| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2005 05:46:20 PM |
| Object: |
INTELLIGENT DESIGN RULED A CROCK OF ***** ... |
The judge told them to quit teaching that intelligent design horseshit in
school, YEA !
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot
teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were
created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.
In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that
teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of
church and state.
"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot
uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"
Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site.
(Opinion, pdf)
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact
that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point
should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative
hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to
misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.
Intelligent design claims the complexity of some systems of nature cannot be
explained by evolution but must be attributed to a designer or supernatural
being.
The Dover Area School District, about 25 miles from the state capital,
sought to become the first in the nation to require high school science
teachers to teach the concept of intelligent design as an alternative to
Darwin's theory of evolution.
Jones described the school board's decision as "breathtaking inanity."
"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new
evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact," said the statement that
the old school board approved in a 6-3 vote in October 2004. "With respect
to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
'Of Pandas and People'
That school board mandated the teaching for ninth-grade biology classes and
directed school libraries to purchase an alternative textbook, "Of Pandas
and People," which advocated the concept. The town has since voted out eight
of nine board members.
A lawsuit challenging the policy was brought in December 2004 by 11 parents
in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United
for the Separation of Church and State.
Jones presided over a six-week trial that ended last month. His decision
applies only to the Pennsylvania school district.
His decision would block the school district's plan "requiring teachers to
denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from
requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."
Jones says in his ruling that he did not doubt that intelligent design
advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their
scholarly endeavors," but he also said scientific experts testified that
Darwin's theory "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence
of a divine creator."
Jones: Not an 'activist judge'
Jones -- an appointee of President Bush, who backs the teaching of
intelligent design -- defended his decision in personal terms.
"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of
an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an
activist court," Jones writes.
"Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an
ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest
law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who
in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately
unconstitutional policy," he said.
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church
and State, said, "Children in public schools deserve top quality science
education and freedom from religious indoctrination and today they were
granted both."
A 'troubling decision'
Richard Thompson, a spokesman for the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center,
which aided the school district, called Jones' verdict a "troubling
decision."
"The founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this
simple curriculum change established religion in violation of the
Constitution that they drafted," Thompson said.
Jones said of the defendants, "It is ironic that several of these
individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions
in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the
real purpose" behind the intelligent design policy.
In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana could not teach creationism
because it would "restructure the science curriculum to conform with a
particular religious viewpoint."
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN RULED A CROCK OF ***** ... |
21 Dec 2005 04:39:47 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:46:20 GMT, "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim"
<killgod@killgod.com> wrote:
The judge told them to quit teaching that intelligent design horseshit in
school, YEA !
A bottom level judge in Pennsylvania rules that a 4-paragraph statement cannot
be read at the beginning of the school year advising that an alternative to
evolution is possible.
My money is on him being overruled.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN RULED A CROCK OF ***** ... |
22 Dec 2005 06:22:14 AM |
|
|
A bottom level judge in Pennsylvania rules that a 4-paragraph statement
cannot
be read at the beginning of the school year advising that an alternative
to
evolution is possible.
a bottom level judge? Yea, if this same judge had ruled for the christian
nutcases, then you
would be going, TOP LEVEL JUDGE rules intelligent desuign is the right way.
Fortunately this judge saw what a crock of ***** this intelligent design
horseshit really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN RULED A CROCK OF ***** ... |
23 Dec 2005 11:35:27 PM |
|
|
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:
A bottom level judge in Pennsylvania rules that a 4-paragraph statement
cannot
be read at the beginning of the school year advising that an alternative
to
evolution is possible.
a bottom level judge? Yea, if this same judge had ruled for the christian
nutcases, then you
would be going, TOP LEVEL JUDGE rules intelligent desuign is the right way.
Fortunately this judge saw what a crock of ***** this intelligent design
horseshit really is.
===>Indeed, I.D. is just a
"religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory"
"even that minimal statement amounted to an endorsement of religion,
the judge concluded, because it caused students to doubt the theory of
evolution without scientific justification and presented them with a religious
alternative masquerading as a scientific theory.
The case was most notable for its searching inquiry into whether
intelligent design could be considered science. The answer, after a six-
week trial that included hours of expert testimony, was a resounding no.
The judge found that intelligent design violated the centuries-old ground
rules of science by invoking supernatural causation and by making
assertions that could not be tested or proved wrong. Moreover, intelligent
design has not gained acceptance in the scientific community, has not been
supported by peer-reviewed research, and has not generated a research
and testing program of its own. The core argument for intelligent design -
the supposedly irreducible complexity of key biological systems -
has clear theological overtones. As long ago as the 13th century, St.
Thomas Aquinas argued that because nature is complex, it must have
a designer.
The religious thrust behind Dover's policy was unmistakable. The board
members who pushed the policy through had repeatedly expressed religious
reasons for opposing evolution, though they tried to dissemble during the trial.
Judge Jones charged that the two ringleaders lied in depositions to hide the
fact that they had raised money at a church to buy copies of an intelligent
design textbook for the school library. He also found that board members
were strikingly ignorant about intelligent design and that several individuals
had lied time and again to hide their religious motivations for backing the
concept. Their contention that they had a secular purpose - to improve \
science education and encourage critical thinking - was declared a sham."
FROM:
THE NEW YORK TIMES
EDITORIAL
"Intelligent Design Derailed"
Published: December 22, 200
ALSO SEE:
"Kristi L. Bowman, a law professor at Drake University in Des Moines,
said that technically the judge's ruling was legally binding only in part of
Pennsylvania and that no other courts in the country must follow it.
"That aside," Professor Bowman said, "this is such a thorough,
well-researched opinion that covers all possible bases in terms of the
legal arguments that intelligent design advocates present, that I think
any school board or state board of education thinking about adopting
an intelligent design policy should think twice."
Professor Bowman attended part of the Dover trial and expects her
article on intelligent design to be in The Harvard Journal of Law and
Public Policy.
The legal fees incurred may be "an even stronger cautionary signal to
school districts around the country than the actual decision," Professor
Bowman said.
The Dover school district is now liable for the legal fees incurred by the
plaintiffs - which plaintiffs lawyers say could exceed $1 million."
FROM:
December 22, 2005
"Schools Nationwide Study Impact of Evolution Ruling"
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thialfi" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN RULED A CROCK OF ***** ... |
21 Dec 2005 06:16:21 PM |
|
|
In article <v4ciq1lg5dehm88gpt72t6hb62so5d4gkb@4ax.com>
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:46:20 GMT, "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim"
<killgod@killgod.com> wrote:
The judge told them to quit teaching that intelligent design
horseshit in
school, YEA !
A bottom level judge in Pennsylvania rules that a 4-paragraph
statement cannot
be read at the beginning of the school year advising that an
alternative to
evolution is possible.
My money is on him being overruled.
Pay up.
It won't be appealed.
http://www.eveningsun.com/localnews/ci_3330615
It should be noted that the school board that came up with this
"Intelligent Design" mandate was voted out of office en masse in
December of 2004, and the new school board isn't interested in
pushing ID.
It should also be noted that Judge Jones was appointed by the
current President Bush in 2002.
The decision refers frequently to publications that had the word
Creationism replaced by ID, in one case, 150 times.
It also refers to one of the alternatives provided by the
statute as having “no scientific factual basis or legitimate
educational purpose.”
"The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived
dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate
educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the
origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was
either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these
two models, according to creationists, and the defendants,
dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the
theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in
support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science
‘evidence[.]’ 529 F. Supp. at 1266 (footnote omitted)(emphasis
added)."
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a
religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a
scientific theory."
"Second, the administrators made the remarkable and awkward
statement, as part of the disclaimer, that “there will be no
other discussion of the issue and your teachers will not answer
questions on the issue.” (P-124). Dr. Alters explained that a
reasonable student observer would conclude that ID is a kind of
“secret science that students apparently can’t discuss with
their science teacher”
"In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’
testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright
lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is
that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID
because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree."
"Accordingly, we find that the classroom presentation of the
disclaimer, including school administrators making a special
appearance in the science classrooms to deliver the statement,
the complete prohibition on discussion or questioning ID, and
the “opt out” feature all convey a strong message of religious
endorsement."
