the same. BUT if I wave the magic wand of time and say a billion years, it would become more plausable since no one would be around to "observe" it. As rediculous as this example sounds, it is the premise of general evolution. To me, it takes more faith to believe in general evolution that in creationsim.

Whereas it is claimed to be a "science" it lacks one basic tennent of the scientific meathod...reproducibility. Yes, it does have a hypothesis. Yes, it does have some evidence supporting the hypothesis. It does not have reproducibility. Yet, some have bypassed this important step and have jumped to the step of conclusion based solely on the hypothesis and some weak evidence that has been biasedly interpreted. Without this reproducibility, it rests securely in the realm of faith, which it is.

Whether, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc, there is a basic "faith" in some sort of God, or afterlife, so where the specifics maybe not in unison, there are some aspects that are the same.
did you read this

Oakland, CA

#10 Jan 14, 2006
We have dirctly OBSERVED the evolutionary origination of new species. As in, yesterday there wasnt one, today there is. REmember, there are five different mechanmisms of evolutionary change, not all of them take vast amounts of time. And the other evidence for slow, natural Selection macroevolution is also tremendously strong. There is a mountain of evidence for macroevolution. There are transitional forms in the fossil record, despite what the creationists / ID people claim. There are transitional forms in the anatomical, physiological, and molecular records too. What is more, those disparate bodies of evidence are congruent; they agree with each other everywhere they can be directly compared.

And as I pointed out, science often infers based on indirect observation. We infer the existence of subatomic particles; they have never been observed. We infer speciation when swe see related new species arise int e fossil record. There is LESS evidence for the existnce of subatomic aprticles thatn there is for macroevolution as fact, evne isf all we consider is the fossil record. And the fossil record is FAR from the only evidence.
Also, there is NO evidence-based pubication record for ID. You statemnt that such exists is wrong, and does not magically bring it into creation.

The Dover transcripts do a very good job out outlining this. You (or onlookers) might also read "Abusing Science" by Philip Kitcher, which way back in 1982 pulled the rug out from under your rentire direction of argument. I'm not going to recreate his work, or the subsequent works that add newer evidence, except to say the arguemtns he demolioshed then agaisnt "creation science" are dead spot on for "intelligent design' today.

I'm done with this; I get tired very quickly of claims that I know to be false, like your claim for a body of evidence for ID. I strongly suggest reading Dover and Kitcher.
Get real too

Lytle Creek, CA

#11 Jan 14, 2006
did you read this wrote:
We have dirctly OBSERVED the evolutionary origination of new species. As in, yesterday there wasnt one, today there is. REmember, there are five different mechanmisms of evolutionary change, not all of them take vast amounts of time. And the other evidence for slow, natural Selection macroevolution is also tremendously strong. There is a mountain of evidence for macroevolution. There are transitional forms in the fossil record, despite what the creationists / ID people claim. There are transitional forms in the anatomical, physiological, and molecular records too. What is more, those disparate bodies of evidence are congruent; they agree with each other everywhere they can be directly compared.

And as I pointed out, science often infers based on indirect observation. We infer the existence of subatomic particles; they have never been observed. We infer speciation when swe see related new species arise int e fossil record. There is LESS evidence for the existnce of subatomic aprticles thatn there is for macroevolution as fact, evne isf all we consider is the fossil record. And the fossil record is FAR from the only evidence.
Also, there is NO evidence-based pubication record for ID. You statemnt that such exists is wrong, and does not magically bring it into creation.

The Dover transcripts do a very good job out outlining this. You (or onlookers) might also read "Abusing Science" by Philip Kitcher, which way back in 1982 pulled the rug out from under your rentire direction of argument. I'm not going to recreate his work, or the subsequent works that add newer evidence, except to say the arguemtns he demolioshed then agaisnt "creation science" are dead spot on for "intelligent design' today.

I'm done with this; I get tired very quickly of claims that I know to be false, like your claim for a body of evidence for ID. I strongly suggest reading Dover and Kitcher.
LOL, you rely on a legislative and legal action to determine the validity of a scientific claim. Doesn't sound too scientific, to me. You can't erase God with an edict.
Left Wondering Why

Lytle Creek, CA

#12 Jan 14, 2006
We have dirctly OBSERVED the evolutionary origination of new species. As in, yesterday there wasnt one, today there is.

This could be the argument for creationism.

And as I pointed out, science often infers based on indirect observation.

In other words...a biased projection. Once again, this could be an argument for creationism.

We infer speciation when swe see related new species arise int e fossil record.

We find a new example in the the fossil record and it can't be that we just found an example of a preexisting species, it has to be an "evolved" example...sounds kinds biased.

The Dover transcripts do a very good job out outlining this. You (or onlookers) might also read "Abusing Science" by Philip Kitcher, which way back in 1982 pulled the rug out from under your rentire direction of argument. I'm not going to recreate his work, or the subsequent works that add newer evidence, except to say the arguemtns he demolioshed then agaisnt "creation science" are dead spot on for "intelligent design' today.

