Missouri Anti-Evolution Bill

Scopes, the would be hero who in effect fought to teach eugenics to children, and lost.What about teaching people selfish gene theory, with associated evolutionary psychology? I think you should be more worried about that, than teaching intelligent design. A theory which at least correctly establishes decision at the point of creation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are mistaken, sort of. The conviction was overturned on appeal on a technicality, but the law was upheld, until the 1960's when it was challenged again, and overturned.What scientic definition of decison? You must be reffering to intelligent design science, since it is all but absent in evolutionary science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No I'm just saying you should be more worried about the ideological content on the evolutionist side, rather than on the creationist side. As with eugenics, the ideology on the evolutionist side is much more menacing than anything creationism ever put forward, you should be very worried about it. The idea that things like the selfish gene theory, and associate evolutionary psychology, would somehow automatically be dissolved by a "self-correcting" science, misses the point that science so becomes a vehicle for evil, and science can hardly correct evil.It would certainly be very useful to students, to learn about the creation of things from the point of view from where they are decided. A tremendous gain in knowledge. Intelligent design in it's principles presents much the value of the historical view, of unique decisions, in stead of the generalised view of evolutionists, of laws and forces. I don't see the attached ideology of reference to God as owner of that decision as very menacing. I believe you are contorting to see any real menace in it, while the menace is much apparent on the evolutionist side."In general the chinese are not as attractive as caucasians." This is something you might read in evolutionary psychology as an objective statement, although they also say that this fact may change according to changes in the conditions on which the fact is based. See my point about menace being on the evolutionist side?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You have to talk like: science *should* not be driven by ideology but by objective experimentation of nature. You simply assume that there is no ideology on the evolutionist side, which is false.Do you have a historical view of the universe, of life? If so name just one significant turningpoint in the history of the universe, or of the history of organisms.Well maybe you are able to name one point, probably you aren't, but in any case you too well enter into a creationist mode of thinking, when thinking about things that way. It is very valuable.Why do you suppose that you don't have a developed historical view like that, how did you get to be so ignorant? The reason is the ideology of evolutionists, which you are blind to.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu