Polk County on alert

I had posted before about a Polk County school board member, Kay Fields, who expressed an interest in intelligent design. Well, the situation just got a whole lot worse. The local newspaper there, the Lakeland Ledger, asked the other board members for their opinions and revealed that a majority seem to agree with Fields.

A majority of Polk County School Board members say they support teaching intelligent design in addition to evolution in public schools.

Board members Tim Harris, Margaret Lofton and Hazel Sellers said they oppose proposed science standards for Florida schools that lists evolution and biological diversity as one of the “big ideas” that students need to know for a well-grounded science education.

“If it ever comes to the board for a vote, I will vote against the teaching of evolution as part of the science curriculum,” Lofton said. “If (evolution) is taught, I would want to balance it with the fact that we may live in a universe created by a supreme being as well.”

(edite to add: School board members say they are getting e-mails supporting intellgent design. We need to counter that misinformation. Please consider taking a moment to send e-mails to the school board members. Tim Harris, Tim.Harris@polk-fl.net. Margaret Lofton, Margaret.Lofton@polk-fl.net. Hazel Sellers, Hazel.Sellers@polk-fl.net. Kay Fields, Kay.Fields@polk-fl.net.)

Fortunately, the reporter has some background information on the Dover case, which ruled in no uncertain terms that intelligent design is not science, but rather a strictly religious idea. We appreciate its mention in the story. But then comes the real shocker:

Despite the Pennsylvania case, some school board members want both intelligent design and evolution taught in Polk schools. They say they have received numerous e-mails and phone calls in support of intelligent design.

“My tendency would be to have both sides shared with students since neither side can be proven,” Tim Harris said.

A couple of our Florida Citizens for Science board members will be on hand today during a school board meeting to try to talk some sense into these people.

[Jonathan] Smith said that board members may not understand the implications of fighting the new standards.”Are they going to teach intelligent design and have a million-dollar lawsuit?” Smith asked. “I doubt that.”

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Alert, In the News, Our Science Standards. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Polk County on alert

  1. Tim says:

    Thig is, evolution is as much of a religious belief as ID…believing that a Supreme Being did not create us is a ‘religious’ belief because you cannot prove there is no God, but you deny what billions believe.

  2. Jonathan Smith says:

    Tim let me ask you a couple of questions

    1. Explain how evolution is a religion.
    2. Show the scientific evidence that supports ID
    3.Evolution is a science, it does not prove or disprove the possibility
    of a supreme being
    4.Many millions of religious people accept evolution as part of
    their belief systems.
    Your comments are uneducated and lack any real study,they are
    just unfounded opinions.

  3. John Osmond says:

    Keep your mind on the actual debate. The debate isn’t about who’s right and who’s wrong – that debate will rage on forever.

    The debate is, and must remain, about what is and what is not science.

    The biggest lie you’ll ever hear is, “teach both sides”. Students are already exposed to religious ideas. They are exposed to religious ideas in church, at home (especially if the student comes from a religious family) and they are exposed to these ideas in history classes, philosophy classes etc.

    What these religious people want is to now take over science class. Remember, the debate is about what is and is not science. Religion is not science.

    And keep in mind who is being attacked and who is the attacker. When have you ever heard of a scientist going to a church and demanding equal time to critique there subject material? When have you ever heard of a scientist getting on a church board so they could negatively influence what’s being talked about?

    These religious people are vicious. Don’t let them teach religion as if it has equal weight as a valid science. Religion is not science.

  4. Darren says:

    ID has a place in schools…. Sunday schools. Keep it there, and let real science be taught in science classes.

  5. Pingback: Coming Around Again « The Opinion Mill

  6. Spirula says:


    Here is the theory of evolution:


    Show me where it makes any claims about a “Supreme being”.

    Show me where the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory or any other theory is catagorized as a “religous belief”.

    you deny what billions believe

    So it was Allah after all?

    Seriously, are you aware of logical fallacies like “argumentum ad populum”?