You claimed, earlier that you go to church, I'm left wondering...why?
No I do not

Oakland, CA

#13 Jan 14, 2006
Just this one final comment. I did NOT rely on "an edict" for anything. I directed you (and onlookers) to the Dover transcripts and decision, not because they are "an edict" but because they contain a good outline of the evidence (lack of) for ID, and to the Kitcher book for its direct refutation of much of this line of creationist / ID argument. about science. Neither of those are relianc eon legislative an dleal actioon; theya re sumaries of evidence from which peopel can arrive at their own conclusions.

Your response here refused to address those points, which I made very clear. It can only be a dishonest attempt to ignore the meat of my response. That kind of dishonesty is why I'm leaving this discussion; It is also characteristic of most creatinist challenges to science. And this resonse is not primarily for you; it is for potential onlookers, to make it clear why I'm leaving this discussion and to reiterate my recommendation to read the Dover decision and Kitcher.
Get real too wrote:
<quoted text>

LOL, you rely on a legislative and legal action to determine the validity of a scientific claim. Doesn't sound too scientific, to me. You can't erase God with an edict.
Reg Real too

Lytle Creek, CA

#14 Jan 14, 2006
No I do not wrote:
Just this one final comment. I did NOT rely on "an edict" for anything. I directed you (and onlookers) to the Dover transcripts and decision, not because they are "an edict" but because they contain a good outline of the evidence (lack of) for ID, and to the Kitcher book for its direct refutation of much of this line of creationist / ID argument. about science. Neither of those are relianc eon legislative an dleal actioon; theya re sumaries of evidence from which peopel can arrive at their own conclusions.

Your response here refused to address those points, which I made very clear. It can only be a dishonest attempt to ignore the meat of my response. That kind of dishonesty is why I'm leaving this discussion; It is also characteristic of most creatinist challenges to science. And this resonse is not primarily for you; it is for potential onlookers, to make it clear why I'm leaving this discussion and to reiterate my recommendation to read the Dover decision and Kitcher.

<quoted text>
I've yet to see any real meat to substantiate your position. All you refer to is someone else's work to buttress and sustain your position. Alas, this has all been one sided. I've refuted your "evidence", but to as yet heard any indication to believe that you're even entertained any position but your own. I thought it was the Creationists that were labeled as closed minded? I've stated that your side has evidence, though biased as it is, have you even alluded to any on my side? No! To the contrary, you've stated that there isn't any. I thought Christians were closed minded. Bottom line, it's a matter of faith. Mine that God created everything and yours that He didn't, because neither one of us was there...no one was. We both agree that your side has "evidence" even though I view it as biased, projective, and inconclusive, however you offer me no such concession. I'm willing to discuss your side, but you're not even willing to conceed that I have one worth addressing. My, my how the roles have reversed since the Scopes "Monkey Trial".

Once again, I'm left wondering why you go to church?

Since: Dec 05

Palo Alto, CA

#15 Jan 17, 2006
Another Hyopcrite wrote:
<quoted text>

Well, you've just shown yourself to be a hypocrite, also. You don't want others to prevent a woman from killing her child, you don't want others from preventing crossdressing, or condemning homosexual activity, yet it is you and your kind that want to shove your belief system (evolution) down our throats. How dare we prevent a woman, or create legislation that would prevent a woman from killing her child. How dare we look at homosexuality in a less than normal light. To you it's biggotted if we have the audacity to place out beliefs upon you. Yet, the hypocrisy is that that is exactly what you're doing to us.

If you remember, evolution is only a theory. Intelligent design is only a theory (intelligent design is not necessarily creationism). Creationism is only a theory. You need to get back to the scientific premise of education and teach all theories on equal ground. When one theory has more prominance that others...that's discrinmination taught by biggots. In this day and age it's the biggots proposing evolution.

If you remember, all the Scopes trial was asking for was equal footing in education. What happened? Unequality begat unequality in the name of equality. The oppressed became the oppressor.
LOL...oh the irony. He hasn't shown himself to be a hypocrite, but you have certainly shown your lack of understanding of his argument. I love how you spin him saying, "but I would bet that you would be the first to prevent a woman who wishes an abortion to have the freedom to choose" into "You don't want others to prevent a woman from killing her child,you don't want others from preventing crossdressing, or condemning homosexual activity" The difference is that he believes in the right of personal freedom we are guaranteed in the American Constitution. You apparently believe in imposing your moral beliefs on the rest of the Country. I, and every other patriotic American should applaud him for NOT wanting people to prevent a woman from making a choice about her pregnancy. If someone wants to cross-dress so be it, it has no effect on the rest of us and costs us nothing. I fail to see how condemning homosexual activity is a right. You can think whatever you want, but you have no right to force that belief on others.

Creationism is not even a valid scientific theory, it is religious dogma. And using tax-dollars to pay for a class that teaches it is wrong, regardless of whether it is a optional class. Evolution is a theory with an overwhelming amount of scientific backing. We would be negligent to not inform our children about it.

The only bigots here are you and people like you: Religious nuts on the outskirts of reasonable thought, trying to use our tax dollars to advance your agendas.

