Posted on 05/25/2006 2:59:09 PM PDT by dukeman
ADF filed friend-of-the-court brief in defense of textbook stickers which accurately stated that evolution is a theory
ATLANTA — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit today vacated a lower court decision that declared Cobb County science textbook stickers which stated “evolution is a theory, not a fact” unconstitutional. The court was critical of the district court for issuing its ruling against the stickers despite holes in the evidentiary record in the case and remanded the case back to the district court for new proceedings.
“No school should be in trouble for simply stating the facts. That’s what schools are supposed to do. Though we wish the appeals court would have ruled on the constitutional merits of the case without sending it back to the district court, we are pleased that the district court’s ruling against the school district has been vacated,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster.
In its ruling today, the 11th Circuit wrote, “The problems presented by a record containing significant evidentiary gaps are compounded because at least some key findings of the district court are not supported by the evidence that is contained in the record.” The full text of the court’s ruling in the case Selman v. Cobb County School District can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/CobbCountyDecision.pdf.
The lower court judge agreed that the stickers were not applied to the textbooks for a religious purpose and were devoid of religious content. Nonetheless, he deemed the stickers a violation of the so-called “separation of church and state” for the sole reason that many people were aware that Christians supported the stickers.
According to the friend-of-the-court brief ADF attorneys filed in the case, “The District Court’s analysis will lead to absurd results…. The Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit the passage of a secular law, for a secular purpose, simply because Christians actively lobbied for the law” (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3404).
The sticker which had been applied to each textbook read, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
What you imply by your evasiveness to answer the question is that it takes a "Creator" to do all this (see#519). I don't know you or your credentials, you haven't given any sources, how the h*ll are you to be believed, because you know what " chirality and racemization" is?
OK, Will not.
"I see you have chosen to use Dr. Sarfati as your authority in this area."See pots #514 & #518 for clarity.
I believe that Sarfati's young-earth-creationism fatally biases his scientific reasoning.
As apposed to the unbiased research of so many secularist-Evolutionist. Science is science; show me the bias in his reasoning in this debate of what we discussed, or are you trying to be insulting?
If you need the idea of a Creator, that doesn't bother me a bit.
If you don't need a Creator, it doesn't bother me, too bad it bothers the ACLU and all the other Darwin bulldogs, enough to try to rid the government school system of the "preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood." I've shown you specifically in post #509 why the beginning matters;to reiterate, Evolution begins with the "primordial soup." If biology books don't need this in high schools, they need to stop making them drink the stuff.
I'll be back tomorrow to see what knives are stuck in my back.
Using the exact same line of reasoning, you could make a very convincing argument that I am, in fact, a dog. And who knows, maybe I am.
I was not evasive at all, I answered precisely. All the evidence in the world does not allow me to "prove" anything (only in the fake world of mathematics do we have proof by induction), but Occam's Razor lets me make some assertions about probability. Which I did. My recognizing this fact does not imply anything except that which could be implied by the evidence itself. Elementary logic. That you make inferences not implied by the evidence is invalid logic. Lack of proof has no logical implications beyond that fact itself.
I don't know you or your credentials, you haven't given any sources, how the h*ll are you to be believed, because you know what " chirality and racemization" is?
If you were asking hard questions that required that I look something up, I might have references to post. This discussion is not at that level yet, since you haven't gotten past the basics.
But if you insist on going this route (providing references for things that should be plainly obvious to anyone with a modicum of competency in the field), I will have to insist that you provide peer-reviewed references that show that you are posting in English. It is plainly obvious to most English speakers, but apparently you are setting new high standards of evidence for the sake of discussion here.
"I believe that Sarfati's young-earth-creationism fatally biases his scientific reasoning."
<< As apposed to the unbiased research of so many secularist-Evolutionist. >>
First -- not all evolutionists are "secularists." And second -- everyone is biased. The question is not--who is biased--but by what, and how does that bias color his conclusions. With all the pissing and moaning of creationists -- I have still not seen any evidence of a "secular bias" tainting the evidence for evolution.
<< Science is science; show me the bias in his reasoning in this debate of what we discussed, or are you trying to be insulting? >>
No, I am not trying to be insulting. Sometimes it's impossible to avoid offense, but I do speak directly. In case you are wondering why I do not trust Dr. Sarfati -- I will be happy to explain briefly.
I have been reading creationist claims for thirty-three years, and for the first twenty years I believed them without question, and without investigation. When I finally began to investigate the claims scientifically -- they completely fell apart. I now see them as consistently uninformed, off-base, many times dishonest, and sometimes downright bizarre. Like I said -- I have read some of Dr. Sarfati's work -- and the parts that deal with things I do understand are simply wrong, so that makes me mistrust the other parts.
Frankly, it's really hard to take anything seriously from someone arguing from a young-earth view. He would have to keep fighting against so much of science, not just evolution -- but astronomy, physics, chemistry [Dr. Sarfati's specialty], geology, etc. Dr. Sarfati even went after his fellow Christian, Hugh Ross, and called him a "compromiser" for accepting the scientific evidence of geology and astronomy.
The fact that I see where Dr. Sarfati is wrong in some areas does not automatically make him wrong in those other areas where my knowledge is weak -- but I have come to distrust him, and to trust others that refute him. Track record speaks volumes, and his track record is pretty poor.
I don't know if life started in a "stew" or not. I do believe that young-earth creationism is not anywhere near understanding how life started, or when, and is not going to get anywhere near it -- ever -- because of a fatal bias in its approach to science.
We have already gotten far off topic in this thread. If you really want to debate Dr. Sarfati's reliability -- I think that will have to wait for another time and another place.
You have given part of his argument. I have posted links to some refutations. We can leave it up to reasonable persons to evaluate the two sides.
To all: I've been posting a lot the last few days because I have been cooped up at home with nothing to do. That is going to change tomorrow. So -- if I am not around much anymore -- it was nice to get to know a lot of you at least a little bit -- and I hope to contribute a little from time to time. For now I have to hand it over to the real scientists. I'm just a "buff."
Cheers
OK you 2 (liberals always have to have at least these odds), I also have a life. I'll be back tomorrow @ lunch. No excuse, I had to work today.
Howdy, AfterDark -- it's been a couple of days, so I thought I would try again. I would direct your attention to post #422, in which I reiterated my challenge to you -- to produce some evidence to support a couple of claims you made -- claims that, on the face of it, look like pretty wild accusations -- thus the need for evidence.
To remind you -- my questions were in response to these two statements of yours in post #370:
<< Some of the more lunatic elements of the evolution crowd want kids to renounce whatever faith they have in god. As if becoming an atheist is all it takes to become a great scientist. >>
<< It is surprising for me ,how many self proclaimed scientific types believe that one theory is their gateway to mind control. I regard such intrusions into the personal world of public students as abuse. >>
This is, I believe, the sixth time I have asked to support these two claims with some -- ANY -- evidence. I have asked you to name a few scientists who are demanding that students renounce theism in order to study science or become "great" scientists. And I have asked you to show us the evidence that "many self proclaimed scientific types" believe that on theory [presumably you are referring to the theory of evolution] is the gateway to mind-control.
Since you stated that "some" insist that the students renounce theism -- it should be pretty easy to point to two or three or four who have done this -- and to show us when and where they have done this -- and if possible, to give us their own words to that effect.
As to your second claim -- since you used the words "so many" -- it should be even easier for you to point to five or ten or fifteen science types who have stated their belief that one theory is the gateway to mind control. Even if they did not use those exact words, if they said anything like that, it should be pretty obvious, right?
Please remember, in both cases, to tell us when and where, and in what context, these people said these things. That way -- we can evaluate your evidence fairly and thoroughly.
Even if you don't want to deal with *me* -- you can post your evidence for everyone else to see.
I am sure that is what you desire -- fairness, thoroughness, honesty, and integrity. I am sure you are not interested in just throwing hand grenades and running away when confronted -- right?
Even IF I am "mean" -- even IF we are not "fair" -- even IF I am... how did you put it? Oh, yeah -- even IF I am "bipolar" -- that still should not interfere one bit with your finding and presenting your evidence. Look at it this way: when you do present that evidence, think how that will enhance your credibility and diminish mine! WOW!
Now -- we both know that the honorable, Christian thing to do, if we have popped off emotionally without thinking, and made some false accusations, is to apologize and retract them. We should either support our accusations or retract them. Doesn't that sound reasonable to you?
So -- I will end this and wait for your reply. Even if you want to avoid dealing directly with me, you should still respond with evidence for all the others "listening in." If you don't have the evidence -- a simply retraction of the accusations will do.
How about it? If you have any honesty and integrity, I would think you would want to clear this up. Right?
<< Before I go on, do both of you contend that the beginning of life here on earth (or anywhere else) has nothing to do with Evolution? I know Almagest has questioned whether or not it does. >>
The theory of evolution applies to what happens to life after it got here and started reproducing. How that life got here is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without an explanation of how life began is not logical -- nor is it a scientific argument against evolution.
It is a fact that life is here -- so it did get started. Regardless of how you believe it happened -- or how you believe it could not have happened -- one thing we do know is that it happened.
Creation by a supreme deity is one of the ideas about how it happened -- but that only deals with the AGENT -- not the METHOD. That is -- unless you propose to enter as a scientific hypothesis the claim that God created two fully grown human beings -- first a male, "from the dust of the ground," then a female from the "side" of the male -- a few thousand years ago.
It is a fact that there was a time where there was no life on this earth -- and now there is a huge variety of life here. So -- even if you are insisting that evolution needs abiogenesis -- it has already got it. It happened. What we do not know at this point is HOW it happened.
Gravity ping
Better tell that to Harvard:
Project on the origins of life launched
Harvard joining debate on evolution
By Gareth Cook, [Boston] Globe Staff | August 14, 2005
Harvard University is launching a broad initiative to discover how life began, joining an ambitious scientific assault on age-old questions that are CENTRAL [bold, caps mine] to the debate over the theory of evolution.
What is your field of study?
but Occam's Razor lets me make some assertions about probability.
I can give the same reasoning for Evolution, neither has frogs to dogs happened. But even though Evolution has elements of ad-hoc to it, it is valid for Evos to postulate secondary explanations without abandonment (worthy of it though) of their axiom of materialism, and the core theory to explain this.
Give me the formulas that (physic's or chemistry's) that would create the jump from "sulfur and methane chemistries" to make the jump to having only homochirality in the macro species here on earth, and a probability calculation of it happening? This is a valid question.
If you can't answer it, I don't know is a valid answer.
Where does one go to ask, and get answers for, questions on the subject if debate is stifled in our government school system? It’s as if this whole subject is the mirror image of what is happening in our political system in which the network television media is heavily involved. On the 3 networks and on the Democratic Party, the Liberal line is touted as fact with no rebuttal, and though journalist will admit that their brethren are biased, they won’t say that they are personally. A new phenomena has sprouted and grown because of this, a growing number of people get there news from talk radio and the internet. Mostly because Conservatives had no voice in T.V and newspapers, now they expose the faults of their counterparts on a daily basis. The same phenomenon is happening in science.
<< The problem with Atheistic Evolution is that you try to disprove God. >>
I'm sorry, but you are entirely wrong. First -- evolution is not "atheistic" any more than are meteorology, engineering, baseball, or cooking. Science doesn't do "god-stuff."
Second -- it is impossible to disprove God -- and I don't know any scientists who are trying to do so. BTW -- it's also impossible to prove God. It's not a question that scientists think about -- AS scientists.
<< Those scientists who believe the Bible to be true are trying to find out how He did it, and you call them kooks, no rebuttal is necessary. >>
No, we don't. Plenty of scientists believe in God, and they believe that evolution is "how he did it." No one ridicules them as kooks, because they do not try to bring religious arguments and biblical statements into science. Why not? Because science does not deal with that realm.