    As someone once said:

    “”tis better to remain silent and appear a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”

  7. Michael Suttkus, II says:

    [Thing] is, evolution is as much of a religious belief as ID…

    And the award for Most Repeated Creationist Lie goes to…

    Okay, Tim, let’s try some simple math.

    Roughly 50% of US Citizens are creationist.

    Less than 10% of US citizens are atheists.

    About 70% of US citizens are Christians.

    Hmm, something isn’t adding up. It would appear that AT LEAST 40% of people in the US accept both evolution *and* belief in a creator. And, furthering the bewildering amazement, at least 20% accept Christianity and evolution.

    Weird, huh?

    Evolution and belief in a creator are not incompatible, despite the lies you’ve been fed.

    believing that a Supreme Being did not create us is a ‘religious’ belief because you cannot prove there is no God,

    Evolution does not require a supreme being to have not created us; it just shows us what methods any supreme being that does exist must have used.

    but you deny what billions believe.

    So do you! After all, billions believe Buddhism! Billions believe in Hinduism! How can you deny what billions believe, Tim?

    Billions believing in something is hardly an argument for the truth of the belief. If almost everyone on earth believed the world was flat, the shape of the earth wouldn’t change and I would still be right to deny it.

    But, here’s your chance, Tim. Do something constructive. Here’s an article I’ve written refuting every creationist argument I’ve ever seen on fossil sorting:


    Please read it and refute it. Show us how creationism accounts for fossil sorting! Come on, Tim. I don’t care how many billions believe in something as long as the evidence doesn’t support it. Show us your evidence, Tim!

    Or, do what every other creationist has done, when faced with fossil sorting: lie or hide. That’s better.

  8. Peter says:

    I hope the Polk County School board has 2 million dollars to lose in proving their ID-is-science nonsense.

  9. Josh Krupnick says:

    Evolution addresses the development of life, and does not speculate on supreme beings or other supernatural matters. Science does not aim to prove or disprove the existence of God. Thig is, you are flat wrong.

  10. firemancal says:

    Well, now I am getting paranoid. I live in Port Orange and I wonde rhow soon it will be before the VCSB tries this crapola. I may wind up running for the VCSB if that happens.

  11. CHRISTENSEN says:

    Why don’t they teach math and reading, first, and keep the drugs and guns out of the schools?

    Knowledge of “evolution” is not going to solve these problems.

    The suggestion that the solution to these problems lies with evolution reminds me of the Kansas Citizens for Science site, whose discussion board is mainly a platform for atheists using science as a front to attack religious views in general.

    Its darn near all they talk about.

  12. Josh Krupnick says:

    You are way out in left field! Nobody is suggesting that teaching reading and mathmatics is not important, nor keeping drugs and guns out of school. Nobody is suggesting that there is any corellation between evolution and these matters. Nobody is attacking religious views. This discussion is about teaching fundamental scientific concepts in our public schools.

    What is your point? Is it that Science organizations talk too much about science? Well, that’s just silly.

  13. Michael E. Suttkus, II says:

    For people like Christenson, the very word “religion” becomes synonymous with “my religion”. I’ve seen creationists refer to the Pope as an atheist. The Pope, mind you. The head of the world’s largest church, a firm believer in the existance of an omnipotent god personally concerned with the activities of the world’s people. He’s an atheist.

    When people like this say “atheist”, what they really mean is “someone who doesn’t believe in THE REAL GOD”, which is to say, their god.

    When we state facts, we’re attacking “religion”, meaning his religion, because his religion is opposed to reality in a rather painful way. he’s just like a flat earther declaring that teaching a round earth is attacking “religion”. It’s not attacking religion, it’s attacking his religion because his religion includes something fundamentally silly.

    To him, the primary purpose of a group like this is to attack religion, because that’s all we do, attack his religion. His religion attacks us constantly, but that’s okay, his religion is TRUE, so forcing it’s beliefs on students regardless of their religion is fine. What objection could honest people have to Truthâ„¢?

