Michigan backs evolution, not intelligent design, in science classes

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN/AP: Michigan backs teaching evolution in science class
October 10, 2006

LANSING, Michigan (AP) -- The State Board of Education on Tuesday approved public school curriculum guidelines that support the teaching of evolution in science classes -- but not intelligent design.

Intelligent design instruction could be left for other classes in Michigan schools, but it doesn't belong in science class, according to the unanimously adopted guidelines.

"The intent of the board needs to be very clear," said board member John Austin, an Ann Arbor Democrat. "Evolution is not under stress. It is not untested science."...

***

The guidelines approved Tuesday detail what the state expects school districts to teach in their science classes. If a district or teacher chose to include intelligent design in a science class, they could face a court challenge from opponents of teaching intelligent design....

***

Gregory Forbes, a community college biology instructor, said it appears the "doors have been shut" on those in Michigan who support the teaching of intelligent design as a viable scientific alternative to evolution....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/10/michigan.science.ap/index.html

[Trajan]

1. Yay .....

:woohoo:

[nam78_two]

3. LOL

I had forgotten about that "Hannity sucks ass" thing :rofl: :rofl:
Thanks for reminding me LOL

[nam78_two]

2. Yay for MI

Michigander here :woohoo:
(isn't it sad that this is up for debate even :eyes:)

[DeepModem Mom]

4. It's sad -- a sign of going backward instead of forward. nt

[gatlingforme]

33. This debate has been going on since day one. it will never change

[NMMNG]

5. Signs of intelligent life are still out there.

I think I might faint.

[greenman3610]

6. Devos (candidate for Guv) let it slip he's for ID

quickly backtracked because he knew his right wing BS
wasn't going to fly here.

[KittyWampus]

7. Um, Intelligent Design is a THEORY of evolution its not an alternative

to it and the fact that Gregory Forbes, a community college biology instructor, doesn't know that doesn't say much about him.

The article's title makes the same mistake, so it doesn't say much about the journalist covering this.

[Sin]

8. Actually it isn't even a theory.

Its a hypothesis because any thing of religious nature would never make it passed that step in the scientific process. they can keep trying but any one with something that resembles a brain will keep laughing.Because there so wrong the FSM Created every thing thats what should be taught. :)

[dalaigh lllama]

14. Ramen!

I am constantly amazed that none of these ID folks remember the basic definitions of "theory" and "hypothesis" from their early science classes.

[Stuckinthebush]

11. A theory of evolution?

Intelligent design belief states in a nutshell that life is so damn complicated that an intelligent creator of sorts must have done something to begin everything. It's a theoretical cop out.

It's not a theory of evolution, its a statement of belief about the nature of the universe. Also, it is non-verifiable.

Any trained scientist worth her degree would agree with Michigan's State Board that it does not belong in the science class. Perhaps it belongs in literature class under the heading "Modern Mythology".

[mopinko]

15. a theory is not a guess, or a possible explanation

it is something that has been experimentally proven to be true in all possible relevant permutations. it is not a fairy story. you are completely misusing the word theory.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. It does not qualify as a scientific theory.

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena." http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

[Zhade]

19. It's not a theory, it's a half-assed WRONG guess.

The earth isn't thousands of years old. PERIOD. This has been proven.

ID = Infinite Dumbassery, and I question the intelligence and ability to grasp reality of anyone who defends this "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" nonsense.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Sure is.

The same way demon possession is a theory of disease.

[Zhade]

22. LOL!

Hilarious that someone who doesn't even know what a scientific theory is would try to assert that ID is anything but bullshit believed by morons.

[Bretttido]

23. WHAT?!?!

The IDEA of Intelligent Design is completely opposite to the THEORY of evolution. The entire purpose of Intelligent Design is to say, NO, things did not evolve, GOD just changed his mind slowly over time when he created creatures. So ID is in fact a complete alternative to evolution... based not on science, but on a clinging grip to creationism.

