As many know, a Pennsylvania school board's decided to start teaching Intelligent Design in science class. Intelligent Design essentially argues that life is so complex that only an intelligent designer(aka God) must have created it. As part of SCIENCE class.
Several things bother me. First, a school board is unilaterally determining what constitutes science. Aren't such standards determined by the state? (Can any teachers answer that for me?) I thought that a certain amount of hours had to be spent with a certain topic, and, for example, even home schooled kids have to meet those). So wouldn't whether ID met science requirements be a state decision? If the state doesn't find ID to be science, then essentially the students in this school district would not have enough hours to receive science credit for the year, correct? Practically speaking.
Second, I find fault with the entire theory. Much like Descartes "proved" the existence of God ("God exists because I can conceive of a God existing, which means that he must have put the concept of God in my mind"), ID argues that God must exist because life and the universe is so complex. Now, I see teaching evolution: Here's the theory, here's the proof that supports this theory. But for ID...Here's the theory. It's cause it's complicated. No proof other than complexity? Cavemen would say all sorts of things were complex because of their lack of understanding; that didn't mean that their explanations were right.
This seems to violate the constitution. There are two different ways this could vilate the Constitution - either the establishment clause or the separation of church and state clause. It's more likely that it would violate the latter than the former.
As for the establishing clause, those favoring ID discuss the holes in the theory of evolution (because naturally there *are* no holes in the "God created us" theory). Now in theory, this doesn't necessarily establish a religion - just some random deity, whether he is the Christian's god or the Jew's god or Muslim's Allah - created this complex universe. In fact, since it doesn't signify that there is only one god, even those with multiple gods could technically be included (i.e. Hindu, Paganism, or Wicca). (I guess those with no god (like Buddhists and Taoists) are unlucky.) But techically, it's just any divine being who created the universe. However this is more like a "wink, wink" type of answer because the school board who made the decision to teach ID made comments like "Jesus died on the cross and someone has to take a stand for Him," and that "If the Bible is right, God created us. If God did it, it's history and it's also science." These statements clearly reflect the intent of including ID in the curriculum. But even if you could argue (with a straight face) that this doesn't establish a particular religion, it clearly is a complete melding of church and state. It is [b]teaching religion in public schools.[b/] Which receive state money.
All ID truly is is creationism under a different name. Yet in 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal to make creationism a part of the science curriculum in state schools. Thus my conclusion is that the Dover school district's decision is unconstitutional.
s-
*** I would rather die of thirst than drink from the cup of mediocrity. *** A man can't deny what he is. He can convince everybody else he is someone else, but never himself.
First of all, thank you so very much for bringing this up. It drives me completely insane that there are people out there who do not understand the basic tenets or mechanics of science but are allowed to profess their skewed and completely unscientific ideas to gullible, unsuspecting audiences. Here's the thing about scientific theory that the people advocating theories like ID as scientific ones simply do not get: a scientific theory provide one or more testable hypotheses, i.e., unbiased experiments can be designed to investigate the theory in its entirety or more likely, its several inherent aspects. There are data that these experiments could yield to prove or disprove the theory in question and what’s more, these data are not abstract observations but rather precisely defined and even foreseeable. Valid scientific theories are tested and supported by evidence, not proved. Given this information, I pose this question: can anyone come up with an unbiased experiment to test even one aspect of the “theory” of intelligent design? I guarantee you, there is no such experiment. How could you possibly go about testing whether some divine being created the universe? By tracking down this divine being I suppose and playing 20 questions with Her? And while we are at it, we just might want to ensure that the sun is not in fact the center of the universe…. Simply slapping the word ‘intelligent’ onto the “theory” of scientific creationism, incidentally a theory whose very name is an oxymoron and has been laughed out of the scientific community because it is so utterly nonsensical, does not by any means make it a legitimate intellectual theory. Intelligent Design, in all of its guises, from a scientific perspective is but a whimsy. Besides, if you really want to discuss the possibility that ID is a credible theory, schools are most definitely not the place for it. If you want to discuss it, do so in a private, non-state funded organization, like hmmm… let’s see…. a church! As a matter of fact, instances like this are precisely why you will never find a highly acclaimed science textbook written by a school board- they are not the best judges of what constitutes a scientific theory and what doesn’t. The peer-review based scientific community is, and for good reason- they eat, live and breathe science. The long and the short of this tirade is this: enola_catori I agree with you. ID has no place in any school’s curriculum. College curriculum, maybe. But it most definitely should taught in schools because in addition to being unconstitutional, doing so would demean true works of science...
“Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.” - Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 76 | Location: Sin City | Registered: 09-14-03
quote:enola_catori wrote: As many know, a Pennsylvania school board's decided to start teaching Intelligent Design in science class. Intelligent Design essentially argues that life is so complex that only an intelligent designer(aka God) must have created it. As part of SCIENCE class.
The antipathy you express for this scenario is how theists have felt ever since nontheism was emphasized in evolutionary theory.
Both nontheistic secularism's evolutionary theory and theism's intelligent design theory are on an equal playing field; advocates of either system are finite, fallible human beings who are looking at the world they live in and forming theories of explanation. Both theories attempt to explain the origins of earth and sentient earth dwellers. Questions like "What is man?" "Who was the primogenitor of our race?" and "What is earth's genesis?" are better explored and interpreted in a Critical Thinking, Philosophy, Humanities, or Theology course (depending upon whether the classroom is government funded or parochial).
While I am no fan of Postmodernism, what I do like about it is how it has no reverence for the Scientific Method as the "end all and be all" to Life's questions. Modernism in the latter 20th century had a monopoly in government schools, but Postmodernists are willing to juggle a variety of theories, often contradictory in nature; I suspect postmodernism's influence is beginning to make itself felt in US government schools. Not that I think you have to worry that theists are suddenly going to be on the ascendancy in science classrooms, only that Postmodernists stress tolerance for competing worldviews and have a "whatever" mentality.
I like how author John Eldridge in his book The Journey of Desire emphasizes man is looking for transcendence:
Now, not all truths help us descend with the mind into the heart. There is a way of talking about the truth that can actually deaden our hearts. Most of us were raised in the modern era, the age of reason and science. We came to believe that truth is best discovered in the scientific method -- dissection. [Cites example of dissecting a feline corpse's respiratory system, muscles, sinews] You have facts about a cat, but you are far from the real thing anymore....
Let me give another example: what is the truth of a kiss? Technically, in a modernistic sense, it is two sets of mandibles pressing together for a certain duration of time. Those of you who have experienced the wonders of a kiss will know that while true, this description is so untrue. It takes away everything beautiful and mysterious and passionate and intimate and leaves you with an icy cold fact. Those who know kissing feel robbed; those who don't are apt to say, "If that's what kissing is all about, I think I'd rather not." (p. 203)
Postmodernists understand there's a difference between raw data and human interpretations (plural) and they are not satisfied with one system (Western scientific secularism) locking out other interpretations.
My own gut sense is that the reason homeschooling has been so strongly embraced by mostly intelligent theists and atheists is because too many US government schools press out, with cookie-cutter precision, high school graduates totally lacking in the skill to think "outside the box."
quote:Several things bother me. First, a school board is unilaterally determining what constitutes science. Aren't such standards determined by the state? (Can any teachers answer that for me?) I thought that a certain amount of hours had to be spent with a certain topic, and, for example, even home schooled kids have to meet those). So wouldn't whether ID met science requirements be a state decision? If the state doesn't find ID to be science, then essentially the students in this school district would not have enough hours to receive science credit for the year, correct? Practically speaking.
I could be wrong, but if I recall my student teaching courses correctly, the state should set the general standards for education. It's possible the local school board cited above will be in conflict with the state if the state says ID shouldn't be taught in a science class. That said, there is that little thing called "academic freedom"; what's to stop an instructor from teaching "science" and supplementing his course with philosophical discourse (or are they mutually exclusive)?
quote:Second, I find fault with the entire theory. Much like Descartes "proved" the existence of God ("God exists because I can conceive of a God existing, which means that he must have put the concept of God in my mind"), ID argues that God must exist because life and the universe is so complex. Now, I see teaching evolution: Here's the theory, here's the proof that supports this theory. But for ID...Here's the theory. It's cause it's complicated. No proof other than complexity? Cavemen would say all sorts of things were complex because of their lack of understanding; that didn't mean that their explanations were right.
