Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists (Forced removal of evolution 'warning' on textbooks.)
CNN ^

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 ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; activistjudge; astickerisnotprayer; atheism; brainwashing; cannotbeproven; cannotrepeat; crevolist; culturewar; evolution; indoctrination; judicialtyranny; pc; piltdownman; politicallycorrect; publicschools; reeducationcenter; religiousintolerance; scienceeducation; scopestrial; secularhumanism; socialagenda; takenonfaith; taxdollarsatwork; textbooks; themissinglink; theorynotfact; theoryofevolution; warninglabels; youpayforthis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 421-436 next last
To: My2Cents
"But, then, I was once among their number."

=============================

Good reminder. Thanks.

41 posted on 01/15/2005 4:09:26 PM PST by Happy2BMe ("Islam fears democracy worse than anything- If the imams can't control it - they will kill it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dila813
Do you actually believe that with all the bombardment reproductive DNA has received, it has never once been altered? Or perhaps you believe that if it was altered, it was too few times to make any difference, or that this somehow made no change in the next generation, even of that one organism? Or perhaps if it made changes, these changes soon faded away, whether they were beneficial or not?

That seems pretty close to a superstition to me.

42 posted on 01/15/2005 4:16:38 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
why is it universally called a "theory"?

It is called a therory to expose people who do not understand science.

The theory behind this is that people who do not understand science will apply the laymen's defintion of "theory" to the word and thus reveal their lack of understanding about science.

43 posted on 01/15/2005 4:41:26 PM PST by Jeff Gordon (Now is the time for all wise men to gloat. FOUR MORE YEARS,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents; Colonel Kangaroo

So here's the facts guys, whether you like 'em or not. 99.9% of biologists consider evolution to be the bed-rock of biology. The basic principles are even being applied to other fields, like economics, in which self-organizing systems are an important area of study. (You guys are conservatives, right? You do believe in self-organizing economies instead of command-and-control ones?)

But you guys think some double-talking pseudo-scientists should get equal time in science classrooms. Hey, it's your call to support such silliness. But I'm telling you - as Arnold would say "This does not help our mission". It just brands you to the rest of the world as kooks, including to many conservatives and co-religionists.

We've got a lot on our plate. A federal welfare state that must be fixed or it's going to doom our kids to poverty. A large population of religious fanatics anxious to blow us all up in exchange for 72 virgins. But you want to spend your time promoting something that even your allies don't believe.

Look, we've got an educational system that can't even teach basic math and English. And you're worried about whether Sunday School stories get told in science class. Sorry, but I consider your priorities clearly out of whack.

Now, you can go ahead and sputter all you like from this point. I long ago learned not to argue with people about their faith. But I still think you ought to rethink your priorities, even if you'll never agree about evolution.


44 posted on 01/15/2005 4:48:05 PM PST by Joe Bonforte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: My2Cents
I think the point is that evolution is based more upon a system of belief, where "evidence" is interpreted to conform to that belief, than it is a system based upon science.

Piltdown man says, "Yes!"

46 posted on 01/15/2005 4:49:30 PM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Actually, to split a hair, evolution is a "fact." A fact is something that is either true or false, as distinguished from an opinion. Evolution, indeed, the entire materialist view of life, is either true or false; therefore, it is a "fact."

Not sure where you learned that a fact is either true or false. Was that at a liberal school?

"fact" at dictionary.com

47 posted on 01/15/2005 4:53:28 PM PST by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte

While I don't believe that creationism should be taught in schools, why is there such a need to teach evolution at all?

We can study extinct species without saying "this species begat this one". The jury is still out. Scientists in different nations cannot agree on where man originated or how he came to populate different continents. There may have been some foot travel but there may also have been some boat voyages.

You are right that there are a lot of other things to teach children. So teach them those things that are known rather than those things that are suspected.

Is much time spent on the big bang theory in elementary and high schools?

How about man made global warming which is also a "scientifically" supported theory in some minds?


48 posted on 01/15/2005 4:56:15 PM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
the ratio of circumference to diameter is three like it says in Kings or 3.14159

I would like to propose a theory about the degree of correctness of the bible. The bible says the ratio of the circumference to diameter is 3.0. It is a modern "law or tautology" that the ratio is 3.14159 (+ a little more).

If we divide 3 by 3.14159 we should get an actual measure of the correctness of the bible. This demonstrates that bible is 95.5% accurate.

If we assume that the a part of the 4.5% error is in the creation story, we can put these crevo debates to bed forever.

49 posted on 01/15/2005 4:59:47 PM PST by Jeff Gordon (Now is the time for all wise men to gloat. FOUR MORE YEARS,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte

Nice post- they say I'm a Troll cause im new to FR and live by science, but you said it all brother.

You CAN be a conservative and still understand the scientific method.

You cant just pick and choose which parts of objective reality appeal to your politics- talk about relativism !

Show me any evidence against evolution derived from the scientific method, and I'll gladly agree that it did not happen.

Here come the cranks !


50 posted on 01/15/2005 5:09:09 PM PST by Phatnbald (Out of my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: weegee

How about it ?

The math that says there was an inflation in the early universe is what put the cameras on Titan- do you think thats a European hoax ?


51 posted on 01/15/2005 5:11:37 PM PST by Phatnbald (Out of my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dila813


Excuse met but -- if you can repeat (replicate) a cause-&-effect experiment - it isn't religion, it's an empirical law.

Religion asks about (& answers) the question of The FIRST CAUSE of everything (all matter, life, etc.)

That "cause" can never be empirically proven -- and never will be.

Even if we saw an angel, -- a scientist would wonder, "I wonder what THAT is made of, and where it came from (cause of it."

So, evolution or science studies localized cause and effect, while religion address The FIRST (Original) cause of everything.

These two endeavors are not inconsistent, but -- they are different kinds of knowledge, or understanding.

I'm an atheist, and really have no interest in speculating about the "first" or original Cause. But others are certainly entitled to engage in that speculation, in a congregation or group, on Sundays, if the want to.

I see no contradition between being a scientist all week long, and going to church on Sunday. I just have no interest or need to quiet my mind, by pursuing the latter.
But it's a free country....

-4Liberty


52 posted on 01/15/2005 5:14:21 PM PST by 4Liberty (wages & revenues are price signals-- and some people [unions, subsidized cos] can't accept criticism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

I beleive that creationism violates the liberal commandment: "Thou shalt have no other god ahead of atheism and secularism."


53 posted on 01/15/2005 5:19:04 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald

The Big Bang is not disputed in classrooms as much as evolution is but I asked is it presented in elementary and high school at all.

What was there before the Big Bang? Before "time" began. What was there before there was a "there"?


54 posted on 01/15/2005 5:22:53 PM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants; weenie
"Thou shalt have no other god ahead of atheism and secularism."

=============================

They have a TRINITY . .

"Thou shalt have no other god ahead of Atheism, Secularism, and Relativism."

55 posted on 01/15/2005 5:22:54 PM PST by Happy2BMe ("Islam fears democracy worse than anything- If the imams can't control it - they will kill it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
It is called a therory to expose people who do not understand science.

I'm glad you explained that therory (sic) of that theory to we unscientific rubes out her in flyoverland.

I guess that means to "scientists" plain words don't mean what plain words mean.

Thanks for the tip!

56 posted on 01/15/2005 5:23:46 PM PST by Gritty ("ACLU efforts to eliminate God from the public square have led to a resurgent Christianity-Mk Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald

Is Piltdown Man the "National Guard" memos of another era?


57 posted on 01/15/2005 5:26:09 PM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Phatnbald
Show me any evidence against evolution derived from the scientific method, and I'll gladly agree that it did not happen.

How does the scientific method disprove the Genesis account of creation? The scientific method deals with the how of the here and now. How does the scientific method apply to creation? Without eyewitnesses to the event of creation, we are dealing with faith.

58 posted on 01/15/2005 5:30:37 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte

"Look, we've got an educational system that can't even teach basic math and English. And you're worried about whether Sunday School stories get told in science class. Sorry, but I consider your priorities clearly out of whack."

As always any post involving evoltution eventually descends into what is or is not true.

What is an empirical fact is that this judge found an establishment clause violation based on his opinion that the sticker may create an impression of religious advocation. Whether one does or does not believe in the THEORY of evolution on a MACRO level is immaterial here. The question is whether the judge could assert any religious references in the sticker's language. He could not and did not. It is, under the legal question, irrelevant whether any creationist or intelligent design proponents supported the sticker's inclusion.

My opinion is that this is an attempt to create a precedent that allows a judge to apply impressions of a statute, act, sticker etc. as a bonafide rationale to invoke the establishment clause. This is the same type of judge that helped create rulings that have legitimized and enhanced hate crime/sexual harrassment/racial intimidation laws that have the lowered threshhold of "impression."

Your feeling that this is nit picking because all of the other failures of the educational system strikes me as being completely blind to the dangers that such rulings have and will create.

This judge's ruling is Orwellian to the core.


59 posted on 01/15/2005 5:31:55 PM PST by torchthemummy ("Terrorism has less to do with economic poverty than with political poverty." - Jane Novak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
"Thou shalt have no other god ahead of Atheism, Secularism, and Relativism."

They obviously haven't met my "relatives".

60 posted on 01/15/2005 5:32:18 PM PST by weenie (Islam is as "...dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog." -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 421-436 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson