Is PBS Telling Teachers to Violate the First Amendment?


Airing on PBS tonight at 8 p.m. is “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial”, a two hour documentary that tells the story of the Dover case. The ACLU are super-excited!

Of all of the cases the ACLU has taken on in the last few years, our challenge to the promotion of “intelligent design” in Dover, Pennsylvania’s public schools is one that truly speaks volumes about our work - work that ACLU supporters like you make possible.

That is why I wanted to let you know about an upcoming program highlighting this landmark case.

Here is a preview:

I won’t know how objective the documetary itself is until I watch it, however a recent move by PBS has one group up in arms:

A packet for educators issued by the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) in conjunction with the NOVA program “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” encourages teaching practices that are probably unconstitutional, a conservative organization stated on Tuesday.

“The NOVA/PBS teaching guide encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” said John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute, in a news release.

The 22-page document is a companion piece to the two-hour NOVA docudrama, “Judgment Day,” airing on most network affiliates Tuesday night. The film is about a trial concerning intelligent design that took place in Dover, Pa., in 2005.

The guide claims to provide teachers with “easily digestible information to guide and support you in facing challenges to evolution.”

In the booklet, teachers are instructed to use such discussion questions as: “Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?” The answer to that query is provided as: “Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false.”

So, does this blanket answer cover all religions? It doesn’t seem to be a very neutral answer to different religions to me. Does it violate current interpretation of the Establishment Clause?

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

The Discovery Institute thinks so:

“This statement is simplistic and not neutral among different religions, and in that sense arguably inconsistent with Supreme Court teachings concerning neutrality,” said attorney Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at the institute.

“The Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that the government must maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion,’” said Randal Wenger, a Pennsylvania attorney who filed amicus briefs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case.

“Because the briefing packet only promotes religious viewpoints that are friendly towards evolution, this is not neutral, and PBS is encouraging teachers to violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” Wenger added.

In its news release, the Discovery Institute indicates that it has enlisted more than a dozen attorneys and legal scholars, including Wenger, to review the PBS teaching guide with an eye to its constitutionality.

“The PBS materials, in suggesting that students need not be concerned that evolution violates their religion, ironically equip public school teachers to violate our current conception of the First Amendment by explicitly teaching students concerning matters of religious belief,” Wenger said.

So, is PBS encouraging teachers to violate the First Amendment? I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, so I don’t know. However, the Discovery Institute has a convincing argument in my opinion. Interesting to say the least.

—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Discovery Institute is

The Discovery Institute is right. The answer is no mention of religion at all.

When oh when are we going

When oh when are we going to be able to quit paying our hard earned taxes to filth like the ACLU and PBS.

They are the enemy within here big time and we are forced to help pay their way.

I call that aiding and abetting the enemy....through no choice of our own own unless we scream and holler and vote differently, but then again very little is ever said about this all.

We need a strong conservative House and Senate...unfortunately we won't have for years to come I'm afraid.

BT

yes also stop public funding of Planned Parenthood

 “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

I just watched some of it.

That's so funny that you have this post here. I just finished watching some of this show while I was flipping around the channels. I had to turn it after about 45 mintues, because it got me so annoyed. The bias was definately there from the time I started watching.

One of the comments by the narrator stood out particulary with me, and I had to rewind to make sure I heard it correctly.

He spoke of how intelligent design was "a violation of the establishment claus of the first amendment, that mandates the separation of church and state". I had to hear that again, because I couldn't believe the narrator actually said that as fact.

Then the whole smugness thing with that ACLU attorney and everyone on the Darwin side was just a big turn off.

Yes

Yes, as I watched some of it, it was easy to conclude obvious bias.  However, that would be another entire post to do, and like you I couldn't watch the entire thing.

No Doubt

Interestingly I noticed that phrase was ALSO used in the Dover case against ID in school Kitsmiller VS Dover Area School District.

 http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

pg. 138

 Behold! The propoganda technique of REPETITION!