    That’s why they consider freedom of religion to be oppression. It prevents them from enforcing God’s Truth on the rest of us, which they have a God-given right to do! How dare silly atheist religions (like Catholicism) argue that they have any right to believe their lies? This is God’s nation and they’re gonna see that it’s restored!


    Luckily, we have something Christensen will never have: Evidence. Hey, Chris, any chance of you answering the problems presented in my fossil sorting article? I’ve been asking creationists since 1985 to deal with fossil sorting and I don’t hae anything decent by way of an answer yet. Is there something wrong? Like, maybe, Creationism has no answers because the evidence is all against it? Something like that?

  14. Michael E. Suttkus, II says:

    Is there any political point in someone who isn’t one of their constituents emailing them? I’ve never been sure if politicians care about “foreigners” emailing them.

  15. CHRISTENSEN says:

    Peope “like” me, MIke? You sound a little bigoted.

    And when I say religion, I mean anyones religion.

    And I never said we shouldn’t teach evolution, I said we should make sure the kids can do read and do math…you KNOW a lot don’t graduate at all, and of those many can’t read and do math at an even junior college level.

    And further, where did I appose freedom of religion? I didn’t, so your response is a deliberate smear…i.e., a lie.

    So maybe YOU should learn to read before you spout off.

    So why don’t you stuff your Straw Man argument and stop using “science education” as a front for your OWN agenda, and stop pretending it is going to solve these problems, like they do over at Kansas Citizens for Science?

  16. Josh Krupnick says:

    I agree with you that we should make sure that children have good reading and math skills. I think natural science (of which evolutionary theory is an integral part of) is also extremely important, along with many other subjects.

    I’m glad that you don’t oppose freedom of religion. I haven’t read any posts in this group that lead me to believe that anyone else here does either.

    There isn’t any kind of “front” here. Science education IS our adgenda. That is precisely what we are trying to promote, nothing more, nothing less.

  17. Mike Blair says:

    Promote it all you want. If the kids can’t read or do math at a decent level, or get on drugs, it isn’t going to help.

    As Christensen points out, a large number don’t graduate, and a lot of those who do can’t read or do math at a decent level.

    Your “science education” mantra won’t solve that problem.

  18. Michael Suttkus, II says:

    Peope “like” me, MIke? You sound a little bigoted.

    You’re welcome to your opinion.

    And when I say religion, I mean anyones religion.

    Oh, then you’re just plain wrong.

    We aren’t in the business of attacking religion in general. Nobody here is attacking my religion, but then I’m Christian, not a heretical bibliolater.

    Most scientists are religious, so, no, we aren’t here attacking religion.

    And I never said we shouldn’t teach evolution,

    No, you don’t *say* it, but you do propose teaching lies about evolution. That would involve not teaching it accurately, which is not teaching it. There are no ID arguments that don’t consist entirely of lying about science.

    I said we should make sure the kids can do read and do math…you KNOW a lot don’t graduate at all, and of those many can’t read and do math at an even junior college level.

    That would be what we call a nonsequitor. There’s more than enough time in school to learn basic reading and math and get a good grounding in every other topic people need to be informed on.

    And further, where did I appose freedom of religion? I didn’t, so your response is a deliberate smear…i.e., a lie.

    Supporting ID is opposing freedom of religion because it’s pushing primacy for a specific religion into the classroom.

    So why don’t you stuff your Straw Man argument and stop using “science education” as a front for your OWN agenda, and stop pretending it is going to solve these problems, like they do over at Kansas Citizens for Science?

    And maybe you should learn to compose non-ambiguous sentences. Am I supposed to stop pretending what they pretend at KCFS or am I supposed to stop pretending what KCFS has stopped pretending or am I supposed to stop pretending what KCFS has never pretended?

    And, yes, improving science education will solve the problem of bad science education in this country. One is baffled that you could think it wouldn’t.

  19. Darren says:

    And your “god did it” mantra won’t either. Not a single proponent of the proper teaching of science in this comment section has blatantly said: “Teach science, only science. No math, no reading. Oh, and give the kids drugs while you’re at it.” Where are you people even getting this from?

    The first amendment provides freedom *from* religion as well. Meaning in a public institution no student can be forced to hear even the slightest notion of religion. School is for learning. More importantly it is for learning concrete ideas, whether it be human language skills, mathematics, or theories in science that are backed up by mountains of empirical, testable, falsifiable evidence and experiments. Before you cry “it’s just a theory” as every creationist eventually does I’d ask that you go learn what theory actually means in scientific context.

    The first amendment allows you to believe in whatever you want to believe in, so long as it does not prove injurious to others. The teaching of creationism in public schools not only violates the right of every student, but it also fails to prepare each student to be successful in the real world. Upon graduating, students are expected to enter a world that is measured, tested, and explained by what science has accomplished in the past 400 years or so. Preparing them to understand this world is every bit as prudent as teaching them to read.

  20. Spirula says:

    Your “science education” mantra won’t solve that problem.

    Hmmm. Let’s look at how this “dimished” view of science education is working out for us shall we?


    In fact, last year the US fell behind the EU and Japan in scientific publications. Most countries in the developed world have a science cirriculum that unapologetically teaches evolution. They consider “the controversy” here in the US as both baffling and funny (funny as in “What a bunch of ignorant rubes!”).

    In fact, many of the academic institutions here in the US rely heavily on the influx of foreigners for graduate, post-doc and teaching/researcher positions. (A trend, by the way, which is reversing. I know several researchers that have gone to Japan because the funding is better.)

    My point is this: we are losing the recruitment battle from within our own population. We are slowly dismantling the funding of scientific research.

    And one of the main reasons is the flippant attitude of the general public regarding the importance of science education. And much of that stems from the constant attacks, over decades, on evolution and science by creationists. This has resulted in many public school systems, especially here in the South, under-emphasizing or ignoring altogether, the teaching of evolution.

    As a researcher, the theory of evolution matters. It is the best explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth, and it is used in everything from epidemiology to agriculture.

    So, no. The “scientific mantra” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean) won’t solve the drop-out, drug or performance problem. But strong science education gives students many more skills and opportunities in the important and innovative fields of science.

    Go ahead Floridians. Let the science slip by. Then wonder why all your high tech jobs, medicines, agricultural innovations, and new discoveries all have to be translated from a foreign language for you to find out about them.

    (Could you get a preview button? For some reason, I can edit better with one.)

  21. Mike Blair says:

    Hey Suttkus!

    You are a liar.

  22. Mike Blair says:

    And Darren, if students can’t be forced to hear even the slightest mention of religion, they they can’t be forced to suffer denigrations of their religious view, either.

    Its not just “freedom from religion”; the Constitution also says that NO laws may be passed abridging the “free exercise thereof”.

    None, Nada, Zip.

    Got it?

  23. Mike Blair says:

    And Spirula, why are you trotting out that bullshit about Jobs leaving because of this.

    Its a lie.

    They tried that in Kansas.

    Turned out to be all bullshit.

  24. Petra says:

    John Osmond, I really appreciate your comment. You’re absolutely right about keeping in mind what the debate is about.

    I just want to throw in one thought: It shouldn’t be only about ID and science class, but about teaching ID in general. Even of ID was taught outside of science class – and even if that was allowed in American schools – ID should not be taught. By pretending they’re not creationists, ID proponents limit their side to being only anti-evolutionist, not even religious. Being anti-evolution is fine – but ID’s way of choice in debating evolution is lying and using the ignorance of gullible people for their cause.

    Clearly speaking: Lies should not be taught in school. Nowhere. It’s not about science class only, it’s also about spreading lies to gullible children.

  25. Petra says:

    Addon, also in hopes I can close that tag.

    They consider “the controversy” here in the US as both baffling and funny (funny as in “What a bunch of ignorant rubes!”).