Since: Dec 05

Palo Alto, CA

#16 Jan 17, 2006
Get it right wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at our present society. This is the fruit of our taking God out of our government. Gangs run rampant. Children kill children. Children grow up only knowing 1 parent. Millions of teenagers get pregnant out of wedlock. Unborn children are needlessly slaughtered, because of these pregnancies. Drug addiction is out of control. STDs are spread as easily as the common cold.
How exactly has G-d been taken out of our government? And more importantly if G-d has been taken out, how has this affected our present society? Criminal sentences are tougher and longer then they have ever been in our nation's history. Gangs, children on children violence, teenagers getting pregnant out of wedlock, drug addiction, these all come from poor parenting, poverty, and a lack of education. If increases in STD's are a result of G-d being removed from our gov't, explain to me why STD rates are highest among religious groups who do not believe in premarital sex, and thus do not teach their kids anything about sexual education and safety. No one in the gov't is trying to make laws to restrict the free exercise of your religion. You're simply pissed because its getting harder for you to impose your beliefs on others. GET OVER IT!

Since: Dec 05

Palo Alto, CA

#17 Jan 17, 2006
Embarassing You wrote:
<quoted text>

Yea, I can exercise my freedom of religion unless it's involves the government. So, my "freedom" isn't really freedom. It's subserviant to the state. I can teach my children creationism at home, but in school my children don't have that freedom. In essence, what you're saying is that the school cannot support the religious teaching of my children, but you're not going far enough. The school is teaching in direct opposition to my religious teachings. So whereas it may not support my religion, it is actively involved in the opposition and destruction of it in the mind of my child.

No one says that everyone has to believe what I believe, but in the same token, why do my children have to be taught their unbelief? Sounds kind of hypocritical, to me.
If your religion mandated that the "theory" of gravity was false, and in fact the force of gravity was actually G-d pulling you towards the center of the earth, would you be pissed that schools insisted on teaching your children physics? Come on dude, this is the 21st century.

Since: Dec 05

Palo Alto, CA

#18 Jan 17, 2006
Reg Real too wrote:
<quoted text>

I've yet to see any real meat to substantiate your position. All you refer to is someone else's work to buttress and sustain your position. Alas, this has all been one sided. I've refuted your "evidence", but to as yet heard any indication to believe that you're even entertained any position but your own. I thought it was the Creationists that were labeled as closed minded? I've stated that your side has evidence, though biased as it is, have you even alluded to any on my side? No! To the contrary, you've stated that there isn't any. I thought Christians were closed minded. Bottom line, it's a matter of faith. Mine that God created everything and yours that He didn't, because neither one of us was there...no one was. We both agree that your side has "evidence" even though I view it as biased, projective, and inconclusive, however you offer me no such concession. I'm willing to discuss your side, but you're not even willing to conceed that I have one worth addressing. My, my how the roles have reversed since the Scopes "Monkey Trial".

Once again, I'm left wondering why you go to church?
*SNORE* This guy's ranting is starting to get old, isn't it...
confused

Lytle Creek, CA

#19 Jan 17, 2006
newt wrote:
<quoted text>

If your religion mandated that the "theory" of gravity was false, and in fact the force of gravity was actually G-d pulling you towards the center of the earth, would you be pissed that schools insisted on teaching your children physics? Come on dude, this is the 21st century.
LOL, meaning what? We've "outgrown" God?

Botton line, if you teach our children that we're glorified animals, guess what, they're going to start acting like glorified animals. Look around you. Territorialism, self-gratification, amoral behavior...in the 21st century.
confused

Lytle Creek, CA

#20 Jan 17, 2006
newt wrote:
<quoted text>

How exactly has G-d been taken out of our government? And more importantly if G-d has been taken out, how has this affected our present society? Criminal sentences are tougher and longer then they have ever been in our nation's history. Gangs, children on children violence, teenagers getting pregnant out of wedlock, drug addiction, these all come from poor parenting, poverty, and a lack of education. If increases in STD's are a result of G-d being removed from our gov't, explain to me why STD rates are highest among religious groups who do not believe in premarital sex, and thus do not teach their kids anything about sexual education and safety. No one in the gov't is trying to make laws to restrict the free exercise of your religion. You're simply pissed because its getting harder for you to impose your beliefs on others. GET OVER IT!
BTW, in the "evolutionary" world a disabled mate would be abandoned by the pack to fend for themselves and possibly become an example of survival of the fittest thus removing the disabled gene from the genepool. No anger, no regrets, no self pity, no hatred for the rest of the "pack"...just abandonment. That's the "evolutionary" way.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 69
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lebec Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Storage Wars' controversy, Jeff Jarred and his... (Jun '12) Aug 20 fubar 10
News All Los Angeles County Jails on Lockdown (Feb '06) Aug 6 dry lube 1,715
Organized Stalking Sponsored by Government (Apr '13) Aug 6 Mike 35
AV needs to get rid of ghetto "people"! (Oct '11) Jul '15 Vonnae P 201
Local US Army Ranger Combat Veteran for having... Jun '15 Bam 2
Tar Jun '15 Ho Dee Doo 5
News Area police arrest officer (Aug '06) Apr '15 friend of mom 209
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lebec Mortgages