Honestly, I think you've set up a straw man here. The finite, fallible theist looks at the same raw data as the finite, fallible atheist -- only their interpretations are different. (And to jumble the matter further, there are those hybrids who embrace theistic evolution).
quote:This seems to violate the constitution. There are two different ways this could vilate the Constitution - either the establishment clause or the separation of church and state clause. It's more likely that it would violate the latter than the former.
I am the proud possessor a State Handbook for [state-sponsored government] Common Schools (1897). On page 117 there's a section devoted to "Lessons in Morals and Manners". A list of 32 virtues are listed, e.g., cleanliness and neatness, politeness, honesty, nobility, honor, temperance, industry, courage. Here's an example of what the state mandated teachers teach: "LOVE. -- 1. For parents. 2. For brothers and sisters. 3. For other members of family, and friends. 4. For teachers, and all benefactors. 5. For one's neighbor -- "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 6. For God."
Looks like "religion" was state-sanctioned at one point in the history of American government schools; so why the paranoia now in 2005? If the above lesson was not unconstitutional for decades in public schools, why suddenly in 2005 does it look suspiciously "unconstitutional"?? Public schools were set up to be funded by state and local governments, not the federal government, but when Sputnik sent the American pride into a tailspin, federal monies were appropriated to help fund students' government education:
National Defense Education Act
(NDEA), federal legislation passed in 1958 providing aid to education in the United States at all levels, public and private. NDEA was instituted primarily to stimulate the advancement of education in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages; but it has also provided aid in other areas, including technical education, area studies, geography, English as a second language, counseling and guidance, school libraries and librarianship, and educational media centers. The act provides institutions of higher education with 90% of capital funds for low-interest loans to students. NDEA also gives federal support for improvement and change in elementary and secondary education. The act contains statutory prohibitions of federal direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution.
Now instead of pluralism flourishing in government schools, a monolithic, federal government-sanctioned "politically correct" curricula was born. Follow the money..... there are always strings attached. Ideally, pluralism of ideas should flourish in this 50-stated republic. If the majority of New Englanders want secular evolution in their local classrooms, fine; if Texans want Intelligent Design included, fine. Federal control and activist judges have gutted that kind of local-level preference and control. Fwiw, I think compulsory education also played a role in the present mediocrity of American schools but that's for another DF topic.
quote:As for the establishing clause, those favoring ID discuss the holes in the theory of evolution (because naturally there *are* no holes in the "God created us" theory). Now in theory, this doesn't necessarily establish a religion - just some random deity, whether he is the Christian's god or the Jew's god or Muslim's Allah - created this complex universe. In fact, since it doesn't signify that there is only one god, even those with multiple gods could technically be included (i.e. Hindu, Paganism, or Wicca). (I guess those with no god (like Buddhists and Taoists) are unlucky.)
To be a broken record, some accommodation could be made for the large spectrum of theists/nontheists, if the federal government (which has no specific Constitutionally granted powers) were to butt out. The 1897 State Handbook for Common Schools cited earlier (historical precedent) argues that point effectively.
To students reading this reply: The best gift you could give yourselves would be to take philosophy and logic classes from a liberal arts college; once you do, you'll understand how Intelligent Design and Atheistic secularism exist on an equal playing field. The downfall of learning logic/philosophy is to become proud, so understand these tools are powerful but must be handled with respect for one's opponents. I speak from experience. In a European History course I took once, the professor (Ph.D.) assigned us to read a biography of Hitler. The book was riddled with "by chance, the Blitzkreig…." and "by chance Hitler decided……." We had to write a comprehensive review of the book. My title: "Hitler the Man and Hitler as God's Man." I laid out a case for theistic determinism being as valid an explanation for Hitler's rise and fall as "chance." The professor gave me 59/60 points and wrote: "Interesting approach - I am not sure that I agree with all of it. But starting with your premise, you have done a good job of backing it up." His willingness to not penalize me for my beliefs is laudatory. When I once took a logic course from an atheistic professor, he constantly belittled Judeo-Christian's affirmation in a Creator as "pseudoscience"; I politely challenged his presuppositions. Near the end of the course, a quiet fellow who hadn't participated much, approached me and said he felt emboldened to write his term paper on how atheistic evolution was "pseudoscience." He understood........ this side of the grave, our understanding is limited and we are "equals" in the arena of metaphysics.
