200 years ago, the common, simple folk toiled in the fields all day while their better, nobler representatives gathered to discuss important issues in a far off city. This was the best way to self-govern based on the communication technology that was available: screaming at each other face-to-face in a capitol building. Since then, communication has come a long way. We have things such as email, phones, text, blogs, video, etc. So, now these "representatives" want to tele-commute? You bet! Maybe even the common, simple folk will realize we no longer need representatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy We're moving in the right direction.
agreed... stop whining and do it your self
The problem with ID is that its proponents are making a passive/aggressive attack upon (the godless) theory of evolution bc they claim that Evolution has "gaps" or fails to explain everything about the existence of organisms. They are going after what they perceive is a weakness and in there ignorance running into is strength. Like all theories, Evolution evolves. It is subjected to the scientific method of test and observation. If it is found lacking, corrections are made to improve its accuracy. And this is the crux of the Creationists argument. According to them, since Evolution is subject to corrections then it doesn't have to be accepted as gospel truth. Therefore, *ANYTHING* is possible including their competing "theory" which is based on intuition and faith instead of science. Let me be clear here. The creationist are using a variation of the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. The concept they are stealing is what constitutes the basis of proof. Since reason, logic, and observation are used to enhance or invalidate prior scientific knowledge that was based on reason, logic, and observation then this invalidate reason, logic, and scientific observation(!) In other words they want to USE logic to make a logical argument that logic doesn't work therefore we should turn to faith instead. What they are throwing out with the bathwater is that when science overturns previously held truths it replaces it with something better based on reason, not faith. This is really an attack on how we acquire knowledge as a species. Do we assume the awesome responsibility of thinking for ourselves and learn from our errors? Or, do we abdicate our brains, stop thinking and let mystic faith provide the answers. Human knowledge is not omnipotent, nor is completely impotent either. Just because I can't prove Fermat's Last Theoremhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTh
e orem.html does not mean that i dont know 1+1=2. Human knowledge is a PROCESS of discovery and the scientific community should not be afraid to admit it.