The mantras “Evolution is science, creationism is religion” and “Separation of church and state.” (Note: the latter is not part of the Constitution, and is contrary to the Constitutional Convention’s own purpose and intent when drafting the First Amendment.  The phrase was lifted out of context from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, who was not present at the deliberations.  It has since taken on a life of its own, conveniently shielding major issues in a short, memorable, seemingly intuitively-obvious phrase.)

PBS: Primate Broadcasting System

This issue perfectly illustrates why our schools are in such a steep and irreversible decline, and why PBS hasn't a prayer (pun intended) of ever reflecting the true values of America.  A fair and balanced program would have left open the possibility of a Designer, even if it ultimately came down on the side of evolution.  Of course, after listening to the logic of the evolutionists, I'm inclined to believe that at least part of the population descended from apes, and they're still evolving.  As a line in a song says, "What human intellect can't sway must be explained away..."   I would love to see the faces of the ACLU and the evolutionists on that day when they all realize that there is indeed a God.  But us "Creationists" will be too busy evolving into Heaven. 

 The Neo-Stalinist agenda

 The Neo-Stalinist agenda has ALWAYS been at the forefront of the ACLU.  It is their entire reason for being in existence.

 At a more sane time in our history they would have and should have been labeled a criminal organization.

PBS is the television arm of the the Neo-Stalinist (ACLU).  There is an old saying..that the USA would hang themselves on the rope they bought.  In the case of funding for PBS it appears it has come true. Stop all funding now for PBS and the NEA.  This would be a winning strategy in 2008,  the people are tired of this crap,  and we are tired NOW!

Actually CRex,

I've been tired for quite a while.

Years ago (eons, in fact) PBS was worthwhile...back before cable when PBS was the source for National Geographic specials, great mini-series (Six Wives of Henry VIII, Duchess of Duke Street, etc., etc.).

But now we have a world of choices to get the programming we want.  PBS has lived twenty years beyond it's useful life.

Time to be gone.  Or, if they think they can cut it without government funding, fine, let them give it a try.  But it's time for us to defund it.  As you said....tired. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Darwin's Inconvenient Truth

Darwin's Inconvenient Truth would have been a much better title. Very little
opposing views and when there is, it is put out in a negative way. The acting is
terrible. They even portrayed the ID proponents as terrorists.

Algore would have been proud.

It's a mistake for ID

It's a mistake for ID groups to go after this pamphlet. The question is Can you be religious and still believe in evolution. The answer is empirically yes as long as someone in the world does. It isn't do you have to believe in evolution, or is my religion compatible with evolution. It is true that evolution is not inherently antireligious. That's just a statement of truth, not a proponent of certain religions!

Also, once they've made that argument, that nothing that distinguishes between religions can be mentioned in schools, how on earth are they going to justify teaching ID?! ID proposes a specific role for a creator which not all religions agree with, they are going to end up declaring their own agenda unconstitutional if they win this. They're just shooting themselves in the foot here.

Mistakes right back at ya.

The question "Can you be religious and still believe in evolution" is a leading question that implies a yes answer and is cohercement. It is therefore non-instructional and non-neutral in religion to religion but proselytizing for the cause of materialistic humanism.

If you find that one person (or many) that answer "yes" , and lets say they are a Christian, does that mean they think Jesus Christ evolved from monkeys?? Sounds like a conflict of interests to me.

If religious proselytizing is not to be tolerated in public education, why should humanism proselytizing be?

 Whether evolution is anti-religious is determined by which evolution you are talking about, microevolution within species , no , macro evolution  which theorizes the orgin of life , yes.

Who wants to argue against distinguising between religions?Schools already teach the difference between religions, my daughter already experienced that in elementary school. As long as its neutral and one is not promoted over the other is allowed.

Darwinistic evolution proposes a non-creator so who's to say one is better than the other? One is a religion and the other is a materialistic philosophy they both address the unexplained.

 Can't wait for this movie to come to shed some light on the anti ID people. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

 The whole "separation of church and state" blather is so old already.

intelligent design is just

intelligent design is just re packaged creationism - which is inherently religious and a step backwards for science -

in this day and age when math and science are more important than ever - do you really want to go backwards?

That "science" has not

That "science" has not discovered Him, ultimate proof He doesn't exist? In what day and age was math and science less important? Rather than go backward or forward, how about we just stay calm and keep judgement open on this issue until we are certain?

hmmm

you seem to say that as if Science is the ultimate determiner of truth. As if science has never failed us or taken steps backwards itself and been utterly wrong. The other problem is science fraud is often used to advance agendas relating to social causes, medial causes (Stem cell research), politics (Inconvenient Truth), and against religion (Embryonic Recapituation Theory/Hoax now debunked).

 You might say science disproves creationism , another person might say science is a subset of creationism. How do you determine who is right? You can't. So why not let them be equally expressed in the market place and institutions?

because we have separation

because we have separation of church and state -- if you want to study creationism -study at  a Christian school or even a Christian college - religion should not be taught in public schools

Who said anything about

Who said anything about "church"? Does God have to be religious to be able to create something? I contend that God is not religious, we are.

Separation of church and state does not exsist. Freedom of religion does. There, now I said something about church.

Karma's right Katlee

Creationism and Evolution are both equally valid views of origins. The fact that they are mutually exclusive is another matter. The fact that they are not both being taught is just wrong.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Evolution currently doesn't

Evolution currently doesn't teach about the origins of life. It speculates, but doesn't claim to have the answer. Therefore, I think that while evolution is not exclusive to a religious viewpoint, creationism is inherently inconsistent with a materialist perspective. That is an important difference, and the reason why I think it is okay to teach evolution in schools, not okay to teach ID.

}}---> Say what?

"creationism is inherently inconsistent with a materialist perspective".

Does that mean the Big Bang is a hoax?

Plant crops - not questions

oh CP

abiogenesis is touted as fact by proponents of evolution since without it evolution has nothing to evolve.  Have you never heard of the faulty experiment by Miller-Urey?

 “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Piggy?

Are you saying ID is the same as Creationism?

In ID, the Designer is never specified. It could be aliens or God. ID is not a religion. Why do evolution proponents fear comparing the science of ID against the science of evolution?

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

clever, you crack me up.

...creationism is inherently inconsistent with a materialist perspective.

Oh, so you live in a tent and and eat worms to survive.

How nice.

 

Materialist, not

Materialist, not matierialistic.

It's not "religion" any

It's not "religion" any more than Darwinism is.

A completely "scientific" inquiry into the question of origins should not have to include any philosophical underpinnings at all.   We should be able to look at the evidence, and use theories to help correlate and analyze data, and then draw conclusions from that, if we can.  This is not what has gone on.

Evolution was postulated for philosophical reasons. i.e. how can we account for the self-existence of the universe?  The possibility of an external "cause" is eliminated prior to any theorizing or any gathering of data.  This is backward. 

Evolution was not a conclusion based on scientific evidence; it was a presumption based on a materialistic philosophy.  The "science" came later.  And every piece of scientific evidence which contradicts the "theory" is either ignored or explained away.

For this reason evolution also fails the "separation of Church and State" test - which is actually a bogus idea based on a misrepresentation of the First Amendment establishment clause. 

Presenting Evolution and/or Creation, from a scientific standpoint, in the public schools has nothing to do with the First Amendment.  It's only the exclusive teaching of one or the other where this problem comes in, and it is Evolution which is presented exclusively in the public schools...even though it has never been established as a scientific fact. (BTW Both are taught in so-called religious schools)

The "creation is religion" argument is just a ruse to prevent opposition to the philosophy of materialism of which evolution is a major tenet.

sorry, but creationism IS

sorry, but creationism IS religion - the premise that everything just appeared - birds with feathers, fish with scales due to a creator - gee, now who do you think that Creator is?

sorry, but creationism IS

sorry, but creationism IS NOT religion. If you create a stuning display of art, are you religious? If someone idolized and prayed to you for making that wonderful artwork, they would be religious.