"In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution
for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the
scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity
without scientific justification, presents students with a
religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory,
directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a
science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific
inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out
religious instruction elsewhere."
"In those Board meetings, open to the public at large, several
Dover School Board members advocated for the ID Policy in
expressly religious terms, with their comments reported
extensively in the local newspapers, as will be discussed in
detail below. Second, at least two Board members, William
Buckingham and Heather Geesey, defended the proposed curriculum
change in the media in expressly religious terms."
"Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record
and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be
true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is
not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels,
any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that
ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old
ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural
causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central
to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism
that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s
negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the
scientific community."
"Since that time [The 17th Century] period, science has been a
discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical
authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a
scientific idea’s worth."
"As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an
untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be
disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural
explanations as we have our answer."
"It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors
that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science
to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the
Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly
recognized as an inherently religious concept."
"ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that
to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is
confirmed."
"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned
concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an
evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented
with fift-yeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and
several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the
immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still
not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good
enough.” "
"A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate
scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed
publications supporting the theory."
"[W]e find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a
valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in
peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain
acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is
grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of
argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that
to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it
still has utterly no place in a science curriculum."
"Simply put, Bonsell [board member] repeatedly failed to testify
in a truthful manner about this and other subjects. Finally,
Bonsell not only wanted prayer in schools and creationism taught
in science class, he also wanted to inject religion into the
social studies curriculum, as evidenced by his statement to
Baksa that he wanted students to learn more about the Founding
Fathers and providing Baksa with a book entitled Myth of
Separation by David Barton."
"Finally, after the meeting, Buckingham [board member] stated:
“This country wasn’t founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution.
This country was founded on Christianity and our students should
be taught as such.” "
"Second, Buckingham’s wife, Charlotte, gave a speech that
exceeded the normal time protocols during the public comment
section in which she explained that “evolution teaches nothing
but lies,” quoted from Genesis, asked “how can we allow anything
else to be taught in our schools,” recited gospel verses telling
people to become born again Christians, and stated that
evolution violated the teachings of the Bible."
"Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense
witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted
the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the
June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these
witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright
under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not
credible on these points."
"The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum
change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into
the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ananias917" |
|
| Title: INTELLIGENT DESIGN MUST BE A FAIRY TALE!!! |
21 Dec 2005 11:42:36 PM |
|
|
On 22 Dec 2005 00:16:21 -0000, Thialfi
<thrasher@reece.net.au> spake thusly:
The decision refers frequently to publications that had the word
Creationism replaced by ID, in one case, 150 times.
Which is ridiculous, since Intelligent Design obviously
implies a Designer. Contrary to the fools that cry out
about that, no one is trying to hide that logical
conclusion. ID is simply a more appropriate term.
And at least we don't cower behind some supposed
division, like evolutionists do, who get all flustered
when you say, "abiogenesis". Of course, that supposed
"division" only came about, magically I might add,
when it was demonstrated that no, life doesn't
magically appear from rotting meat. <chuckle>
It also refers to one of the alternatives provided by the
statute as having “no scientific factual basis or legitimate
educational purpose.”
Now a lawyer judges what is and is not science?
No, I'm sorry. He overstepped his bounds. He
shouldn't even be speaking to either of those
issues. He is not capable of making that call
and that was him, airing his personal opinions
and falsely calling it science.
"The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived
dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate
educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the
origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was
either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these
two models, according to creationists, and the defendants,
dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the
theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in
support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science
‘evidence[.]’ 529 F. Supp. at 1266 (footnote omitted)(emphasis
added)."
Which is a ridiculous complaint, considering that
evolutionists propose only one and claim that there
could be no other conclusion except abiogenesis
(and then refuse to talk about it), which is, whether
you want to admit it or not, part of the evolutionists
argument. If you want to separate abiogenesis from
evolution, then an honest evolutionist would not have
argued against ID on the basis of it saying that God
created (which it isn't specific about), since they
don't want to answer to the question of abiogenesis.
But what really happens, is as follows.
EVO: We won't talk about abiogenesis.
It isn't part of evolution.
ID: We believe that intelligent design is shown
by the scientific evidence. We see sudden
appearance and not slow and gradual evolution.
EVO: No, you don't get to dodge the question
of origins! Only we can do that! You have
to tell us exactly and in detail, how God
created it all! Of course, if you say that
word ("God"), then we'll complain that
you're trying to bring religion in.
Judge: Oh, I see. ID'er are trying to hide the fact
that they believe God created it all.
ID: What are you guys talking about? We're
discussing the observed evidence, which
according to evolutionists themselves,
has nothing to do with the appearance
of first life. We haven't even mention
the Bible and we are going to stick to
straight science about what we see and
also present evolution and let the students
decide for themselves!
Jude: I rule that ID has no scientific merit and
that they are trying to say that the God
of the Bible created it all!
ID: How is that a ruling based on the evidence?
You haven't even addressed the evidence!
You're saying it shouldn't be taught, because
150 times, we decided to use the term,
"Intelligent Design", instead of "Creation"?!
EVO: Yea! Wow, that judge is really smart!
Even though we got upset at the last judge
that said it could be taught and claimed he
shouldn't be able to make that decision,
because he isn't a scientist and didn't know
what he was talking about (no one who
disagrees with us does), this guy, since he
said what we wanted to hear, is now going
to be, as far as evolutionists are concerned,
a scientific genius, who addressed all of
the scientific issues and what he said is
true science! In fact, we should give him
an honorary degree and call him "Doctor",
even though he didn't study this stuff and
earn a doctorate. You know, like we did
for Darwin! Of course, if anyone challenges
us, we'll demand to know if they have an
earned degree in all of the different
sciences that we feel like naming at the
moment. After all, it doesn't matter if
we do or not. We're evolutionists and
we get to say we're experts in everything!
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
Would a loving God send people to Hell?
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/hell.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jani" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN MUST BE A FAIRY TALE!!! |
22 Dec 2005 01:03:13 AM |
|
|
"Ananias917" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nndkq11i5rq5ih8ea306j8pksbri8svi3s@4ax.com...
On 22 Dec 2005 00:16:21 -0000, Thialfi
<thrasher@reece.net.au> spake thusly:
The decision refers frequently to publications that had the word
Creationism replaced by ID, in one case, 150 times.
Which is ridiculous, since Intelligent Design obviously
implies a Designer. Contrary to the fools that cry out
about that, no one is trying to hide that logical
conclusion. ID is simply a more appropriate term.
That's exactly what the defendants *were* trying to hide. Oh, that and
trying to sneak religious texts onto the science bookshelf, and then lying
about it.
(I assume they were testifying on Bible oath, being christians; shows how
much respect they have for such an oath, if perjury comes so easily to
them.)
It also refers to one of the alternatives provided by the
statute as having "no scientific factual basis or legitimate
educational purpose."
Now a lawyer judges what is and is not science?
No, I'm sorry. He overstepped his bounds. He
shouldn't even be speaking to either of those
issues. He is not capable of making that call
and that was him, airing his personal opinions
and falsely calling it science.
No, what he actually said was:
"ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that
we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in
this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are
simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part
of the scientific process or as a scientific theory."
http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3330088
Note, he does not offer any opinion on ID, either for or against: he states
that it cannot be tested scientifically and therefore it does not belong *in
a science classroom*. Which is factually correct, and not a matter of the
judge's "opinion" on the definition of science.
The trouble is, Dave, *you* want to redefine science so that it can include
religion and metaphysics, and that ain't what science does.
Jani
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN MUST BE A FAIRY TALE!!! IT IS DEAD! |
23 Dec 2005 11:33:18 PM |
|
|
Ananias917 wrote:
On 22 Dec 2005 00:16:21 -0000, Thialfi
<thrasher@reece.net.au> spake thusly:
The decision refers frequently to publications that had the word
Creationism replaced by ID, in one case, 150 times.
Which is ridiculous, since Intelligent Design obviously
implies a Designer. Contrary to the fools that cry out
about that, no one is trying to hide that logical
conclusion. ID is simply a more appropriate term.