[Zhade]

25. You're talking to a true believer.

Despite having been shown repeatedly that s/he is wrong, s/he will not back down from the laughable idea that ID has scientific validity.

Hey, what can I say - not all fanatically wrong believers are Republicans!

[depakid]

29. It's NOT a theory

because there's no way to test or prove it one way or another.

It's not falsifiable.

It's simply a belief- one that's generally based on irrational hostility towards evolution- which IS testible and its basic elements have been confirmed innumerable times.

[noonwitch]

9. They can argue about it in debate class, though, I'm pretty sure

Which is a good place to do it. Or, they can learn about intelligent design in Sunday school.

[B3Nut]

10. Or Philosophy class...

that environment is usually conducive to those types of discussions. It boils down to the questions of "who" and "why", and IMHO those questions are outside the scope of science which seems to mostly deal with when, where, what, and how. The who and why can be neither tested nor falsified, so really aren't even relevant to the curriculum.

Todd in Beerbratistan

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Or Mythology class....

[HughBeaumont]

12. Brains over Buy-bull!

Keep your damned cross out of my kid's classroom, you creepy little bastards.

[brg5001]

16. Intelligent design is the latest iteration of biblical blather

...because it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with promoting a mythology. What I want to know is, why can't the mystery of existence be acribed to a befuddled group of idiots? It could described as so complex that only a COMMITTEE could have designed it! That's my belief, and I want my pet mythology taught alongside intelligent design, once it finally is assigned to its correct classification under "Philosopy and Religion".

What bothers me is that these fundies won't ADMIT that it's religion. They just keep trying, and they just keep lying. That doesn't seem very ethical, moral or religious to me. The Committee is coming to get them soon, and boy are they pissed!

I'm sure that once "Intelligent Design" is struck down as another form of nonsensical "creation science", they'll wrap it up in a different moniker. How about, the Physics of Big Daddy?

Anyway, why don't those advocating Creationism or any of its variants publicly swear off treatments or discoveries that have come from evolutionary biology? That would mean seeing only faith healers. Just curious.

[silvermachine]

17. Not so long ago...

...this would not have even been news. It would just be a given. Indeed, the times they are a-changin'. For the worse.

[RebelOne]

21. Here's the Rapture Ready crowd's take on this.

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=279092

[noonwitch]

24. Some of the posters there are capable of incredible denial of facts

I appreciated the few who said let evolution be taught in science class and creationism taught elsewhere.

I have a coworker who says she doesn't "believe in" evolution, and asked if I did. I told her that I felt evolution was a scientific truth and Genesis an allegorical truth. The stories of Adam and Eve and the "Fall of Man" are symbolism for where mankind jumped from being another animal to being a spiritual and itellectual being. We bit from the "Tree Of Knowledge", a symbol in many cultures, and we paid the price by becoming aware of our mortality.

I told her that (her daughter attends a private christian school) as long as her daughter's high school taught them the theory of evolution, even from a critical perspective, then she will at least know what she needs for the SATs and college admission's tests, as she wants her kid to go to FSU someday, which is a public school.

[Zhade]

26. Yeah, like our resident "ID is science" idiots.

How one can be that WRONG and still be smart enough to endorse solid liberal concepts bewilders me.

[northzax]

27. I don't 'believe' in evolution

and more than I believe in gravity. it's not a matter of faith.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. self-delusional, with a ready made answer to us.

their faith wins out over all rational thought, fact, discoveries, etc.

[fujiyama]

30. Impressed with my state

We're certainly not Kansas!

We're barely blue, but we have good senators (though some of Stabenaw's recent votes are pretty bad) and a decent governor picking up in the polls again.

DeVos, I recal hearing said we should teach ID as well in public schools.

[outofbounds]

31. If humans evolved from apes,

then why are there so many different types of living organisms. In other words why didn't every other living organism evolve into humans. Bang the amoeba, millions of years, a diverse array of life. I only pose this question to read the theories of either side because neither evolution or intelligent design is provable. Hence the greatly contested often heated discussions.












