Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

and I thought that I was the worst at run-on sentencing. Spendi has achieved, and retired, the Jack Kerouac, toilet paper roll sentence award.

Our society frowns on child abuse, but hasn't yet gone so far as to equate disinformation and bad advice from parents, as a form of child abuse.

In actual fact I am complimenting my readers, if I have any, by having confidence in their ability to stretch their concentration a bit. Not a lot. But a bit. Calling it a "run-on" is just a lame excuse for not taking it on and trying to appreciate it. A lazy mind.

ANy idiot can ramble on . Did you ever hear the expression."If I had more time I could have written it more briefly"?

Outside of that, I wasnt meant to rwad Proust, theres no equations possible, if being an ANtI-IDer means eschewing Proust, where do I sign up?

It isn't voluntary Chum I assure you. They didn't used to wring blokes necks when I was young at anywhere near the same rate they do now. When you see as many blokes get burned as I have you really can't ignore it.

My perfectly reasonable sentence is obviously too much for fm's concentration so it's a "run-on" sentence.

We need to talk more, xingu. I know so little of you. American? Teenager?

These questions have been haunting me.

. No, the rules of English define it as run-on, wherein 2 or more sentences are poorly hung together.

American

Dirty old man

An Evolving Debate about Evolution
(by David Masci, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, May 16, 2007)

The evolution controversy, traditionally a state and local issue, has vaulted into the national political arena, making a surprise appearance at the first Republican presidential candidate debate on May 3 and garnering a large amount of press attention in the days following the event.

Whether the evolution debate will continue to play even a minor role in the 2008 presidential campaign is an open question. Still, the fact that the issue was raised at all in a national context and that the incident was widely reported is significant, demonstrating how recent high profile battles over teaching evolution in public schools have increased people's awareness of the controversy.

At the May 3 debate, amid the expected questions about Iraq, immigration and abortion, one reporter asked the GOP hopefuls the following: "Is there anyone on the stage who does not … believe in evolution?" Of the 10 candidates, three -- Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) -- raised their hands. Arizona Sen. John McCain jumped in to say that while he believes in evolution, "I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon...that the hand of God is there also."

In the days following the event, there were stories in newspapers and on television expressing surprise that evolution was even mentioned during a presidential debate and that nearly a third of the candidates disagree with Charles Darwin's theory on life's origins and development. But while the debate over evolution has largely remained outside presidential politics, it has long been an active front in the nation's culture war. In particular, state legislatures, town councils and school boards around the country have, for decades, grappled with the issue in schools.

**********************************

The American people have never fully embraced evolution, which is not surprising given the religious nature of the country. According to an August 2006 poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 42% of all adults, and 65% of white evangelicals, say that humans and other living things have existed in present form only. In other words, life did not evolve, but was created in its present state.

Moreover, among the 51% who say that they accept some sort of evolution, 21% say that these changes were guided by a supreme being. Only 26% accept the idea that life evolved through natural selection, as Darwin and his successors have argued. And while substantial majorities of most religious denominations say that scientists agree about evolution, only a minority (43%) of white evangelicals subscribe to that view.

Given the high level of opposition to evolution and the prominence of religious conservatives in the Republican Party, no one should be surprised that three of 10 Republican candidates at the May 3 debate came out against Darwinian thinking. Indeed, it may be surprising that more candidates did not raise their hands as well.

Still, even though the evolution controversy has been injected into the national campaign, it is unlikely to become a major or even minor campaign issue. At this point, few Americans name evolution among those issues crucial to deciding how they will vote. Moreover, evolution didn't come up again at the next GOP presidential debate on May 15. On the other hand, if reporters continue to ask the candidates questions about evolution and write stories about their answers, as they did on and after the May 3 debate, that could change.

No, the rules of English define it as a run-on, wherein 2 or more sentences are poorly hung together.

Upon all these occasions the world seems to have embraced a maxim of our law, viz., cuicunque in arte sua perito credendum est: for it seems perhaps difficult to conceive that any one should have had enough of impudence to lay down dogmatical rules in any art or science without the least foundation. In such cases, therefore, we are apt to conclude there are sound and good reasons at the bottom, though we are unfortunately not able to see so far.
Now, in reality, the world have paid too great a compliment to critics, and have imagined them men of much greater profundity than they really are. From this complacence, the critics have been emboldened to assume a dictatorial power, and have so far succeeded, that they are now become the masters, and have the assurance to give laws to those authors from whose predecessors they originally received them.
The critic, rightly considered, is no more than the clerk, whose office it is to transcribe the rules and laws laid down by those great judges whose vast strength of genius hath placed them in the light of legislators, in the several sciences over which they presided. This office was all which the critics of old aspired to; nor did they ever dare to advance a sentence, without supporting it by the authority of the judge from whence it was borrowed.
But in process of time, and in ages of ignorance, the clerk began to invade the power and assume the dignity of his master. The laws of writing were no longer founded on the practice of the author, but on the dictates of the critic. The clerk became the legislator, and those very peremptorily gave laws whose business it was, at first, only to transcribe them.
Hence arose an obvious, and perhaps an unavoidable error; for these critics being men of shallow capacities, very easily mistook mere form for substance. They acted as a judge would, who should adhere to the lifeless letter of law, and reject the spirit. Little circumstances, which were perhaps accidental in a great author, were by these critics considered to constitute his chief merit, and transmitted as essentials to be observed by all his successors. To these encroachments, time and ignorance, the two great supporters of imposture, gave authority; and thus many rules for good writing have been established, which have not the least foundation in truth or nature; and which commonly serve for no other purpose than to curb and restrain genius, in the same manner as it would have restrained the dancing-master, had the many excellent treatises on that art laid down as an essential rule that every man must dance in chains.
To avoid, therefore, all imputation of laying down a rule for posterity, founded only on the authority of ipse dixit

To translate the lot, it means fm that what you said there is pure empty noise having no other function than that of you making it.