It's the snout.

Just goes to show how unobservant some people are. Hundreds of years of whaling and no one noticed those cloven hooves.

I've found this thread interesting and thought I'd add my two cents.

First, I'm not familiar with the specific requirements of the Kansas law to require 'Intelligent Design' to be included in science classes when evolution is taught, so I don't know how appropriate or inappropriate it is. I also don't know if the Pope is entirely familiar with the law, either, so I don't know how relevant his comments are that it should not be taught as part of science. I can certainly understand and agree that detailed discussion of theology, as such, has no place in a science course; however, if all that is proposed is that a short and simple statement be included that there is an alternative theory which holds that the appearance of different species is not the result of natural selection but rather the result of a divine power which created life and its variations, then I see no problem with that -- personally, or as a Christian, or as a jurist who is well acquainted with our Constitution. In fact, to prevent any mention of 'Intelligent Design' and what that means just leaves us in the situation where the theory of evolution is invariably taught without any alternative, unchallenged, and as if it were fact.

Second, as a Christian, I happen to believe in 'Intelligent Design', but I also believe in evolution, to a degree. This does not create any conflict in my faith since, as a Catholic, I have been taught and believe that evolution is merely the means used by God to implement His divine plan. In other words, I am not a fundamentalist who holds to the literal interpretation of the Bible which holds that God created the world in just six days consisting of 24 hours each; rather, I interprete the Bible figuratively and symbolically but still understand the spiritual value that it holds.

Third, even if I were an atheist, or if there were no Bible or no church teachings in this regard, I would still not accept the natural selection theory of evolution, as I understand it, as being "fact" because I think, logically, there are too many holes in it -- but that would make for a very long post here.

In fact, I have problems accepting, in their entirety, several of the 'theories' which are now taught virtually as fact, including 'Big Bang' with a limited but expanding universe, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I hope we can keep this thread going.

Cheers,

Bill Velek

[One down ....]

By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 4, 3:43 AM ET

"DOVER, Pa. - Dover's much-maligned school policy of presenting "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution was officially relegated to the history books Tuesday night. ....

[and one to go] ....

... "In Kansas, where state officials have been arguing over the teaching of evolution since 1999, education officials recently approved science standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory.] ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/ap_on_re_...5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Sorry, David, but while I endorse the basic spiritual concept I utterly reject this right-wing-fundamentalist-Christian-evangelical attempt to undermine the Constitutionally mandated separation between church and state.

Science is not an enemy of spritituality. While true spirituality is the enemy of nothing.

Hi Julied, CajunQuEeN, marysduby, sabbathcorn

Julied there really isn't any need to apologize to me


Here's a thing tree going up, lungs going down. Both looking similar? Designed (?) according to the Fibonacci series (?)

http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

Enjoy

Dave