DC> DC> GD>Provide the scientific theory that qualifies it as anything
DC> DC> GD>other than  religious dogma. 
DC> 
DC> DC>up nothing.  The "threatening" part is that idiots
consider ID to
DC> DC>be scientific in the first place. 

DC> JB> So you are threatened by it.  I get that.  It's an alternative 
DC> JB> viewpoint.  It also forces people to acknowledge that science
DC> JB> cannot  answer many questions.  That is what you fear.
DC> 
DC>LOL!  I see that you haven't bothered to provide the scientific
DC>theory  of ID/creationism.  

It is irrelevant to the discussion.  

Our government run schools teach many things other than science so 
whether we believe ID is based upon science or not, should not be a 
deciding factor on whether our government run schools teach it or not.  


DC>And you want it taught in schools under the science curriculum?  You 
DC>better get a move on.  "God dunnit" is not science, no matter how 
DC>much you kick and scream.  

I have not broached the subject of whether ID is based upon science or 
not.  it is irrelevant to the discussion.  You are the one hand waiving 
over it.  I have only stated that ID is an alternative option to 
evolution.  I have also stated that it brings up many questions that the  
current theory of evolution does not answer.

It is obvious that you fear a rational debate and thus want to silence 
an opposing viewpoint to your dogma.  


Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
Democrats --  The party of economic slavery ....

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10