JUGGERNAUT

I read Kotek boy's column on this & noticed what he left out. 1-Since the Bulls reached the playoffs behind MJ they have been on the most profitable franchises in the NBA. That includes the losing years. 2-Phil Jackson did not just want to coach the Bulls. He wanted to build the team as well. That's the GM's job. It had nothing to do with the $ he was asking. JR would have met that price if Phil would have accepted just being the coach. 3-The White Sox are not one of the most profitable franchises in MLB. They are not even in the top 15. Mentioning them in reference to the Bulls is apples & oranges. How the White Sox operate has nothing to do with Skiles or the Bulls. If JR had the chance to sign a healthy A-Rod or Bonds to 1 yr $30M deal he could not do it. The White Sox could never afford that despite what Kotex boy chooses to believe.

You are flat out wrong when you say that genetics is bottom-up which makes me question the courses you have taken. As I have stated earlier I am entrenched in computer science & in the particular field I am working now we are equally entrenched in studying biological processes as we attempt to mimic them for applications in the computer world. I have written code specific to the application of genetic code deciphering so I have a fairly good understanding of the mathematics behind it. That work is predicated on using the most basic codes found in all life (including single celled organisms & branching down from there). All tree structures are top-down in design & that is the predominant data structure for this work. Any process has an inheriant function of probability to it. That's the basis of state machines, petri-nets, & various other intelligent networks we use in computer science to build process oriented systems. That is not the problem with natural selection. Since you seem confused I will try & explain it again. Because of genetics we now have the ability to use mathematics to not only trace the past generations of the evolution of a sequence but also to predict the future evolution of that sequence. Now that science is far from perfect at this stage but with each generational level increase in hardware capabilities the computer industry affords us the work is progressing rapidly. That produces not only data on the probability of change during that evolution but also the time it takes for that change. That which we know for certain matches up. All of which biologists theorize does not. There are 3 prevailing areas of genetic science that conflict with natural selection. 1- dormant genes : Natural selection tells us that life in an effort to surive will change over several generations. But what if genetics tells us that those very characteristics were present in such life generations before that change occured? Genetic science has proven that dormant genes are a reality & they do not just reflect characteristics that are outdated for the species. 2- rapid change : There is evidence surfacing even today that some change is occuring at a rapid rate. Not over generations but decades. Check out sciencedaily.com if you are interested in the details of these cases. I recently read one relating to fish that was observed in the 60's & then later observed in the 90's & had evolved in less than a 25 yr period. The thing about this case is that there was no severe climate change or predatorial change that would suggest the fish needed to evolve in that way. 3 - mismatch time data : It's not happening all the time but every now & then data surfaces from geneticists that contradicts the theories of biologists as too how much time it took for a species to evolve in a certain way. Again you can visit sciencedaily.com if you are interested in the specifics. But the thread clearly shows a difference of opinion in how science is taught & I have to strongly disagree with some of you in that regards. Today's science-fiction is tomorrow's science. This has been proven time & again in the last 200 yrs. It's a belief that was shared from the most famous science fiction novelists of all time that probably have a better knowledgebase for general science then most of us. It's also a belief that was shared by Einstein himself. If you are interested in reading the correlation between the two I can point you to some very good links. My point is this. Mathematics is the only real truth in science. If the math behind a theory is sound then no one can dispute it. You can still question it especially when observation may not neccessarily match the math but you can't disregard it or discredit it. Teaching by example (or analysis) is a good thing. In the world of tomorrow genetics will play a much greater role in our lives than biologists studying natural selection. Not only will we have the ability to clone endangered species but also control our environment to some extent. What is fiction about this is the applications that exist today. The basis is rooted in facts or the building blocks of what we have today. If you think nano-machines will only be used to prolong the life of our human bodies you haven't read enough. Before this century is over on some scale they will be at work in the air we breathe, the water we drink, & the food we eat. My theory of teaching is you let students figure things out for themselves. Your job is to give them a good solid general knowledgebase to do so. That means leaving few stones unturned. Whether a student chooses to belief that life is the result of God's intellligence at work or simply chaos & natural selection is up to them. They might even come to the conclusion it's a little bit of both. In teaching them science it matter's not. What matters most is teaching them the details. That applies to any theory. For every prevailing theory a science teacher should teach at least one other predominant theory that highlights the weaknesses of the prevailing one. In the case of natural selection ID would be that theory. Like any argument a theory's strength & weaknesses lie in it's premises. I will always choose facts rooted in mathematics over suppositions offered by humans. Humans are biased. Even in the fields of science. It can't be helped. It's a foundation for our ego's to cling to that which we believe to be right & discredit anything else. You have to develop discipline to combat against this. In doing so you will lose some of your humanity. I've been accused as such. Some family friends think that I am so diverse & so open to so many things that there is no real definition to myself beyond that. There is little room for bias in my life. I choose to believe in God because of the logical & mathematical relationships that support that belief. It's got nothing to do with my family, friends, or anything I learned at bible school when I was younger. If I had been born in an atheist family I would more than likely still chosen this belief. I do not blindly choose it. I have read books authored by atheists to convince me otherwise. But I've yet to find one who can present a more convincing argument rooted in logic & math that is better than my own. This debate is not unlike the unified theory one that wages in world of physics today. Hawking still believes it exist. Many scientists have put forth their own UT's. But not one has endured the most highest scrutiny of the mathematics supporting these theories. A weakness always pops up when analyzing the correlations of the UT as it applies to waves, particles, & such. Does that mean there is no merit in teaching the most prevailing UT? Some of you obviously think there isn't but people like myself believe there most definitely is. I try to keep the youngling's in my life aware of such things to reinforce the rudimentary concepts behind them. There is great merit in teaching the most prevailing UT because students get a much greater understanding of the entire world of physics in doing so. I take the same attitude with natural selection. That which we learn in the study of genetics only reinforces our understanding of natural selection.

DLL's can be tricky. Abnormal shutdowns or closures can corrupt their states of execution. They not only can make use of shared & private memory which sometimes is restored upon a failure like that but also the Windows registry for state data. The best thing to do is to re-install the application that reports the error. In this case Iexplore. The act of doing so basically cleans out all the traces of bad data for the DLL & then re-initializes that data. It usually takes care of the problem.

About Kerry avoiding Fox News during the campaign that issue alone was covered by the media. It was even debated on Scarborough Country once or twice. I would check the blogs of those sites if you are interested. There might be something there. I agree that his ego rather than his personal vendetta led to Rather's downfall. He didn't fabricate the story to be true. Someone else did that. But Rather wanted it it be true & ignored obvious signs before airing the story that strongly suggested it might not have been. That's more ego then vendetta. Last night I saw something that made me cringe. Not FOX News but rather a WFLD News promo: "SIANARA SKILES?" Unless they know something I don't that is no where close to the spelling of sayonara. I'm not big on firing people for mistakes but the editor & the writer for that promo should be disciplined. They should be made to do homework. A 1000 word composition on why it's important to check the spelling of every word that crosses their desk. Even foreign words. If they refuse then fire them. When you see something like that you wonder just who these editors are & what qualifies them to have their jobs. Yes it's a little mistake but how many bigger ones are made & aired before the public. I understand that in the business of reporting news you need to make it entertaining but that doesn't mean you should look like an illiterate in the process. Appauling.

We have ant hills outside everywhere in our hood. But we see only a few a year in the house because of ant traps. These things really work. You place them near vents & large water pipes where humidity can lead to water droplets forming on the pipes. When it gets really hot & humid insects are drawn to damp or moisture areas.

Carl, Carl, Carl. The rosters expand in Sept. Having less off days in Sept but more in June is not a bad thing. Case in point: are we on target to get 25 starts out of El Duque? Yes. How often did the $NYY's do that? As for previous years a lot of that has to do with the fact that weather in Chicago meant the CSox start on the road. This year they bucked that trend. JR & company were willing to start at home. With the record what it is I suspect they will petition the league to start at home next year as well. As for the Cubs vs Milw for IL play yes it's slanted heavily in Min favor in past years. But so far 2005 is a different story. It's given no advantage to either team this year. But there is greater likelihood for Milw to win a series at home vs the Twins then for the Cubs to win one at the Cell. The heavy Aug is not slanted against the CSox. It's just a money decision by the league. Think about. To kick off the season you want to generate excitement with division rivals so you make sure they play in Apr. You spread IL play over May & June to keep interest high. Division rivals don't mean much. You have the all-star game in Jul to keep interest high. Aug is all about matching up contenders as the wild card & divisional races take it up another gear. Sept is all about division rivals. The only real gripe I have about the schedule is in April. I can't stand opening a series with an off-day following the first game. It's not slanted towards the Twins & Yankees out of favoritism to them. It's based on minimizing rain outs for the start of the season. At least that's what I've heard & read. If for some reason the CSox opener were rained out they would play it the next day (the 1st off-day). But that just shows ignorance to the technical marvel that is the Cell. It's considered one of the best drainage parks in the majors. The first two weeks in April did favor the Twins as a result. They were able to get better pitching matchups with a classic off-day after their first series. The same applies to the Yankees. I think in general the stupid idea of minimizing rain outs for home openers as outlived it's usefullness. If they have any common sense they'll do away with it after this year. I'm not the only one to gripe about it.

He's a different pitcher than last year. He struggled a little in May but Hunter noticed he was tipping his pitches. Since then he's produced 3 dominating starts( 22IP/7R). The biggest difference is that he leads his team in IP. His 83.1IP in 12GS is comparable to Garcia's 82IP in as many starts for the CSox. To highlight just how magical this season is for the CSox look at how his #'s compare to Freddy Garcia this year: Garcia Away 2.28ERA 0.82WHIP .188BAA Garcia Grass 3.33ERA 1.07WHIP .229BAA Santa Away 3.07ERA 0.98WHIP .223BAA Santa Grass 3.96ERA 1.12WHIP .250BAA No one can claim Ozzie didn't manage to win last night. Iguchi was ailing so Harris got the start at 2B. The only sub was Thomas for a Contreras AB in the late innings. With his stellar night Cotts rose to #5 on the NPERA rankings for top level relief pitchers. I remember the debates we had in the off-season. Adkins vs Cotts. I felt Cotts was capable of having a good year based on some really fine stretches of scoreless IP he had last year. I'm glad he's even exceeded my expectations. Will Ozzie go for the sweep or go for getting his subs work tonight? In this series Pods (.300 OBP), Crede (.333 OBP). Expect Everett & Ozuna tonight. AJ (.450 OBP), Dye (.667 OBP), Koney (.667 OBP, 4R, 2RBI). I suspect will see Widger for AJ, but Ozzie is insane if he benches Dye or Koney tonight.

SF is about 1200, Pheonix 911, Arlington, 885, KC 614. Home attendance SF is #5, AZ #18, TX #13, & KC #29. You can pretty much leave off the Rangers & the Royals because people living in those areas are much closer to the Cards & the Astros. I'm surprised to see the contending D-Backs ranked only 18th in attendance this year.

Location, location, location. The closest MLB teams are over a 1000 miles away. The Rockies pull fans from Salt Lake City, Cheyenne, Topeka, Lincoln, & Las Vegas as well many smaller cities in that Tri-State area. It's still a novelty to go to a Rockie game out there. If Vegas ever gets a team expect their attendance to drop considerably. It would have the same effect on the Rockies as the Nationals are having on the Orioles. I'll never forget that one columnist that put down our uniforms. What an idiot! It's a well known fact that most young people think the Sox logo & colors are the coolest amongst all major league teams. Overall the road attendance (26K/gm) has not been much better than the home attendance (23K/gm). But I think a strong June will bring those still expecting the Sox to hit a wall onto the band wagon. I'd be surprised if the best team in MLB doesn't approach 30K/gm on the road before the season ends.

