On 10/23/2005 8:42 PM Jason mumbled something about the following:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:


On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:59:53 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , "Steve Rogers"
wrote:


"Jason" wrote in message


In article ,
wrote:


On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:50:26 -0700,
(Jason) wrote:


to believe that an Intelligent Designer created life
and all matter. My faith is NOT strong enough to
believe that people evolved from one cell. I won't
believe it unless someone proves to me in an
experiment that it happened that way. I admire the
amazing faith of evolutionists. They actually believe
that people evolved from one cell despite not having
any proof that it happened that way.

I don't see what's the problem with that. Every human
starts out as a single celled organism anyway.

What some of the ID people don't seem to (want to)
understand is that people aren't against teaching ID in
schools as such, but are against it being taught AS
SCIENCE. If you want to teach it in a class about
religion, most of the protests would go away.

Oh, and ignoring all proof there is about evolution
doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I thought only children
believed the world isn't there if you put your hands
before your eyes, but I guess I was wrong.

If the judge makes a decision to not allow ID to be
taught in science classes, I hope the judge will at least
allow it to be taught in other classes. The evolutionists
don't want it to be taught in any class. They are worried
that the students will realize that ID has more validity
than evolution. I realize that no evolutionist will ever
admit that that is the real reason they rush to court
whenever a school system wants to teach ID in sciece
classes. I don't blame them for being scard. They don't
want their house of cards to come crashing down.
Jason

Taught in other classes - the mind boggles - what has ID to do with any
other classes other than as something to critique in an English Literature
class or as a "How Not To" in a college course for future PR guys.

IMO the only group of students who will believe that ID has more validity
than evolution are those who have been brainwashed by the sort of "sects"
that there are unfortunately in the US proporting to be Christian
beforehand, and as they are of a very small minority the rights of the
majority to a "proper" education need to be protected - you do

realise that

an overly religious upbringing of children can be classed as child abuse I
hope

You really do need to go and learn more about your subject - come

back when

you can argue both sides and maybe we can all learn something - I know you
will if you really do proper research to achieve this, but maybe we

will as

well.

Steve

Steve,
You seem to know quite a lot about evolution but I don't believe that you
truly understand creation science and ID. I have noticed from your posts
and various
other posts that most people still believe that the ID textbook mentions
that God is the Intelligent Designer. The reality is that God and religion
are NOT mentioned in the ID textbook or will be mentioned by any teacher
in the public school system.
Jason

Of course the Intelligent Designer isn't God. How could anyone think
that when proponents of intelligent design capitalize Intelligent
Designer in the same way they capitalize God. The history of ID and
'Creation Science' shows a profound dishonesty on the part of these
religious advocates.


Hello,
The members of the ID movement are not being dishonest. Due to an
important Supreme Court decision that happened many years ago, it's
illegal for public school teachers to promote any religion. It's for that
reason the members of the ID movement made sure that God, Jesus or any
religion was NOT mentioned in the ID text book that they wrote. I should
note that some of the scientists that support ID are not Christians. Some
of them actually believe that people from some other planet visited the
earth millions of years ago. They left behind various people, animals and
plants. I don't agree with those scientists but their theory has as much
(or more) validity than macro-evolution.
Jason

What is macro-evolution? It's a term coined by creationists, it is not
an evolutionary science term, so the creationist claim that something
isn't valid that they themselves created. Damn, you're WAY too easy to
see through. If you want to argue against science, at least argue
against it, not create some bull**** strawman.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS ??? BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply