Creationism Bill Passes Oklahoma House

It's not happening any time soon. I have testify in court this week about TRYING to give info to gov officials which they refused at first but found out later by computer search. Also my parents on account of this legal state will go to the grave believing I was ill and got "better" even if I emerge from evc into experiential world while the mother of my two "bastard" children still wants to use the forigen govenment against common sense and reasonable drug treatments. Some things ARE involutary but this is not one of them.I wouldnt talk this way if there was some legal way for me to avoid it. I'm done with the "ill"legal ones. If Uridine(a differnt than ATCG) indeed indicates that there are "vectors" in DNA forced into RNA kinetics all of this is down the drain and in the wash.

the word "rabid".The personal environment of c/e is much harsher than the public electronic version. I grew up but not out of it. Many experience it as something exotic. It is not. It is my life. There is no reason that Mayr had to say the use of "irrationals" is typological or that I was being not as rational as the difference of math and physics. The seperation of Church and State IS NOT the same thing as LOGICAL SEPERATION OF DATA but the ACLU doesnt know this and refused to help me. But this is about "anti-evolution" Bill. If I am correct that what WAS a posteriori design has become legit a priori then an "anti" Bill simply means to recognize this FACT. My bet is that evos will once exposed this way try to say that modern Creationism never made the design argument a priori from an aposteriori past but it will be "creos" who have a better take on it. I am not in aposition to evaluate this bill. But living in NOLA and knowing that creationism is taken more seriously than evolution on the street there and knowing how this philosophical perspective on the CHANGE in the sociological mix of the design argument (read Gould and we can discuss his particular take in another thread if you wish) enables at least the philosophy of science to be rasied facilites my inclusion of personal references. I am quite certain that Niels Eldridges' insistence anti-Creationism would not stand the similar sound of hoxology and doxology in Gould's lingo but I moved on from a detailed discussion of Eldridge's anti c position. So I see it wrong to call any BILL introduced "anti" evolution. I fear that material categories are being multiplied to support any connectivity in biological change simply for political reasons. The only solution. Political remedies. Rhode Island said there could be no double teaching in higher education. Perhaps the bill creates this ih lower education. I dont know as I havent followed the links yet. I am near to complete physcial reasons for my view as well. This will show my personal relations to more off than my virtual forum communications.