Something dawned on me this past weekend in reading Ozzie's comments & looking over his mass-substitutions. All he cares about is winning series. I can't really blame him. The Sox are 4 gm's up on the Twins. +5W, -3L. That scares some Sox fans. Ozzie could care less. Once his team has won a series all he cares about is getting guys playing time. That's the luxury winning teams can afford themselves. If the Sox win tonight don't be surprised if he does it again. Over the course of a full season it's probably the smart thing to do. Give everyone as much playing time as you possibly can to sharpen their skills so they are ready to play in the event of an injury to a starter. It could be the difference between winning & losing when that killer Aug comes along. Even though we want the sweeps & we get angry when we let them get away in the big picture they don't mean a heck of lot. Which would you rather have? An 8 gm lead on the Twins now with little playing time for your bench or a 4 gm lead where even your backup C Widger has seen action in about a 3rd of the games? It's been said I think in another thread but there is comfort in knowing that even despite Ozzie's mass-substitution days the difference between winning & losing on most of those days has been bonehead mistakes. The Sox didn't get beat as much as they beat themselves.

At the Cell, Contreras avg'd about 2IP/HR in 2004. In 2005 he's avg' about 3.5IP/HR. That's about twice as often as Garcia this year. He's likely to give up 2 HR tonight. But he's facing a guy avg'g 1.5IP/HR at Coors. He's likely to give up 2-3 HR's as well. I'm not worried.

I would like to know what these things were that pointed to his getting his arse kicked. 2004 Away 3.59ERA, 8W-4L, 11HR, 28BB, 79K, .237AA 2005 Away 2.28ERA, 5W-1L, 2HR, 8BB, 35K, .188AA In 2004, the Cell & Wrigley ranked #1 & #2 in HR. The same as in 2005. Coors ranks #4. Overall COL has gone form leading the majors with a 1.6HR/gm avg to dropping below the D-Backs with a 1.235HR/gm avg. His HR/IP parks are the Cell & the Metrodome. At the Cell he avg's close to 6IP/HR & at the Metrodome he avg's about 5IP/HR. COL does have thinner air & that does lead to ball's carrying farther but it's still a big park. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/stadium?team=col 347 3B, 390 LC, 415 C, 375RC, 350 1B. Compare that with the dimensions of the Cell. 330 3B, 377 LC, 400 C, 372RC, 335 1B. The Metrodome hurts RHBs, but helps LHBs. 343 3B, 385 LC, 408 C, 367RC, 327 1B. Garcia performed up to expectations. Surrendering the 1 HR.

I just wanted to add Garcia did indeed come to the rescue. 103 pitches over 8IP. With a 9-3 lead into the 9th Ozzie could go the least used Shingo. The rest of the bullpen all got a rest tonight. I was a big fan of the Garcia trade. Everything I saw in his numbers told me he was perfect for this team. He's proving that this year. The difference between winning & losing the division is the road record. I proved that in looking at the team from 1999-2004. The home records were very similar but in 2000 the road record was the difference. Garcia has always had solid road numbers. I know I write a lot but I also type very fast so abbreviations come to mind right away. It looks like I spend a lot of time formulating a post but I really don't. I spend more time looking up the stats to support it but even then I'm pretty fast in doing so. My mind is so deeply entrenched in computer science that it's no wonder my posts reflect that kind of discipline. As an example with this team RON (runners on) has become so entrenched in my posts that it comes as 2nd nature to me now. RON http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/battin...Type=2&type=reg RISP http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/battin...Type=2&type=reg I can't really explain why we are .713OPS team in RISP but a .771 team in RON. But I do think it means the best is yet to come. I neglect typo's as well as buffer overruns as well. Sorry about that.

All he's saying is that if the new stadium had been built in Addison (a proposed site at the time) they would have drawn significantly better attendance over the last 10 yrs. You can't really argue against that, but I would likewise argue that parking revenue would be significantly lower.

