Zane, are you watching the same media as the rest of us? Conservative media is such an oxymoron, I think you must be joking. And did you really say conservative courts? You mean the ones who create laws from the bench? And demand states create laws to accomodate homosexual marriage?
BTW Darwin's "Theory" does not have enough backing to merit the actual designation of Theory. Darwin himself said his hypothesis would be defeated if there were not an abundance of transitional forms in the fossil record. To date, there are no, none, zero substantiated transitional forms discovered.
This is usually such a friendly place that I hesitate to weigh in on this, but this is clearly intended as an attack and I just cannot let it go completely unanswered. The problem with America lately is largely one of incivility. The essence of conservatism is that only one answer is possible, and it must be mine. Anyone who dares to suggest that any conservative might possibly be mistaken in any regard is instantly attacked like this. Liberals are at a disadvantage because the heart of liberal thought is that there may be other answers, and that honest people can disagree.
So with all due respect, if conservative media is impossible, who are Sean Hannity, Bill O'reilly, Ann Coulter, Arrianna Huffington and every single host of every talk radio program?
I suspect that any comment on conservative courts is probably directed at courts that allow the 10 commandments to be displayed but not a copy of the Talmud, or that allow creationism to be taught as science.
Any working scientist will tell you that Darwin's Theory is a theory in exactly the same way that Newton's theory of gravity is. Any biologist will tell you that evolution absolutely does not require transitional forms. The only place I have ever read anything about a requirement for transitional forms was in diatribes written by Jerry Falwell and his ilk. It is certainly not in
Origin of Species or
Descent of Man. BTW, Zane, shame on you, too. Your comment was no less incendiary.
My point is that Americans are slowly sliding into the dark ages, not because of right wing religious radicals or evil liberal evolutionists, but because of the decline of civil discourse. The Karl Roves and James Carvills (did I really just misspell both those names?
) of this world have convinced us that anyone who disagrees with us is evil and dangerous and must be silenced at all costs. The Democrats warn us that all Republicans are planning to establish a police state in which all education will be rote learning of Bible verses and the Republicans warn us that any victory of any Democrat will immediately result in the establishment of mandatory homosexuality and bible burnings, and sooner or later we decide that they are both right. The world is a scary place and only absolute certainty can save us, so no one can be allowed to really discuss anything. Discussion requires accepting the most dangerous of all possible beliefs: there is some chance that we might not be right
Civil discourse mandates a kind of new golden rule. Well, no, I kinda like the current golden rule, so let's call this one a silver rule. Here it is, the silver rule: Never attribute to malice what ignorance will explain.
I have no fear of discussing any topic with anyone, if we can agree to limit ourselves to really trying to understand each other's point of view, and if we will both accept that dangerous possibility that we might be wrong. I love discussion, but I cannot abide arguement. Discussion is an attempt to find truth, arguement is an attempt to prove your opponent wrong and yourself right.
The fact that a majority of Americans don't know the difference between science and religion doesn't frighten me nearly so much as the fact that we cannot sit down and discuss such things rationally and politely.
