Potential McCain running mate Jindal "has everything McCain is lacking"

[SteveLaura 0]

“He has everything McCain is lacking,”

Real hips?

[nana_356 0]

“He has everything McCain is lacking,”

Real hips?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In his election campaign, Mr. Jindal said that “there’s no scientific theory that explains how you create organic life out of inorganic matter,” and that students should “decide for themselves.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/us/02jindal.html

That's different from saying he doesn't accept the Theory of Evolution.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, it sort of does. Isn't that a complete rejection of molecular biology?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The NYT:

He is a born-again Roman Catholic who has suggested that teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution may not be out of place in public schools, favors a ban on abortion and opposes hate-crimes laws.

[almaty 19]

The NYT:

He is a born-again Roman Catholic who has suggested that teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution may not be out of place in public schools, favors a ban on abortion and opposes hate-crimes laws.

oh, he sounds like a throw back.....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In his election campaign, Mr. Jindal said that “there’s no scientific theory that explains how you create organic life out of inorganic matter,” and that students should “decide for themselves.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/us/02jindal.html

That's different from saying he doesn't accept the Theory of Evolution.

It suggests, however, that he favors the teaching of religous script (creationism) in science class - as if evolution and creationism are scientific concepts. Obviously, the latter isn't a scientific concept and the lines shouldn't be blurred in the minds of the next generation. You wanna learn about creationism, more power to you. Try Sunday school.

[HAL 9000 96]

In his election campaign, Mr. Jindal said that “there’s no scientific theory that explains how you create organic life out of inorganic matter,” and that students should “decide for themselves.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/us/02jindal.html

That's different from saying he doesn't accept the Theory of Evolution.

It suggests, however, that he favors the teaching of religous script (creationism) in science class - as if evolution and creationism are scientific concepts. Obviously, the latter isn't a scientific concept and the lines shouldn't be blurred in the minds of the next generation. You wanna learn about creationism, more power to you. Try Sunday school.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The NYT:

He is a born-again Roman Catholic who has suggested that teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution may not be out of place in public schools, favors a ban on abortion and opposes hate-crimes laws.

oh, he sounds like a throw back.....

No kidding. Geez, what kind of Catholics got a hold of him in HS? My freshman HS religion teacher, Mr. Ribiki, was the one who taught me that story of Creation in the Bible is just that, a story....not meant to be taken as historical fact.

[GaryC 7]

The NYT:

He is a born-again Roman Catholic who has suggested that teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution may not be out of place in public schools, favors a ban on abortion and opposes hate-crimes laws.

oh, he sounds like a throw back.....

No kidding. Geez, what kind of Catholics got a hold of him in HS? My freshman HS religion teacher, Mr. Ribiki, was the one who taught me that story of Creation in the Bible is just that, a story....not meant to be taken as historical fact.

Common misconception. Intellegent design isn't creationism. Intelligent design says that evolution is real but is directed by a higher power. Creationism is the idea that God just waved his hand and made everything the way it is. I have a third idea that I believe is the truth (no proof, just my own idea) that God created the big bang and at that moment set in motion the laws of nature that would cause the earth and everything in it to evolve into what we have today. Since science still can't say how the big bang started or what was there before I could be right. But that is just me.

[HAL 9000 96]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

[GaryC 7]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is real. However, ID addresses some of the holes in that theory where humans are concerned. As you may know, when a animal evolves it's family tree branches. That is why we have so many kinds of cats, dogs, fish or any other animal you can name. Humans are the one species whose linage does not branch. Now I cannot explain that nor has any scientist that I have heard of. I am also not suggesting that God did this. But until we know for sure, any theory has as much validity as any other, right? Unless your rejecting the whole concept of God (I know that some do) then it is possible.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The NYT:

He is a born-again Roman Catholic who has suggested that teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution may not be out of place in public schools, favors a ban on abortion and opposes hate-crimes laws.

oh, he sounds like a throw back.....

No kidding. Geez, what kind of Catholics got a hold of him in HS? My freshman HS religion teacher, Mr. Ribiki, was the one who taught me that story of Creation in the Bible is just that, a story....not meant to be taken as historical fact.

