2 cents wrote:

---

Why can't religious folks of all types concentrate on winning the hearts and minds of potential believers without using the coercive power of the government to impose their beliefs on others?

---

Because it isn't about religion. It's about political power.

Intellegent Design not Science

http://hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050816/OPINION03/508160323/1014/NEWS17

Well written, Dr.Folse.  I drafted several letters but found I couldn't come across not sounding condescending or argumentative.  You managed to avoid both those traps, thank you.

See letters in New Yorker of 7/25. Excerpt: "Proponents of this movement know that they cannot achieve this revolution from within the scientific community. Instead, their aim is to manipulate public opinion and exploit the political process, with potentially devastating consequences for how science is practiced, taught, and funded in this country."

FLAT EARTH FOREVER!

There seems to be part of the letter missing. I hope H.A. corrects this.

Dr.Sirola's letter.

I'm on vacation in Florida near Panama City. The newspaper here (The Daily News), had several letters Sunday on Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. It seems that a couple of weeks ago there were many letters in this paper attacking Evolution and promoting I.D., just like in Hattiesburg. I wonder if others observed this through out the "Bible Belt".

Is anyone out there watching CNN tonight?  Larry King has a debate on Science vs. Creation, I.D. etc. with a panel that includes only one scientist.   

Scientist wrote:

---

 Larry King has a debate on Science vs. Creation, I.D. etc. with a panel that includes only one scientist.   

---

Only one scientist is on the panel? Are you suggesting that the matter can be resolved by putting it to a vote?

Outvoted wrote:

---

Scientist wrote:  Larry King has a debate on Science vs. Creation, I.D. etc. with a panel that includes only one scientist.    Only one scientist is on the panel? Are you suggesting that the matter can be resolved by putting it to a vote?

---

No, I'm suggesting that the public is hearing 4 out of 5 people speaking about what should be taught in a science class who don't know what is in the science journals.  They are giving "opinions" based on personal "belief" using terms that are not even objectively defined.  

Outvoted wrote:

---

I suspect that the opposing views on the Larry King show tonight know what is in the science jounals at least as well as the scientist knows what is in the theological literature.

---

That may be true, Outvoted.  But they aren't discussing what should be taught in a theology or religion class.  Everyone knows religion isn't objective and there are thousands of beliefs.  However, science is objective in the sense that experiment determines which theory is wrong.   I seriously doubt that scientist would participate in a debate of what should be taught in a theology class.  If it isn't in the science journals then it shouldn't be taught in a high school science class because it isn’t science.

 

I hope I didn't misunderstand your point.

 

 

TV viewer wrote:

---

Surprisingly, the creationists on the show are much more reasonable and are currently winning the debate.

---

I agree, TV Viewer.  That’s the whole point.  The general public doesn't know or even understand the methods of science.  They don't realize that I.D. isn't a theory because they hear people call it a theory.   They don't realize that the "problems" with evolution is not evidence for I.D.  They don't realize that there are "problems" with the theory of gravity too. 

The agenda of the I.D. folks is to get the debate to be public to reduce the influence of the scientist.  Can you imagine this being done with medicine?  Let's debate if high blood pressure helps people perceive god and so should not be treated.

Scientist wrote:

---

 I didn't see all of it either. 

---

Based on what you did see, did the scientist represent his position to your satsifaction?

Outvoted wrote:

---

Based on what you did see, did the scientist represent his position to your satsifaction?

---

It was a she, Outvoted.  Everything she said was true, but it was impossible for her to rebut each erroneous statement.  By the time she got to respond 3 or 4 different people spoke and stated something that need correction.  For example the I.D. people keep bringing in "origins of life" and confusing it with evolution.    Abiogenesis deals with origins of life, not evolution.  The I.D. people confuse the public as to the nature of "theory", implying it was just a hunch, guess, or equal to a belief.   Scientist will always lose these kind of debates before the public because the public are "fair minded" and don't understand that all opinions are not respected in science.  Evidence is needed for opinions to earn respect. Scientist come across as the bad guy because the public believes, "Everyone is entitled to an opinion".