Disclaimer: The above post is not meant to hurt, irritate or offend anyone or anything on this planet or any other, and is just a tool to elicit ideas from people far smarter than himself for education and entertainment purposes only.

:popcorn:

[Zhade]

32. Evolutionary scientists don't assert that we evolved from apes.

Just that we have a common ancestor.

As far as evolution not being proven, you're flat-out WRONG - it's been observed in laboratories.

[outofbounds]

35. but how can that be

if it indeed takes hundreds or thousands of years for the changes to occur. If the process is sped up then the outcome would have to be altered as well. Right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Why speed up the process.

Bacteria can reproduce, and be selected against, exceptionally fast.

[outofbounds]

46. The theory of evolution

suggest that over time a specie will change to better survive in its environment. The flightless bird, the flightless cormorant, its wings are small compared to its size. They have very few feathers on them and its obvious that they cant fly. It is believed that at one time it could fly, its very close cousin can still fly. It is losing its wings because it doesn't need them to survive anymore. Everything it needs to exist is on that island. But the process takes time. Generations. The evolution takes more than one lifetime. Bacteria may be able to adapt while its alive because it has fewer cells to manipulate. But mammals are very complex organisms so time to record this process would be extensive.
Here is a link about the flightless cormorant
http://www.galapagoscruise.com.ec/index.pl/galapagos-flightless-cormorant

[Solon]

51. We are talking Generations here, not size alone...

Let's see if I can break it down, Bacteria and other Micro-organisms, and many small animals, fruit flies for instance, reproduce REALLY fast, so for them, evolution is sped up, by default. For example, the Generational difference between modern humans and are most recent ancestor, Homo Erectus, is about 100,000 generations, Bacteria, especially in a very good environment, may go through that many generations in less than a month.

The time difference is enormous, that is true, but that is why we have the fossil record, which is the best way to look at past species and how they relate to modern ones. Also, another note, from your previous post. Evolution doesn't have a goal, Homo Sapiens isn't the PERFECT species on the planet, all we are are primates that are just smart enough to manipulate our environment to aid in our own survival.

This doesn't preclude other species from existing, not at all, in fact, at one time, there were 3(perhaps 4) human species that co-existed at the time, only about 100,000 years ago. Homo Erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo Sapiens. In fact, Homo Erectus spread out across the world, well before Modern Humans entered the scene. In Europe, they evolved into Neanderthals, in Africa, Homo Sapiens, and in Asia, they didn't need to evolve to survive. Homo floresiensis(Hobbits) is a recent discovery, and it is contested as to whether they are a new species of human or Homo Sapiens that suffered from some type of growth disorder.

As far as the best scientific evidence indicates, Homo neanderthalensis was beaten by Homo Sapiens Sapiens(our particular subspecies), most likely due to two important factors, one is that Homo Sapiens Sapiens were much further spread out, and more populous, and second, the climate was changing at the time. Being a species of that evolved in a colder climate, they couldn't adapt as well to the changing environment, nor the new pressures from Homo Sapiens Sapiens encroachment on their territory.

Oddly enough, as far as we know, Neanderthals were as intelligent as Homo Sapiens, given that their brains were a full 10% larger than ours, and other evidence about tools and culture, as far as brain power, we were at least equals. Physically, things were quite different, Neanderthals were shorter than Homo Sapiens, carried a far larger muscle mass, and were extremely tough, best to conserve body heat and to survive in the harsh climates of the winter forests and tundra of Europe at the time.

In a head to head fight, a Neanderthal could crush a Homo Sapiens Sapiens skull with one punch, however, due to the changing climate in Europe at the time, the forests were retreating, and it became increasingly harder for sprinters like Neanderthals to catch game. Given that Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved in the Savannah enviroment of Africa, they were much better adapted to these changing conditions. They were taller, leaner, and faster than Neanderthals.

This just gives one example of how evolution works, and it did occur relatively rapidly, within the past 2 million years or so. The thing you must realize about Evolution, is that the term "Survival of the fittest" isn't complete, its more like "Survival for those who fit best in their niches". This niche could be anything, from dung beetles that help clean up after Elephant(or, in the past Dinosaur) droppings, or those a flightless bird that has no natural predators on an island.

Random events also greatly influence evolution, in fact, Human beings, and all major mammals, owe their existence to an asteroid, an asteroid that caused the mass extinction of the Dinosaurs and many other species. This freed up a large amount of niches that were filled in by Mammals over time.

In fact, if that asteroid missed, who knows, most likely the first species to actually have developed civilization would have been a Troodon-derived species. Look up that species of Dinosaur, very interesting, they were omnivores, like us, had a brain to body ratio similar to chimps, like our ancestors did, were bi-pedal, like our ancestors, and they had opposable thumbs on their hands. If it wasn't for a space rock(or hunk of ice, whatever), who knows what would have happened.

Evolution isn't neat, it isn't tidy, in fact, its quite the opposite, and we see that time and again in observing the survival and extinction of other species. Even then, it still limps along, and given the variety of species on the planet, seems to be doing OK. Homo Sapiens Sapiens itself may be edged out as a species, either by a subspecies that adapts better to changing environments, or a species that evolves from an entirely different branch on the tree of life. It doesn't really matter, no single species lasts forever, why would we be any different?

[lakercub]

53. Bravo

wonderful summation of evolution. :toast:

[Solon]

58. I try...

Though I may have been off on the generational gap, I was estimating, like 1 generation equals about 30 years or so, it may have been 10,000 generations instead of 100,000 that separate us from Homo Erectus, it was late at night when I posted that, and just realized, on a re-reading, that 30 times 100,000 is 3 million, my bad, that would indicate our separation to our closest living relatives, the Great Apes and Chimpanzees, rather than our evolution from Homo Erectus, which occured a little more than 250,000 years years ago.

[lakercub]

60. Yes, but

your summary of how evolution works was great.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Right.

But bacteria evolve just like birds and mammals. Since they have many generations over a short time period, it's easier to monitor their evolution in the laboratory.

[NickB79]

43. One basic but rapid method is polyploidism

Basically, you use chemical or energetic means (such as ultraviolet radiation) to create a doubling of the chromosomes in the cells of certain plants, insects and even a few species of fish. The resulting offspring are now polyploid and are incapable of breeding with others of the species they were bred from due to chromosomal incompatibility.

To demonstrate, lets say each chromosome is designated by C. A species with a pair of chromosomes, such as humans, is 2C and is known as a duploid. A polyploid derived from that species is 4C, since it has double the chromosome pairs of the original species. An egg or sperm from the duploid would have one chromosome, C, after meiosis (this is where a cell divides in half and halves it's genetic information). Normally, it would pair with another egg or sperm also carrying one chromosome and recreate the 2C of it's duploid parents.

When a polyploid 4C splits its cells in meiosis to create eggs or sperm, the result is eggs and sperm with 2C. If an egg from a duploid (C) combined with a sperm from a polyploid (2C) the resulting offspring would be 3C. As a general rule of thumb, odd-numbered chromosome pairings generally result in sterile offspring. This isn't always true, but is the most likely result observed in nature. Thus, we have created entirely new species in labs for decades through simple polyploidism. Many species of flowers, for example, are bred as polyploids because they produce larger, more colorful flowers. There are even some species of polyploid goldfish, bred to be more beautiful and fanciful.

What is especially interesting is that, the further you get to the North Pole, the more often you see polyploid plants and animals in nature. The UV radiation used in labs to create polyploids is also found at higher concentrations at higher latitudes. What we see in nature is very similar to what we can create in controlled lab environments. Polyploidism also has selective advantages to species living in areas of higher UV radiation, as it gives extra copies of the same genes to act as backups in case of radiation damage.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

40. and every medical center in the world.

Prey tell, just how do certain diseases E V O L V E and become drug tolerant? TB, HIV, influenzas,
most (if not all) bacterial infections, and many many more.


You are right on point, Zhade.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Do you have any cousins?

If you and your cousins evolved from the same ancestor (grandma and grandpa) how come you and they still exist?

[outofbounds]

36. that isn't evolution

that is childbirth of two siblings. Now if cuz was born with a physical attribute that helped him to adapt to life better that would be closer to evolving.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. Well, yeah...

So a few million years ago our common ancestor had two or more children. One of whom's line went on to humans, the other onto chimps.

[lakercub]

54. Try to avoid

thinking about the evolution of a particular person or individual animal. Evolution is a population thing. It is a change in the allele frequency of a group. This change can occur because of mutation, change in environment, separation of a species for a long period of time, etc. But the population needs to evolve, not one individual, for speciation to occur.

[slackmaster]

38. There is no requirement to evolve or change

In other words why didn't every other living organism evolve into humans.

Because they are able to survive and reproduce perfectly well in their environments. A modern human would not do well in prime chimpanzee habitat, or the deep ocean. There are a lot of different kinds of plants and animals because there are a lot of niches for them to fill.

Your question stems from a common misconception about evolutionary biology that gets used by creationists as an "attack" on evolution.

[outofbounds]

39. I understand that all animals

insects reptiles wouldn't become human. I would however expect they evolve more symmetrically. One fish species weighs approx 80lbs while others grow to 6 oz. All of which are in the same body of water.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Same body of water...

many different niches.

[NickB79]

44. A 1000-lb tuna can't dart through a coral reef

And a brightly colored moray eel swimming in the open ocean would be an easy meal for sharks.

The oceans are not a sterile fishbowl anymore than your home is an empty cube.

[sutz12]

50. You are mischaracterizing evolution...

You make the assumption that evolution is always upwards, which is categorically not true. Most evolution is sideways in nature, not upwards. Bacteria and viruses tend to evolve into different bacteria and viruses. The emergence of new, superior species are rare events.

Many of the species on Madagascar are considered primitive in development. Evolutionary theory says this is because the island has been isolated for so long without major predators, and there was no need for "upward" evolution.

Humans evolved into creatures that learned and devoloped the talent to think their way through problems instead of just brute force overpowering them.

The real reason I favor evolution over ID or creationism is a bit simpler, though. IMO, most of the world's problems with the environment are because of the religious assumption that humans are somehow "above" or "outside" nature. I know the biblical account alludes to that, but rational people are finally coming to the realization that as we kill the Earth, we are killing ourselves.

[slackmaster]

57. Those 80-pound fish eat the 6-ounce fish

Which in turn eat smaller fish, shrimp, etc.

It all makes sense to me.

[athena]

45. It's called "speciation"

Speciation can happen when a few members of a species get separated from the rest and are thereby subjected to different survival conditions. For example, if a large lake separates into two small lakes as a result of a change in the climate, the members in the two lakes can evolve differently. You can read more here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VCCausesSpeciation.shtml

You seem to lack even a basic understanding of evolution. I suggest you read up on evolution before you presume to challenge it. This is not a site for teaching people about evolution. You can look at sites like the one quoted above, or read a book about evolution written by a scientist.

[outofbounds]

47. it is still a theory. nt

[athena]

48. Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is not.

A scientific theory can be tested experimentally. ID, by definition, cannot.

Your response to my post shows that your intention is not to learn, as you claimed, but to attack the theory of evolution. Once again, I point out that you can't challenge a scientific theory if you don't know the first thing about it.

[Sin]

49. Yes it is.

In Science Evolution is a theory. Theory's have a lot of weight behind them to be theory's testing and retesting of them from multiple sources has to happen first and if they all reach the same conclusion generally there regarded as facts after that. there not laws set in stone there still open ended to change if we discover something new in regards to evolution we go back to hypothesis and do it all over again.

ID Starts off with Fact and ends with it. it's faith just dressed up with a pretty bow on it and we all know how the faith Process works
1. Its fact always true never changing
2. If you don't believe this look at step 1 for all your answers
3. If you still don't believe this we have some interesting devices you can uses such as thumb screws red hot pokers and or the iron maiden to change your mind.
4. If you survived step 3 then you have come to accept step 1 plz don't look into how life the universe or anything was created because you all ready know.( if for some reason down the line you still have questions please repeat step 3 as necessary because we don't want you finding out there is no wizard behind the curtain.)

[WindRavenX]

52. gravity is just a theory

You seriously need a science course. Jesus.

[lakercub]

55. Yes, which is its crowning achievement

Theory is the absolute pinnacle of science. When a hypothesis has been rigorously tested and shown to work for most existing scenarios, it graduates to the level of theory. There is nowhere to go from here. Theory is the top of the scientific heap.

A theory can still undergo changes, but these would most likely be tweaks, not wholesale changes. Evolution is the single most supported theory in all of science. It has more tests, evidence, and observation backing it than any other theory. Gravity, for instance, we know very little about. There are many ideas about what causes gravity, but no one really knows. We have laws for gravity and we can characterize it, but what actually makes it work? Evolution is understood to a far greater degree.

Therefore when you say evolution is still a theory or just a theory, you actually point out that evolution is the pinnacle of scientific achievement.

ID is nothing of the sort. There is no evidence, observation, research...in short, there is nothing. Behe and Dembski have written some books, and have even proposed some experiments. Of course they haven't actually done the experiments...which is incredible scientific laziness on their part. ID is completely ass-backward. They write about it, want to teach it, and preach it, but they have never done any work. Evolution had been researched, tested, and developed before it became a theory and a part of science curriculum.

[outofbounds]

61. There is one step past a theory

that would be a proven fact. The fact the some people believe one way or another shows that the theory has not been proven. In the grand scheme of things evolution is far more believable than ID. It is because we can see how evolution works. Like the flightless cormorant, it even works in what would appear to be reverse. The bird has no need to fly therefore it has no need for wings and over several generations will lose them, or they may just evolve into arms. I think its amazing how a one celled organism over millions of years evolved into everything we see around us. Maybe one day they will find the "missing link" and put the whole debate to rest. I know they are still looking for it. But until something is proven no matter how much math or science supports it, it is still a theory. Not a fact. No matter how much we wish it to be.
Thank you to everyone who gave perspective from a scientific point of view, they were insightful, forward thinking and helpful.
I didn't say I didn't believe in evolution, I just said it wasn't provable, yet.

[lakercub]

62. Actually, you are incorrect.

Theory is the top because there is no such thing as absolute proof in science. Proof is a mathematical and philosophical construct. Nothing is ever proven in science. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is one thing, but absolute proof does not exist in the physical world. Science ia about evidence. Scientists try to find as much evidence as possible to show that their hypotheses and theories are correct. But there will never be enough evidence to prove any scientific theory, ever. Proof, like theory, is a word used far too often, including by scientists.

Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html for a better explanation than I am making.

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

[outofbounds]

63. Theory

N. Supposition put forward to explain something; speculation; exposition of general principles as distinct from practice and execution; (colloq.) general idea; notion.

Theoretics n pl. Speculative side of science.

New Websters Dictionary

Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read.

[lakercub]

65. I like that site

It rockets over my head sometimes (I'm an EE, not a biologist) but there is plenty there for the layman.

[outofbounds]

68. I'm no scientist, obviously.

I just don't believe everything that is put to me. I am just a piece of dust floating in a world of amazing things I'll never understand. Ignorance is bliss, to bad it will kill you. :toast:

[piedmont]

66. theory

Funny, most dictionaries' definitions of "theory" look a lot like this one by American Heritage Dictionary:

---------------
1.A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2.The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3.A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
---------------


When scientists talk about evolutionary theory, cell theory, etc., the usage corresponds to defintion #1 above.

[outofbounds]

67. Welcome to DU !!

:toast:

[reprobate]

59. ID is really true. Incompetent Design. A first year engineering student

would be dropped from school for turning in designs that these thumpers assign to an all powerful, omniscient being. Bah, Humbug.

[goforit]

64. hats off to MI!!!