Maybe all of you evolutionists need to take a few courses in genetics, quantum physics, & computer science because they are ALL relative to ID. In general do you even understand what ID is? In computer science you learn of to approaches to a problem: bottom-up, top-down. Do you know what that means? Bottom-up means you start with your output & build upward the components to reach your input. Top-down means you start with your input & build downwards to your desire d output. Top-down tends to a more modular generic design & bottom-up tends to a more linear & specific design. Evolution is bottom-up. Darwin observed characteristics of life (output) in various species & then begin to formulate a theory as to how it could lead to a source (input). Intelligent Design is top-down. You start with the most simplistic genetic code found in life & then you create the modules for the variation found. Eventually you arrive at all species of life. It is equally valuable to teach both. Just as it is important to teach students that the evolution of life on Earth can be traced back to single celled organisms that first existed in our oceans it is no less important to teach them that genetically speaking there is very little variation between man & a fruit fly. Conflict between the two approaches exist when you try to define the process of natural selection in terms of mathematics. In theory every process can be defined in terms of a system of mathematics. However when doing this the process of natural selection does not fit well with probability theory rooted in genetics. The consensus then is that natural selection may not be the predominant factor governing creation. Are zealous evolutionists afraid of mathematics? Maybe. That's the only explanation for why they are so vehemently opposed to educating students with a top-down approach to creation. Does it do a dis-service to the students? Absolutely. The future of biology is bio-tech. Not the study of observing natural selection via historical evidence found on this planet. The top-down approach can explain to students how bio-tech manipulates that which our body consumes. They can learn how we used genetics to grow chickens that produce more meat on their bones. So much so that we've increased the pain they experience as their legs are not designed to support the added weight. That's not natural selection at work. Is there room for creationism? Yes but not in the way creationists think. The book of Genesis has profound relationships that match both that which we know about the impact of natural selection on the evolution of life in the Universe as well as that which we know through the the study of genetics. More importantly it teaches the concept of omniscience & what it means to exist outside of the time. Why is this important? Because students will learn the importance of energy states in quantum physics & how they can manipulate time itself. That's not religion that's science. And if that concept exists in the world of physics then it leads credence to the belief that omniscient creator can exist as well. So as I've said before there is room for creationism so long as it's taught in correlation with what we observe & theorize in science. Not in opposition of science but as a complement to science. Which means you look at the symbolism rather than take it literal. But we've been through this before in other threads. Some people have even define major sets of these correlations as they exist in Genesis. If you are close-minded to such things there's no hope in convincing you of their merits.

When you find evidence of a person having a rebuttal opinion not being given air time on the network let me know. As for Kerry's speech time please .. that is so lame. How often did Kerry receive invites to appear on FOX News during the campaign? How often did Kerry decline those invites? Now if you are in the business of reporting news (it is a business after all) & the Pres candidate declines to come on your network is it reasonable to expect that the network would be less inclined to cover that person in depth? Yes. Why? Because all the information (including personal information) of the candidate is 2nd hand. It's not coming from Kerry himself. I point to the ratings win FOX had on the DNC as evidence that whether they had less coverage then other networks the bulk of the people who watch cable news didn't care. Likewise no one seemed to complain at the time either.

Why am I not surprised that some of you would jump on hate crime legislation & overlook the most obvious flaw in this case: the legal process. Why are you surpised that the jury sided with the perbs? Does this not happen in courts across America? Why in IL alone a young college woman was raped, video-taped, spit on, written on & every sexually abusive thing you can think of & they got off. This even after the fact that most of them had fled the country when the case came to trial. Hate crimes legislation isn't going to change this. It's simply going to restrict our free speech & assembly rights greater. Curtail freedom as a knee jerk reaction to some event. We've had enough of that since 9/11. The legal system itself is at fault. Just as it was in the rape trial in IL. Guilt must be proven with facts. It can't be assumed even if a defense argument flies in the face of common sense. That's the problem. The defense will make an argument based on the law to reduce the association of guilt to the defendant. Common sense doesn't matter. Only the law. In the rape trial case they used the video against her to assert that she was a willing participant. The presence of drugs didn't matter because she had a some history of drug use at some time. Even Clinton did I guess. So even though common sense tells us that the odds of a woman being a willing participant in such acts are extremely small the facts could not reduce that probability to zero. Isn't reasonable doubt a wonderful thing? In this case there's nothing in the report that mentions the words of the man being forced or coerced. Thus there is reasonable doubt that his actions leading up to the punch in the face were consensual. Which leaves the punch in the face that knocked him out cold as the only real crime. Of course I can see how the other men could collaborate a story that it was in self defense or that he some how provoked the action. Which then leaves us with the resulting action of dumping him on the side of the road on top of fire ants. Well there is nothing in the law that compels one to give a ride to another. So if you buy the argument that the men was there under his own free will then he's pretty much responsible for getting home on his own & they could make the argument since they didn't know where he lived they just decided to dump him on the side of the road. Case closed. The man was stung by fire ants by chance due to the neglectful, unkind but otherwise lawful actions of the other men. Now again this flies in the face of common sense. What are the odds that a 42 yr old mentally retarded black men consented to such a trip, provoked a man to punch him in the face, & then was accidentally left on top of a fire ant hill when they dumped him? Extremely low but then again not ZERO. Reasonable doubt strikes again! So how do you reform this? With rules governing the conduct of judges when it comes to instructing the jury. Reasonable doubt is important but then so is common sense. If the odds overwhelming favor guilty in tems of common sense then the judge should instruct the jury with that understanding. Non-zero probablity should not mean reasonable doubt. That's not reasonable. Reasonable doubt should be something closer to 50/50. If I were the judge on this case I would instruct the jury as follows: If you believe that this 42 yr old man trully had the functioning capacity of a 12 yr old then you must consider all of the actions to be non-consensual. If that is your consensus belief then this man was a victim of kidnapping, & assault. From that point on whether you belief the resulting actions that left him in a coma were accidental or pre-medidated they were without a doubt a result of the kidnapping & assault & should be sentenced accordingly. Now of course in doing so I've just opened the door to an appeal on the basis for a mis-trial because I was leading the jury. That is where the law must change. Judges need to have greater authority & leeway to advise juries. It should not be a question of whether a judge led a jury. It should be a question of whether a judge grossly led a jury or led a jury in the face of common sense.

I love how the secularists on this site refer to mathematical equations in science as bull s***. Do you know how ignorant that is? It's the very foundation of scientific theory. Theories are debunked when the math doesn't work. ID within the scientific community (not the creationism one) is based on sound, proven mathematical equations. You never hear biologists who preach about natural selection as if it were a religion say anything about the math. All they do is associate ID with creationism & then attack creationism. For those who don't know the difference creationism is the believe that the Hebrew God created the Universe as described in the pages of Genesis. ID has nothing to do with that. Asia is much more open-minded to religion than secularists in America are because they have rich culture & tradition versed in many different beliefs & philosophies. What some are trying to do there is use science & mathematics to better explain those myths & legends. They are searching for truth in the midst of the fiction. It be nice if we could have an open society in America willing to do the same. But unfortunately we have hate-mongering close-minded anti-religious secularists that seem to think they are the sole source of truth. It reminds me of WW2 Nazi Germany & the quest to create a perfect race. Not just unified in the belief of what we should look like but also what we should think as well.

ID has nothing to do with creationism. It has nothing to do with Genesis nor any other book in the bible. If you belief it does then you don't know jack about ID. Now that is not to say it hasn't been hijacked by creationists for their political purposes. Not unlike natural selection has by secularists for their anti-religious purposes. ID is the culmination of mathematical equations as derived from physics, & mirco-biology (genetics) to better explain creation in the Universe. That's all it is. When I say it points to a central creator that doesn't mean God or some alien society. It simply means that the math supports a greater probability of a predominant central force behind creation rather than chaos & natural selection. It's pretty simple. ID is not zealous toward religious or anti-religious views either. It is only the hate-mongering secularists who despise religion that will shout that it is. ID is purely rooted in mathematics. If the evidence should some time tilt those mathematics to a greater probability that chaos & natural selection are the predominant forces behind creation then my guess would be that ID would be renamed CD for chaos-design. Though based on what we know now that's very unlikely. When we engage in these discussions I am so often reminded of my non-religious friends & colleagues in China & Japan who do not feel such hatred towards religion like some secularists here do. They inform me of research going on there that deals with memory's. The belief that it's not only physical characteristics that are past through human reproduction but also memory characteristics. They hope to prove this one day. It would help explain why people all over the world in different cultures & nations claim to have memories of past lives. It could also open the doors to areas of the brain that are seldom used & remain unknown as to what their function is. In Asia they are not as skeptic of psychics & psychic energies as we are.