    Yes, we certainly do. We do have creationists here, though. But in general, at least our politicians and everyone with an education is smart enough to see what creation ‘science’/ID is. We’re definitely laughing… which is bad – because creationism is obviously a threat to politics, religion and proper science. It’s a threat to a lot of things (but certainly not evolution, which is the most weird part about it). It’s very wrong to laugh it away.

    We’re wary of all other fundamentalists, but creationism/ID hides behind being laughable and ridiculous – while still having the same dangerous potential any form of fundamentalism has. That’s not funny at all.

  26. Pastor Bill says:

    To insinuate the teaching of evolutionary theory does not impose any spiritual or faith based criteria is asinine at best. The supposition that all things has evolved over billions of years though a process of natural means and mutation requires a level of faith which supercedes even the stupidest of religions. Darwinian evolution as it has been defined has always had its roots in a questionable setting. Darwin himself is the first to recognize the unbelievability of his thoughts. Less than a year after the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote to his friend Asa Gray, “ Yesterday I read over with care the third article; and it seems to me, as before, admirable. But I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design.” Darwin with all of his observations and questions would more than likely today, reject the theory he has been given credit for. Even from its very beginnings imaginary idols were created to support the faith. From Ernst Haeckel to Donald Johanson the fabrications of reason and reality continues.

    One of the most evident formations of evolutionary truth is the establishment of the First Church of Evolution. It is believed that the evolutionary change that Darwin hoped to find and searchers for the missing link dig for today can only be visualized through a transforming faith based leap into imagination. The church recognizes Charles Darwin as the prophet of an unknown deity called Natural Selection. All of the writings of the Prophet Charles Darwin are recognized as sacred among those who believe.

    As with all hominids declared transitional, there life span as true evidence for the faith is short. The church believes that it is their responsibility to take charge of hominid fabrication to preserve the faith. Those who consider the doctrine of evolution as only science are wrong. The First Church of Evolution is protected from interference by the same separation of church and state that protects them all. The legal formation and foundation of this religious organization is unquestionable.

    So where does the First Church of Evolution stand on the teaching of evolution and ID in public schools. The church has no stand at all for ID, and neither does the church object to the teaching of its sacred doctrine. The First Church of Evolution has no objection to the teaching of Darwinian evolution, but it does believe the religious message is being perverted by those who do not recognize it as a matter of faith.

    To reach the church office call 863-385-8300 or http://www.fcefaith.org

  27. Banned by Kansas Citizens for Science Club Member says:

    Its just as unconstitutional to denigrate religion in public schools as it is to promote it.

  28. Josh Krupnick says:

    Pastor Bill,
    It seems that creationists are constantly referring to Darwinism and Darwinian evolution. In case you have been asleep since the mid 1800’s, evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Modern evolutionary theory is the integration of natural selection and Mendellian genetics. Since Darwin’s great discovery, volumes of evidence, all in support of evolutionary theory have been uncovered. Thousands of scientists from a wide range of disciplines have contributed, forming a solid scientific theory. If you don’t know what a scientific theory is, then look it up in the dictionary – I am tired of responding to “it’s just a theory”.

    When you say THE missing link, what in the world are you talking about? The term “missing link” is used to mean a transitional form. All populations of organisms are in transition, and a transitional form is a recognized form that clearly represents a particular evolutionary stage. We have discovered MANY of these. Osteolepis, Proterogyrinus, Dimetrodon, Archaeopteryx, Basilosaurus, Mammalodon to name just a few.

    Please explain just what hominid fabrication is. The term makes no sense. The remains of early Hominids that we have found were created through sexual reproduction. This is fact.

    Your silly website was a waste of time. Why preach your ignorance here? Do you really think that anyone who is even slightly educated in science would be receptive to your ignorant ramblings?

  29. ~NoodleDemon~ says:

    Pastor Bill,

    I cannot fathom how you can expect any sane, rational human being to accept your incoherent rambling and false, totally baseless idiocy. In idiot terms, I would be ‘callin’ yew uh liar’.

    For one thing, the website was just shameful as an attempt to confuse people.

    For another, you generalize. Modern Evolution is, as John Krupnick says, a hybrid theory composed of all the advances made in Biological Science. I will argue against your utter stupidity on that issue no further.

    As was stated earlier, all living things are in a state of transit. Like it or not, you are a part of a species that is constantly adapting to its environment, just like every other biological lifeform that exists as a species. This is provable. And this provable, sensible theory, this theory that is ‘the supposition that all things has evolved over billions of years though a process of natural means and mutation’ and which, according to you, ‘requires a level of faith which supercedes even the stupidest of religions.’, is what has brought us to modernity.

    That is what kids should be taught, so they will be able to make something of themselves and have a logical understanding of the world. Not your patented bullshit.

    Refute that, if you will.

  30. Pastor Bill says:

    Josh Krupnick & Noodle Demon

    You guys should chill out. We all know that without a little faith the concept of particle to people evolution can’t be seen. While this segment of theory looks good on paper as scientific fact, the truth is its rock solid imagination. And Josh your are right, its not just a theory, it’s a faith.

    If your not familiar with hominid fabrication you could ask Donald Johanson. It would appear your really confused about how our imaginary transitional ancestors arrived. Regardless of how sick some of these people like Johanson could be I don’t think they had sex with these dead monkey parts.

    You should be grateful that an origination like the First Church of Evolution was chosen by Natural Selection and has evolved to provide substance to the faith based teachings of the Prophet Charles Darwin. The founders of the Church recognized early on that with out this ritualistic religious element, the actual belief man has evolved form lower animals would have no substance at all. The apostil Ernst Haeckel was one of the first to create substance for mans transitional path through imagination. I think to ridicule what these great men have created is blasphemy.

  31. Robert says:

    There is nothing more ignorant than those who do not know the difference between fact and fiction, between the vernacular of “theory” and a scientific Theory, and wanting to teach the equivalent of an “invisible friend did it” in a science class.
    Mythology belongs in a class for that purpose and science belongs in a science class.
    The day creationists/ID present a falsifiable, reproducible, peer-reviewed theory it will be taught in schools without having to go to politicians. Something NO OTHER subject taught has had to do… they just have to show that they are viable theories, scientifically, to be taught. That is all.
    No votes needed.
    Creationists don’t want this, they want to make a statement with no backing and bully it into the classroom with no scientific backing at all.
    Kitzmiller vs Dover proved that ID is creationism and ONLY creationism with just another name.
    It has no place in a science class until there is falsifiable evidence.

  32. Robert says:

    Those who state that evolution does not exist should not get vaccinations… those are evolved organisms and don’t exist, obviously.
    Who knows what happens when injected with a fictional organism!

  33. Darwin Youth says:

    Robert, Darwin said, in the Descent of man, that vaccination weakens the race.

    By the way, vaccination came along well before Darwin.

  34. ~NoodleDemon~ says:

    That’s true, of course, but our race is no longer running the evolutionary arms race very competitively. Those of us with less effective genes are not being eliminated – therefore, the weakening effect of vaccinations no longer has much effect. All of us get a pretty much equal chance at evolutionary success nowadays…

  35. Darwin Youth says:

    Say, good point NoodleDemon.

    How do you suggest, like Darwins cousin Francis Galton proposed (and who Darwin specifically praised in The Descent of Man), that our race start to run the “evolutionary arms race” more competitively?

    I think genetic engineering offers a LOT of possibilities here.

  36. Darren says:

    “And Darren, if students can’t be forced to hear even the slightest mention of religion, they they can’t be forced to suffer denigrations of their religious view, either.”

    You are correct in your statement Mr. Blair, however it is irrelevant because no one is trying to sully the reputation of your faith, or any faith by teaching an evidence backed, testable, verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable theory.

    It is not stated anywhere in the Theory of Evolution that Christianity is false, that Islam is false, that Judaism is false. It doesn’t even propose how life truly got its beginnings here. It does however offer up the best possible explanation for how life has changed over time on this planet. The Theory of Evolution makes no attempt to sully or defame anyones religion.

  37. Spirula says:

    no one is trying to sully the reputation of your faith

    As an Ex-Christian, the problem is that the conservative Christian s have a persecution complex. Any time they don’t get their way, whether it be docrinal, legislative, social or political, they trot out the “persecution” canard. They are doing them same thing here on this issue (equal time, teach the controversy etc). ID is not science. It does not fit the criteria of a scientific theory any more than astrology or alchemy do (as the Dover case pointed out).

    And when it comes to the reputation of their faith, there is one group that always sullies it…conservative Christians (which their postings in this thread clearly demonstrate).

  38. Spirula says:

    that should read “doctrinal”

  39. Pastor Bill says:


    In reference to your post about ignorance, it would appear you aren’t familiar with the basic faith which propels the followers of the Prophet Charles Darwin. As Charles Darwin is revered as the prophet of the deity Natural Selection, it is well known that his preparation came from the believers which preceded him. One of those who helped lay the foundation of imagination was his grandfather Erasmus Darwin who wrote, “Would it be too bold to imagine that all warm blooded animals have arisen from one living filament?”

    You do error in implicating ID or creationist, which have nothing to do with the Prophets message and the great commission of transitional fabrication through imagination.

    Neither does the falsifiable theory of evolution have anything to do with the religious observations of the disciples of the First Church of Evolution who by faith and imagination believe transitions can be seen.

  40. Darwin Youth says:

    Heck Spirala, from that post it sounds like YOU are the one with the persection complex.

  41. John Osmond says:

    When you have to lie to support your point then you don’t really believe your own point.

    My BS meter has no problem sensing the BS from these people: Tim, Pastor Bill and Darwin Youth. Plus an honorable mention to Christensen for ignorance.

    Tim, you lie when you mis-characterize science “as much of a religious belief as ID”.

    Pastor Bill, you lie when you mis-characterize Charles Darwin as a prophet (and pretty much everything you say).

    Darwin Youth, you even lie in your own name! But you lie mostly when you take quotes out of context.

    Christensen, you don’t have a clue. Please buy a vowel.

    You are all a bunch of liars and you do not have a say in what should be considered part of the scientific curriculum for science classes. You are vicious attackers of science and need to be verbally slapped down.

  42. Pastor Bill says:

    John Osmond

    Is it a lie or is it imagination? That is what we have to choose from when considering the profound assumption man has a common ancestor with the apes. Regardless of DNA similarities claimed between apes and humans you’ll find swine parts are more compatible with the human body for medical purposes.

    So back to my original concern for your faith. You and the other believers who trust the sacred writings of the Prophet and the never seen portions of evolutionary doctrine need to wake up. If you do not recognize this lie or imagination as a religion it will at some point be completely discarded as a bunch of crap.

    It’s time to be a man a admit it was Darwin who had claimed his imaginations had become a religion. You should consider Church membership.

  43. John Osmond says:

    When you have to lie to support your point then you don’t really believe your own point.

  44. R.E.Gannister says:


    I agree that lies and, I may add, other such scientifically unfounded ideas and preposterous fantasy world concepts, like human caused global warming, should not be imposed upon the vulnerable minds of children. It’s a political movement.

  45. ellie says:

    Evolution is scientific study when it allows consideration of opposing views.
    When the so-called-scientists that espouse it refuse to consider any other interpretation of the data other than the interpretation that supports their ideological viewpoint then it is no longer science — it is using scientific data to support a viewpoint of faith. One can have faith in God. One can also have faith in science.

  46. PC-Bash says:

    ellie –

    Evolution is scientific study when it allows consideration of opposing views.

    Science does allow consideration of opposing views, when these views have merit. However, there is currently no alternate theory to evolution that holds any merit.

    When the so-called-scientists that espouse it refuse to consider any other interpretation of the data other than the interpretation that supports their ideological viewpoint then it is no longer science…

    Please name one alternate hypothesis.

Comments are closed.