So all those school boards

So all those school boards throughout the middle south are basing their decisions to teach Creationism on their own rigorous inquiry into the topic, and not the fact that it bears an uncanny resemblence to Genesis?

If you think evolution is so dastardly, home-school your kids and teach them whatever you want. Basing scientific curricula on an Evangelical fad is just plain irresponsible.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

If you think evolution is


If you think evolution is so dastardly, home-school your kids and teach them whatever you want.

Fine then give me my tax money back so I can educate my kids properly. And while your at it, I don't have kids in school, so give my money back anyhow!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Surely you can grasp why

Surely you can grasp why tax breaks for homeschoolers (although a very good, sensible idea in theory) would be disastrous...

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Oh really?

You mean the guberment can't indoctrinate my kids on the same money I can educate them with? Something must be wrong with the guberments way of doin it, dontcha think?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Enlighten us Jason. With

Enlighten us Jason. With fewer kids in school, less money would be needed to educate the few still in public school, right?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

disastrous

For the teachers' unions. For effective education, it would be a Godsend.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Tax Breaks for

Tax Breaks for Homeschoolers = Thousands of families pulling their kids out of school, enjoying the economic reward, and never even coming close to putting in the effort that homeschooling actually takes = kids turning into burnouts or video game addicts.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

That's ridiculous, Jason

...and shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.  I'm guessing you don't like the idea, but haven't bothered checking it out.

Here in CT, as I'm sure happens around the country, home schoolers are required to have their home-schooling program pre-approved and are then subject to regular checkups on the progress.

Yes Jason we need the

Yes Jason we need the gooberment to intervene and make sure parents live up to their responsibilites. Without big brother what would we do as parents?!?!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Wrong conclusion Jason

Of course Jason, we wouldn't want home schooled kids to be "better" burnouts and video game addicts than the ones the Public School system is already churning out at a preposterous rate.

The truth of the matter is this.  The entire public school system is based on the idea of getting Federal Dollars to pay to indcotrinate kids away from Christianity and more towards atheism/worship of The State.

Any time someone comes up with an idea that will take power away from those who benefit most from the public school system, these special interest groups go into high gear.   

See what happened to Schwarzenegger when he tried to take on the Teacher's Union.   He got his butt kicked and said thank-you can I have another...

The reality is, that if people who home schooled their kids didn't have to pay for the public schools, the public schools would go belly up and home schooling would flourish and produce kids that could realistically compete with foreign kids.

Apparently you know nothing about homeschooling

Thousands of families pulling their kids out of school, enjoying the economic reward, and never even coming close to putting in the effort that homeschooling actually takes = kids turning into burnouts or video game addicts.

Apparently you know nothing about homeschooling families.  You are just as ignorant on the subject as Leon.  Get some facts then start talking...

v

"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

I love the idea of

I love the idea of homeschooling and I have intimate knowledge of its potential for great success. I'm also realistic about the fact that most families haven't the time, energy, or know-how to pull it off. That's just economic reality.

Yes RJ, some states regulate homeschoolers. Others don't. So what?

And yes, public schools are a mess and tend to churn out less-than-enviable graduates. They also churn out a lot of brilliant, motivated kids. I'll certainly grant they're imperfect, but let's not pretend homsechooling is a cure-all solution.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Jason,

I've read through this thread....and the tossing about of creationism vs. evolution.

HydrodyneDM posted a great forum thread...it's rather long.  HdM is a scientist, and argued from a strictly scientific basis.  Several other posters argued from a theological view.

It's a fascinating exchange of ideas.  The thing that I learned from reading it is that evolution is still just a theory, and that scientists don't arbitrarily dismiss out of hand "intelligent design"....which many equate with creationism.  It's not the same thing at all.

I know you are open to serious discussions....you ought to go find HdM's forum and read it.  It is truly fascinating.  And it might just expand your mind a little bit.  I know it did that for me...kind of a "hmmmm" moment.

And I apologize, I can't find it, and I can't think of any key words upon which to search.  But it's worth the time to find.   I re-read it about 3 weeks ago.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

JasonC

I found the forum thread....here you go.

It's really fascinating.  Enjoy. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Should ANY of us have the right

To tax another person, at gunpoint if necessary when it comes down to it, in order to indoctrinate children in a socialist education system that costs more & works less every year? No matter which of you is right scientifically, isn't this really a MORAL issue? Give EVERYONE's tax money back and let the marketplace decide who's right. Some of us, with all that extra money on hand, might even want to donate some of it to certain schools. But not at gunpoint.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Not to mention the horrific

Not to mention the horrific inefficiency of public schools. Decent private schools will run about 5k in my area and out perform every single public school. The average cost per pupil in public school per year is 7-11k in my area.

You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.

The facts are there for

The facts are there for everyone to see. The public school system is BROKE. Private and home schooling WORKS. The problem is the damn system (read teacher unions) is intrenched like a tick!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Silly 4500 year old

Silly 4500 year old fad...

Basing your entire existence on denying a creator and trying to recruit apostles in your personal religion is just plain despicable. Let's see darwinism hold up to 2 minutes of rigorous inquiry. HA!

You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.

Let's see darwinism hold up

Let's see darwinism hold up to 2 minutes of rigorous inquiry.

Evolution

Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society

Evolutionary Ecology

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Evolution and Human Behavior

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Journal of Molecular Evolution

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Look them up. I don't know how many articles you are capable of reading in 2 minutes, but there's a lot of rigorous inquiry going on in there!

 

Some information for Evolutionary scientist

Here is some educational material to enlighten you on evolution.

[Will you accept the challenge?]

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

That is pretty weak Jason

That is pretty weak Jason. They are both theories and only a theroies. There is no proof of evolution. No missing links. None. Only conjecture, suppositon and blind faith. Creationism is a theory that evolutionists fear. Why? If both are theories, why cannot both be taught? Whats the big deal?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Is this a joke? Evolution

Is this a joke? Evolution is as close to fact as can be. There are missing links, but the fact that links have to be excavated, analyzed and vetted by the scientific community, which is, you know, a lengthy process, suggests that those links will be filled in. Until their is peer-reviewed scientific literature suggesting that Creationism is anything more than a feeble attempt to debunk the aetheism of Evolution (and Darwin was a Christian, btw), it shouldn't be taught in schools; no more than Islamic rituals or Wiccan chants.

You're denying that their is a connection between Creationism and the Creation Story of the Bible? REALLY?! Then why is it that fundamentalists are pretty much always the first to advocate teaching both "theories" or worse, only Creationism?

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

No Jason. To date there are

No Jason. To date there are NO missing links discovered. not a one. The joke is to say evolution is fact. I dont think you will find one reputable scientist that will state that. It is a theory. The sooner you get that through to that brain of yours, the better off you will be.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

I think he said "close" to

I think he said "close" to fact.

Seems to me there's more evidence of evolution than creationism.

Balboa, please cite any of

Balboa, please cite any of them.

You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.

Fossils.

Fossils.

Fossils point to the

Fossils point to the complete opposite of evolution Bal. There is no "change over time" there is simpley the appearence and disappearence of species at apparent different periods of history. Darwins chief critics were paleontologists because the fossil record completely defies him.

Next...

You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.

So it's completely

So it's completely accidental that oldest fossils are the simplest organisms, and the more recent ones are more complex?

The key word is

The key word is transitional! I'm not familiar with a specific dating on simplest to most complex organisms but it's the lack of transitional species that destroys darwin's doctrine. There would need to be innumerable transitional "in-between" steps in the creation of every new specie.

You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.

Balboa

before you cite the fossil record as supporting evolution you need to research Stephen J Gould and why HE (the evolutionists evolutionist) propose punctuated equilibrium. 

 “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Fossils? There is no

Fossils? There is no evidence supporting evolution in the fossil record. There is only a history of surviving and extinct species.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

CP

Re your first link, the claim should be 'find common ancestor much removed'.  There would have to be many many many many steps between a legged land rover and a fluke driven ocean going marvel.  Commonality does not necessitate causality.  I believe that progressive creation would better explain the evidence;  much like the common aspects between a modelT, an Edsel, and a Corvette.

Re your second link, are there any articles (links) there that Internet Explorer CAN display?  I tried four of them all a no go.

 “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

There are missing links,

There are missing links, but the fact that links have to be excavated, analyzed and vetted by the scientific community,

You've had 160+ years, when will we see these "mountains of evidence" we've heard about so much. All the evidence that has come out since darwin started his religion has been contrary to his theory. Cambrian explosion, pre-cambrian fossils, Miller Uri = Fraud, piltdown man fraud, moth bussing experiment = fraud, the knowledge we've gained about the working of the cell and how DNA works. I admire your faith but it's time to move on.

You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.

Again, is this a joke? go

Again, is this a joke? go read the mountains of carefully-researched, peer-reviewed literature at any University's anthropology or paleontology department. If you want to say its bull, fine, but at least admit there's a contrarian fundamentalist impulse behind it.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Jason...simple request...

In layman's term, step by step, explain how a fish became a bird...please include a timetable and some evidence that this is possible.

[good luck]

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

I work in the humanities,

I work in the humanities, not the sciences, and I got a C- when I took biological anthropology as an undergrad. I could probably patch something together by doing a lot of internet "research", but it would look to weak and simple to bother. So...as I've suggested...why not take a look at the amassed research at various university programs? Start with Columbia's paleontology dept. I have a certain trust in science, especially that which has been so thoroughly peer reviewed and agreed upon in the scientific community. You might take my inability to provide what you've requested as an admission of defeat, to which I would have two counter-arguments:

1. You may not know everything about how brain synapses and neurons work, but surely you accept that the brain is the central area of control for the body. Why? Because scienece tells us so.

2. Explain to me, step by step, how some fantasmatic creator created us. And since I've been loudly told that it's not necessarily a Christian thing, please refrain from Biblical reference,

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Where did I say evolution

Where did I say evolution was dastardly JasonC?

creationism is not

creationism is not religion?? LOL, get real!  what do you think the whole Dover case was about!?

The whole dover case was

The whole dover case was about using judicial fiat to win a cause when you can't get the voters to support it.

You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.

the Dover case was about

the Dover case was about parents who didn't want their children taught bad science - which is what creationism is, heck it's not even science

katlee

Define science and then apply that definition in your defense of evolution as "science"

You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.

Science is basically

Science is basically observation. It is valid for me to observe the universe and conlude it was created. You observe and conlcude it was not. My view is just as valid as yours. But you just happen to be wrong.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Evolved Laptop

I'm just glad that some plastic, silicon, and metal evolved into this nice Dell laptop I'm using this afternoon.

Time plus Chance . . .

/Sarcasm Off

Dell obvioulsy beat out

Dell obvioulsy beat out Compaq in the survival of the fittest catagory :-)

This whole argument against creation requires the willing suspension of disbelief. :-)

Everyting we observe has an origin and an originator, why not the universe? Haha.. it's a no brainer! :-O

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

But what evidence do you

But what evidence do you have to back up your observations?

The eyes I see them with?

How did my eyes come to be? They are usless until whole.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

So I assume you can show me

So I assume you can show me this evidence?

Yes, look in a mirror...I

Yes, look in a mirror...I mean it...right now...

And ask yourself: "How did I come to be?"

Then turn away and answer your own question. What makes more sense:

1. There once was nothing, and now there is me.

OR

2. There has always been a Creator, and now there is me.

You're an intellegent guy Amigo. What makes more sense?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Supposition #1 does not

Supposition #1 does not suggest evolution. I'm not sure if it was supposed to. Just saying, there should be a #3.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte