Posted on 01/15/2005 2:06:00 PM PST by Happy2BMe
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
That flamingo DOES look pretty queer to me.
Possibly, but the specific item which causes problems, is a law. That is the second law of thermo. Essentially it states that heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold and not the other way around. It has never been observed to do the opposite. I know that there are people who argue will over some ill-perceived situation, but the fact remains, the second law of thermo appears to be inviolable.
P.S. I am not saying anything about how the second law applies to evolution. I am merely stating that it is a law and it has never been observed to have been violated.
It is absolutely beyond doubt that species evolve over time, adapting to the changing environment and sometimes even becoming new species. We know this because we can have observed it. The common descent of all living organisms is also beyond doubt, verified by an overwheliming amount of evidence in the fields of genetics, palentology, embryology, and many others. We also know that genetic mutation, recombination of genes, and natural selection are all key to the process.
Religion, or more precisely, misinterpretation of the Bible, is the only grounds upon which anyone can reject these facts. Ergo, the judge is correct in his ruling.
The theory part is the precise mechanism of how this work. We know that species evolve. And we have good idea of how it works. We don't know the details.
Just like gravity. We know masses attract each other. We don't know precisely how or why this happens, though we have a good idea (general relativity).
The Bible supports evolution? News to me.
The judges ruling is a farce that only liberals, marxists and technostatists could love.
A federal judge has absolutely no Constitutional authority to decide what a school district in Georgia does or doesn't do with regard to their Science curriculum and the statement they saw fit to append to the book. None, nada, zippo.
It neither supports not contradicts it.
Before the passage of the 14th Amendment, the above statement was true. It is no longer true because the 14th Amendemnt, as anyone familiar with the debates surronding its ratification knows, applies the bill of rights to the states. That means states, in addition to congress, cannot make laws respecting the establishment of religion. Uing state run schools to teach a view contradicted by the empirical data and only supported by a sectarian religious dogma clearly constitutes establishment of religion.
Have you read Genesis?
Yes.
BTW, your asking this question proves my point. Your sole motivation for rejecting the FACT of evolution are your misguided religious beliefs.
All I did was ask you if you have read it.
First of all, the statement inserted by the Cobb County BOE said nothinbg about religion, creation or God.
Second of all, even a statement attributiong God as the Creator is not unConstitutional because no religion is established and our DOI already acknowledges that fact.
And third, this statement "It is no longer true because the 14th Amendemnt, as anyone familiar with the debates surronding its ratification knows, applies the bill of rights to the states." by you is false.
Have you read Humanae Generis?
Have you read the debates surronding the ratification of the 14th Amendment?
The point is, that scientists are engaging in exactly what they say they are against.
Who wrote it? Is it about the evolution of the homo sapien?
:-} You're letting your dogma run over your karma. There is nothing "relgious" about the disclaimer the citizens of Cobb County chose to insert in their books. There is, however, more than a little statism running through your veins. Supporting federal intervention in local school districts in this case is contrary to this nations history and jurisprudence.
Have you read the debates surronding the ratification of the 14th Amendment?
Yes, but evidently you have not. And I can support that by your assertion that the 14A incorporated the BOR. It's laughable on its face. The 2A, 3A and 7A have never been incorporated. Other amendments, such as the 10A can not be incorporated on their face. The grand jury clause of the 5A, likewise.
Like I said, you're statement was false as is your attempt at changing words to mean what you want them to mean, not what they say. You'd make a good judicial activist but not such a good conservative.
Ask the math experts to answer this:
Three men go to a motel to get a room for the night. The motel clerk says, he only has one room left for 30.00. Each man pays 10.00 to share the same room. Later, the clerk realizes the room only cost 25.00. So he gives the bellhop 5 dollars and tells him to give it back to the men. The bellhop, knowing he can't evenly distrubute the 5.00 among 3 men, decides to give each one 1.00 back and keep two for himself.
Now if each man got 1.00 back this means they each only paid 9.00 for the room. So if you multiply 3x9 you get 27.00. if you add the 2.00 the clerk has you get a total of 29.00, but the hotel clerk was given 30.00, so where is the other dollar?
omg now i know where the money is going
Nothing in the Bible rules out the possibility that God used evolution to create the human body. Furthermore, there is nothing offensive to Christian doctrine in the notion that the human body is descended from lower beings, as long as the human soul was specifically created.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.