What is Digg?14 Comments
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/21/2008, -0/+9I am sorry to inform you, but you are truly ignorant of science. You also note that "creation was good for over 200 years before it was decided that it was not a viable teaching tool, the pilgrims believed in it and the framers and founders of our great country endorsed it." They also believed you got sick from the night air, washing your hands had no effect on health, etc. Shall we bring back all the beliefs from the 1600s and 1700s?
I think a better case can be made that generations of young people have had their minds poisoned by religious views.
You claim humans are made in "his image". Just to demonstrate a point, do you have any objective evidence for that statement? I don't think so. - ncairns, on 04/21/2008, -0/+8http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=ev ...
You're welcome. - ncairns, on 04/21/2008, -0/+8I can make you a lot of empty promises as well, if that would also comfort you.
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7You give the best reason for "bias" against ID and creationism. Those views are purely religious with no objective evidence to support them, and additionally, contrary to the evidence. As such, they do not belong in science anyplace - especially the classroom.
Chuck may be strong, but as a eminent philosopher or scientist, he makes a good martial arts figure. - ncairns, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7Listen, this is *exceedingly* simple.
There is LOTS of scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution.
There is NO scientific evidence for creation/ID.
Only science can be taught in science class. One would expect that to be self-evident. - XNihil0Zer0, on 04/22/2008, -1/+8Wow, that was a classic, Chuck spends a quarter of the article demonstrating that many founding fathers would have approved the teaching of creationism in public schools. Allow me to say DUH. Oh really Chuck? Many founding fathers were christian? Why don't you consult your crystal ball and ask them what they think of DNA sequencing.
@clarencepaul, you are right, creationism was a viable teaching tool, in the same way FSM is a viable teaching tool; in the same way that any arbitrary thought can be a teaching tool if it is not directly contradicted by the scientific observations and inferences of its time. - ncairns, on 04/21/2008, -3/+10"He corners avowed atheist Richard Dawkins actually to admit that he believes in a form of Intelligent Design!"
Well let's see. Either you're a liar, stupid or both. And I'm thinking it's the latter of the three. Dawkins was asked to envision a scenario in which ID could be 'possible'. He did so, positing the idea of an alien panspermia that seeded life on Earth. He also said that such an idea was purely conjectural, that it revolves around the existence of a different intelligent species which itself would have needed to evolve, and that he most certainly did not believe in it. Odd they edited that bit out.
Chuck Norris' only weakness? Science. - cpsteinmetz, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6Oh come on, you wouldn't think a little thing like telling the truth should spoil a good lie, do you?
- gordonj, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3Hey everybody, let's get all of our information from actors. They are on the television and therefore must have more valid viewpoints than those lousy experts who actually study and create scientific theories with hard work and logic. Chuck Norris can kick some ass, so we should all value what he has to say on issues that concern science. I wonder what Jackie Chan thinks of ID, let's go ask him!
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2Dear ncairns. Nice try, but it obviously will not work.
Who is more believable, a guy from Oz who references one of the two most prestigious science journals in the world, or that other fellow from Oz - Ken Hamm - who tells us he is quoting *God*?
I know the U.S. exports our own brand of sickness, but you could have kept Ken Hamm there. - gobber, on 04/21/2008, -6/+0Exactly what objective evidence supports evolution?
- clarencepaul, on 04/21/2008, -8/+2What and who Chuck believes in is what makes him strong, not only in body, but spirit and soul and hope for a very bright future[Jeremiah 29:11] For I know the plans I have for you saith the lord, to give you a future and a hope. No one else and nothing else can give such a solid unretrievable promise like that, all believers in the lord has that promise by a God who is without limits, not only to give us what we need in the here and now, but in the future. Jesus backed all this up with: Whosoever believes in me shall never die, but shall dwell with me eternally. I like that !
- RickyLS, on 04/21/2008, -12/+5I saw the movie this weekend and it is fantastic. Ben does a great job of showng the bias against Intelligent Design. He corners avowed atheist Richard Dawkins actually to admit that he believes in a form of Intelligent Design! No joke!
- clarencepaul, on 04/21/2008, -9/+1Before the scopes trial in the 1930's creation science was the only accepted fact, not theory like evolution, it has graduated from theory to fact, because of all the liberal input and teaching in our schools and colleges, liberal judges and lawyers catapulted this lie to be the rising star of academics, strange, creation was good for over 200 years before it was decided that it was not a viable teaching tool, the pilgrims believed in it and the framers and founders of our great country endorsed it. A generation of young people have had their minds poisoned by this devious doctrine to delete and hinder the possible evidence of a God who done it all, he has his signature all over his beautiful work of creation, humans being the most intricate part of it made in his image.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is