Science Professors Blast Ouster At Tea

[JayDub]

Kinda, sorta, but not really related.

Also kinda, sorta, but not really related.

[3XNTGRAD]

None of which proves evolution from one species into another.

- "The various methods by which geologists can date different strata." Why are the strata different in different locales? How is it possible that an "earlier" stratum can lie atop a "later" stratum? Why are "earlier" fossils found embedded in "later" strata, and vice versa?

Could you please provide examples of these, with the source identified?

- "Examples of adaptation of organims to their habitats." You note Darwin's observation of finches on the Galapagos. Well, if Darwinian evolution were true, why did the finches stay finches? Yes, there were changes that occurred, but this hardly justifies the blind leap of faith to evolution between species.

Darwin's observations led him to identify a mechanism by which evolution could occur. The concept of biological evolution predates Darwin, but his Theory of Natural Selection provided evidence for a mechanism (lack of a mechanism by which this could occur had been a previous criticism against this concept). While they remained finches, they had evolved to adapt to different niches within their habitat in the time that they had been on the island. There are 13 different Finch species in the Galapagos Islands that evolved from a single Finch ancestor species.

If you ask me to have a finch magically become a bat to prove evolution, then that would be impossible. That isn't how it works.

- "The DNA sequence data that confirms relationships that had been previously inferred from the fossil record." Many of those data have been revised as the years have gone by. What was originally asserted to be a 98-99% DNA similarity between human beings and chimpanzees is now believed to be 95%, and may prove less. And what does the similarity prove, anyhow? If chimpanzees and human beings began from the same parent, how did they evolve into two completely distinct species? If one evolutionary route were better than the other, would not both groups have to take it? Would they not continue to mate with each other to remain one muddled species? Or how did it happen that the one could no longer mate with the other?

Your use of the term "confirm" is somewhat unclear - do you mean "prove"? You can't, because it proves nothing. It merely allows the possibility of what had been previously inferred. Someone else made a post on this thread about examining the evidence while already holding a bias - this seems to apply to your used of "confirmed."

I don't have the latest numbers, but even 95% is an astonishly high degree of similarity. Why does that matter? Well, heredity is the passing of traits down to offspring. The information for those traits is stored in the DNA. The more similar the DNA, the more closely related two species are to each other.

Why do both chimps and humans still exist? Well, each population (individuals do not evolve, populations do) would have been adapted to their particular environment. Your assumption is that they always shared the exact same habitat and conditions. Divergent species does not mean that all their relatives or the descendants of those relatives cannot also evolve down a different path.

I use the word "confirm" because it is the appropriate word to use. Theories in science are never really "proven", they are supported by the evidence. Hypotheses can be disproven when evidence shows they could not happen and theories are disproven when new evidence shows that they were wrong (this happens in all the sciences, not just biology). Using your logic, the atom doesn't exist because it has only been inferred from the evidence. And, about the issue of bias, my use of "confirm" rather than "prove" is part of the open approach of examining the evidence, not an example of some percieved close-mindedness.

- "Modern examples of selection such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria." Yet how many of those bacteria turned into cows? Again, limited change within a kind does not justify the blind leap of faith those of you who profess evolution have taken. I am slightly taller than my father, who was slightly taller than his father. This trend is not limited to my family. While it may be possible that my great-great-grandson will be 8 feet tall, I am not willing to allow the possibility that he might be a giraffe.

You appear to be talking about magic, not science in your "bacteria to cow" example. Of course no one can show you that happen. You are trying to ask for science to prove within a human lifetime something that required over 3.5 billion years for evolution to accomplish.

[JayDub]

There is a difference between limited change within kinds and macrovolution between species. When someone provides evidence of a non-human being giving birth to a human being, evolution will have a case.

"Modern examples of selection such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria." Yet how many of those bacteria turned into cows? Again, limited change within a kind does not justify the blind leap of faith those of you who profess evolution have taken.

Source; Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion

4b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

I think you're missing the point...it is slight modifications over thousands of years...not overnight mutation. What do you suggest we call these modifications? You say that you are taller than your father, etc...who's to say that these kinds of modifications, over thousands of years, don't become bigger and better? They're just so small we don't notice over the course of history.

Personally, I really ride the fence as far as religion goes. I do, however, believe in one God. I like to think that, the Big Man is a perfectionist who is constantly improving his product (and save me the "God is perfect, he doesn't need to improve anything" rhetoric...so long as we are given Free Will to destroy ourselves and what God has given us, there will always be a need to improve).

[Travis]

Personally, I really ride the fence as far as religion goes. I do, however, believe in one God. I like to think that, the Big Man is a perfectionist who is constantly improving his product (and save me the "God is perfect, he doesn't need to improve anything" rhetoric...so long as we are given Free Will to destroy ourselves and what God has given us, there will always be a need to improve).

This might start another debate... but, if God gives us free will... then how is it that he can improve his product. wouldn't you mean it is us doing the improving or not.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

To MeanGreen-93-98 (of Arkansas):

---Your arguments are is a little less ridiculous than than minister from Arkansas, but not a whole lot. Changing a simple organisms with a cell or two can not be logically compared with a complex animal or person ---well at least not in the same time frame. We are talking millions of years, not a a few months. Plants and animals live where is environment is "somewhat friendly to them" and if the situation changes then the life in the area changes. Some of the change is natural some of it is man-made. A lot of wild animals have disappeared from areas because of man, some for other reasons.. There are no wolves or bears near Denton anymore but there once was. Some disappear because we eliminated them and then the animals that fed on them disappeared as well.

--- We have not been the only factor in changing this world. There are not very many Horned -Toads anymore in Texas (not like when I was a kid) because since the fireants appears (after WWII) they have spread greatly and they swarm them and do them in. I doubt there are 1% of what there once was when I was a kid, I once caught them and messed with (not killed) them all the time. I can't tell you you the last time I saw one. It is likely that the ones that have survived have something different about them than the usual horned-toad, thicker skin, smaller nostrils etc. (fireants crawl into them this way), something that allows them to survive and multiply and have offspring withthe same characteristic while the others died out. So what is left can be considered "evolutionary" changed. We have all sorts of different birds and animal around Midland now that were very uncommon 40 years old... grackles for one, squirrils for another. Even Hawks are now in town now feeding on the squirrils. That is only a couple of examples. Some types of animals don't get eaten because they taste bad. My cats would not touch a grackles to eat... after catching a couple, they then just left them alone. They loved doves etc. Some animals are less likely to get eaten because they are better camaflouged, faster, or just smarter. Some mice I can catch in less than a day... others don't care for cheese or whatever I put into a trap and can survive a long time and multiply before I get them.... That is evolution because their offsprings often have that same characteristic. The stupid or the ones with a bad characteristics are done in and don't get to multiply... they become food to quickly. Evolution means change and change is very slow and something forces it to change.

---One the biggest changes in my lifetime is the number of deer now. The government eradicated the screwworm fly in North America about 1960 which changed life for those of us that ranched (earlier we needed to doctor all newborn calfs immediately) .... but at the same time it increased the number of deer and some other animals in the wild...screw-worms would kill a lot of injured or newborn deer and other animals prior until then. Guess what started showing up more then...coyotes.... more food available now. The faster coyotes eat and live, the slow ones slowly get elimininated (opps, evolution again) .

Evolution is not a conflict to the Bible at all as I see it. How things are created really isn't a big issue, God does it or allows it. . Anti-evolutionists insist that immediately everything appears...poof.... and nothing changes........does that make sense???

Edited December 17, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[JayDub]

This might start another debate... but, if God gives us free will... then how is it that he can improve his product. wouldn't you mean it is us doing the improving or not.

Oooo....excellent point.

[UNT_92_Fan]

Monkeys throw their own shit.... Jaydub was obviously once a monkey!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--When you don't know anything to say. . just use obscene words and call people names and use unflattering labels ... socialist, pagan, unpatriotic, liberal, idiot, etc. ... LOL

[UNT_92_Fan]

I prefer Hippie. I didn't want to take the time to read four pages of an argument that won't ever be solved by common men. HAHA...

Hippies....

and I wasn't making up the thing about Dub throwing poop.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I prefer Hippie. I didn't want to take the time to read four pages of an argument that won't ever be solved by common men. HAHA...

Hippies....

and I wasn't making up the thing about Dub throwing poop.

--ok---LOL --- I just get tired of people who think anyone that disagrees with them are one of the above mentioned names. I don't hippy applies much to me however.. .. NT was very conservative at the time I graduated in 66*.... when I went back and worked on a graduate degree (1971) it was a totally different world. There can never be enough made of the year 1968 and how much things changed then. Now it has swung so far the other direction it is nuts... also now many people are way too intolerant of others.....almost as bad as the Puritans....they see everything in black/white.

---It can't be solved. you are right there... but those who think absolutely that they know the answer (either extreme) ... don't. It really doesn't matter what anyone invidual oppinion is.. what does matter is an open mind tolerance of others and their right to believe as they want about things that can never be proved. (flat earth doesn't count)...... that seems to be proved wrong...LOL

* never saw any drugs or marijuana until a couple of years after graduation... and I even lived in dormatory... not a sheltered life. We suspected some of the music guys may have had some it though. LOL.. It is difficult now for a kid to get to the 6th grade without seeing it.... We often left our rooms unlocked and cars as well... the cars often were unlocked and had books, golf clubs etc in them and no one bothered them. [i can think of one exception, a guy went into an unlocked room and took some records.... a couple of guys on the floor figured out who, worked on his health some and the records suddenly appeared..hahaha] Try leaving things unlocked today...and see if things last one hour. The world has changed... well at least America has ..

Edited December 17, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Mean Green 93-98]

To Screaming Eagle-66

Before you refer to my arguments as ridiculous, you might try to answer them. And you might try to come up with less ridiculous arguments yourself. Very clever, the way you try to associate me with someone else, and with the state in which I live, to prejudice the argument.

None of the examples you cite has anything to do with Darwinian evolution. I have brought up myself several times that things change, thus you might say things evolve. But how does the fact that already existing species can populate a new environment prove that non-humans can give birth to human beings?

[untgirl04]

Bacteria is developing resistance to weaker forms of penicillin. A good question to ask is why did it develop this resistance and also how?

It has to do with the exponential growth abilities of bacteria and genetic mutations. Screaming Eagle mentions a few posts up about how 1% survive (due most likely to some genetic abnormality that made that bacterium "lucky"). Dr. Hughes can certainly explain it better than I, but basically during the replication (DNA duplication for cell division) process, the proteins and enzymes that put together the DNA strands sometimes screw up. They'll place a T instead of an A, or a G instead of a C (you get the idea). When you consider how many nucleotides are in each strand of DNA (literally millions), it's a pretty efficient process. Mutations can also occur in the transcription process (creating RNA from DNA) which provides the blueprint for all the proteins in a cell.

Which is where I have to strongly disagree with eulesseagle: It is through genetic mutations and the resulting natural selection that species adapt and evolve. Does that make me an evolutionist? No. Personally, I am a scientific creationist (I guess you can say I straddle the fence). After all I learned about biology (B.A. in Biology, North Texas '04), the complexities of the system only strengthen my belief that there is some Hand that directs the laws of nature. Although often times Christians rail against evolution, I think it's not evolution that bothers them, but the theories of origin (Big Bang, Bubble theory, etc.) I don't understand why evolution and creationism can't exist in tandem. I believe that evolution can exist within the framework of Genesis (the Bible does not necessarily specify that God created the world in seven human days (I don't doubt that He could, but it also says that God works in His time, not ours)). The real point of contention, then is the origin, whether created by a supreme being or some yet-to-be-explained-or-understood mechanism.

[3XNTGRAD]

Personally, I am a scientific creationist (I guess you can say I straddle the fence).

I think you may be identifying yourself as subscribing to "theistic evolution". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, I have no problem with that as a way of approaching the issue. "Theistic evolution" basically says that evolution occurs and has occurred the way that science describes it in our current understanding, but that God had a hand in making it all happen (many people take this to mean God set things in motion and everything was in place for it to proceed in the manner it has). For many people, this is a good method for reconciling the science and their religious beliefs. Nothing in this approach necessarily conflicts with our scientific understanding of the natural world, so I don't have any issue with it. Note: this is quite different from intelligent design, which essentially says that each thing must have been designed "actively" (my word) by a supernatural designer for a specific purpose.

There are people who find theistic evolution to be just as unacceptable as intelligent design/creationism. Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous (he has written a book called "The God Delusion"). He definitely represents the other extreme end of the spectrum in this debate as compared to the creation/flat earth types.

[untgirl04]

I think you may be identifying yourself as subscribing to "theistic evolution". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, I have no problem with that as a way of approaching the issue. "Theistic evolution" basically says that evolution occurs and has occurred the way that science describes it in our current understanding, but that God had a hand in making it all happen (many people take this to mean God set things in motion and everything was in place for it to proceed in the manner it has). For many people, this is a good method for reconciling the science and their religious beliefs. Nothing in this approach necessarily conflicts with our scientific understanding of the natural world, so I don't have any issue with it. Note: this is quite different from intelligent design, which essentially says that each thing must have been designed "actively" (my word) by a supernatural designer for a specific purpose.

There are people who find theistic evolution to be just as unacceptable as intelligent design/creationism. Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous (he has written a book called "The God Delusion"). He definitely represents the other extreme end of the spectrum in this debate as compared to the creation/flat earth types.

They are one in the same. I'd heard it described as scientific creationism, but "theistic evolution" is less clunky. I believe that God started out by creating basic templates of animals/reptiles/fish/birds that He has allowed to adapt and evolve. I'm not sure how far back into evolution I can reconcile with the book of Genesis (it says clearly that God created Adam as a man, not a starfish or an alligator), but I can accept a relatively broad definition of man. I don't know that this necessarily is at odds with current evolution, given that I have yet to see any fossil records that conclusively link modern humans to amphibians.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Could you please provide examples of these, with the source identified?

I am a little surprised that you are unfamiliar with out-of-sequence strata and misplaced fossils, not to mention polystrate fossils. The Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming and Matterhorn Mountain in Switzerland are two examples of the out-of-sequence strata. Human footprints have been found in Carboniferous strata (supposedly 250 million years old) throughout the interior U.S. (Albert G. Ingalls, Scientific American, Vol. 162 #1). William Meister found a fossil of a human footprint with trilobytes in it (Lammerts,Walter, ed. (1976), Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 185-193. The geological timetable is hardly "rock-solid" reliable. As has been acknowledged, "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning inthe use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hardheaded pragmatism . . . The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales" (O’Rourke, J.E.(1976), “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, 276:51, January).

If you ask me to have a finch magically become a bat to prove evolution, then that would be impossible. That isn't how it works.

That is not what I am asking, that is what Darwinian evolution demands.

I don't have the latest numbers, but even 95% is an astonishly high degree of similarity. Why does that matter? Well, heredity is the passing of traits down to offspring. The information for those traits is stored in the DNA. The more similar the DNA, the more closely related two species are to each other.

The very existence of DNA is a strong argument for a Designer. The very definition of "code" contradicts "random." But your explanation for the similarity of the DNA is not the only explanation, although a possible one. The nematode worm shares 75% DNA similarity. So are we in the same family tree?

Why do both chimps and humans still exist? Well, each population (individuals do not evolve, populations do) would have been adapted to their particular environment. Your assumption is that they always shared the exact same habitat and conditions. Divergent species does not mean that all their relatives or the descendants of those relatives cannot also evolve down a different path.

I don't assume that they always shared the exact same habitat and conditions. But I don't believe that different human beings have always shared the exact same habitat and conditions--yet they are all still human beings.

There are so many countless variations in habitat and conditions, that if we evolved from chimpanzees, would there not be innumerable variations of chimpanzee-humans? Why one or the other?

I use the word "confirm" because it is the appropriate word to use. Theories in science are never really "proven", they are supported by the evidence. Hypotheses can be disproven when evidence shows they could not happen and theories are disproven when new evidence shows that they were wrong (this happens in all the sciences, not just biology). Using your logic, the atom doesn't exist because it has only been inferred from the evidence. And, about the issue of bias, my use of "confirm" rather than "prove" is part of the open approach of examining the evidence, not an example of some percieved close-mindedness.

Yes sir, now that you mention it, I seem to recall something about that in a Research and Evaluation class I took. To be honest, I never did agree with that point, but I acknowledge your proper use of scientific nomenclature. That said, how has (intelligent) design been disproven?

You appear to be talking about magic, not science in your "bacteria to cow" example. Of course no one can show you that happen. You are trying to ask for science to prove within a human lifetime something that required over 3.5 billion years for evolution to accomplish.

Absolutely right with those first two sentences. But neither am I convinced that any amount of time can cause that to happen, much less for rocks and dirt to turn into a cow. Of course, then you'd still have to explain the existence of rocks and dirt in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics.

[3XNTGRAD]

I don't know that this necessarily is at odds with current evolution, given that I have yet to see any fossil records that conclusively link modern humans to amphibians.

That is probably the crux of the matter - human evolution. Many people would have no problem with the scientific explanations of evolution if humans were left out of the discussion.

Rationally, for me, I just don't see how you can discuss humans separately from any other creature on the Earth. We share the same DNA, we can be mapped on the Tree of Life (using molecular sequence data) the same as any other organism, we share many similarities with the other primates and the general traits of other mammals. There are also clear fossils showing large portions of the primate line of descent (and further back you can trace general mammalian development as well all the way back to amphibians). Sure, there are some gaps in the fossil record, but science continues to identify additional pieces of the puzzle (a gap in knowledge is not the same as an absence of information -- we just haven't found it all yet). I'm definitely not an expert in mammalian evolution, but everything I have looked at has given me a good picture to see how this progression is understood.

To me, this issue that humans must be specially created or hold a central "God-given" position among all life is much like the problems Galileo faced. Biblical interpretation at the time said that the Earth held a special place in the cosmos, so his work that showed the Earth went around the sun was seen as opposition to "Truth". That is no longer a problem for physics and persons of faith, as I hope some day the biological concept of evolution is not seen as in conflict with religion. It is already a non-issue for many people, but obviously not all. Evolution of humans does not lessen what or who we are in any way, in my view.

[Mean Green 93-98]

They are one in the same. I'd heard it described as scientific creationism, but "theistic evolution" is less clunky. I believe that God started out by creating basic templates of animals/reptiles/fish/birds that He has allowed to adapt and evolve. I'm not sure how far back into evolution I can reconcile with the book of Genesis (it says clearly that God created Adam as a man, not a starfish or an alligator), but I can accept a relatively broad definition of man. I don't know that this necessarily is at odds with current evolution, given that I have yet to see any fossil records that conclusively link modern humans to amphibians.

True--there has been no fossil evidence that links modern human beings to amphibians. Yet evolutionists, including Dr. Hughes I am sure, perhaps universally hold that humanity descends from something well outside anyone's broad definition of man.

[eulesseagle]

untgirl04-

nice debate.

God gave the creation story to Moses in "terms" that Moses could understand. So, IMHO, if God told Moses it took Him one day to create animals then it took one day as Moses understood what one day was. I do not have a problem with that. The six days of creation, not seven, is not the main crux of the Bible anyway and that is why not too much was related to Moses by God on this particular subject.

[3XNTGRAD]

I am a little surprised that you are unfamiliar with out-of-sequence strata and misplaced fossils, not to mention polystrate fossils. The Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming and Matterhorn Mountain in Switzerland are two examples of the out-of-sequence strata.

Despite a long-time interest (from childhood) of geology, I am most definitely not a geologist. I have looked into some of these examples and found quite reasonable explanations of how faults and other disturbances can create the appearance of out-of-order strata. However, I will defer to someone else more knowledgeable than myself to discuss these claims if they wish.

Human footprints have been found in Carboniferous strata (supposedly 250 million years old) throughout the interior U.S.

I found a very detailed article debunking this claim through analysis of the evidence at such sites (in this case, the Paluxy river sites near Glen Rose primarily). Anyone who wishes to read it may do so on the National Center for Science Education website.

That is not what I am asking, that is what Darwinian evolution demands.

The very existence of DNA is a strong argument for a Designer. The very definition of "code" contradicts "random." But your explanation for the similarity of the DNA is not the only explanation, although a possible one. The nematode worm shares 75% DNA similarity. So are we in the same family tree?

I just don't see how evolution demands, as you say, that a bird becomes a bat. Evolutionary theory is not deterministic.

And, in answer to your last question, yes - we are on the same family tree (not the same branch) as worms. All animals are on the same branch, which is but a smaller part of the same earlier branch where we shared a common ancestor with trees and fungi, and back to the earliest of the eukaryotic cells. This is the concept of "common descent" and it is also a central part of the theory of evolution.

As you can see, I have no problem with having a unicellular ancestor those many billions of years ago.

There are so many countless variations in habitat and conditions, that if we evolved from chimpanzees, would there not be innumerable variations of chimpanzee-humans? Why one or the other?

There were other members of the genus Homo on our family tree that did not survive to the present, the neanderthals, for example.

That said, how has (intelligent) design been disproven?

The only testable explanation I've seen put forth for intelligent design has been the idea of "irreducibly complex", which I believe I covered in an earlier post as being refuted by the evidence.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

To Screaming Eagle-66

Before you refer to my arguments as ridiculous, you might try to answer them. And you might try to come up with less ridiculous arguments yourself. Very clever, the way you try to associate me with someone else, and with the state in which I live, to prejudice the argument.

None of the examples you cite has anything to do with Darwinian evolution. I have brought up myself several times that things change, thus you might say things evolve. But how does the fact that already existing species can populate a new environment prove that non-humans can give birth to human beings?

---Not once have I said MAN evolved from a monkey or anything else. I just don't know... check my post [Dec 15, 1036 PM ] But the intelligent design idea is crazy...and those who claim the world is only 5000-10,000 years old are as incorrect as the flat earth guys. Given millions (or bilions) of years if small changes happen it eventually can really change appearance and characteristics and create what we would now consider new or different organisms. I have not memtioned Darwin even once and no doubt some of his conclusions are wrong...[it is a theory, not absolute facts] but not as wrong or crazy as the opposite group is. Of course there were those who thought that those who experimented with electrictry was doing the work of the devil as well... Oddly (LOL) the religious fanatics don't think that way now.... and stay on TV 24-hours a day criticizing scientists....some even use computers (hahaha) .. you figure...

[UNTFan23]

image

LOL!!! This is great:

But Pastor Jim, There are photos of the Earth being round. Aren't there?

image

I hate when people do this. How would you know? Have you been to space? NO YOU HAVEN'T! This is a big conspiracy made by the government (the branches ran by the Liberals, mainly NASA). The above "photo" isn't a photo, but a picture made in PHOTOSHOP!! All previous "photos" were done with oil paints and other drawing mediums, by DEMONS!

The chair I'm sitting in now has wheels. If the world was round why doesn't gravity make me move down the curved Earth? IT DOESN'T!!! THE EARTH IS FLAT YOU RETARD!! Hellllllooo?

I am in complete awe:

You can even buy the crap here.

The worst part is they are located in Arkansas. *sigh*

[JesseMartin]

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe it can all be boiled down to "God is a really good scientist"?

Everything is still theory at this point, and most arguments on both sides have already been covered in this thread. If you look at it objectively...IF there is a creator of all things, wouldn't it be realistic to assume he/it/whatever would be pretty good at, oh, SCIENCE? Of course that follows a lot of "faith" arguments, but if you think about it, it kinda makes sense.

And let's not get started on the whole "proofs for God" thing. If you're totally against thinking there might be a creator/higher power/whatever, then this post won't matter to you...but it does seem sensible to me that if there is a God, he's probably quite a bit more up on science than we are, which would explain why we haven't gotten any level of certainty. Maybe somebody with a higher level of consciousness would know a little more than we about the development of the world.

[UNTflyer]

I'd like to get back to the gist of the article, and that is a curriculum director was forced out by creationists on the TEA just because she forwarded an email that was critical of intelligent design.

This is an absurd act. The person in charge of guiding the scientific curriculum for all students in Texas was basically fired for believing in science. Does anybody still wonder why "Texas education" is a punch line across half the country?

If you want your kids to learn intelligent design, you have several options:

1. Teach it yourself

2. Send your kid to a religious school

3. Take your kid to church

Edited December 18, 2007 by UNTflyer

[3XNTGRAD]

UNTflyer:

You hit the nail on the head. She was fired for doing her job - promoting science. That is scary.

Edited December 18, 2007 by 3XNTGRAD

[Censored by Laurie]

I am in complete awe:

You can even buy the crap here.

The worst part is they are located in Arkansas. *sigh*

I love the use of the word "infidel" by this website...religous zealots from every faith can do quite a bit of damage to the image of that belief...its really sad.

I'd like to get back to the gist of the article, and that is a curriculum director was forced out by creationists on the TEA just because she forwarded an email that was critical of intelligent design.

This is an absurd act. The person in charge of guiding the scientific curriculum for all students in Texas was basically fired for believing in science. Does anybody still wonder why "Texas education" is a punch line across half the country?

If you want your kids to learn intelligent design, you have several options:

1. Teach it yourself

2. Send your kid to a religious school

3. Take your kid to church

But what television program, video game, nanny, after-school program or street gang will teach my child the word of man...er...God?

Parents seem to want more and more to be absolved from actually making an effort to raise their children...but are all too eager to interject their time into fights such as this one.