Common misconception. Intellegent design isn't creationism. Intelligent design says that evolution is real but is directed by a higher power. Creationism is the idea that God just waved his hand and made everything the way it is. I have a third idea that I believe is the truth (no proof, just my own idea) that God created the big bang and at that moment set in motion the laws of nature that would cause the earth and everything in it to evolve into what we have today. Since science still can't say how the big bang started or what was there before I could be right. But that is just me.

That's basically what I believe as well - science will never be able to answer the ultimate question - where or what did matter come from? It is an impossible question to answer from a scientific point of view and many great scientist have acknowledged that. However, if Intelligent Design is considered an alternative to teaching kids real science in school, that's where we differ.

[HAL 9000 96]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is real. However, ID addresses some of the holes in that theory where humans are concerned. As you may know, when a animal evolves it's family tree branches. That is why we have so many kinds of cats, dogs, fish or any other animal you can name. Humans are the one species whose linage does not branch. Now I cannot explain that nor has any scientist that I have heard of. I am also not suggesting that God did this. But until we know for sure, any theory has as much validity as any other, right? Unless your rejecting the whole concept of God (I know that some do) then it is possible.

Molecular biology (genetics) disagrees with your observation of ** sapiens.

FYI-

The genetic makeup between humans and chimpanzees is nearly 98% identical. Humans are on a branch of an evolutionary tree- it just goes much farther back in common within our lineage (**, Hominids) and our cousin species (Primates, like us), and even farther back to our Mammalian distant cousins. Hence we are a branch of the tree.

This is why we can have xenographs between species in medicine in some cases. The genetic similarities code for extremely similar proteins that in turn behave in extremely similar mechanisms.

Some of these genes are 'conserved' in structure (of the proteins they encode) and in sequence even to the level of Protozoans (single-celled eukaryotic organisms like amoebae).

The NYT:

He is a born-again Roman Catholic who has suggested that teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution may not be out of place in public schools, favors a ban on abortion and opposes hate-crimes laws.

oh, he sounds like a throw back.....

No kidding. Geez, what kind of Catholics got a hold of him in HS? My freshman HS religion teacher, Mr. Ribiki, was the one who taught me that story of Creation in the Bible is just that, a story....not meant to be taken as historical fact.

Common misconception. Intellegent design isn't creationism. Intelligent design says that evolution is real but is directed by a higher power. Creationism is the idea that God just waved his hand and made everything the way it is. I have a third idea that I believe is the truth (no proof, just my own idea) that God created the big bang and at that moment set in motion the laws of nature that would cause the earth and everything in it to evolve into what we have today. Since science still can't say how the big bang started or what was there before I could be right. But that is just me.

That's basically what I believe as well - science will never be able to answer the ultimate question - where or what did matter come from? It is an impossible question to answer from a scientific point of view and many great scientist have acknowledged that. However, if Intelligent Design is considered an alternative to teaching kids real science in school, that's where we differ.

I'll never have a problem learning about it... even though I already have... but in the proper theater for it: in a scientific foundations of religion course. Not in a science class.

[GaryC 7]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is real. However, ID addresses some of the holes in that theory where humans are concerned. As you may know, when a animal evolves it's family tree branches. That is why we have so many kinds of cats, dogs, fish or any other animal you can name. Humans are the one species whose linage does not branch. Now I cannot explain that nor has any scientist that I have heard of. I am also not suggesting that God did this. But until we know for sure, any theory has as much validity as any other, right? Unless your rejecting the whole concept of God (I know that some do) then it is possible.

Molecular biology (genetics) disagrees with your observation of ** sapiens.

FYI-

The genetic makeup between humans and chimpanzees is nearly 98% identical. Humans are on a branch of an evolutionary tree- it just goes much farther back in common within our lineage (**, Hominids) and our cousin species (Primates, like us), and even farther back to our Mammalian distant cousins. Hence we are a branch of the tree.

This is why we can have xenographs between species in medicine in some cases. The genetic similarities code for extremely similar proteins that in turn behave in extremely similar mechanisms.

Some of these genes are 'conserved' in structure (of the proteins they encode) and in sequence even to the level of Protozoans (single-celled eukaryotic organisms like amoebae).

Yes, I understand that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and we are a branch of the primate family. However, the species of humans does not branch. The other primate species do branch but ours does not.