------------------------------ The opposite of joy is not sorrow. It is unbelief. ~ Leslie Weatherhead
Intelligent Design explains origination. There is very little this "theory" can explain of diversity of species.
Evolution explains the developement of species. Also there is a a strong understanding of how replicating organisms began on earth. I'll save the explanation.
Both terms "Intelligent Design" and "Evolution" are not equivalent in reference. Both are speaking of something quite different.
Evolution is PROVEN. Ask any one in the insecticide business, just for one example. The insects over generations, which happens in a matter of years, adapt to the current insecticide and a new one will need to be developed. This is especially prominent in agriculture areas. Ask any farmer wether or not insects evolve and unless they can not understand the concept, he will have to admit they do.
As for the "adaption vs evolution" argument... it's the same damn thing, adaption species wide is evolution of the species and you are only arguing symantics.
Another misconception of evolution though. It does not have to be beneficial. If an inferior specimen simply breeds 5 times as much but is twice as likely to die before reproducing, it is inferior for the individual specimen but would out produce/breed the rest of the species and therefor the species would most likely take to his genetic code more than the rest. This is just an overly obvious example. Evolution is simply most likely to be an improvement, but does not require it to be so.
"Both nontheistic secularism's evolutionary theory and theism's intelligent design theory are on an equal playing field; advocates of either system are finite, fallible human beings who are looking at the world they live in and forming theories of explanation. "
Using this logic, my theory that the earth was created by earth worm droppings is just as valid. So is the one that I can fly if I inhale enough helium. Get my point? Humans are not perfect, that does not mean everything we do is wrong. Otherwise there would be no progression of science and technology. Your enire logical foundation is based off something you were told. It's the "I beleive" button. It has nothing to do with a valid logical foundation.
"I like how author John Eldridge in his book The Journey of Desire emphasizes man is looking for transcendence:"
Just because some one said it in a book does not make it a fact. I hate when people quote some one else and thinks that proves their point. Try having an original thought.
"My own gut sense is that the reason homeschooling has been so strongly embraced by mostly intelligent theists and atheists is because too many US government schools press out, with cookie-cutter precision, high school graduates totally lacking in the skill to think "outside the box.":
I have yet to meet some one who was successfully home schooled and I have known dozens of people who were. Any parent who home schools their children is exceptionally arogant. They feel that they are more knowledgable and capable than people who dedicate their entire lives to education. That they have a better understanding in mathmatics than the mathmatics teacher who majored in mathmatics, or the english teacher who has a masters in english literature. Once again, get my point?
A little side point but has everyone who talks about the poor US education not noticed that we produce more top graduates per capita than ANY country in the world and over 80 of the top 100 universities in the world reside in the US? Also, we have a higher GDP per capita than all but a handful of countries, meaning our non college graduates are more productive than almost all of our competition(the only exception being small population countries that are more easily micromanaged)? Our education is not bad. Just some people can beat us in some areas. Like the japanese, whos children ages 16 and under score highest on standardized tests, and who also have less than 80% survival rate to the age of 16 due to suicide and murder. But hey, what's more important your child living and being happy or scoring 3 extra points on that college entrance exam? Personally, I think America's got a pretty good balance. Anyways, back on topic.
"Honestly, I think you've set up a straw man here. The finite, fallible theist looks at the same raw data as the finite, fallible atheist -- only their interpretations are different. (And to jumble the matter further, there are those hybrids who embrace theistic evolution)."
Ok, so now I know the data for evolution and it is logical and evolution has been proven, just of course it is difficult to prove the evolution of man kind accurately so our roots is still a theory.
So now, what DATA do you have? Oh, wait, that's right. None. Nothing. Just a random guess based off a book.
"Looks like "religion" was state-sanctioned at one point in the history of American government schools; so why the paranoia now in 2005?"
So was slavery. So was dueling. So was prostitution. So was beating and raping your wife. So was child labor. Once again, get my point? The montolian laws stipulated that you could take the children of a populace as part of your plunder, many women as young as 10 were taken as wives. It was legal, so it must have been moral and right, using your logic.
One other thing, just because some one disagrees with you does not mean they are denouncing the existence of god, last I checked you are not a disciple for god. I personaly do beleive in god but I understand that it is my BELIEF not a proven fact that I should force on to others.
Posts: 659 | Location: yokosuka, Japan | Registered: 01-01-05
quote:Originally posted by Dogsi: Evolution is PROVEN. Ask any one in the insecticide business, just for one example. The insects over generations, which happens in a matter of years, adapt to the current insecticide and a new one will need to be developed. This is especially prominent in agriculture areas. Ask any farmer wether or not insects evolve and unless they can not understand the concept, he will have to admit they do.
Those insects are not evolving, if that is what you are implying. Their bodies are only becoming dependent on the insecticide just as a human's body grows dependent on certain medication. If that happens, new medication is given to the patient because the former one no longer is affective. That's not evolving.
"There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action." -Geothe
Posts: 481 | Location: Washington, USA | Registered: 11-16-04
Dogsi (and others), sorry this is off-topic but please check your PTs . [My space > private topics]
For quotes, in the reply box there's the icon "..." clicking which the quotes appear, and you insert your words in b/w the quotes command.If youwish to quote someone's reply, press the "reply with quote" icon toward bottom-right of your post.
Happiness is a slave to none. - myself (finally back to quoting myself in my signatures, hehe )
[This message was edited by LetswriteNshare on 01-17-05 at 02:24 PM.]
Posts: 4372 | Location: Back At Quoteland :) | Registered: 08-18-02
quote: Those insects are not evolving, if that is what you are implying. Their bodies are only becoming dependent on the insecticide just as a human's body grows dependent on certain medication. If that happens, new medication is given to the patient because the former one no longer is affective. That's not evolving.
Evolution is alteration of the species (DNA) in response to the environment. So yes, the insects are evolving.
quote:Evolution is alteration of the species (DNA) in response to the environment. So yes, the insects are evolving.
Yes, evolution is indeed defined as the alteration of a species to the conformity of the environment. However, that does not prove that those insects are really evolving.
Here is another example similiar- of a specie's developement and response to the resistance of antibiotics. A highlight of the PBS series, "Evolution" was a section explaining how the HIV virus becomes resistant to the drug used in treatment, due apparently to a mutation. Once again, this was hailed as evolution in action- but once again, as soon as the drug was removed, the change was reversed, and the virus returned to normal.
Surely this was not an example of evolution, for such limited, reversible change is hardly eidence for a theory that requires unlimited, directional change.
Scientists have also tried producing mutations in the laboratory, typically using fruit flies. They have exposed them to radiation, and toxic materials, and then have waited to observe the resulting mutations. What kinds of mutations have they produced?
Larger wings. Smaller wings. Shriveled wings. No wings. They even have gotten oddities such as a fly with legs growing out of its head instead of antennae.
(sounds more like mutilations to me)
Is this a product of evolution? Are these examples of fruit flies evolving? To be quite frank, they are dysfunctional fruit flies. For after half a century of bombarding the poor fruit flies with radiation, scienists have not coaxed them into becoming a new kind of insect- or even a new and improved version of the original fruit fly. None of the mutated forms fly well as the original form, and they probably couldn't even survive in the wild.
Dogsi, an enormous amount of research has been carried on within the Darwinian paradigm over the past century and a half; yet success has been limited to changes within those "fixed limitaions" like mutations in fruit flies. Research has cast virtually no light on the really important questions like how there came to be fruit flies in the first place.
Darwinsim might explain the SURVIVAL of the fittest, but it fails to explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest...
"There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action." -Geothe
Posts: 481 | Location: Washington, USA | Registered: 11-16-04
This may be a moot point but, Mr. Fingers where did you get your PhD in evolutionary biology? It was my understanding that to talk science, you have to know science.
The biggest problem with this is that it is being taught in science class. I wouldn't mind if it were taught in religion class. The problem is that intelligent design is not a science. As Karl Popper suggested, science moves forward by falsification; intelligent design cannot be falsified. The teaching of intelligent design in a science class presents the students with a poor understanding of what science is.
quote:Originally posted by Ladon: This may be a moot point but, Mr. Fingers where did you get your PhD in evolutionary biology? It was my understanding that to talk science, you have to know science.
Ladon, you never fail to make me laugh.
What degree do you have?
"There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action." -Geothe
Posts: 481 | Location: Washington, USA | Registered: 11-16-04
Dear inky fingers, You my friend are, more than anyone I know, in dire need of a lesson in evolutionary biology. Evolution is not an alteration of a species’ genetic material in response to an environmental change. Evolution does not induce the genetic alteration of species, but rather the forces of evolution, be it natural selection, genetic drift or neutral selection to name a few, act upon genetic alterations that are already present in an individual or a group of individuals within a species, when these alterations confer the individuals in question some added advantage to reproducing in an environment that has changed. Genetic material is the substrate that evolution acts upon, and changes in this genetic material a.k.a mutations, are a driving force of evolution. Given this information, can you now explain why HIV develops drug resistance when repeatedly exposed to the drugs, but ‘reverts’ back to its original form in the absence of the drug?
And incidently, there are no Drosophila melanogaster researchers trying to build the perfect fruit fly by mutating them. They induce mutations and study them to deduce complex, conserved biochemical pathways or even to explore aspects of evolutionary biology in controlled experimental settings.
Posts: 76 | Location: Sin City | Registered: 09-14-03
At this point, could I throw in Dr Anthony Flew's name. Renowned British atheistic philosopher and articulate and influencial advocate of atheistic naturalism,for 66 years, now advocates theism as a more credible explanation for the origins of life.
Dr Flew says "I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries."
quote: Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:
"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." (1)
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (2)
"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." (3)
DNA research has shown the unbelievable complexity of coded genetic information "that cannot be explained in terms of matter and energy of natural laws."
quote:A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.
It's important to note that Flew is affiliated with no religion per se, but claims only to be a theist.
These are not pie in the sky claims, and are made all the more important for the fact that Flew had previously been very influencial in having scientific thought predominantly founded on atheistic naturalism.
It is my belief that it would unconstitutional not to allow these solid new developments necessary for the advancement of science, to be given at least an equal hearing within the public education system ...... AND as part of the science curriculum.
I have yet to obtain a high school diploma... and i make profound fundemental statements about all kinds of things... Degrees have nothing to do with it. Because they don't teach you how to be profound in College or Highschool... maybe they teach it Graduate school... i wouldn't know though, i'm still in high school...
P.S. What's C.V.?
Posts: 98 | Location: Seatac, Wa, United States | Registered: 08-14-04
quote: Given this information, can you now explain why HIV develops drug resistance when repeatedly exposed to the drugs, but ‘reverts’ back to its original form in the absence of the drug?
You talked about "genetic material" and "genetic alterations"- first may I ask, where did those come from? We are all familiar with the DNA code and the DNA molecule that is built of four bases that function as chemical letters. (adenin, A, thymine, T, cytosine, C, and guanine, G.) Obviously thses combine in various sequences to spell out a message. This discovery of the chemical code means that we can apply the categories of information theory to DNA.
Yet, HOW do we get highly specified, complex biological information??
We skip around so much-you have little bits here and there. perhaps you think you have the ending to the story, "and they lived happily ever after..." But, where is the, "once upon a time.."??
In answer to your above question I'll only say this: it's not even a valid evolutionary example, because it's not even evolution in the first place.
"There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action." -Geothe
Posts: 481 | Location: Washington, USA | Registered: 11-16-04
And while we are at it, we just might want to ensure that the sun is not in fact the center of the universe….
![[ACLU Execution Watch Counter]](https://www.aclu.org/graphics/dpcounter.gif)
.
