No doubt about that!

We are seeing a strong push toward pushing the existance of God out of everywhere and the perfect place to start is in schools. This is why the we have conflicts in these areas. They are riding under the freedom of religion umbrella for now till most of the Country is infected with this venom then you will see freedom of religion disappear all of a sudden. Then the State will dictate what you should believe. For most people this will work because they don't know any better but for those who do we will just have to ride out the storm till one day the Creator does show up. What then?

So you're saying that we should just ignore what we know to be true?

I propose to debate the issue of Dogma study vs. Bible study. If you don't understand the difference I will be more than glad to share an apple, orange, fig, or the fruit of the particular region or religion to start things off.

I have found that quite a bit of the more religious people I know promote the dogma that they have been taught as to what is actually written.

He got owned. Though to be fair, he did 'certify and seal his convictions'. The whole macro vs. micro evolution thing just kills me. Evolutionary biologists don't use such terms because they are meaningless.

The Evolving Scientist: Someone got ahold of Line's full letter!

Looking forward to this one.

NOVA | What Darwin Never Knew

Bachmann: Teaching Only Evolution Is xxx039;Censorshipxxx039; | ThinkProgress

Her statement just boggles the mind. It's a mish-mash of all the ID arguments rolled up into one tidy statement. How misinformed can one be on basic science.

Belief and truth are not the same thing.

I believe politicians are smart, truthful, honest and trustworthy.

See what I mean.

For many of us in MN, we are hopeful that the national exposure of her idiocy will lead to her failure to be re-elected in this coming election. Note how I assume -- perhaps erroneously -- that she will not be the GOP standard bearer in the Presidential election.

For those of us in Texas we are suffering from the exposure of Perry. We are also suffering from the cost of Perry exposing himself. He is now drawing both retirement and his salary. In addition the people of Texas are footing part of the bill for his campaign.

I do wonder if Paul will end up as the VP candidate as he seems to have a core of people that believe in him. Romney/Paul anyone?

Precisely why I don't say I believe in evolution. I do say that I understand and support the basic science on which the Theory of Evolution is based.

I think it's safe to say that MB will not be the nominee. And RP's path looks a little tough too. I believe neither will be prominent on the national scene anytime soon.

Realistically the Republicans have not fielded a viable candidate so far. All the ones in the limelight have major issue either with previous criminal behavior, inability to understand reality, or have questionable motions.

On the other hand they make up a great group for a game of "Spot the Loony." It is hard to lose no matter who you pick.

I wonder when the democrats will? Maybe they will keep the current "" if they can find out when he will be back from vacation(s).

I understand your point. My point is that the Republicans seem to have a problem finding someone who is marketable to the majority of the voters. They all seem to have previous issues hanging over them.

And they all seem to disregard basic science in ways that make them seem loony (which is one of my litmus tests). Except for a couple of them.

Not too surprising I guess.

Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earthxxx039;s age xxx8211; CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Especially not too surprising given the sponsor and the folks who carried out the research.

However, assuming that biases were not deliberately introduced via the study design, there is one aspect that is potentially troubling. The sample design started by sampling churches, and then sampling "the pastor" within that church. On the face of it a reasonable decision.

But note that they did not randomly sample clergy, where a larger (urban) church might have several clergy serving the parishioners. By doing this, they effectively weighted the sample toward rural parsihes, which I would guess would be more fundamentalist.

I would guess that you would be right about that. Especially in southern states.

What an IDiot. Quite a smack down he received in the comments.

Marty Rowley: The Evolution Revolution