All:
The graduate students at my institution (Portland State) have created an online petition
to reclassify non-science books from science categories in bookstores
and libraries. To quote from the first paragraph of their petition:
"As scientists, we feel strongly that categorizing Intelligent Design
("ID") as science is both inappropriate and misleading. Local bookstores
and libraries unintentionally exacerbate this misleading categorization
when they shelve ID books and legitimate science texts in the same
section . Our goal is to convince the U.S. Library of Congress to
re-classify ID books into sections other than the science section."
If this is something about which you feel strongly (or even are
lukewarm!), I urge you to support their petition. Check URL:
http://www.sciencea2z.com/z_etomite/
Saturday, September 15, 2007
An Anti Anti-Evolution Petition to reclassify non-science books from science categories in bookstores and libraries
Just got forwarded this email that I thought would be worth posting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
See Isolation and sequence-based characterization of a koala symbiont: Lonepinella koalarum Paper based on PhD thesis work of Katie Dahlha...
-
I have a new friend in Google Scholar Updates I have written about the Updates system before and if you want more information please see... -
Just got this press release by email. I am sick of receiving dozens of unsolicited press releases, especially those in topics not related ...
If evolutionists are afraid of the Intelligent Design books, it tells me that they are running scared.
ReplyDeleteIf evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
PS: Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????
If anonymous is afraid of identifying him/her self it tells me that he/he is running scared. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteBingo John L. I was waiting for someone to say that.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the comment of the annomnymous writer have to do with the claim that evolution is a fact?
ReplyDeleteMost creationists get side tracked and don't address the evidence at all (non-sequeters).
When they do address them, they got it all wrong (like random natural selection).
Natural selection is the exact opposite of random.
ReplyDelete