Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

You cannot ignore such people. The true believer who espouses fundamentalist religious causes is relentless. They will accept no less than the dismantling of evolution science.

You cannot ignore such people. The true believer who espouses fundamentalist scientific causes is relentless. They will accept no less than the dismantling of religious belief.

Wo far as Im aware , there arent ANY proponents of good science in our public schools who wish to insert natural selection into religious practices. On th contrary, the Creationists and IDers have, as their mission, to infiltrate and change science curricula of public schools.
Theyve been admonished and forbiden to continue their efforst by several US courts (Including the SUpreme). I dont recall any similar cases where churches have been infiltrated by science.

If the religiou would just go their own ways and leave public schools alone, we could easily coexist because whether one wishes to base a life on beliefs or evidence is clearly a personal decision.

If the religious (like ionus above statement) feel "put upon" , all I can say isw poor baby, just go back to your Bible tracts and derive your lifes science from that if you wish, dont try to spread Biblical nonsense into science teaching if you cant evidence anything, (and you cant)

That sort of post is why I no longer respond to that person.

Good grief fm!!! Christianity arrived by natural selection. It has produced a species of mankind, a variety if you prefer, which has adapted to natural forces better than anything else.

It is devious to assert that IDers want to change science curricula when it is only certain narrow aspects that are under discussion and that, as I just said, for scientific reasons.

If it comes to comparisons between US courts and the Catholic Church on science I know which of the two I have more faith in. Dover was a farce and the Monkey Trial too trivial.

You are recommending something being taught in schools which you have not yet shown or attempted to show, despite being challenged to do so, that it is not a dangerous idea. In other words that the US educational system do what you want merely on your say so when many people think, probably a majority, certainly a majority if the issues were exposed properly rather than being hidden by your side, that it is a very dangerous idea and recognised as such by Darwin himself.

Educational policy is not guided by bluster, bombast and bigoted bullshit.



Try not to be so silly or devious. The Church blesses all useful science and takes advantage of its productions. Social organisation is more important than scientific truth. Especially when you lot are defining what truth is.

That's your usual procedure Ed when you are given a truth you don't like.



They won't. You might but Ionus wasn't talking about you. He was talking about the theologians of science who are setting the agenda. They are not soft-centred.

It's my response to emotional stupidity. It gets tiresome, like a one note song, incessantly. Much like the **** you spew. Throw any and all kinds of charges in hope something out of it sticks. How about using a little reason before getting huffy over the rejection?

Then, dear spendi, what is your excuse?
1 ARe you just woefully ignorant of all the news coverage of the above? or

2 Do you just hang your hat with the Idjits and Creationists?

Pick one

So you havent read any thread but this one, found it to be benign and have declared yourself the winner. You arent seriously suggesting that religion is not attacked by people arguing they know science and the Bible is inaccurate ? I wonder how many times religious people have been confronted with how can you believe that rubbish. Clearly there are a lot of people in the USA who do not believe in a person's right to freedom of religion, they demand science be worshipped.

Perhaps it is science and technology that has alienated so many people from society or do you think it is religious people robbing and killing the scientists ?

Oh now that is just plain hurtful. If only you knew how much I value your opinion.

1-It wasn't emotional stupidity.

2- What is emotional stupidity?

3- Saying it was is an assertion. Which are always emotional.

4- Saying it get tiresome is also an emotional assertion belied by your response.

5-Saying it's a one note song likewise.

6- Any and all kinds of charges are the essence of debate.

7-Hoping some of it sticks is perfectly natural. One wouldn't hope none of it sticks. That would be really stupid.

8- Define "reason" in a non-subjective manner.

9- Nobody is showing signs of "huffy" except you and fm.

10-No rejection has taken place except predictable emotional ones from your side.

I've already given plenty of reasons for the news coverage. If I was debating with intelligent people I would only have done so once but as things are I have repeated them more often than I feel comfortable with.

If there's only two hat pegs and your's is one I'll hang my hat on the other one. Every day of the week. I wouldn't let you silly sods within 50 miles of educational decisions.

Here you demonstrate your ignorance of what people in the US "think".

The biggest fights in the US are actually interdenominational, where "true revelations" battle against each other daily (transubstantiation v Consubstantiation: Bible v Tradition). There is a huge groundswell from the Catholic Laity to either fix up the church or start over by separating from Rome. The Evangelicals are forever trying to slip their beliefs into public school curricula. If the news were to be believed, the US < starting with Texas, Is fast becoming another Christian "Taliban Nation", where Evangelical Law would be intermixed with the Constitution.

Fortunately, to this point in time, more intelligent minds have prevailed and these clowns have been kept at bay with a periodic clear interpretation of what the Constitution says it says.


I repeat , without any fear of being proved incorrect. The Parochial schools have not ever been undermined by " priests of Science'ism". No one has ever, to my knowledge , interfered with the PArochial schools ability to teach that the world was formed b y 4 successive generations of Manitou beings who each, in turn, let a trail of artifacts upon which the succeeding layer may build" (An old Iroquois legend of Creation). If a parochial school wished to teach that , or any myth to its students, they have the perfect right under the 1st Amendment clause which guarantees the "Free expression of religion".

We, in the fray, only care about what is being infiltrated into our public schools. I will fight the religious interveners with every weapon that the Constitution provides. I will not have my tax money go to support a religiously based science curriculum. Weve already gone through that into the 1920's when it was required that science teachers in Pa certify that they believed in the legend that a god affected creation and development of life on earth. Weve come a long way to actually make an about face and begin marching backwards in time.
Your view of what we do in this country is woefully uninformed sir.

I seriously ridicule any beliefs in a magic guy who created the universe . However, the difference , and the point that you wish to make hazy is the FACT that NOONE has tried to interject this ridicule into any official curricula within parochial schools and the only thing thats been going on is that THE EVANGELICALS ARE THE ONLY ONES TRYING TO INFILTRATE THE US PUBLIC SCHOOLS, not the other way around.
What part of our headlines dont you understand? hmmmm?

You should know something fm.

You having the Discovery Institute in your sights is like me playing the Home for the Blind at darts. You should love them. They are an Aunt Sally requiring no effort or skill to shoot as they swim in the barrel beside your rocking chair.

And the same goes for the defence at Dover.

You do have a taste for sitting duck competitions.

I reject your rejection.

I wonder whether, were we to go back and visit some of our posts during the Dover trail, whether your opinions werent a bit more bellicose and assured by your worldviews then?

Its easy to pick your winners on Monday morning, (just like picking em out of a sock on Saturday)

I think that Joe here makes the sort of distinction that I make when I differentiate between morals and ethics. The truth of the matter is that precious little 'philosophy' that serves as the basis for any religion is unexamined by the adherents of said religions.

I agree with you on Catholicism's subjugation of women.

A great deal of fuss is being raised in Europe at the present time about the burqa . . . but, I think it is to keep men from wearing the burqa in order to commit acts of terrorism and not out of concern for women's dignity.


Frankly, I suspect the origin of the burqa was among the desert peoples and served to protect women from harsh winds that carried sand particles. The winds are responsible for men growing beards and wearing turbans. Those things became symbols in the Muslim faith but had their origin in practical protection from the elements.

While Mother Theresa's order did much for dying and abandoned children, the late icon was no saint.