Jindal signs intelligent design bill
posted at 3:30 pm on June 27, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Depressing yet predictable. On to litigation!
Gov. Bobby Jindal attracted national attention and strongly worded advice about how he should deal with the Louisiana Science Education Act.
Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming…
In signing the bill, Jindal issued a brief statement that read in part: “I will continue to consistently support the ability of school boards and BESE to make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children.”…
“It’s good politics if you are a conservative Republican politician,” said Pearson Cross, a political scientist at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. “That being said, not every place is Louisiana. . . . Certainly this is not going to do anything to endear Bobby Jindal to a majority of voters in places like California and Massachusetts and New York.”
Indeed, although it ain’t California or Massachusetts or New York that’s going to decide this election or any other anytime soon, and Jindal knows it. Here’s the celebratory statement from the pro-ID Discovery Institute, and here’s one from Americans United for Separation of Church and State promising that they’ll be watching. Closely. Exit question: How much of his decision to sign was motivated by wanting to turn down the heat on the pay raise uproar?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 Next »
I didn’t see anything in this bill that would warrant vetoing it. It isn’t so explicitly advocating ID that it can be reasonably vetoes, I think.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I support the decision, but I do want Jindal and the Education boards to make sure that reputable people teach origins science, and not teachers like that crackpot who burned a cross onto a student’s arm.
Richard Romano on June 27, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Disappointing. ID is not science and does not belong in science classes. Religion or Comparative Religion classes,yes. Science classes, no.
irishspy on June 27, 2008 at 3:35 PM
This is going to turn the heat down?
My, my, but things are different in Louisiana.
Lehosh on June 27, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I don’t really think it had anything to do with the pay.
He is very much into the aspect of design.
As I don’t see a problem with either the big bang theory and the design theory. They are both theories, why not have the children discuss them, in which it will encourage them to ask their parents and get a discussion going at home as well.
upinak on June 27, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Am I the only person on the internet who just doesn’t care about this issue? ID and ID teaching always gets ten million comments, but I’ve always figured public schools will teach my kids some things I don’t want them to hear, and it’s my job to give them the party line at home.
see-dubya on June 27, 2008 at 3:36 PM
So do two of us count as a ‘faction’?
Limerick on June 27, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Well there’s at least 3.
Spirit of 1776 on June 27, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Nope, I’m with you. .
amerpundit on June 27, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Hmmm the majority or things to come.
Ok all I am outtie for fishing. Have a good one and send me some global warming!
upinak on June 27, 2008 at 3:40 PM
its nice to see a politician with some guts.
the truth is, ID isn’t a religion, but evolution is.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Count me in.
But fear not. Christians, on average, have a tendency to not be politically active. I read that somewhere.
Weight of Glory on June 27, 2008 at 3:42 PM
is ID creationist as LGF portrays it today
Ropera on June 27, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Really the only people who care about this issue are the atheists.
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Ok, Louisiana gets added to Kansas as states whose school system graduates will never be employed by me and I will make every attempt to never spend a dime there.
It’s interesting. Most of the kids (and I mean over 85% of them) and my kids’ school are either Buddhist or Hindu. Wonder how their parents would feel about ID. Schools are supposed to be for everyone, not just those whose religion derives from Abraham.
crosspatch on June 27, 2008 at 3:44 PM
I don’t think that played a big part at all. He’s always seemed to be in favor of ID in schools, hasn’t he?
malan89 on June 27, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Who knew the LA legislature was so packed full of atheists.
Lehosh on June 27, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Typical evolutionist talking point — how is evolution science when you have proponents of evolution stating that they don’t know how life began, but then point to a fossil record for transitions that don’t exist, but still then say that evolution is true? This is laughable circuitous reasoning that has no basis to be circuitous in the first place.
Some of the most influential scientists our world has known were not evolutionists — Newton, Linnaeus, and Mendel to name three…there are many more. They didn’t need it to become progenitors in their fields, and we don’t need it today to come up with medical breakthroughs and the like.
Tell me, what evolutionary theory does NASA adhere to to put men/women in space?
You don’t like the decision, fine…but please, spare us the silly cliches and empty rhetoric.
Richard Romano on June 27, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Seems like the Republican’s “next big thing” is busy trying to keep his citizens ignorant and poor.
No surprise there.
alphie on June 27, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Call the waaambulance!!
Richard Romano on June 27, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Can there be such a thing as unintelligent design? No, it’s a contradiction in terms, but that’s what they’re teaching in govt schools.
Cause: gigantic explosion involving all the mass in the universe
Effect: produces pyramids, space shuttle, Jessica Alba…
Oh now I get it.
Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Good luck with that. Hate to say it, but give an inch they take a mile……
ID is based on a belief not science. It has no place in a public school.
Bogeyfre on June 27, 2008 at 3:48 PM
How much of your exit question is motivated by your distaste for and cynicism regarding the governor’s action?
If it’s “[d]epressing yet predictable,” how exactly could it be motivated by a recent unexpected political uproar?
spmat on June 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM
There, fixed it fer ya.
Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Watered down creationism; but yes. ID is creationism.
lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 3:51 PM
No, you are not alone.
carbon_footprint on June 27, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Who has always made a big deal about this? The atheists. This legislation basically said let the schools teach the origin of the species how they want. There is no actual science either way even though atheists claim evolution is science. Evolution is no more science than global warming.
Evolution is a bunch of unrelated scientific facts with mythological stories tied to it.
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Newton’s life predated Common Descent and Natural Selection as scientific theories.
In what ways does ID meet the criteria of scientific theory?
dedalus on June 27, 2008 at 3:52 PM
I’m glad to see a Republican grow a pair, and shake it up a little. Whatever the reason.
Your Jewish Master on June 27, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Schools are NOT for teaching religious doctrine. If they are going to teach the Abrahamic creation story, then they need to present every single one of them … in a religion class, not a science class. Religion is not based on observation or fact, it is based on faith. You can’t “disprove” creation because no matter what you present, a person always has the option to maintain their faith. It does not belong in schools. It belongs in the home and in the church. If you want to present your children with an alternative view, fine, do it in church school or at home, I have no problem with that.
I *do* have a problem with my tax money pushing a religious agenda. ANY religious agenda.
crosspatch on June 27, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Either way Jindal acted, HA was guaranteed 350 plus comments.
TexasDan on June 27, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Well first, it’s a theory.
Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 3:53 PM
don’t compare the two. evolution is measurable and observable
lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Alleluia!
Hosanna!
Amen!
Salute!
(to this and whatever else drives the evolutionists more crazy)
corona on June 27, 2008 at 3:54 PM
again, the only ones that have a problem with this are the atheists.
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 3:54 PM
And I am a willing participant!
Your Jewish Master on June 27, 2008 at 3:55 PM
I don’t recall Abraham teaching anything about creation. What are you reading?
Exactly, which is why the ever-changing theory of evolution should not be taught at taxpayers’ expense.
Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Darwin’s theory of random mutations is just mathematically impossible. I don’t base this conclusion on faith, but on my extensive math and science background.
Teaching intelligent design may be asinine and fly in the face of science, but so does teaching evolution as “settled science”.
Remember, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which enjoys a sense of universal acceptance evolution will never know, is still a theory.
ynot4tony2 on June 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM
with that, what would the evolutionists have?
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM
so wikipedia is a trusted source now for science. Tell me, did the last ‘evolution’ of ecoli still remain ecoli? There is no observation of interspecies evolution. There are mutations, but that doesn’t prove anything.
There are plenty of creatures that could not have evolved. That disproves evolution so it must not be science.
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Ironically, this (jump to 5:35 in the clip) is one of the best arguments for ID I’ve seen in a movie in a while.
Jodie Foster: “They all travel here through that transit system that you built?”
Dear old dad: “We didn’t build it. We don’t know who did. No, they were gone long before we ever got here. Maybe someday they’ll come back”
Exit question: How do you know it was BUILT? (i.e. designed?) and not just evolved itself into being over trillions of years.
The answer of course, is obvious, and the key to this debate.
It isn’t theological to propose Intelligent Design. In fact, it’s just a form of science that doesn’t EXCLUDE the possibility of a designer (whoever that is) for a complex system that is observed. That’s the key difference with evolution is that it begins with a false assumption that no designer exists in the immense system of systems we live and breathe in.
pecan pie on June 27, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Sweet. The Theocratic agenda proceeds as planned. Soon, we shall have a Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Precention of Vice, and we’ll be happy for it.
Or else.
Vic on June 27, 2008 at 3:57 PM
no its not. explain the tuatara then, with the fastest rate of DNA ‘evolution’ that did not translate to any changes in physical characteristics.
the fossil record does not support evolution, thus the need for punctuated equilibrium.
you cannot observe evolution inthe lab or in nature, or in the fossil record….its a matter of faith.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 3:58 PM
then why do you ‘tolerant’ evolutionists have to sue, silene and harass anyone who dares disagree?
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 3:58 PM
There, fixed it fer ya.
Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Bogeyfre on June 27, 2008 at 3:58 PM
It is not. Creationism posits a creator. ID uses basic logic to make design inferences in biological systems. When the existence of design is the only logical, viable explanation, only then is the existence of a designer inferred.
That designer could be Jehovah, Brahman, the spaghetti monster, space aliens or the Force. The implication of that is not that “God must exist” but that the system under consideration has a designer, and that the system likely has some central purpose to the higher-level systems that employ it.
These are logical deductions based on observable phenomena. The kinds of deductions that we make every day in the real world.
spmat on June 27, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Tiny evolutions within a species is a far cry from evolution into a new species. The germs you cite are still germs.
ynot4tony2 on June 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM
LOL the quotes are backwards… brain fart….
Bogeyfre on June 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM
“Wikipedia is just… the greatest thing ever,” -Michael Scott, The Office
Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I’m not one for teaching ID, but they aleady teach worse with CLIMATE CHANGE, and ID might crowd some of that crap out.
Dusty on June 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM
It isn’t that people are opposed to intelligent design. It’s that they are opposed to the designer.
They absolutely believe they know something other people do not. And they pride themselves in that very fact.
They think they are humble because they are proud. And they are proud because they think they are humble.
When in fact they are saying “Look at me, I’m humble!” And, “I feel such pride in myself for because I think humbly.”
Don’t believe me?
coffee260 on June 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 3:43 PM
That’s an interesting claim.
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:00 PM
The ID-creationists are the 9/11 truthers of the right.
oceansidecon on June 27, 2008 at 4:00 PM
DOes anyone have a link to what the bill actually says?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on June 27, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Evolutionists are the global warming of the right. . . or more accurately, the flat Earthers of the 21st century.
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Another gem from Jindal. Question: why castrate when exorcism might accomplish the same goals in a far more cost-effective way?
Big S on June 27, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Some of the best minds in the world are the equivalent of 9/11 truthers, then?
ynot4tony2 on June 27, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Is it? Then we should be able to demonstrate how it complies with the key requirements of scientific theory.
dedalus on June 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM
wikipedia sums up the study. actually research it if you are truly interested. Or don’t. Either way. It’s no skin off my back either way. But if you want to make more the glib points then you should study up a bit.
Mutations that pass from generation to generation is evolution.
Such as?
Of course you can. Look at the fossil record a bit more closely.
lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM
I’m sorry that evolution away from a germ doesn’t happen in 20 years. :rolleyes:
lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Zero?
I care about this issue, not as a religious issue, but from a free-speech, anti-Stalinist perspective. Evolution explains some things, but not everything. It does not explain the origin of the universe or of life itself, but merely accounts for some transitions. Why censor this?
Moreover it is perfectly reasonable (and proper) for science to include biotethical discussions, and these discussions need not include religion at all. After all, don’t atheists argue that morality does not require religion?
Buy Danish on June 27, 2008 at 4:05 PM
My favorite is the bombardier beetle
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Seriously. I’m more worried about what the schools teach kids about sex and global warming than I am about what they say about hte dinosaurs.
see-dubya on June 27, 2008 at 4:06 PM
And the only ones delighting in it have a religious agenda.
backwoods conservative on June 27, 2008 at 4:06 PM
tell me why didn’t it happen with the tuatara in 200 MILLION years??? :rolleyes:
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Probably not much, he’s been in favor of this for some time. But even if he did, it wouldn’t help. A recall petition was filed for him a couple of hours ago. It won’t work, but it goes to show you the mood of the state. We’re ticked.
Laura on June 27, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Okay, let’s pull back the reigns a little bit. I am not in favor of this (don’t really care) mainly because there is very little, if anything, redeemable in government schools, regardless of whether or not they include ID. However, the inclusion of ID, being discussed as a contrary theory to evolution, is by no means an assurance that the kids are going to then be dumb in science or any other subject area. ID hasn’t been taught in public schools for years, and if I’m not mistaken, the public education system has been belching out less than adequate students for a while. A very good friend of mine, who preaches with me on Sundays at a nursing home, has his Masters in mathematics and has his doctorate in Astrophysics. He works for a global energy company and has over 20 patents in his name including one whose abstract runs thusly:
And you know what else? Don’t tell anyone…but he believes God created the universe. GASP! How can that be? Only stupid people believe that.
Weight of Glory on June 27, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Evolution was devised by the Intelligent Designer, so what’s the big deal? The only question is to what extent he applied it.
Dusty on June 27, 2008 at 4:07 PM
uh yeah right…thats why gould had to come up with punctuated equilibrium:
Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?
Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.
I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.
link
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Exactly.
Anyway, how long would it really take to teach ID theory? 1 class period max?
“Maybe someone or something magically created the universe.”
There. I’ve just taught you all Intelligent Design… that is, if we’re going to take ID people seriously and believe this isn’t really some back door for teaching Christian theism.
Lehosh on June 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Perhaps its adapted fine to its environment and other changes just aren’t happening? Not everything evolves at the same pace.
Sharks have been the same for millions of years. As have alligators. Etc.
We are finding fish that supposedly have been extinct for millions of years alive and well and without much change.
Because a few creatures don’t evolve doesn’t imply that others cannot.
lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM
The world is upside down. My kids are 24 to 32, they and their contemporaries have strong doubts about the possibility that God exists but no doubt at all that there is alien life somewhere in the universe. These kids (not mine so far)live together, buy houses together and have children together but only get married to throw a bone to the parents. Yet Gay folks are fighting for the ability to get married. At the same time my better half will say you can’t be a “true” Christian if you think there just might be life somewhere else in the Universe. I guess my point is that we are making it really hard to express our beliefs, it’s okay not to agree but why do the threads on ID and evolution get so harsh? After all no one really KNOWS. I’ve always wondered why if evolution is a sure thing then won’t Polar Bears evolve to adapt to any realatively minor changes in their habitat? I am all over the map.
Cindy Munford on June 27, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Since you trust wikipedia so much here is the bombardier beetle wiki style.
There are TONS of examples. This one has been explained away by ‘evolutionists’ (witch doctors) with made up stories, but no science. This beetle could not have evolved such a intricate and deadly defense mechanism without becoming extinct in the evolutionary ‘trial and error’ process.
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 4:09 PM
nevermind, it can be found at
SB733
So, I may be a bit dense, but would you rather have a law that says you must teach the global warming orthodoxy? Nothing is worse than consensus science.
Personally, when I’m trying to teach someone something scientific, anything that begins with “I believe…” has no business anywhere near proofs, and should be discounted.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on June 27, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Holy Crap!
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 4:12 PM
It takes faith to believe Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. You don’t know that he did; you just believe the history and whoever taught it to you.
Just because an old Englishman from a few hundred years ago dreamt something up to replace God, and that something has become wildly popular, does not mean that rejecting the dogma makes you an idiot.
emailnuevo on June 27, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Hey allah,
Since you’re so keen on conjuring up first amendment nuance out of thin air, care explaining to me how the government teaching kids stuff that outright contradicts the religious beliefs of half the country is OK?
Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 4:13 PM
You have to leave God out of your crap ronsfi.
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 4:13 PM
This beetle could not have evolved such a intricate and deadly defense mechanism without becoming extinct in the evolutionary ‘trial and error’ process.
[ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 4:09 PM]
It was the Fizz Beetle which developed the coke and tums defense mechanism that died out.
Dusty on June 27, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I suggest you read your own wiki link on the evolutionary trend of that creature.
I particularly like this part:
There are many creatures that have chemical self defenses, in one form or another. This beetle is not unique.
lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Lorien-turn that question back on yourself. Can you point to a single transitional life-form in the fossil record, or for that matter, alive outside your house today? Evolutionists are looking hard for “the missing link”, but haven’t found it. That’s why is always makes the news when they think they have. They’re so blind they don’t even realize that if evolution were true then there would be an ABUNDANCE of evidence. But there is none.
Once again, as it’s been pointed out millions of times before, but let’s go through this again: microevolution involves adaptation to environments WITHIN species, and no one disputes that. That’s what you see in the museums, that’s what you see in the fossil record. However, macroevolution from one species into a brand new one is NOT in the fossil record, canNOT be reproduced in a lab, and is NOT observed in the world today by casual observation. It’s the macroevolution part that’s always shown in textbooks with an “artist’s depiction” or some scientist takes a tooth and extracts an entire animal out of his imagination. It’s just really bad science, and blindness, and a sad religion.
On the other hand, mutations (as my biology teach taught me) generally get selected OUT of the gene pool or lead to death. Mutations are not improvements, they are degeneration of the DNA sequence.
See also “entropy”.
pecan pie on June 27, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Meh
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 4:16 PM
As a Big Bang Catholic Buddist Darwinian Spontanious Equilibrium Animist Monotheist Polygot I have to go intelligently design the cleaning of my oven.
Let me know when someone nails the answer to the big question.
Later.
Limerick on June 27, 2008 at 4:17 PM
I’m sure that the evolutionist that edited that post was proud. The bombardier beetle has been a point of contention for decades dude. I’m not making it up, I’m just educating you about how your evolution isn’t ’science’.
As I said, there are plenty of other examples. This does not mean they were Created, but it definitely didn’t evolve, unless you want to believe the new mythology story made up by evolutionists.
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Same bull. Different day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 4:18 PM
I wonder… would it be appropriate or desirable to require evolution in a religious classroom?
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:20 PM
We are all transitional. Most everything around you (except for some lizard in australia, I guess) is changing. All fossils are evidence of it.
concept of species is just a human construct. if you believe in microevolution within a species then you have to accept macroevolution as well. enough changes within a species will make it a new species eventually. given enough time. don’t you agree?
lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 4:21 PM
This one is unique in that the explosion is created by two chemicals that by themselves would be deadly to the beetle. The mechanism required to mix them together would have had to have been ‘evolved’ before ‘evolving’ the glands to produce the chemical that would be deadly to the beetle by themselves. Natural selection can NOT explain the bombardier beetle. There would be no evolutionary step to get to where the beetle is now that would have been a process of natural selection, or make sense to the ’survival of the fittest’ nature of evolution.
Again, this is one example. There are many.
ThackerAgency on June 27, 2008 at 4:21 PM
We have religious classrooms?
Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 4:21 PM
^^^^Hyperbole
aengus on June 27, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Is it? Then we should be able to demonstrate how it complies with the key requirements of scientific theory.
dedalus on June 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
-Webster
You tell me why it doesn’t fit. Phenomena are abserved (myriad life forms, laws of physics and geometry, etc) and a hypothesis is put forth to explain the phenomena: since they give evidence of design, there must have been a designer. (Experiments to disprove this hypothesis have yet to be successful.)
The hypothesis regarding life is tested by e.g. searching for intermediate versions of functional organs in living creatures, i.e., there are no mutations in any animal’s eyes that advance that eye to a better functioning version of itself. Hence, the eye must have been designed rather than mutated. And I just made that up off the top o’ me ‘ead. Surely someone else herein could improve on it. But there ya go.
Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:23 PM
If the creationists really believe science has so little credibility, why are they trying so hard to get on equal footing with it?
backwoods conservative on June 27, 2008 at 4:23 PM
So much for wonder boy
Kini on June 27, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Rhetorical? You got your chocolate in my peanut butter.
ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Darth Executor on June 27, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Of course. We have religious schools and, of course, creation is taught in Sunday schools everywhere. Should we not, then, seek to provide a balanced survey of the different theories in those settings as well?
DaveS on June 27, 2008 at 4:24 PM
statement of faith…guess gould didn’t know what he was talking about….
more faith….micro doesn’t add up to micro.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:24 PM
micro doesn’t add up to macro, sorry.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:24 PM
keep the faith.
right4life on June 27, 2008 at 4:25 PM
You assume a lot here.
You assume that the mechanism came first.
You assume that the chemicals came second.
You assume that the mixture came third.
Then you say it’s impossible because your methodology is wrong. It’s far more likely that a simple defense was developed. Creatures adapted to it. The creatures eventually evolved an improvement. Etc etc etc over millions of years.
lorien1973 on June 27, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Would one of our eveolutionist friends please explain how sexual reproduction occured simultaneously and beneficially across species lines. Surely you have a theory.
Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 Next »