<< What has changed more, the Bible, or the theory of Evolution? >>
Both have changed a lot -- but science has changed more as we have learned more. That is not a weakness of science, it is a strength. Scientists, of all people, know how to say, "We don't know it all -- and we love to keep studying to learn more."
The fact that religious explanations do not change may or may not be a strength of religion in your view -- but it is a definite weakness when you try to apply it to science. By doing this, you are doing a disservice to both religion and science.
Science follows the evidence and seeks to understand what it means. Religion already has the final answer, so why change it? But what this means is that creationists are not really doing science; what they ARE doing is seeking to mold the evidence to fit their foregone conclusion. That is not science -- it is apologetics.
<< What is more worthy of trust as a basis for science? >>
The evidence. The Bible is not a science book, nor does it purport to be. Those who insist on using it as such make fools of themselves in front of anyone who knows a modicum of science -- just as Augustine said 1600 years ago. As Galileo said, "The Bible does not tell us how the heavens go; it tells us how to go to heaven."
<< Where does one go to ask, and get answers for, questions on the subject if debate is stifled in our government school system? >>
Where do we go to get answers to questions about different religious views about how life started? Yours is not the only view out there, you know. Are you really saying you want to include ALL religious opinions on ALL religious matters that happen to impinge on science? Then when would we have any time for actual science?
And if you are NOT saying to include all those others -- and I bet you are not -- what right do you have to impose YOUR religious ideas on everyone else at taxpayer expense, and not allow theirs? You are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole with your arguments.
Are you seriously saying that scientists should be looking into the Bible for their scientific knowledge about the natural world, instead of looking at the natural world itself? Are you saying that when they do look at the natural world and discover things there, they should stop and check the Bible -- and with you -- to make sure that what they have discovered does not contradict something said in the Bible -- or what YOU think the Bible says?
[Snip irrelevant preaching about politics]
<< Mostly because Conservatives had no voice in T.V and newspapers, now they expose the faults of their counterparts on a daily basis. The same phenomenon is happening in science. >>
No, it's not. First -- science is not liberal or conservative. It's just science. Evidence is not liberal or conservative. It's just evidence. How you interpret the evidence should NOT be based on your politics, or your religion, or your fears about implications if the evidence is true, or your desire for the evidence to fit what you think SHOULD be true. It should be interpreted on its own terms.
THAT is real truth seeking. It is the creationists, not the evolutionists, who are making this a religious and political issue -- and making fools of themselves by revealing their ignorance -- and engaging in such widespread dishonesty. And it's the creationists that are making the conservative movement look like loons to others who might otherwise be inclined to listen to us.
I'll answer and comment step by step on your excellent post soon, but please comment on post #531.
Enough circles. If you refuse to believe statements from scientists about what scientists are doing -- it doesn't matter what I say on an online discussion.
I challenge you to do some reading at Talk Origins without your creationist goggles. I challenge you to challenge them. They are scientists. They have thorough articles and answers. If that is not worth your time, it's not worth mine chasing you around this mulberry bush endlessly.
"I don't know" is a reasonable answer to post #531, no harm in saying your wrong.
I challenge you to do some reading at Talk Origins without your creationist goggles. I will answer your challenge in due time.
But it's more like a Creationist sword (Bible), not goggles. I'll keep it with me, thank you. P.S.: I will answer post #534 in due time too.
Enough circles. If you refuse to believe statements from scientists about what scientists are doing -- it doesn't matter what I say on an online discussion.
"I don't know" is a reasonable answer to post #531, no harm in saying your wrong.
I challenge you to do some reading at Talk Origins without your creationist goggles.
I will answer your challenge in due time.
But it's more like a Creationist sword (Bible), not goggles. I'll keep it with me, thank you.
P.S.: I will answer post #534 in due time too.
Should (!)
Whatever.
;)
"I will answer your challenge in due time."
You put this in your quote from me. I did not say this.
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.