You are confusing opportunity with action. They often extend invitations to those who are expected to give rebuttal opinions & those invitations are declined. You hear O'Reilly say this often. Extending the invitation is in keeping with being fair & as far as being balanced they do what they can with the people who are willing to speak on the network. If some of those invited are gutless what's a network to do? They had the highest ratings for both coverage of the DNC & RNC amongst cable networks. That pretty much squashes the belief they short-timed the DNC.

Do you actually believe that bulls***? Let me make it simple for you. Any one who does is walking through science with blinders on. The evidence is overwhelming from physics, mathematics, & micro-biology that natural selection is not the sole or even the predominant factor in the evolution of the universe & the life within it. Natural selection is a process in the evolution of life. Of this there is no disagreement. As such it should be taught in all schools. But to present it as the predominant process is ignorant. Especially since the rise of genetics. There is less than 10% variation in the human genome and that of most other life on Earth. If biologists wishes to cling to the belief that natural selection best explains that despite the fact that such a statement is ignorant of the mathematics associated with genetic science then they are free to do so. But such a belief should not be prostituted as good science in our schools. In addition to natural selection intelligent design should likewise be taught in our schools. Intelligent design has nothing to do with creationism. It's about explaining creation via the observed mathematics present in life. If the mathematics tend to strongly suggest a central creator for that life then there's nothing wrong with teaching that conclusion as well. As long as the math behind it is sound it should be taught. Mathematics is the cornerstone of all physical science. It should never be ignored.

As I am not surprised the secularists who apparently hate the religious fail to understand the bigger ethical question here. Does reporting the news & of course reaping the $ that comes from that more important than protecting/saving lives? Whether the story is true or not should not take precedence over the fallout expected by the story. News should not be reported in total indifference to the consequences of that reporting. That's not a religious rule to live by but a humanitarian one. As for the blantant anti-religious statments expressed in this thread your lack of compassion, understanding, civility, & kindness is obvious. There is no reason to make yourselfs sound any more soulless than you already are.

When I was 9 you had to be in front of the house before sun-down. We could still play in front of the house but no bike riding. By 9PM in the summer you had to be in the house. By 7PM in the winter you had to be in the house. Rules to live by.

You still don't know what fair & balanced means. It means for every opinion they express on the news shows they offer time to someone who might have a counter opinion. Nothing more. Some like it others don't. It came from CNN's own Crossfire. Now it seems every show on the big 3 (FOX, MSNBC, & CNN) follows the same paradigm. I personally don't like it. It makes the news tedious. I prefer one show presenting an opinion and the facts to support it & another show offering a counter opinion and the facts to support that. CNN actually did that to at one time but the ratings weren't strong enough. Based on the ratings it's clear America likes the confrontation news segments. America apparently likes the segments on FOX the best. You would have to be crying over a friend named "Spaulding" not to know that Murdoch is staunch conservative so it should come as no surprise that when reporting the news is would slant towards his viewpoint. He's been quoted as saying he created FOX News with one purpose in mind: beat CNN & his life-long rival Turner. But let me just say that taking a conservative viewpoint when reporting the news is a far cry from fabricating a lie as a truth like CBS did. Ratings wise it still has not recovered from Memo-gate. American's don't like bold faced liars who refuse to see or admit the truth when it's so obvious to everyone else.

I remember reading that we now have some 10 million graduates of law school in this nation. That might even be a low-ball figure. My feeling is since they are the best qualified to understand the law let them serve on jury duty. It should be a requirement that if you are employed in the legal profession you serve jury duty at least 4 times a yr. That makes much more sense then making a pregnant woman do it.