I.D. is just a "religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory"
"even that minimal statement amounted to an endorsement of religion,
the judge concluded, because it caused students to doubt the theory of
evolution without scientific justification and presented them with a religious
alternative masquerading as a scientific theory.
The case was most notable for its searching inquiry into whether
intelligent design could be considered science. The answer, after a six-
week trial that included hours of expert testimony, was a resounding no.
The judge found that intelligent design violated the centuries-old ground
rules of science by invoking supernatural causation and by making
assertions that could not be tested or proved wrong. Moreover, intelligent
design has not gained acceptance in the scientific community, has not been
supported by peer-reviewed research, and has not generated a research
and testing program of its own. The core argument for intelligent design -
the supposedly irreducible complexity of key biological systems -
has clear theological overtones. As long ago as the 13th century, St.
Thomas Aquinas argued that because nature is complex, it must have
a designer.
The religious thrust behind Dover's policy was unmistakable. The board
members who pushed the policy through had repeatedly expressed religious
reasons for opposing evolution, though they tried to dissemble during the trial.
Judge Jones charged that the two ringleaders lied in depositions to hide the
fact that they had raised money at a church to buy copies of an intelligent
design textbook for the school library. He also found that board members
were strikingly ignorant about intelligent design and that several individuals
had lied time and again to hide their religious motivations for backing the
concept. Their contention that they had a secular purpose - to improve \
science education and encourage critical thinking - was declared a sham."
FROM:
THE NEW YORK TIMES
EDITORIAL
"Intelligent Design Derailed"
Published: December 22, 200
ALSO SEE:
"Kristi L. Bowman, a law professor at Drake University in Des Moines,
said that technically the judge's ruling was legally binding only in part of
Pennsylvania and that no other courts in the country must follow it.
"That aside," Professor Bowman said, "this is such a thorough,
well-researched opinion that covers all possible bases in terms of the
legal arguments that intelligent design advocates present, that I think
any school board or state board of education thinking about adopting
an intelligent design policy should think twice."
Professor Bowman attended part of the Dover trial and expects her
article on intelligent design to be in The Harvard Journal of Law and
Public Policy.
The legal fees incurred may be "an even stronger cautionary signal to
school districts around the country than the actual decision," Professor
Bowman said.
The Dover school district is now liable for the legal fees incurred by the
plaintiffs - which plaintiffs lawyers say could exceed $1 million."
FROM:
December 22, 2005
"Schools Nationwide Study Impact of Evolution Ruling"
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys little helper" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN MUST BE A FAIRY TALE!!! |
22 Dec 2005 11:14:46 AM |
|
|
In alt.christnet , Ananias917 said:
Would a loving God send people to Hell?
If they were shameless liars like you, I certainly would if I were
him.
------------------------------------------------
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we eat, drink and be merry.
D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN RULED A CROCK OF ***** ... Creationist nuts |
21 Dec 2005 08:03:45 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:46:20 GMT, "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim"
<killgod@killgod.com> wrote:
The judge told them to quit teaching that intelligent design horseshit in
school, YEA !
A bottom level judge
===>Anyone astute enough to see through the "I.D. disguise
is no "bottom level" ANYTHING.
He obviously possesses intelligence far surpassing your
infantile creationism.
in Pennsylvania rules that a 4-paragraph statement cannot
be read at the beginning of the school year advising that an alternative to
evolution is possible.
===>The only "alternative to evolution" you guys have been able
to propose is the fable about an ET named YHWH who sculpted your
ancestor out of mud and made him alive by blowing air into his
nose. He made all the animals in the same way.
Your desire to destroy America by putting our children at the
lowest possible level in the world is worse than any terrorism.
My money is on him being overruled.
===>Why not put ALL your money on the phony creationist nuts
trying to disguise their desire to replace science with biblical
fantasy by calling it "Intelligent Design"?
After which you can file for welfare. ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" |
|
| Title: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN RULED A CROCK OF ***** ... |
21 Dec 2005 06:09:37 AM |
|
|
my money is on intelligent design being thrown out the fucking window
forever !
death to the loving, caring, mass murdering god
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
